i don't know if i raised this issue previously.

but i have recently read that the EPA has some kind of ethanol jones. more must be added to gasoline.

for no engineering reason does this make any sense, i think.

but, the intention may be to remove lots of older automobiles from operation. you know, those autos without black boxes. unmonitorable.

i really hate the increasingly electronified cars. my 2006 215's are the last ones that i want to own. and i feel the same way about my 2008 porsche cayenne turbo.

there is nothing being designed, manufactured, offered for sale currently that i would buy. i am quite content with my elderly vehicles.

BUT, i fear that a 15% ethanol content would disable them. permanently.

i live in metro-houston. the major petrochemical center in north amerika.

i find it astonishing that none of the major refiners, marketers offer any pumps with straight gasoline in addition to the ethanol blend nonsense.

yet, i have noticed that straight gasoline is offered at some pumps in the usa.

does anyone know of any movement to convince gasoline refiners, marketers to offer straight, unleaded gasoline in at least a high octane product?

all ears.

Check this out:

from:

alcohol as a fuel

It is my understanding that cars were designed/built where they could stop at the farms and get re-fueled. Now how cool would that be?

I bet that whale oil would smooth out a poorly running 617.

__________________
Jim

yes, and in europe during the nazi thirties, some vehicles towed a chicken **** digester. and fueled their vehicles with chicken **** methane.

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of going back to pure gasoline.

There is no greater benefit to the environment than to use what you have rather than throwing it away or breaking it down and making something new.

I'm also moving this thread to the open discussion forum.

__________________

77' 300D, "Cartman" SOLD @ 150K (didn't know what I had)
83' 300SD, "The Superdon" 325k+ @ 28mpg
95 E320 wagon, "Millennium Falcon" 231k+ @ 24 Mpg
95 E300D, "Sherley" 308k @ 33.69 Mpg, currently anticipating a head
99 Suzuki Intruder "Trudy" @ 45 mpg

How is processing crude into it's various components any different than converting organic matter into ethanol?? Both are being broken down and made into something new...

As a guy with older vehicles, I wish they would continue to provide the fuel that they require, but I don't think I could rationally make the argument that petro fuel is more environmentally friendly than ethanol....
That is what you're saying?

Weaning ourselves off the dino fuels will be of considerably greater benefit to the environment than continuing the rampant use which we engage in now.

__________________
On some nights I still believe that a car with the fuel gauge on empty can run about fifty more miles if you have the right music very loud on the radio. - HST

1983 300SD - 305000
1984 Toyota Landcruiser - 190000
1994 GMC Jimmy - 203000

https://media.giphy.com/media/X3nnss8PAj5aU/giphy.gif

Engineering reasons, no. Political and economic reasons, yes. The federal government subsidizes the production of corn. Lots of corn. Enough corn that they need to do something with it to keep the price from going way down. So they mandate or strongly encourage its inclusion in motor fuel. It also has a bit of an effect on emissions, but I think this applies mainly to older vehicles that don't have a closed loop mode of fuel injection.

I doubt that, since ethanol blends have been around at least the 70's.

You bought a Cayenne. Seriously, you bought one of those abominations. What were you thinking?

On this I am nearly in agreement with you. There are a few, but they either aren't offered for sale in the U.S. (C-Class diesel with a six speed manual), or are out of my price range (911 GT3 is $130k, even the base Carrera starts at $84k).

What elderly vehicles? I see you mention 2006 and 2008 models. Those are pretty much new compared to my 1983 model or the '71 I sold last year.

Check you owner's manual, they may be ok on E15 without modification. Even if the vehicles aren't set up to burn E15 now, it shouldn't be that tough to reflash the ECU and possibly change a few hoses.

Metro Houston is probably an EPA air quality non-compliance area, which means the smog nazis get to dictate a whole lot of things, including mandating oxygenated fuels, which are usually oxygenated with ethanol. I'm in a compliant area, but it's still tough to find fuel with no ethanol. This probably has something to do being next door to California. I'm surprised the few that sell ethanol free gas aren't advertising that fact. Many people prefer it, including me. My Ninja 650 will digest just about any excuse for gasoline without complaint, but I get more miles per tank, and consequently have to fill it up less often, when I use the good gas without the ethanol. I would think there are enough of us to encourage the widespread use of ethanol free gas in those areas it's still legal.

__________________
Whoever said there's nothing more expensive than a cheap Mercedes never had a cheap Jaguar.

83 300D Turbo with manual conversion, early W126 vented front rotors and H4 headlights 400,xxx miles
08 Suzuki GSX-R600 M4 Slip-on 22,xxx miles
88 Jaguar XJS V12 94,xxx miles. Work in progress.

Go to pure-gas.org for a listing by state of stations that sell ethanol free fuel.
I have done a lot of testing using my 500SEL and have found that it uses the same amount of gas when using ethanol free gas or E10. Now to explain further, lets say I drive 1000 miles. With ethanol free regular gas I will average 20 mpg when running on the interstates. That is 50 gal of gas. If I use E10 and run the same route, same 1000 miles, same interstate I will average 18 mpg. So now it takes 55.5 gal of fuel or about 10% more. That means, I am still using 50 gal of gas and 5.5 gal of ethanol. Explain to me how the emissions are less if I use E10. If they go to E15 my mpg will drop even more but I bet I will still use the same amount of pure gas + the 15% ethanol. Obama said that E15 will be fine for cars built after 2005 but does not mention what will happen to the rest of us.

Enough for now. This subject makes my blood boil. There is steam coming out of my ears now.

Paul

__________________
84 500 SEL (307,xxx miles)

Nothing to do with older vehicles, everything to do with the GMO corn lobby, ADM, and the whole cabal of evil f--ks.

Neither aircraft nor lawn equipment use gas that contains ethanol.

oh, i thought my little fleet was known.

i own a 1979 450sel6.9, a 1987 560sec, a 1995 e320cabriolet, a 1997 s500coupe.

i own two 2006 215 coupes[cl500, cl55] as they were the last of the bruno sacco era coupes. and perhaps the first electronified benzes that became thoroughly debugged.

the 2008 cayenne turbo was acquired in 2010 to make a two-month round trip from houston to seattle. then it was my intention to resell it. unfortunately, some potentially terminal medical issues intervened. my orthopod preferred that vehicles driving position over the coupes. so i have kept it. it is my daily driver. lots of autobahn speed fun.

My lawn equipment uses regular unleaded with ten percent ethanol right out of the pump. So that statement is incorrect.

It is funny that all the gas stations I see in Georgia are in the small towns; not a single one in Atlanta.

A short history of smog reduction....

First there were air pumps and unleaded gas. Taking the lead out was a big step forward and is one reason spark plugs and exhaust systems last so much longer now than they did in the 60's. Better materials of both help, too, but the lead did eat them up. The air pumps only pumped air into the exhaust so that the exhaust coming out the pipe, which is where it was measured, had a higher oxygen content.

Then came MTBE. This stuff was like magic in that it ran through your system and came out almost as an oxygen enhancer. It did the same thing an air pump did but with chemicals. It also destroyed any ground water it leaked into and it leaked into a lot of ground water, so it had to go.

Now there is E10 which also breaks down into oxygen. An old trick to passing a smog test was to run two pints of isopropyl to eight gallons of gasoline. The isopropyl would knock the oxygen content of your car's exhaust to almost off the scale.

I have run 100% E in a car that was set-up to do so, but even at a 70% cost of real gasoline I lost money due to the lower mpg. By the way... You can get 100% E along I-70 in Kansas where a lot of corn is grown.

I have had the same results with 100% gas in that I get better mpg, and if the cost difference is less than 10% that's what I run.

A lot of stations in rural Oklahoma offer 100%, but not so much in Houston or Dallas.

I had to put a new carb on my Styhl chain saw after running some ethanol through it.

__________________
Jim

I guess everyone would rather hand over their money to oil shieks from the ME than American farmers. The price of corn on the spot market might bring 10 - 25 cents more a bushel due to that demand. The price of corn is about 4 dollars right now and may even go lower unless there's an early frost.

Buy what you want if you can get it. None of my stuff has been affected in any way by ethanol and I drive a lot of old cars and equipment.

Am I just lucky or are some people whiners?