# EPA approves Higher Ethanol in Gas -



## jatbeni (May 28, 2010)

EPA has said that it will permit up to 15% Ethanol mix in gas. Not that this will actually happen anytime soon... it needs various approvals from local governments and the auto manufacturers... but it is another sign of the corn lobby pushing its agenda.

Not sure how this will impact the performance and reliability of the N54 etc... and the HPFP, but it can't be any good for cars in general, and specially the more performance oriented machines that are operating closer to the edge.

http://tinyurl.com/2cofv8d


----------



## franka (Jan 23, 2006)

The performance cars 'on the edge' will benefit from more alcohol because it raises the octane and not just theoretically. At 15% hi-perf engines can run higher compression. The added 5% will make a big difference for those on the edge.


----------



## Emilner (Aug 18, 2010)

It will improve performance but drop mileage...


----------



## TerraPhantm (Nov 22, 2004)

Well that sucks. EPA better be willing to pay for any retrofits I'll need for my fuel system.

And I call BS on the claim that 15% won't harm 2007 and later cars - the cars are designed with 10% in mind, and there's no way to guarantee that every single MY2007 car will be compatible with the fuel. As a matter of fact, I think it's pretty well known that the 335 (which was released in 2007) has enough problems with 10%


----------



## franka (Jan 23, 2006)

TerraPhantm said:


> Well that sucks. EPA better be willing to pay for any retrofits I'll need for my fuel system.
> 
> And I call BS on the claim that 15% won't harm 2007 and later cars - the cars are designed with 10% in mind, and there's no way to guarantee that every single MY2007 car will be compatible with the fuel. As a matter of fact, I think it's pretty well known that the 335 (which was released in 2007) has enough problems with 10%


I disagree that it will hurt your fuel sys, also that the limit is exactly 10% and that the added 5% will be damaging.

There may be a few specialized engine sys that run better on 10% or none at all, but 15% will not damage the vast, vast majority of all cars on the road.


----------



## TerraPhantm (Nov 22, 2004)

franka said:


> I disagree that it will hurt your fuel sys, also that the limit is exactly 10% and that the added 5% will be damaging.
> 
> There may be a few specialized engine sys that run better on 10% or none at all, but 15% will not damage the vast, vast majority of all cars on the road.


If that were the case, then there would be no reason to void warranties when > 10% ethanol is used. Ethanol is corrosive, and changing it from 10% to 15% will mean there is a 50% greater concentration of ethanol present. That's not a minuscule figure.


----------



## franka (Jan 23, 2006)

TerraPhantm said:


> If that were the case, then there would be no reason to void warranties when > 10% ethanol is used. Ethanol is corrosive, and changing it from 10% to 15% will mean there is a 50% greater concentration of ethanol present. That's not a minuscule figure.


Yes Ethanol is very corrosive. Race cars than run 100% or high % flush their sys afterwards even when they have materials to resist corrosion like stainless thru-out. Alcohol in general absorbs lots of water if not handled correctly. It helps to prevent frozen fuel lines.

In the Army in Alaska in early 70s we ran at least 10 gallons, two jerry cans, of alky on each tracked vehicle fill up.

Who voids warranties based on more than 10% alcohol and how do they control, measure that, assuming you bring the car in w/o Ethanol gas in the tank?


----------



## Elias (Jun 26, 2005)

franka said:


> I disagree that it will hurt your fuel sys, also that the limit is exactly 10% and that the added 5% will be damaging.
> 
> There may be a few specialized engine sys that run better on 10% or none at all, but 15% will not damage the vast, vast majority of all cars on the road.


Is this your personal opinion or do you have facts and links to back up your statement which I disagree with, not to mention that mpg will also suffer from this nonsense.:tsk:


----------



## franka (Jan 23, 2006)

Elias said:


> Is this your personal opinion or do you have facts and links to back up your statement which I disagree with[ QUOTE]
> 
> Both, EPA.


----------



## TerraPhantm (Nov 22, 2004)

franka said:


> Yes Ethanol is very corrosive. Race cars than run 100% or high % flush their sys afterwards even when they have materials to resist corrosion like stainless thru-out. Alcohol in general absorbs lots of water if not handled correctly. It helps to prevent frozen fuel lines.


Agreed on all points. But there are probably other additives that work just as well for preventing the lines from freezing.


franka said:


> In the Army in Alaska in early 70s we ran at least 10 gallons, two jerry cans, of alky on each tracked vehicle fill up.


We're not in the 70s, and BMWs aren't designed for army use. They're highly tuned automobiles designed to run on specific fuels. Army vehicles on the other hand are designed to work in suboptimal conditions.



franka said:


> Who voids warranties based on more than 10% alcohol and how do they control, measure that, assuming you bring the car in w/o Ethanol gas in the tank?


Let's use BMW as an example. As far as I'm aware, the current belief is that the HPFP issues are related to ethanol content. I don't think the issue is nearly as prevalent in Europe as it is in the US (where the big difference is ethanol vs MTBE). Adding more ethanol to the equation will just exasperate the problem. And all N54 based cars are 2007 or newer. I'm not sure if this is still the case, but when the problem was becoming apparent, BMW was instructing the dealers to not perform any warranty work whenever the ethanol content was found to be greater than 10%


franka said:


> Elias said:
> 
> 
> > Is this your personal opinion or do you have facts and links to back up your statement which I disagree with
> ...


Because clearly they wouldn't fudge a few facts or make a very broad generalization to push a political agenda, right?


----------



## franka (Jan 23, 2006)

TerraPhantm said:


> Agreed on all points. But there are probably other additives that work just as well for preventing the lines from freezing.
> 
> We're not in the 70s, and BMWs aren't designed for army use. They're highly tuned automobiles designed to run on specific fuels. Army vehicles on the other hand are designed to work in suboptimal conditions.
> 
> ...


Most anti fuel line freezing additives on the shelves today are primary alcohol based.

We are not in the 70s, but alcohol is still used in the military and in the newest, most complex auto sys.

I don't know what BMW does or recommends and personally I don't care. You admit above that you can't speak on the HPFP subject for sure either.

With 15 % alcohol as part of our national fuel, BMW and every other automaker, has to accept or refuse warranty work like you said. Do you think most will refuse? I don't.

Personally, this country needs to reduce its foreign oil use and oil in general. Now. Ethanol costs as much or more than gasoline to make in part is because corn is used and is subsidized. But corn is just an interim step to making fuel out of bio mass and all sorts of other new plants and source materials that are currently being very heavily researched.

Regardless, the IC engine will become functionally obsolete due to its 34-35% energy efficiency which will never be much greater. Plus it will still pollute, if not so much out of the tail pipe it will in wasted heat to the atmosphere.

AC and/or DC electric is the future at 90+ % energy conversion. Its much, much cleaner than the best IC engines and costs only pennies per mile.

That is why it is used in trains, elevators, refrigs, power tools, etc.

The Ethanol issue is just an interim step to a much better future.


----------



## TerraPhantm (Nov 22, 2004)

franka said:


> Most anti fuel line freezing additives on the shelves today are primary alcohol based.
> 
> We are not in the 70s, but alcohol is still used in the military and in the newest, most complex auto sys.
> 
> ...


It is an undeniable fact that no BMW sold in the US is designed for 15% ethanol. BMWs sold in markets that use high ethanol content (like Brazil) have different components in their fuel system. If the US wants to further increase the ethanol content of gasoline, they damn well better pay for any fuel system retrofits that may be necessary. I don't care what army vehicles are designed to use, our cars (which have no relation to the US military) are not designed for more than 10% ethanol, period.

This is turning political but: Switching to ethanol won't do anything to get us off foreign oil. If I had to guess, it'll actually make the situation worse as long as we're harvesting it from corn. What type of fuel do you think the machinery used to harvest the corn runs on? Good ol' gasoline and diesel. I'd be willing to be that the overall use of foreign oil will increase as we use more ethanol. And frankly, I'd rather just buy gasoline without ethanol, than have our tax dollars subsidize the greedy ****ers in the corn industry

Gasoline doesn't even account for half of what is produced by a single barrel of oil. Other things like plastics and rubber account for a significant proportion of petroleum products.

I agree foreign dependence on anything is bad, but ethanol is not the solution. We're better off spending our resources in developing hydrogen technology, and then using nuclear energy for the electrolysis of water. True some energy is lost getting hydrogen from water, but nuclear energy is cheap and clean enough that it's still a better alternative to using oil to get the hydrogen.

I'm not a fan of purely electrical cars due to the recharge time and limited distances. Fuel cells are a better solution IMO. Even if there's some efficiency loss, who cares if the energy source is cheap and it doesn't pollute? I definitely will miss the ICE though - the necessity of gears due to the narrow powerband gives us things like the manual transmission which just makes the drive so much more enjoyable.


----------



## franka (Jan 23, 2006)

TerraPhantm said:


> It is an undeniable fact that no BMW sold in the US is designed for 15% ethanol. BMWs sold in markets that use high ethanol content (like Brazil) have different components in their fuel system. If the US wants to further increase the ethanol content of gasoline, they damn well better pay for any fuel system retrofits that may be necessary. I don't care what army vehicles are designed to use, our cars (which have no relation to the US military) are not designed for more than 10% ethanol, period.
> 
> This is turning political but: Switching to ethanol won't do anything to get us off foreign oil. If I had to guess, it'll actually make the situation worse as long as we're harvesting it from corn. What type of fuel do you think the machinery used to harvest the corn runs on? Good ol' gasoline and diesel. I'd be willing to be that the overall use of foreign oil will increase as we use more ethanol. And frankly, I'd rather just buy gasoline without ethanol, than have our tax dollars subsidize the greedy ****ers in the corn industry
> 
> ...


You missed my points.

I do not care to argue.


----------



## TerraPhantm (Nov 22, 2004)

franka said:


> You missed my points.
> 
> I do not care to argue.


No I got your point, being ethanol is an interim step towards real solutions. I just don't see how it's a step at all. IMO it only sets us farther back. If we have to go ethanol, I'd much rather *every* car be designed for E85-E100, and harvest the ethanol from grass like they do in Brazil. Can produce it in much larger quantities and with much lower costs that way - THAT would probably help reduce dependence on foreign oil. Ethanol from corn is not a solution in any sense.

I also don't believe BMW (or any other company) should be held responsible for ensuring E15 compatibility in cars which were made before E15 was approved. (MY2007 - early 2011). I'd be okay if the government made it a requirement for 2012 cars or something like that, but issuing a blanket statement stating that all 2007 and newer cars are compatible is simply untrue; there's no way the EPA can verify that every single car currently in production will tolerate E15 without any issues.

We can agree to disagree - We'll just have to see what the future brings. I'm sure that there will be an increase in fuel-system related failures once E15 becomes common.

Personally, I still try my best to fill up with E0 whenever I can - even if I have to pay 20-50 cents more per gallon. My car performs better on it, my mileage is improved, and I'm sure it's overall better for the car.

Also I just want to point out that while it's true ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline, which allows for greater compression, most companies just remove other octane boosters so that the final octane figures (and therefore maximum compression) remains the same.


----------



## franka (Jan 23, 2006)

TerraPhantm said:


> Ethanol from corn is not a solution in any sense.
> 
> I also don't believe BMW (or any other company) should be held responsible for ensuring E15 compatibility in cars which were made before E15 was approved. (MY2007 - early 2011). I'd be okay if the government made it a requirement for 2012 cars or something like that, but issuing a blanket statement stating that all 2007 and newer cars are compatible is simply untrue; there's no way the EPA can verify that every single car currently in production will tolerate E15 without any issues.
> 
> ...


Everything has to start somewhere and in this case it has started with corn (a reality fact) due to it's immediate abundance and farmers looking for ways to reduce their costs and control their own lives are making the Ethanol themselves in co-ops and much for their own use.

Going with corn for Ethanol, the current major source of Ethanol, and having cars prepped for Ethanol are separate subjects.

Ethanol from corn is not a good nor final solution. But that will change. Corn will be replaced with cheaper and better yeilding sources, some that make other, better fuels than Ethanol. its all being heavily researched as I said previously

Much of all of this is political I agree, as are all things that affect large portions of the population.

What name brands of gas have zero Ethanol? That is not a challenge to you. I would like to consider using them.


----------



## Elias (Jun 26, 2005)

Well the Automakers aren't happy about the new mandate adding 15% ethanol to gas saying it will damage vehicles and are taking it to the courts and suing the EPA!:yikes:

http://www.comcast.net/articles/finance/20101220/US.EPA.Ethanol/


----------



## Kamdog (Apr 15, 2007)

All the wording says that up to 15% will be permitted, and that it is not recommended for cars built before 2007. This tells me that you will still be able to get E10, and not be required to use E15.


----------



## franka (Jan 23, 2006)

Kamdog said:


> All the wording says that up to 15% will be permitted, and that it is not recommended for cars built before 2007. This tells me that you will still be able to get E10, and not be required to use E15.


Makes sense.


----------



## TerraPhantm (Nov 22, 2004)

franka said:


> Everything has to start somewhere and in this case it has started with corn (a reality fact) due to it's immediate abundance and farmers looking for ways to reduce their costs and control their own lives are making the Ethanol themselves in co-ops and much for their own use.
> 
> Going with corn for Ethanol, the current major source of Ethanol, and having cars prepped for Ethanol are separate subjects.
> 
> ...


It's not necessarily brand; there are a few gas stations that continue to buy E0 and supply it. You can find a bunch here: http://pure-gas.org/



Kamdog said:


> All the wording says that up to 15% will be permitted, and that it is not recommended for cars built before 2007. This tells me that you will still be able to get E10, and not be required to use E15.


For now yes, but eventually E10 will be phased out just like leaded fuel was


----------



## franka (Jan 23, 2006)

TerraPhantm said:


> It's not necessarily brand; there are a few gas stations that continue to buy E0 and supply it. You can find a bunch here: http://pure-gas.org/


Thanks for the list. I checked it out.

There are none in my Dallas or the suburbs. The closest to me is Tyler, TX in the beautiful, piney, East part of TX, roughly 1.5 hrs from Dallas.


----------

