100% gasoline vs 10% ethanol.

Johnny_Ray_Wilson

Literotica Guru
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Posts
14,888
Which do you prefer?

Though I am a "green earth" type person, I have been vehemently against the US mandated introduction of ethanol. Still unsure if ethanol in any gas fueled motor is worth, or even factually validated, as a good way to ensure a better breathing environment.

Yesterday, I filled up on one of my cars with 100% gasoline at 90 octane. The 100% is about 60 cents mpg at that station. ($4.19 on 100% gas at 90 octane vs $3.59 on 10% ethanol at 87 octane). No change on the trip home. However, the car I put it in suddenly started performing better immediately upon start up this morning. Quicker start, more prep and take off, almost like driving a different car.

I am told by several that my old '99 Buick will get much better MPG and is worth the higher price in both MPG and maintenance.
 
Last edited:
Which do you prefer?

Though I am a "green earth" type person, I have been vehemently against the US mandated introduction of ethanol. Still unsure if ethanol in any gas fueled motor is worth, or even factually validated, as a good way to ensure a better breathing environment.

Yesterday, I filled up on one of my cars with 100% gasoline at 90 octane. The 100% is about 60 cents mpg at that station. ($4.19 on 100% gas at 90 octane vs $3.59 on 10% ethanol at 87 octane). No change on the trip home. However, the car I put it in suddenly started performing better immediately upon start up this morning. Quicker start, more prep and take off, almost like driving a different car.

I am told by several that my old '99 Buick will get much better MPG and is worth the higher price in both MPG and maintenance.

What I would like to know is how much petroleum is consumed for each gallon of ethanol produced. From start to finish, how much petroleum went into growing the grain, transporting it, processing it, and then transporting it to the refinery to be mixed with the petroleum, transported from the refinery to the distribution hub...then finally to the pump.

I'm willing to bet once you add it all up, it's not very green.
 
I buy the cheapest they sell and I just turned over 240k. Petroleum comes out of the ground. How much greener can you get?
 
What I would like to know is how much petroleum is consumed for each gallon of ethanol produced. From start to finish, how much petroleum went into growing the grain, transporting it, processing it, and then transporting it to the refinery to be mixed with the petroleum, transported from the refinery to the distribution hub...then finally to the pump.

I'm willing to bet once you add it all up, it's not very green.

I am inclined to agree with you on all that. Most automobile companies, Ford specifically, all were against using ethanol as a viable alternative. But, you know, most of that opposition is based on profit margins.

There is no doubt though that most gas burning cars, particularly older ones, are having more problems since adding ethanol. Like reduced gas mileage, limited performance, more problems with carburetors and fuel injectors, rapidly decaying seals, etc.. They tend to smoke or emit more toxic fumes since ethanol was added to the mix.
 
I buy the cheapest they sell and I just turned over 240k. Petroleum comes out of the ground. How much greener can you get?

The difference is that oil based fuels are fossil fuels. Ethanol is fermented from either sugar or corn or a combination of both.

And believe me, I am all for ethanol if we can make it work in our cars for 3 reasons that effect all of us: Environment, health, and cost.
 
I am inclined to agree with you on all that. Most automobile companies, Ford specifically, all were against using ethanol as a viable alternative. But, you know, most of that opposition is based on profit margins.

I wont argue that most of the opposition is based on profit margins, but I would be inclined to believe those in favor of it are too. I bet adding 10% ethanol did wonders for the agricultural industry, and since they probably spend a significant amount of petrol in their producing the shit I'm sure big oil is getting some nice kick back's as well. Plus they can say "oh look how green our fuel is!!!" can you say tax breaks/subsidies? Advertising?

Let's not forget the votes and campaign contributions made to the politicians by these industries to promote this whole fiasco.

More corrupt government induced dry buttfucking of the consumer......

There is no doubt though that most gas burning cars, particularly older ones, are having more problems since adding ethanol. Like reduced gas mileage, limited performance, more problems with carburetors and fuel injectors, rapidly decaying seals, etc.. They tend to smoke or emit more toxic fumes since ethanol was added to the mix.

I would like to see some data on that as well...but it certainly is reasonable to speculate that a 10% ethanol might have adverse effects on an old school car that was designed to run leaded or even regular unleaded.
 
Which do you prefer?

Though I am a "green earth" type person, I have been vehemently against the US mandated introduction of ethanol. Still unsure if ethanol in any gas fueled motor is worth, or even factually validated, as a good way to ensure a better breathing environment.

Yesterday, I filled up on one of my cars with 100% gasoline at 90 octane. The 100% is about 60 cents mpg at that station. ($4.19 on 100% gas at 90 octane vs $3.59 on 10% ethanol at 87 octane). No change on the trip home. However, the car I put it in suddenly started performing better immediately upon start up this morning. Quicker start, more prep and take off, almost like driving a different car.

I am told by several that my old '99 Buick will get much better MPG and is worth the higher price in both MPG and maintenance.

You were told that by people who know you will believe anything.
 
My mechanic has advised me to stay away from ethanol-boosted fuels unless I own a car with an engine specifically built to use it.
 
a. If you're still driving a vehicle designed for leaded gas you're an idiot.
b. If ethanol hadn't been subsidized by tax payer money, there wouldn't be an ethanol fuel industry.
3. Petrol is a huge improvement over coal.
 
Though I am a "green earth" type person, I have been vehemently against the US mandated introduction of ethanol. Still unsure if ethanol in any gas fueled motor is worth, or even factually validated, as a good way to ensure a better breathing environment.

There is the problem...if it were such a good thing and everyone wanted it, they wouldn't have to force it. ;)
 
a. If you're still driving a vehicle designed for leaded gas you're an idiot.
b. If ethanol hadn't been subsidized by tax payer money, there wouldn't be an ethanol fuel industry.
3. Petrol is a huge improvement over coal.

I have a classic car that was designed to use leaded fuel, but because there is no lead in fuel, I have to add valve saver fluid every time I fill up (ratio is 1ml for every litre of fuel).
 
Then don't cry to me about driving green.

I'm not...my daily driver is a ULEV KIA Optima...4 banger that gets damn near 40mpg.

I'm complaining about the FORCED, dictation of going green that really isn't green so that some PAC(s) could get their subsidies/tax breaks and politicians get their knob polished.

If the gov really wanted to be green they would have taken the stimulus money and put up enough wind mills/solar panels/ HE dams to shut down the coal industry all together and alleviated everyone's electric bill. Instead they bought up a bunch of crashing failed mega corps and got our credit rating downgraded, and reduced the value of the USD.

It's amazing to think that anyone really believes the gov. has the best interest of the environment or the little guy's in mind.
 
Here is an article about the same car using gas vs. ethanol. Costs and efficiency.

http://www.chron.com/business/steff...-the-story-of-ethanol-vs-gasoline-1533736.php


Mike

"The big problem with ethanol is in the chemistry, said Henry Groppe, founder of Groppe, Long & Littell, an energy consulting firm in Houston. It takes more energy to make ethanol than the ethanol produces, he said. Corn must be grown, fertilized and harvested, which takes oil-powered machinery. It must be processed, refined and then shipped, which takes more oil.

"You're having to use as much oil to produce that gallon of ethanol as the energy that you produce from it," Groppe said.

and there it is folks...industries paying politicians to write laws forcing consumers to buy their product because no one otherwise would. But it's ok!!!! it's green ;)
 
Last edited:
I'm halfway convinced to get a diesel car.... and run it on home produced bio-diesel (from cooking oil, etc).
To me, that's far more 'green'.
 
I wont argue that most of the opposition is based on profit margins, but I would be inclined to believe those in favor of it are too. I bet adding 10% ethanol did wonders for the agricultural industry, and since they probably spend a significant amount of petrol in their producing the shit I'm sure big oil is getting some nice kick back's as well. Plus they can say "oh look how green our fuel is!!!" can you say tax breaks/subsidies? Advertising?

Let's not forget the votes and campaign contributions made to the politicians by these industries to promote this whole fiasco.

More corrupt government induced dry buttfucking of the consumer......



I would like to see some data on that as well...but it certainly is reasonable to speculate that a 10% ethanol might have adverse effects on an old school car that was designed to run leaded or even regular unleaded.
Of course the 10% ethanol is a boost to farmers. I would feel the same way if in their shoes. I was initially in favor of the ethanol. It all seemed good for everyone at the time.

You were told that by people who know you will believe anything.
I think you read me wrong.


My mechanic has advised me to stay away from ethanol-boosted fuels unless I own a car with an engine specifically built to use it.
Every mechanic I have spoken to, no matter what age, have all said that in agreement. And seem delighted if anyone asks their opinion.

Honestly though, how many of us in the real world actually have cars specifically designed for ethanol and unleaded mixtures?

All 3 of my cars are all unleaded (98 Ford Ranger, 99 Buick, and 2004 Silverado). Non of them were made for ethanol. Also, I am considering an old lead based car in the near future (because I want one and no one can tell me no).

a. If you're still driving a vehicle designed for leaded gas you're an idiot.
b. If ethanol hadn't been subsidized by tax payer money, there wouldn't be an ethanol fuel industry.
3. Petrol is a huge improvement over coal.

Right on all 3. However, vehicles designed on leaded were not considered as part of the leaded OR ethanol fuel conversions. You have to take into consideration the time and technology available to such vehicles.
 
I'm halfway convinced to get a diesel car.... and run it on home produced bio-diesel (from cooking oil, etc).
To me, that's far more 'green'.

If you produce your own like you are talking about then very much so....reduce, reuse, recycle!!! Makes a ton of sense since you are using a lot of stuff you would otherwise throw out anyway. Plus your exhaust smells like french fries...it's great!

The problem comes in with bio-diesel at the large scale production level, just like ethanol.

You spend so much on petroleum growing, refining and distributing the shit....you come out not being green at all, in some cases it's just downright unsustainable bad business.

Of course the 10% ethanol is a boost to farmers. I would feel the same way if in their shoes. I was initially in favor of the ethanol. It all seemed good for everyone at the time.

I understand their plight...and I feel for them. But forcing the consumer to buy a product that isn't in demand is a horrible investment on behalf of the taxpayer, it's a toxic asset because we now own something that is worthless.

The "because it's green" excuse is what they say to get the bill passed by people who can't see past the end of their tailpipe. It's open, hiding in plain sight corruption.

As for the farmers themselves? It fucking suck's but times are always changing, adapting and overcoming the shit storms life throws at you is something damn near everyone has to do at some point. Adapt and overcome or fall behind and perish is about a rock solid law as any of newtons, the US gov damn sure can't change that fact.
 
Last edited:
The car says use at least 91 octane so that's what I do. It doesn't say I can't use ethanol but I don't go looking for it. A knock can cost a few grand to fix. No thanks.
 
If you produce your own like you are talking about then very much so....reduce, reuse, recycle!!! Makes a ton of sense since you are using a lot of stuff you would otherwise throw out anyway. Plus your exhaust smells like french fries...it's great!

The problem comes in with bio-diesel at the large scale production level, just like ethanol.

You spend so much on petroleum growing, refining and distributing the shit....you come out not being green at all, in some cases it's just downright unsustainable bad business.

So what you are saying is that the costs of producing ethanol and bio-diesel, along with the damage are not as beneficial as we have been lead to believe. Right?

I know of one person who collects discarded, used edible oil from restaurants for fuel in his POV. He says he spends a lot of time converting it to bio-diesel, but saves lots of money. He also says he does not see how bio-diesel companies can do it cheaper than he does, but can see why it costs the consumer more money at the pump.
 
If you produce your own like you are talking about then very much so....reduce, reuse, recycle!!! Makes a ton of sense since you are using a lot of stuff you would otherwise throw out anyway. Plus your exhaust smells like french fries...it's great!

The problem comes in with bio-diesel at the large scale production level, just like ethanol.

You spend so much on petroleum growing, refining and distributing the shit....you come out not being green at all, in some cases it's just downright unsustainable bad business.



I understand their plight...and I feel for them. But forcing the consumer to buy a product that isn't in demand is a horrible investment on behalf of the taxpayer, it's a toxic asset because we now own something that is worthless.

The "because it's green" excuse is what they say to get the bill passed by people who can't see past the end of their tailpipe. It's open, hiding in plain sight corruption.

Bingo!
 
The car says use at least 91 octane so that's what I do. It doesn't say I can't use ethanol but I don't go looking for it. A knock can cost a few grand to fix. No thanks.

All the cars I have say to use 'x' amount of octane as well. But NONE of them say to use the same octane MIXED with the 10% ethanol you see at the pumps. The 'nocks' start happening with more frequency after the ethanol is introduced to non-ethanol vehicles.
 
I'm halfway convinced to get a diesel car.... and run it on home produced bio-diesel (from cooking oil, etc).
To me, that's far more 'green'.

A former coworker of mine does that back home. He uses used cooking oil from restaurants for free since. His car smells a little like egg rolls but he doesn't pay a penny for fuel.
 
Back
Top