By on March 9, 2008

ethanoldispenser33.JPGAlthough we haven't seen studies on the subject, we suspect that many motorists who fill-up with E85 don't return once they discover the [unadvertised] reduction in efficiency vs. "normal" (E10) gas. Maybe that's why none of the major oil companies have installed E85 pumps. The ethanol industry realizes that all the subsidies in the world won't guarantee them a future if consumers line-up none deep for E85. But… what if you doubled demand by increasing the mandatory ethanol content for ALL gas blends from 10 to 20 percent? Corrosion? What corrosion? According The Toledo Blade, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty released a report by The North Star State's "two largest research universities" that claims the move would be safe for non-E85-compatible cars. "The study tested 40 pairs of vehicles, half of which were powered with fuel containing 20 percent ethanol, and compared performance and damage, finding little difference between the two fuels. Part of the study was funded by the Renewable Fuels Association, an advocacy organization for the ethanol industry." What's the bet they funded the part that says it's OK to double ethanol content?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

11 Comments on “E85 Boondoggle of the Day: MN Gov. Says Double Ethanol in “Regular” Gas...”


  • avatar
    crackers

    Yeah right, leave my vehicle! My Honda’s Owner’s Manual states a maximum of 15% Ethanol, and most gas stations in my area have up to 10% Ethanol in their regular gas. They would have to test this stuff in 100s of vehicles for 10 years to prove their point. Until they can get the auto makers on side, this is going nowhere.

  • avatar
    Andy D

    Ive noticed a 2.5-3mpg loss since MA went to 10% ethanol. Between that and the winter formulation used currently, MPG sucks. At some point the ethanhol is probably going to start attacking stuff in the fuel system that wasnt designed for corn squeezings

  • avatar
    Gardiner Westbound

    This is reminiscent of the the early 1970s government mandated switch to low octane unleaded fuel notwithstanding auto manufacturers engine damage cautions. Car owners had to suck it up.

  • avatar
    Andy D

    I was able to get reg’lar gas up ’til the late 80s – early 90s in MA. 2 yrs of unleaded gas wiped out the exhaust valves in my 66 Valiant. I retired it just shy of 100K miles. Which is short miles for a slant 6 It was beginning to be a hassle as a DD due to the manual drum brakes, so I didnt bother doing a valve job and retro-fitting hardened valve seats. But hey, lead isnt good for babies. Keeping agri- business fat certainly doesnt justify engine damage though.

  • avatar
    Brian E

    I’m sure the car makers don’t mind – the cars most likely to not tolerate that ethanol content are all older cars.

  • avatar

    I’ve had the same 2.5-3mpg decline since Mass went to ethanol. And the car hasn’t felt quite as peppy.

    Agribusiness certainly doesn’t need ethanol anymore to stay fat. Article in today’s (Sunday) NYT, front page, on how rising demand for grain all over the world is giving food prices and ag revenues a powerful boost, starving people in some poor countries.

  • avatar
    LastResort

    It’s funny that so many people are complaining about the lack of performance with E85. If/When it becomes easy to acquire, I’m going to make the switch for performance. As the owner of a turbo charged vehicle, I can increase my boost and increase my timing, as E85 is equivalent to an octane of roughly 100. The down side is that I will need larger injectors, a pump, and tune, but all that can be had for a couple of hundred bucks if I’m willing to modify my injectors myself.

  • avatar
    guyincognito

    “finding little difference between the two fuels”

    Yes the only “little” difference they noticed was the complete degredation of engine seals in the 20% ethanol cars, which is quite minor when you consider what a smalll percentage of the overall car these actually make up.

  • avatar
    William C Montgomery

    Let them eat cake!

  • avatar
    GS650G

    If car owners suffer mechanical problems, that is not their problems. Happy farmers and hippies are more important. Taking the lead out of gas was probably justified for health and safety reasons, adding corn to the tank is not.

    Expect big price increases on top of worse mileage, clogged fuel filters and injectors, and higher evaporation loss. the ethanol sends deposits through the fuel system, on older vehicles this causes a problem. Again, YOUR problem not theirs.

    Next up is mandatory E85 for certain areas, along with hybrid cars. No permit on your windshield? park it over there and take the bus.

  • avatar
    altdude

    I remember as of a few years ago, I noticed a reduction in performance on my ’93 BMW. Had my mechanic check out the fuel system completely, O2 sensor was replaced, fuel filter, injectors, and finally the fuel pump. It’s better now, but I really do think the ‘new’ gas was to blame, and so did my mechanic.

    Frustrating, since I don’t think I should be punished for owning an older car, especially since it’s in better condition than many 5 year old cars on the road!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
  • theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
  • A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
  • Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
  • Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber