CarTalk.com Best of Deals Car Reviews Repair Shops Cars A-Z Radio Show

EPA Death Sentence For Your Car . . . Boat . . . Snowmobile . . .?

a) is not a viable option
b) is not a viable option
c) . . . Did you notice that I said I was from Minnesota? Do you seriously think it’s possible to overcome the corn lobby in the upper midwest? Really?

Can you say “apathy?” How about “locus of control?”

If all Minnesotans share your apathetic outlook, and they are letting the tail wag the dog, they get the government they deserve.

It is if the price of corn liquor keeps going up !

Was anyone else around when lead was removed as a gas additive? The oil companies were going to go belly up if this happened. The auto companies said it would kill their motors. Everybody said it was going to ruin everything. So what happened?

The auto company engineers designed new harder materials for the valves. It cost a bit more, but guess what no more need for periodic valve jobs. For those who weren’t around a valve job occurred about every 30 to 50K miles and involved pulling the head(s), grinding the valves, and polishing the valve seats. If you didn’t do it the motor ran like crap, got horrible fuel economy, and would backfire waking up the neighbors when you came home.

The oil companies seem to still be in business.

Normal maintenance intervals on cars got extended; plugs lasted for 30+K miles (rather than the 10 to 12K previous), all the motor’s internals lasted longer, oil didn’t need to be changed as often, and cars with other pollution controls didn’t produce smog and put as much junk in the air, including no more lead in the air.

All of these changes pretty much killed America and we are all suffering mightly because the lead was removed from the gas.

Big business hates change, it means they have to invest in some new equipment. Current politics hates change, because it must be Obama and the liberals screwing with good ole America again. Rush Limbaugh hates change unless it is his doctor giving him a new narcotic to relieve the pain of living with democrats in control of the White House and Congress.

Is more ethanol good or bad? Heck, I don’t know, but in today’s political atmosphere if the dems favor it, then it must be bad for the USA.

So let me get this straight. It’s stupid to sue the government to get them to stop ramming E20 down our throats should it come to that, but yet I’m apathetic because I don’t want to change anything about the government.

That’s. . .Not very consistent.

That pretty well sums up my view of the situation.

I may be in the minority but I prefer oil for gas, not converting food or feed crops into ethanol.

  1. Anyone know of a major gas chain that doesn’t put ethanol in their gas… I’d love to stay away E10 gives me bad gas [mileage]?

  2. Using corn ethanol isn’t that big of deal… watch the movie king corn… Right now with all the corn being grown most places are runnign out of storage places… But Yes, I do have an issue with using food source as fuel for vehilces… especially considering that Ethanol uses more gas (tractors, transport, refining) than its saves.

  3. The fact that it’s bad for cars is another issue… E10, or E15 “should” be safe but from what I’ve been told / read… it still has been known to cause expensive fuel system issues… especially when they screw up and drop E85 in the wrong tank. (cosco)

…Ethanol uses more gas (tractors, transport, refining) than its saves.

That isn’t necessarily true. In the case of American-made corn-based Ethanol, yes, it is true. In the case of Brazilian-made sugarcane-based Ethanol, no, it is not true. In the case of switchgrass and refuse-based Ethanol, it is currently true, but I expect it to change.

Unless your vehicle was made before 1996, you should never have an issue with E10. If your vehicle was made before 1996, I think it sucks you can’t pay a little extra for pure Ethanol-free gasoline. If your vehicle was made after 2007, you might not have any issues with E15, but I think the Ethanol industry would be wise to test that assumption before they try to force it upon us.

It’s a shame there isn’t an additive you can put in your fuel to make E-10 safe for older vehicles. Fuel stabilizer might be worth trying to see if it helps.

If American Ethanol production ever improves and becomes efficient enough, it may be worth it to retrofit your vehicle to run on E20, or even E85. Wouldn’t it be nice to finally rid ourselves of our dependence on foreign oil and support American farmers?

Having actually READ the decision, let me point out a few things:

EPA is “encouraging” the use of E15, not mandating it, and only for 2007 and newer model years.
The policy is largely based on the labelling of the product, and is not a mandate that stations carry it.

As to the debate on the effect on corn prices, again, old technology, old argument. There are cellulosic ethanol plants under construction, the technology has grown up since the original E10 decision more than 20 years ago.

Exactly

Instead of immediately assuming the worst, if someone bothers to actually read the details it is obvious that the currently-available gas will be on the market for a long time to come.

Since the EPA is encouraging consumers to be very careful not to put E15 into gas tanks of cars made in 2001 or before, and to continue to use the same fuel that one is currently using, that tells you right away that E15 will not be the only fuel available. Additional testing is being done before any conclusion is drawn regarding whether E15 is injurious to cars made between 2001 and 2007.

That statement, coupled with the other EPA statement about “encouraging” retailers to carry E15, but not requiring them to do so, also tells you that the currently-available fuels will continue to be sold.

I don’t know where the hysteria over this issue is emanating from, but I would not be at all surprised if it sprang from that font of disinformation known as Fox News.

Ah! Voices of reason. How refreshing!

I still think it is very melodramatic to act like this is being forced upon you when (a) it hasn?t been forced upon you, and (b) it will not be forced upon you, even if this proposal is enacted.

I am concerned you appear to be losing touch with reality. Perhaps reading the EPA?s proposal would help quell your unfounded fears.

I agree the change will be minimal (how many gas stations will install duplicate pumps and a tank to sell E15 to 2007 and newer cars? VERY few). However, you seem to want to count your cellulosic ethanol eggs long before they’ve hatched. Next to zero production now and in the near future, who know about later…

I’m going to be blunt: The EPA’s proposal is tangential to what I said. Perhaps if you read my original post on the matter rather than worry yourself over my psychiatric condition you’d realize that I’m not as off-base as you seem to think.

I’m finished arguing with you. You’re arguing just for the sake of arguing, and you’re bringing up, frankly, stupid points like “you’re not forced to buy the gas - just drive to Canada” just so that you can keep arguing. It’s a waste of my time, and it’s not what this board is for.

Dude, you are way behind the curve on this technology. Apparently if you don’t see it on Fox it isn’t really happening. You seem to want to deny that this technology has advanced since 1985.
25 million gallons in 2011 (from corn husks and corn cobs), with production increasing exponentially from there as other plants come on line.

The main obstacle in the technology was the cost of producing the enzyme needed to break down the cellulose. The cost has declined 80% over the past two year, and this technology IS now cost-effective.

My business regularly puts 300k miles on our vehicles which all run on E10. I don’t see any more problems now than I did when we ran regular gas besides slightly less mileage.

Sorry, ‘dude’, I guess my constant monitoring of ethanol technology isn’t enough for you. Also, 25 million gallons in 2011 is a forecast, not reality. Even it true, the US used over 10 BILLION gallons of ethanol in 2009, 400 times your forecast. Immediate changes of laws based on expectations of what might happen 10 years from now are foolish.

The EPA’s proposal is tangential to what I said.

[sarcasm] In case you missed it, the EPA proposal is the subject of this thread, so please forgive me for not digressing with you. [/sarcasm]

Those in this thread whom advocate regular fuel (non-ethanol based) will continue to be marketed at fuel stations when the EPA’s mandate kicks in have not driven in Colorado lately. Most stations provide little choice to the motorist wishing to purchase regular fuel. Nearly all pumps now dispense E10.