Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    4:33 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: All Things Ethanol > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: E15 Gas BAD ? Back to Topics
flybigrc

Rookie Author
St. Louis

Posts:74
Points:275,365
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 19, 2012 1:17:04 PM

Everything I read about this stuff is that it will kill your car. Car Manaufacturers are saying they wont cover damage to vehicle due to using E15.

Luckly no E15 sold in St. Louis.

Anyone have any comments or couterpoints. Is it available near you? Have you used it.

E15 and E85 should only be used in a Flex Fuel Vehicle.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
paullypuiu
Veteran Author Georgia

Posts:263
Points:91,370
Joined:Jul 2012
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 11:07:46 PM

never heard of it.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,854
Points:1,182,335
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 10:17:22 AM

grim_farva wrote: "VERY BAD!"

How so?
Profile Pic
grim_farva
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:2,195
Points:473,850
Joined:Jun 2008
Message Posted: Jan 26, 2013 9:46:27 AM

VERY BAD!
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,854
Points:1,182,335
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 11:12:11 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "I'm not attacking anyone. I'm simply confirming what you posted."

where Shockjock1961 also wrote: "I'll trust the manufacturer of my vehicle over the advice of a criminal shill any day..."

You are "The Liar" (as well written by Shockjock1961).
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:31:14 AM

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm simply confirming what you posted.

So tell me Hannie. Is 90% gasolione mandated by law or not??
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:29:06 AM

Yes attack the truthsayer to divert attention from one's own lies and misqoutes. Works for Shockjock but I wouldn't do it.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/25/2013 10:32:01 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:24:38 AM

"the 90% gasoline mandated by law for non flex fuel vehicles prevents them from doing so."

So now you are fully admitting that you and SS are encouraging people to break the law?

Thank you for admitting that people who use ethanol greater then 10% in non-ffv's are indeed criminals...

ADDENDUM:

I'll trust the manufacturer of my vehicle over the advice of a criminal shill any day...



[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 1/25/2013 10:25:31 AM EST]
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,792
Points:2,652,380
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:21:21 AM

Banjoe says "It strikes me as odd that the folks that have actually used ethanol haven't experienced any problems but the folks that won't use this fuel know of all sorts of problems out there."

Well said!
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:06:19 AM

Do not quote out of context. oh that's right thats all you know how to do Shockjock1961.

My exact quote was:

"Of course the ACE cannot recommend it Shockjock, the 90% gasoline mandated by law for non flex fuel vehicles prevents them from doing so."

See the difference? Between what I actually said and what you claim I said? You yourself, at least 5 times have claimed that running any blend of less than 90% gasoline in a non FFV was against the law. Then you claim it isn't mandated, and almost immediately reverse your claim and state it mandated by law.

You have zero credibility waffle all over the place to suit your agenda of covering facts and keeping the propaganda alive and well.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/25/2013 10:11:23 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 10:01:34 AM

"Yes Shockjock1961, a far cry from the claims of 10-20% better mileage with ethanol free"

If you look at the way it scales, 10% to 20% less mileage for E85 over undiluted gasoline doesn't seem out of reach.

Conversly the ACE report is a far cry from the "no mileage lost" to "better mileage" when using ethanol that you and other ethanol backers claim no isn't it?

So much for all your claims that your posts are "facts"...

Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:58:30 AM

"the 90% gasoline mandated by law"

Once again Hannie, please show me this mandate. This is what, the third time I've asked you to show it? You keep claiming what you provide is true, yet you can't ever seem to come up with proof when asked...
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:52:52 AM

Of course the ACE cannot recommend it Shockjock, the 90% gasoline mandated by law for non flex fuel vehicles prevents them from doing so. Even though facts show it's a good idea.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/25/2013 9:53:36 AM EST]
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,854
Points:1,182,335
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:48:41 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "They also demostrated in a test that ethanol DECREASES gas mileage"

Even the rest of the sentence you failed to quote proves you wrong.

"The three vehicles averaged 1.5% lower mileage with E10, 2.2% lower mileage with E20, 5.1% lower mileage with E30, and miles per gallon actually increased by an average of 1.7% when using E10AK made with the specially denatured ethanol. E10AK was the highest mileage fuel in two of three cars."

Let's see more.

"One vehicle – the Toyota Camry – showed virtually no variance between unleaded and either of the E10 blends, and both E10 blends actually performed better than straight unleaded."

"The Chevrolet Impala showed just over 1% lower MPG on E10 and E20, but gained .6% MPG operating on E30, and over 5% on the E10AK blend"
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:38:37 AM

Yes Shockjock1961, a far cry from the claims of 10-20% better mileage with ethanol free that you read in this forum quite often, isn't it?

Who has ever made a claim other than the fact that people EXAGERATE the mileage difference with ethanol?

If a vehicle such as a prius were using e-10, a factual statement would be that you lose 3/4 of a mile for each gallon over "pure" gas. Correct? In a vehicle such as a Taurus, you would lose about 4/10 of a mile per gallon. If pure gas costs more, and it does here by 10 to 20 cents, where is the savings?

Plus burning E-10 in a prius or Taurus is better for the engine.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/25/2013 9:44:55 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:25:20 AM

Here it is a statemnet from ACE:

"The American Coalition for Ethanol cannot recommend using ethanol blends with higher concentrations of ethanol than those recommended by the vehicle’s manufacturer"

They also demostrated in a test that ethanol DECREASES gas mileage:

"The three vehicles averaged 1.5% lower mileage with E10, 2.2% lower mileage with E20, 5.1% lower mileage with E30"

A big thanks goes out to SS for providing the report...
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:11:54 AM

I am posing as no one.

It's genuine, and factual. No duping involved as I post only to counter lies, and liars.

90% of the ethanol bashing in this forum is incorrect information.


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/25/2013 9:16:40 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 25, 2013 9:05:02 AM

shill def:

"One who poses as a satisfied customer to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle."

So again, I'll trust the manufacturer of my vehicle over the advice of an ethanol shill any day...

I need not say more...

[Edited by: Shockjock1961 at 1/25/2013 9:05:52 AM EST]
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,854
Points:1,182,335
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 8:30:13 PM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "I'll trust the manufacturer of my vehicle over the advice of an ethanol shill any day..."

Toyota recommends use of E10 yet you continue to whine about the lack of choices. Obviously the Big Oil Shill like yourself knows better than the manufacturer of you vehicle. What a surprise.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 7:28:13 PM

Don't consider myself a shill, but a long successful user of mid blend (well over 15%) ethanol fuel.

Really I just can't stand the bashers. They make statements that are false.
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,792
Points:2,652,380
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 7:21:18 PM

Shocky says "I'll trust the manufacturer of my vehicle over the advice of an ethanol shill any day... "

In your mind, anyone who uses ethanol must be a shill. Do you also consider us gasoline shills since we also use that?
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 5:50:33 PM

I don't know from experience if E-15 will or will not harm my car, BUT... I do know my car manufacturer specifically states in my owners manual that using ethanol concentrations over E-10 can be detremental to the vehicle and would void the warranty...

I'll trust the manufacturer of my vehicle over the advice of an ethanol shill any day...
Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:7,729
Points:1,069,030
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 5:35:04 PM

It strikes me as odd that the folks that have actually used ethanol haven't experienced any problems but the folks that won't use this fuel know of all sorts of problems out there.

I'm afraid I have to go with the people who have been there and done that - and survived with excellent results.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 4:50:33 PM

LOL I used E-30 in unmodified 1995 GMs for years, never an issue. E-15 is for use in 2006 and newer vehicles, and they approved it because it works fine. You continue to spew crap about damage that has never occurred, nor will it ever occur because the claims are false.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/24/2013 4:51:33 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 11:21:13 AM

It's significantly cheaper but my car specifically states DO NOT USE and the warranty would be void if used!
Profile Pic
jacksfan
Champion Author Lincoln

Posts:2,572
Points:1,270,790
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 10:19:27 AM

"For older model vehicles, the use of E-15 fuel will be the kiss of death."

You state, "there is no reliable empirical data to support the effect of the long term use of E-15," yet you claim to know that E-15 will be the kiss of death for older vehicles. How hypocritical of you.
Profile Pic
Mr_Bill_W
All-Star Author Virginia

Posts:653
Points:631,560
Joined:Feb 2012
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 9:53:30 AM

In vehicles designed for the flexible fuel spectrum it is suggested that no harm will be occur as a result of using E-15 but then again there is no reliable empirical data to support the effect of the long term use of E-15 since neither have been around long enough to have data originating from non-experimental, "Real World" data. For older model vehicles, the use of E-15 fuel will be the kiss of death.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,854
Points:1,182,335
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 9:25:06 AM

RecklessFire wrote: "Extremely bad."

How so?
Profile Pic
RecklessFire
Sophomore Author Dallas

Posts:207
Points:321,475
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 24, 2013 3:49:17 AM

Extremely bad.
Profile Pic
hertzki1
Rookie Author Texas

Posts:4
Points:4,580
Joined:May 2011
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 6:51:29 PM

It's significantly cheaper but my car specifically states DO NOT USE and the warranty would be void if used!
Profile Pic
SilverStreaker
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:13,792
Points:2,652,380
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Jan 23, 2013 9:57:45 AM

Hannie59, thanks for helping clear up the misinformation. I've heard that FFV and non-FFVs had nearly the same parts, but haven't seen anything before your information. Regardless, I haven't seen any kind of performance or maintenance issues from using high level ethanol blends in my non-FFVs.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 11:30:59 PM

tdoiler, I am going to assume you will understand this data better than I do based on your writings. And I believe someone may have linked this up before on here, but not positive...

NonFFv - FFv fuel system parts data

Note that for the years examined, there are very few part differences, in many cases none at all, between the FFVs and the non. But you did get me on the years. If I was referencing this data and made a claim of a 2012 Malibu, this data would not have included the 2012 model year. It can be inferred that this continues to this day. I think many that claim ethanol will ruin things need to take a close look at this information. Nice post.


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/22/2013 11:35:23 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 10:40:45 PM

tdoiler

A group of engineers, and i believe it was in Ohio, compiled the parts list with ffv vins and non-ffv vins of the same vehicles, which I referenced and you seek. I will try to get the link ASAP. Thanks for that accurate statement regarding corrosion! Refreshing to see a questioning of a statement with a fact in it lol. Probably tomorrow as it is late (for me anyway)

And if I had the cash banjoe, i'd be seriously looking at a passat tdi. Hear they are model of efficiency like the golf, Jetta and Audi a3 and work great with bio- d blends as well



[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/22/2013 10:48:48 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:7,729
Points:1,069,030
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 8:39:51 PM

Hannie59 - between ethanol and diesel (like I burn in our TDI), we've alienated the majority of participants on this site.

I don't have the statistical experience that yo've collected, but can still manage to make up my own mind based on true data and experiential reporting.

Have to think that you're making an impact on a huge silent group out there that won't take on the coocoobats at pointless discussions. You, on the other hand, have the true facts at hand and can easily slay the fear mongers at their own game.

Keep on the high road and you remain our shining light on this subject. And, trust me, we need your light to bring reality to the practical application of ethanol.
Profile Pic
tdioiler
All-Star Author Detroit

Posts:995
Points:630,225
Joined:Jul 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 8:33:34 PM

Hi Hannie59,

Like your banter as well. But a while back you mentioned that the parts are the same on a 2102 Malibu between FFV and non-FFV. Apart from tires and seats, I would beg to differ. When I was running testing on the FFV engines in 2004, there were a handful of parts different. Including some fuel lines, fuel pump head, sensors (those need to be different to deal with FFV differences, not corrosion)injectors and a couple of gaskets.

Do you have a copy of the EBOM for the vehicle to confirm your claim? I would love to have mine, but that would be corporate theft.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 12:54:14 PM

Thanks Banjoe. Playing on people's fears is the modus operandi of those who have little interest in the truth.

Vehicles are expensive, and all it takes is one negative comment, whether true or manufactured, to cover the facts and scare people.

Shockjock knows that, and as for most of the other one sentence posters, they follow the fear mongers.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for optimism to overcome fear and pessimism.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/22/2013 12:55:57 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 12:50:24 PM

OK, to be clear, you are saying that there is no 90% gasoline mandate?

Because if that's not the case, I still would like to see this mandate...
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 12:38:30 PM

yeah Shocky, OK take an entire concept presented in more than 6 paragraphs down to the final tongue in cheek sentence, and ignore the facts. You can't refute them so you attempt to obscure them.

I am sorry you are unable to understand what this symbol actually means beyond the fact that it's a semicolon ;

But if you look at that sentence again you may actually understand it now that I have had to spell it out for you. Go ahead, address my actual point, not quote out of context? Are you sure you didn't work the presidential campaign. If not you ought to consider writing attack ads, you'd be good at as facts are not necessary in that line of work.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/22/2013 12:45:20 PM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 12:04:26 PM

"You are intentionally diverting my point by trying to obscure it with nonsense"

On the contrary, I've directly addressed your "point". Because the point is not valid, you are the one trying to muddy the issue...
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 11:57:46 AM

You are intentionally diverting my point by trying to obscure it with nonsense. You know it Shockjock that everything about what you put here is solely intended to divert attention from facts. You also argue with said EPA about their stance on E-15. You are all over the place, doc.

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/22/2013 11:59:16 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 10:59:13 AM

"Am I or an I not violating the 90% gasoline mandate"

Shoe me a mandate and I will agree that you are violating it. There is no mandate, therefore how can you be violating it?

"you have in the accused me of breaking the law by running my E-30"

You are violating EPA regulations. The EPA regulations concern tampering with pollution control devices on cars by using a fuel that's not designed for said controls.

Still waiting to see you post this mandate you keep erroneously talking about...
Profile Pic
Banjoe
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:7,729
Points:1,069,030
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 10:56:11 AM

Hannie59 - I, for one, love your long-winded explanations.

Your real world experiences tell the story of running ethanol at high level in a variety of vehicles is pretty solid information and hard to refute with references to perhaps well-intentioned studies/opinions/gut feelings.

Too bad about the ethanol eating out those GM heater cores but we knew that there had to be a downside to using this evil fuel. :^)

Keep on keeping us up to date on your adventures in ethanol because the thoughtful but silent crowd out here need real information - and your's doesn't get much realer.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 10:26:21 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: Claiming that there is a mandate for 90% gasoline is not propaganda? Maybe you should look up the definition...

Bull Shocky, you have in the accused me of breaking the law by running my E-30, so you can't have it both ways. Am I or an I not violating the 90% gasoline mandate? According to your flawed argument, I am because there is one, and i'm not because there isn't one. What the heck?

You just don't want the truth to ever get out about ethanol's benefits, so you present the dispproven food vs. fuel agrgument, the disproven ethanol is damaging argument, and the exagerated mileage loss argument over and over. You are simply promoting false information.


[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/22/2013 10:34:38 AM EST]
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,854
Points:1,182,335
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 9:15:39 AM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "Propaganda def: Ideas or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause"

Simply put everything you, Shockjock1961, ever wrote on this forum. Thank you for clarifying it.

[Edited by: krzysiek_ck at 1/22/2013 9:16:06 AM EST]
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 8:53:52 AM

Propaganda def:

Ideas or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 8:52:22 AM

"I admit to being long winded, but also make my points without propaganda."

LOL!!

Claiming that there is a mandate for 90% gasoline is not propaganda? Maybe you should look up the definition...
Profile Pic
goldseeker
Champion Author West Virginia

Posts:22,464
Points:3,173,215
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Jan 22, 2013 7:40:02 AM

Everything I read about this stuff is compiled and edited by the big oil companies. Lets face it, they do not want the competition.
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 10:13:47 PM

Please Shockjock1961, not only do you fail to understand sarcasm laced with truth, you also seem to be reliant on quoting out of context. I admit to being long winded, but also make my points without propaganda. Try reading my posts in their entirety. The point is there. Quoting out of context so much, I am surprised you aren't a political campaign strategist.
Profile Pic
krzysiek_ck
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,854
Points:1,182,335
Joined:Apr 2011
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 9:41:48 PM

Shockjock1961 wrote: "See, this is the kind of misinformation presented by the ethanol shills. Please show me any laws that mandate this..."

I see Mr. Troll is getting desperate. Pathetic.
Profile Pic
Shockjock1961
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:23,134
Points:2,636,765
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 9:01:50 PM

"despite the federal mandate of 90% gasoline required in my fuel"

See, this is the kind of misinformation presented by the ethanol shills. Please show me any laws that mandate this...
Profile Pic
Hannie59
All-Star Author Appleton

Posts:956
Points:24,140
Joined:Apr 2010
Message Posted: Jan 21, 2013 2:22:36 PM

And Banjoe forgot about your question. When I began doing this I was really just curious because I had done some research on people using those $200 converters to run E-85 in any car. Then I read more and more about blending E-85 with E-10 in every day grocery getters to get what they called a mid blend. After some experimenting, I found that my vehicles were all fine doing this, and I got my best cost per mile by blending to about 30% ethanol.

At first when E-85 was popping up al over the place the pricing was quite favorable. As the price spreads changed over time, I may not have achieved the best cost per mile at E-30. But the more I saw the benefits of ethanol across the board, and globe, I realized that I ought to continue it, despite the federal mandate of 90% gasoline required in my fuel ;)

[Edited by: Hannie59 at 1/21/2013 2:25:48 PM EST]
Post a reply Back to Topics