Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

E-15. Good or bad?


CSX4833

Recommended Posts

Well, I knew it was coming with living in a corn producing state. The state is pushing E-15 by subsidizing its cost meaning it runs about 0.15 less per gallon. They tout a higher octane than unleaded as well. I've always stayed away from the fuel and hear it's bad for the hoses and burns hotter than regular unleaded.

 

With all the smart folks on this forum I would like to know the pluses and minuses to using it. Not so much for my SS, but for my M-B SL and wife's Camry.

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

Thanks

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The report from Fox new says CU is saying don't use it all! Ford and many other major manufacturers are saying not to and they will deny warranty claims related to E15. I've been using ethanol free gas for about three months now and am seeing higher fuel mileage as well as better response and performance, although the fuel is higher priced. You can search online for sites that list ethanol free stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Found it. Almost all gasoline (95%) is currently 10% ethanol but the democrats and the EPA, I know that is redundant to say democrats and EPA, are mandating 15% by 2014. So again, we may not have a choice and of course the SGT and early GT 500's were designed and made before this mandate was passed so are probably not compatible with E 15.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been using 10% ethanol in my cars for many years. I have never had a problem. Another 5% can't be that big of a deal.

 

I have an agriculture related job, so I am more than happy that our leaders are promoting ethanal use. I guess it matters where you are in the scheme of things. In my part of the country our ecomomy is related to how well the farmers are doing.

 

But I use 91 octane in my SGT as recommended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad that farmers benefit, but........we shouldn't be forced to use ethanol whether it be 10 or 15%. It was all done for politics. Studies have shown that we use more energy to produce the ethanol than we save. And ethanol renders less miles per gallon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Have a 2008 GT500 stock engine, and I have been using 93 octane premium that contains 10% ethanol. Our non oxy premium gas in my area has an octane of only 91. Can these motors run on non oxy gas? I thought that they were desined for ethanol and had catalitic converters. Corn is food and should not be used as fuel. DRILL BABY DRILL !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you look at the fuel used to deliver the corn seed to the farmer and then the fuel used for the tractor to plant the corn, then the fuel used for the combine to harvest the corn, then the fuel used to transport the corn to the processor and then the incredible amount of fuel used to heat the mixture in huge vats to convert to alcohol, then the fuel used to transport the alcohol to be mixed with gas..........guess what........you have used more fuel than you save and gasohol renders less miles per gallon so it is lose-lose situation.

 

and when you take corn away from the food chain it raises the price on corn for consumption and raises the price for corn to be used for feeding livestock so your beef, chicken, and pork prices rise also. But there is a lobby for ethanol and congress can be bought so we have ethanol without regard for the rest of America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stay away from E15. E85 is hard on a motor as well, all manufacturers are saying not to use it. I use the current E10 and have not seen problems with the exception of small engines, which do not tolerate alcohol well at all. Im all for the American farmer but, I see nothing good about it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stay away from E15. E85 is hard on a motor as well, all manufacturers are saying not to use it. I use the current E10 and have not seen problems with the exception of small engines, which do not tolerate alcohol well at all. Im all for the American farmer but, I see nothing good about it

agreed.... small engine folks put it in writing to stay away from all ethanol based fuel.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad that farmers benefit, but........we shouldn't be forced to use ethanol whether it be 10 or 15%. It was all done for politics. Studies have shown that we use more energy to produce the ethanol than we save. And ethanol renders less miles per gallon.

 

 

When you look at the fuel used to deliver the corn seed to the farmer and then the fuel used for the tractor to plant the corn, then the fuel used for the combine to harvest the corn, then the fuel used to transport the corn to the processor and then the incredible amount of fuel used to heat the mixture in huge vats to convert to alcohol, then the fuel used to transport the alcohol to be mixed with gas..........guess what........you have used more fuel than you save and gasohol renders less miles per gallon so it is lose-lose situation.

 

and when you take corn away from the food chain it raises the price on corn for consumption and raises the price for corn to be used for feeding livestock so your beef, chicken, and pork prices rise also. But there is a lobby for ethanol and congress can be bought so we have ethanol without regard for the rest of America.

Corn based ethanol is a lose-lose supported only by lobbyists and subsidies. If corn ethanol were a viable fuel then every product designed would be using it and we'd have a free source of energy. But it isn't so. No where on the planet is a viable source of food used for fuel except here. (One could argue that Brazil's use of sugar cane for ethanol contradicts that but they couldn't eat that much sugar if they wanted to.)

 

I grew up on a farm where we used every piece of a stalk of corn for something so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Florida banned it in June 2013.

The use of so-called "oxygenated" fuels (for which ethanol is the only method) is mandated in certain parts of the country. In the front range of Colorado it was during the colder season when temperature inversions would cause the "brown cloud". Now 10% ethanol is required year round.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, now I'm even more confused. Per post #10's question, is a 91 octane non-oxygenated fuel safe in our cars (2009 +) or is 93 octane with up to 10% ethanol preferred? The non-Oxy is about another $1 a gallon but if performance is better and there will be no damaged to my car, I'll spring for it. I don't put that many miles on it anyway (summer only).

 

Thanks everybody. Please help in unconfusing me.

 

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad, very bad. E10 is bad enough, E15 is a disaster. Just an excuse to subsidize expensive fuel that hurts most engines due to water it retains. I use only ethanol free premium in all my cars, old and new. The old ones really don't need even a little of that junk, the new ones are just living on borrowed time with the E10. No reason to take chances in expensive cars with all that water rolling around the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Farmers are averaging 170+ bushels per acre. Ethanal has been the spingboard for research and develpmont that has increased the yeild. That high yeild has allowed for lower price per bushel and non food use. The Ag industry has provided me a good enough U.S.A. job to buy a Shelby. Ecomonic 101 comes into play in my area of the country. And the recent drop in gas prices may show the strategy starting to work.

 

Now for your original question. I highly recommend E-15 in your wifes car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do have choices, you just have to search for them: http://pure-gas.org

Yes, I've seen this list before. The stations tend to be airports, marinas or race tracks. If you are looking for gas for your daily driver it's usually not convenient. Of course, some portion of the population does live near all of the 13 stores in Arizona.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I am lucky. A jobber has a terminal not far from me. That is where he mixes the ethanol into the gasoline. He has 4 pumps set up for self-service credit card outside the terminal for ethanol free premium. But it is only 90 octane, however I don't notice any performance differences from the 91 octane ethanol laced fuel, which BTW has been varying between 11-13% in some tests done around here. The RFS (renewable fuels standard) mandates an ever increasing amount of ethanol be moved, and with demand down, they have to spike more in the "E10" to move it, or pay big fines by having to buy ethanol credits on the market. It is a perverse law, and many are working now to repeal the RFS, let's hope they win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got so lucky about a month ago. A small chain of feul stations in my area started carrying non ethanol 91. 91 is the highest octane non ethanol feul you can buy. Its the addition of 10% ethanol to 91 octane fuel that make 93 octane.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You gotta love the democrats. They tell us they are all about mother earth and preventing global warming, etc. Then they tell us we have to use ethanol to save the whales and the earth. Until they can make money off of prostituting themselves. Read below.

 

 

Does Ethanol Pollute More than Gasoline? An Expert Reveals the Facts

By now you may have heard of the economic questions regarding using corn for ethanol production, but less attention has been paid to the environmental impact of using ethanol as an alternative to gasoline. Is ethanol more of a pollutant than gasoline? Surprisingly, the science says yes.

According to our Expert, who holds a PhD in Biochemical Engineering, a Master’s degree in Chemical Engineering, and has over 40 years experience performing biotechnology, bioengineering, and bioprocess research, both ethanol and gasoline deliver the same amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere per gallon consumed. However, when compared on a per mile driven basis, burning ethanol actually produces 54% more CO2 as global warming pollutant than gasoline due to the fact that ethanol has lower fuel efficiency.

For the science buffs out there, the energy production produced by burning materials is proportional to the molecules of oxygen used. Here are the chemical formulas for the energy produced by burning octane via gasoline and by burning glucose via ethanol.


 

Octane (n-dodecane): C12H26 + 18.5 O2 → 12 CO2 + 13 H2O 18.5 x energy units. Glucose via ethanol: Glucose 2 C6H12O6 → 4 CO2 + 4 C2H5OH Ethanol: 4 C2H5OH + 12 O2 → 8 CO2 + 12 H2O 2 C6H12O6 + 12 O2 → 12 CO2 + 12 H2O 12.0 x energy units

What is the scientific conclusion? To reduce CO2 as a global warming pollutant, stop using ethanol as an automobile fuel substitute!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm convinced now. Thanks to all that participated in this thread. I can get access to non-oxygenated fuel for another $1 a gallon. If it's better for the car, it's better to buy it. I don't put much more than 2.5K on a year any how.

 

I love this forum for just this reason. Thanks again guys and gals.

 

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

burning ethanol actually produces 54% more CO2 as global warming pollutant than gasoline.....

 

But wait a minute...

 

Any good conservative (Republican) knows that "Global Warming" is cyclic, not man made.

 

So which is it? Is Ethanol more of a "Global Warming pollutant"...Which would mean Global Warming IS man made, or not a pollutant?

 

Your politics confuse me.

 

 

Phill Pollard - REPUBLICAN

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be republican but no more. I am now Libertarian. I agree that global warming is cyclical. And there is a very, very, simple reason. Actually more than one. the first is history. We have had hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, wildfires and all the other natural disasters now blamed on so-called global warming. And we have had mini-ice ages in the past and it is all cyclical. Now I believe that man can have an effect on the environment by pollution but it is far less than the global warming hucksters. The second reason is that if carbon is really causing global warming, and the effect is cumulative, then it would be warmer each year and it has not. So yes I will say that ethanol does contribute to pollution but not necessarily global warming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...
...