Ethanol leaves consumers stranded

[FordGT90Concept]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...anol-producers

...

In 2010, at the request of the ethanol lobby, the EPA issued a partial waiver to allow E15 in cars model year 2001 and later. In reaching this decision, the EPA relied on a single Department of Energy study that was never intended to be comprehensive.

EPA has continued to ignore significant contrary evidence that shows E15 can cause engine damage, and that mound of evidence is growing. The Coordinating Research Council just released a study that shows E15 can cause engine damage even in new cars. I have contacted the EPA to determine if it still believes the fuel will not damage engines, and I am eagerly awaiting that response.
...

Here's the full CRC report: INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ETHANOL BLENDS ENGINE DURABILITY STUDY

The conclusion (page 79) sums it up nicely:

The study has shown that two popular gasoline engines used in light-duty automotive applications of vehicles from model years 2001 through 2009 failed with mechanical damage when operated on intermediate-level ethanol blends (E15 and E20).

Read: The EPA is responsible for causing engine damage to over 5 million vehicles in the USA.

Result: Engine Makers Sue to Block E15 Fuel

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...anol-producers


Here's the full CRC report: INTERMEDIATE-LEVEL ETHANOL BLENDS ENGINE DURABILITY STUDY

The conclusion (page 79) sums it up nicely:


Read: The EPA is responsible for causing engine damage to over 5 million vehicles in the USA.

Result: Engine Makers Sue to Block E15 Fuel

While I think Ethanol is a pipe dream, it doesn't cause engine damage, look at many of the countries where ethanol does work.

CRC is a red tape company made up to make red tape for the sake of makign red tape.


"CRC is not involved in any way in regulation, which remains a governmental responsibility; nor is CRC involved in the development of hardware or petroleum products, which remains the responsibility of private industry. The formal objective of CRC is to encourage and promote the arts and sciences by directing scientific cooperative research to develop the best possible combinations of fuels, lubricants, and the equipment in which they are used, and to afford a means of cooperation with the Government on matters of national or international interest within this field."


In 2009 they tested a miniscule fleet of only 25 cars, in cali, only in the worst circumstances of what happens if?

The current E20 research has nothing to do with the actual engine, and everything to do with the evaporative system.


Amazing how journalists with no idea of how shit works and a butter knife as their primary home repair tool can write shit based on their incomplete knowledge of any subject and the American public gobbles it up as the whole truth.

[entropy13]

Why aren't there any uproar about this in Brazil? They've been using E15 since 1982.

So the article implies that Brazil makes better engines and have better technology than the US, or at least the engines used in the US are worse than those in Brazil. Even though the only "true" advantage the South American country has is its highly efficient (note: high subsidies != high efficiency) agro-industrial sector, which I think would never be possible in the US so long as there are Republicans in Congress because it's supposedly "socialist."

[m1dg3t]

American big oil is starting to feel "the crunch" so out comes the propaganda machine. Some people just eat it up.

Cars are becoming more efficient, there are more and more hybrids/electric vehicles, more people are using public transportation/car pooling etc...

All this leads to less fuel sales, which leads to less profits. Do you know what would happen if a large part of the population did NOt buy fuel for an entire day, on the same day? Bricks, MASSIVE BRICKS, would be shat by big oil and gas prices would drop to almost free for a while.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by entropy13

Why aren't there any uproar about this in Brazil? They've been using E15 since 1982.

So the article implies that Brazil makes better engines and have better technology than the US, or at least the engines used in the US are worse than those in Brazil. Even though the only "true" advantage the South American country has is its highly efficient (note: high subsidies != high efficiency) agro-industrial sector, which I think would never be possible in the US so long as there are Republicans in Congress because it's supposedly "socialist."

There are not an engines sold in brazil that are not built by another company that sells them elsewere. You have no engine technology...

E15 has more of a chance to cause problems in a newer motor than an older one. Older fuel controls were a bit rudimentary new one constantly try to the the best air fuel ratio. There is a chance E20 and E15 could damage a select group of vehicles. It would be high compression NA motors that saw effects first of all the motors those will have the most issues running lean.

[entropy13]

Originally Posted by cdawall

There are not an engines sold in brazil that are not built by another company that sells them elsewere. You have no engine technology...

AFAIK "Flex-fuel" vehicles made by foreign companies in Brazil are different from their other such cars sold elsewhere...they can have the same name, but there would still be differences internally.

[m1dg3t]

Originally Posted by entropy13

AFAIK "Flex-fuel" vehicles made by foreign companies in Brazil are different from their other such cars sold elsewhere...they can have the same name, but there would still be differences internally.

Get out of here with your facts/reasoning BS! Everything is made/designed in the US. The rest of the world is useless without America

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by entropy13

AFAIK "Flex-fuel" vehicles made by foreign companies in Brazil are different from their other such cars sold elsewhere...they can have the same name, but there would still be differences internally.

No brazil's flex fuel is still E85 the motors are designed to run on any fuel ratio of ethanol up to 85%. It has nothing to do with location. You do understand by internals what you a referring to correct? At most they have a different emmisions system. Considering the vast majority of vehicle HP/TQ ratings are the same I can tell you without a doubt the internals are the same. You forget the cost of tooling it is way cheaper to use the same part in multiple markets.


Having torn apart a handful of Ford Lobo's the 5.4L was exactly the same as the US spec model minus the exhaust.

[erocker]

This drought may have a silver lining. With corn being limited, I heard they may suspend ethanol... It's up to the EPA of course. I would love to fill up my car with good ol' regular gas for once. Can't wait to get much better MPG.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by Steevo

While I think Ethanol is a pipe dream, it doesn't cause engine damage, look at many of the countries where ethanol does work.

CRC is a red tape company made up to make red tape for the sake of makign red tape.

They tested 8 engine types:
1 failed with and without E15
2 failed with E15 and survived without E15.
5 survived with and without E15.

It isn't rocket science.

Originally Posted by erocker

This drought may have a silver lining. With corn being limited, I heard they may suspend ethanol... It's up to the EPA of course. I would love to fill up my car with good ol' regular gas for once. Can't wait to get much better MPG.

They better. Farms are going to get shutdown because they sign a contract with ethanol producers to sell corn they don't have. Everything about the ethanol industry smells of mafia.

Originally Posted by entropy13

Why aren't there any uproar about this in Brazil? They've been using E15 since 1982.

The EPA is ordering all gasoline sold in the USA to be blended with E15 (and later E20). This applies to cars between 2001-2009 where a lot of cars have been proven not to be able to run on E15. Brazil's cars are obviously designed to run on high ethanol.

I should also mention that Brazil's dumbass policy is causing massive deforestation for crops and the soil is only good enough for a few years of crops:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...725975,00.html

And yes, there is uproar over their deforestation practices. We just don't hear it much because the global warming fanatics are so loud.

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

They tested 8 engine types:
1 failed with and without E15
2 failed with E15 and survived without E15.
5 survived with and without E15.

It isn't rocket science.



They better. Farms are going to get shutdown because they sign a contract with ethanol producers to sell corn they don't have. Everything about the ethanol industry smells of mafia.



The EPA is ordering all gasoline sold in the USA to be blended with E15 (and later E20). This applies to cars between 2001-2009 where a lot of cars have been proven not to be able to run on E15. Brazil's cars are obviously designed to run on high ethanol.

I should also mention that Brazil's dumbass policy is causing massive deforestation for crops and the soil is only good enough for a few years of crops:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...725975,00.html

And yes, there is uproar over their deforestation practices. We just don't hear it much because the global warming fanatics are so loud.

Marine and small engine? Different than cars, by, ohh, a bit.


And two popular engines failed with mechanical damage. Out of 28, read it again, 28 tried from used stock.

"The OEM examined internal historical production records and these revealed that there
had been changes in the intake valve seat material used for this engine following its
initial production years. The failed engines were equipped with lower grade material
valve seats which were not considered robust enough to ethanol blends higher than E10."

"Sample B showed a similar elevated emission behavior. For Sample B the OEM
reinstalled the engine and catalyst into the vehicle and conducted a vehicle chassis roll
FTP75 test. The vehicle passed the emission test for all exhaust emission constituents.
Upon review of the results and recommendation by the OEM technical contact, the CRC
group waived this engine from further testing."

"Conclusions
After completion of all testing and detailed review of the experienced failure modes, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
• Out of eight different tested engine types, one had a design that was (in retrospect)
inappropriate for the test cycle, two failed on E20 and E15, and five passed on E20
and by assumption E15 and E0 (see Figure 1).
• Out of the two failed tested engine types, both successfully completed the
reference testing on E0.
• There is an 11% chance that all three E15 failures (two with one vehicle type and
one with another) would have occurred if failure were independent of ethanol. The
results for E20 are the same. Combining the E15 results with the E20 results, there
is a 7% chance that all six failures (two E15 and two E20 with one vehicle type
and one E15 and one E20 with another) would have occurred with ethanol
containing fuels if failure were independent of ethanol.
• For the failed engine which also failed on E0 reference fuel, the failures can not be
directly linked to the ethanol content. The design of the engine interacting with the
test cycle is the primary reason cited by the OEM maker for the observed failures.
• The observed failures do not show that specific valvetrain types are more or less
sensitive to ethanol content.
• The majority of the failures can be linked to issues with valve seats, either related
to material or wear/deformation."


Small sample group, and out of those they are choosing less than two sigma for their conclusions.

Again, I don't like the idea of Ethanol, but this is pure bullshit made into bite sized cakes with frosting.


Then they used premium fuel to prevent the knocking that could have occurred with standard grade fuel that the engines called for.

With used cars, used cars, again, used cars. Hey, they might have been traded in due to issues, but, as long as they passed the first tests they are OK.

[entropy13]

So if I'm actually wrong, then there aren't any difference between Brazilian and US engines. Why are there problems with the engines in the US but not in Brazil? LOL

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

And yes, there is uproar over their deforestation practices.

Exactly, that's why deforestation is now no longer a priority and they're (Brazil) looking at making everything more efficient and more sustainable.

[erocker]

Originally Posted by entropy13

So if I'm actually wrong, then there aren't any difference between Brazilian and US engines. Why are there problems with the engines in the US but not in Brazil? LOL

Where do you get the information that there isn't any problems in Brazil? LOL Newer cars are more designed to run with a mixture of ethanol, older cars are not. They get worse gas mileage and other issues. Then you have smaller engines or engines that aren't used very often. Ethanol mixture gasoline turns into gunk after a while. I see it all the time... with US built engines, Japaneese, etc. It's not limited to any nationality and is a ridiculous thought to begin with.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by entropy13

So if I'm actually wrong, then there aren't any difference between Brazilian and US engines. Why are there problems with the engines in the US but not in Brazil? LOL

Brazilian manufacturers/importers/outfitters have been preparing cars for ethanol for 20 years. There's a lot of cars in the USA that are not ready at all for ethanol.

Originally Posted by Steevo

Marine and small engine? Different than cars, by, ohh, a bit.

Marine and small engine manufacturers are involved in the lawsuit because if the EPA ramthroats E10-E20 on everyone, their engines will be affected too.

CRC only tested "used cars" (page 27): "The test vehicles were purchased as used cars from dealerships."

Originally Posted by Steevo

And two popular engines failed with mechanical damage. Out of 28, read it again, 28 tried from used stock.

In the executive summary (page 12), it says: "In summary, 12 out of 28 tested engines were deemed to have failed the prescribed durability test." 42.8% of the engines failed. The chart showing the results of the 28 engines is on page 11. A description of the failures are on page 12-14.

Originally Posted by Steevo

Small sample group, and out of those they are choosing less than two sigma for their conclusions.

Because testing is very expensive. They were testing vehicles that are out there and with 42.8% of engines failing, for whatever reason, doesn't bode well for people that own used cars (which is the vast majority) nor the enivronment (catalytic converter failure is attributed to ethanol).

Originally Posted by Steevo

Then they used premium fuel to prevent the knocking that could have occurred with standard grade fuel that the engines called for.

Page 21: "In order to also maintain this condition for engine operation on E0, premium fuel was used for the E0 testing."

All engines passed E0 except "Vehicle 8" which failed because they were testing the engine at 3500 RPM (apparently that engine requires higher RPM).

Originally Posted by Steevo

With used cars, used cars, again, used cars. Hey, they might have been traded in due to issues, but, as long as they passed the first tests they are OK.

EPA wants to force all cars to use ethanol even if they are not engineered to do so. Virtually all new cars are FFV (Flex Fuel Vehicles) but few used cars are (exception being GM--they've had FFVs since the early 2000s).

[Fourstaff]

I think 5-10 years of grace period before E15 is deemed compulsory would be a reasonable time for the people to either modify their engine to accept E15 or build a massive storage tank for the petrol. EPA should foot the bill for the engine modification too, using the bribe money they received from corn producers.

[FordGT90Concept]

I think consumers should decide, not government/ethanol lobby. If people don't like ethanol/gasoline mixtures they they should have the option not to buy it. The oil and ethanol industries will respond in kind. It's only fair...for everyone...except EPA...which is great by me.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

I think consumers should decide, not government/ethanol lobby. If people don't like ethanol/gasoline mixtures they they should have the option not to buy it. The oil and ethanol industries will respond in kind. It's only fair...for everyone...except EPA...which is great by me.

This can be a solution too, since that poorer countries were forced to adopt E15 because of costs, not from top down directive.

[FordGT90Concept]

And as fuel prices increase, that could happen here too but, keep in mind that ethanol jeopordizes food supply. I think in the foreeeable future, ethanol would disappear from gasoline because grocery prices hurt more than fuel prices. A lot of people in the USA do have public transport options available to them that they refuse to use because fuel is still relatively cheap. What's the alternative for food shortage? People get cranky on an empty stomach. Human needs are more important than car needs.

[cdawall]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

I think consumers should decide, not government/ethanol lobby. If people don't like ethanol/gasoline mixtures they they should have the option not to buy it. The oil and ethanol industries will respond in kind. It's only fair...for everyone...except EPA...which is great by me.

You do have the option up north for e10 is the bigger mixes going to be different? Right now regular and premium are ethanol free but mid grade has ethanol. Which I have been running in my 94 xj for a couple years now...mpg's had a slight drop off but nothing major.

[FordGT90Concept]

The EPA wants to eliminate E0 (unleaded/premium unleaded) and put a blend of E15-E20 in all gasoline engines (including boats, weed whackers, cars, pickups, snow mobiles, four wheelers, motorcycles, and lawn mowers). This would be compulsory--like their CFL "decision", selling gasoline without ethanol would be illegal.

[Steevo]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

And as fuel prices increase, that could happen here too but, keep in mind that ethanol jeopordizes food supply. I think in the foreeeable future, ethanol would disappear from gasoline because grocery prices hurt more than fuel prices. A lot of people in the USA do have public transport options available to them that they refuse to use because fuel is still relatively cheap. What's the alternative for food shortage? People get cranky on an empty stomach. Human needs are more important than car needs.

Distillers grain is fed to cattle and animals, however it does lose a significant portion of the nutritional value.


More important is the ability to use cellulose in ethanol production, or cheap low grade sugar stock. Considering the obesity epidemic it might not hurt the US any.

[FordGT90Concept]

Sugar can lead to diabetes, not necessarily obesity. If you burn all your sugar in your car, people would be more inclined to buy artificial sweetners which have god-knows-what long-term consequences.

Laissez-faire is best.

[Steevo]

People are living to long anyway.

[FordGT90Concept]

Treating cancers costs a fortune.

[Fourstaff]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Treating cancers costs a fortune.

That is why you have ObamaCare(tm)