Have not seen 15% at pump yet here in ct I only use shell v-power 10% . I under stand further north in vt some stations don’t use ethanol. Corn is for eating not burning silver queen the best corn season almost over ?

 

New 15% pumps in DFW all have a warning that say do not use unless your vehicle is specifically tagged as being "flexfuel" compliant.

 

There are few metals ethanol doesn't corrode.

There are few plastics ethanol doesn't consume.

Ethanol absorbs the moisture from humid air, making for phase separation in any gas that sits for a while.

Warranties will NOT cover damage from ethanol in greater than 10% contamination amounts.

The only benefit from 15%, and later 20%, is for the farmers and farm land prices. The Gulf of Mexico Dead Zone will continue to consume all life as it grows. A byproduct of the required fertilization use to grow corn.

 

I saw a pump recently (forget where, somewhere in VA?) that had 6 buttons and 3 hoses: diesel, regular (E10) corn gas in 3 octane levels, and E15/E85 corn gas. So just like the E10 pumps mixes 87 and 93 to get 89 octane, maybe the E15/E85 hose mixes E10 with E85 to get E15?

 

Pretty lucky here in NV, we can get 91 octane almost everywhere. Some stations have ethanol free 90 octane.

I used this several times in western Canada this past summer.

 

Our President is trying to make the farmers like him again.

 

The idea of renewable energy is all well and good.

Ethanol is wrong because all our engines are designed for gasoline. Even the flex-fuel engines suffer a dramatic fuel mileage loss using ethanol, the more ethanol the less the mileage. Even 10% ethanol will reduce gas mileage.

Using food for fuel, even the dent corn that feeds cattle, is a bad use in light of the wealth of energy coming from the ground today.

The damage to small engines and older vehicles is inexcusable.

But, boil everything down to the quick, and as long as Iowa has the first primary, we will continue with this monster agricultural subsidy in the guise of the renewable fuel mandate.

 

The idea of renewable energy is all well and good.

Ethanol is wrong because all our engines are designed for gasoline. Even the flex-fuel engines suffer a dramatic fuel mileage loss using ethanol, the more ethanol the less the mileage. Even 10% ethanol will reduce gas mileage.

Ethanol has a lower energy content than gasoline. Ask anyone who's tried to make coffee on an alcohol stove! If you want the same energy from a low-energy fuel, you need more of it, hence higher fuel consumption.

These days all of our engines are designed to be compatible with E10 corn gas, and have been for over 15 years. I are not a ingenur but I think it's primarily a materials issue (chemically and dimensionally stable in ethanol AND gasoline) more than anything else. Some tweaks to the ECU to spritz more gas depending on what the O2 sensor says. Probably you need more sophisticated matierials, electronics, and sensors if you're going to E85 though.

I'm not well-enough versed in the issues to understand why 15% ETOH is a terrible, very bad, awful level but 10% is a fine, no problem, everything will be OK level. Is there some chemical thing that happens at 13% - chances of phase separation become huge so now there's lots of water to contend with?

Using food for fuel, even the dent corn that feeds cattle, is a bad use in light of the wealth of energy coming from the ground today.

Going down that road gets you to the place where you realize growing grain to feed cattle (swine, poultry) that are slaughtered for food is really inefficient. It takes about 4 lb of grain and 150 gallons of water for one pound of meat, why not just eat the grain? There's unused capacity in corn production so I don't see that as an issue.

The damage to small engines and older vehicles is inexcusable.

But, boil everything down to the quick, and as long as Iowa has the first primary, we will continue with this monster agricultural subsidy in the guise of the renewable fuel mandate.

If [that word does a lot of work here] E15 massively damages engines I agree. If it's a matter of BMW not wanting to do the compatibility testing that 's a different issue. I see plenty of older cars not designed for E10 (say, before 2000) that seem to be running OK. My state apparently says it's illegal to sell pure gas ("E0") as a motor fuel (pure-gas.org shows zero stations, not even a marina) and folks using a 20-year-old car as a daily driver aren't going to drive for hours just to get E0 gas.

You're right about the importance of keeping Iowa's corn farmers happy. But remember, a lot of those Real American Farmers are paid by Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill, and they're the real constituency for farm (and ethanol) policy.

 

As someone who grew up on a farm in Iowa I'm torn re the ethanol issue. I like it when farmers have more market for their product which equals more profit. That profit has personally positively effected my checking account. But as a hunter I hate it when more and more wildlife habitat is plowed up to grow more ethanol. That plus the alleged harm to vehicles means I'm against mandated 15% gas-ahol.

Here in MN all gas stations have mandated 10% ethanol. Some offer 15% ethanol at about a nickel a gallon discount which they encourage drivers to put in all gasoline engine fuel tanks. Some also offer 85% ethanol for flex fuel only. Some also have high octane, no ethanol gas for "off road vehicles, sports cars and motorcycles". The later is what I try to find for my K1600 but am not always able to. I made sure I found some before I put the bike up for the winter, plus gas stabilizer.

 

Used it once in my Lt. Five miles down the road, I thought my bike was going to blow up. I limped into another station which had no ethanol premium. Drained tank into bucket and gave it away. Filled up with the premium and all was good. Will not put ethanol in the K1600...PERIOD

 

15% ethanol

I was on a trip and needed some gas in my LT. (Western Minnesota) Put a couple of gallons of this stuff in tank. Bad idea. About 5 miles down the road I thought my baby was going to blow up. Limped into another station which had NO ethanol Premium. Drained the other stuff out , put premium in and all was well again after it burned the bad stuff out in the fuel bar. Never will put that junk in the K1600.....EVER!

 

that's what I use all the time..good stuff except for the price

 

In order to keep up with the mandated increases in use of ethanol we will see a 15% minimum content then a 20% content.

Ethanol, a product that can only be shipped in stainless steel tanks because it corrodes pipelines.

Ethanol: A Tragedy in 3 Acts

http://thoughtfulcambrians.org/docs/042706bwoped.pdf

 

A decade ago Congress created the current federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) to jump-start the alternative fuels marketplace. The goal was to spur the production of billions of gallons of cellulosic biofuels derived from perennial grasses, agricultural residues, and other non-food sources. The hope was that blending these biofuels with U.S. gasoline and diesel would significantly reduce harmful emissions and improve U.S. energy security. However, more than 10 years later, it is clear the RFS is hopelessly ineffective.

My organization, Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS), has opposed the Renewable Fuel Standard since the beginning. The RFS distorts markets by picking winners relying on a system of direct and indirect subsidies primarily to corn ethanol. For nearly four decades, corn ethanol has received billions of dollars in government subsidies.

Instead of creating an on-ramp for non-food-based biofuels, the RFS did little more than provide further support to already heavily subsidized corn ethanol and more recently, soy biodiesel. That’s right, the large majority of the RFS mandate has been filled with first-generation, food-based biofuels — the opposite of its purported goals.

These first-generation biofuels may actually increase instead of decrease greenhouse gas emissions. A recent, congressionally mandated report on the RFS concluded that the expansion of corn and soybeans onto grasslands and wetlands since 2007 has also harmed our wildlife, land, air, water and soil. These negative impacts increase costs for consumers, utilities, fishermen, the poor and taxpayers.

Without action to reform the RFS, the situation will continue to get worse. Next year’s cellulosic biofuel volume is expected to meet just 4 percent of the 8.5-billion-gallon 2019 cellulosic biofuel mandate, according to the newly released renewable volume obligations while corn ethanol volumes are maxed out at 15 billion gallons.

My organization has worked alongside a broad range of stakeholders, including consumer, environmental, agricultural, food and commodities, motorcycle, fishing and boating interests to highlight the negative consequences and costs of corn ethanol subsidies since their inception four decades ago. The detrimental impacts of skyrocketing corn ethanol production since 2007 include higher food and feed costs as it is diverted to fuel, damage to small engines from higher ethanol use, and higher fuel costs.

On top of the dire impacts from corn ethanol, using palm oil instead of soybean oil for food to make up for the losses created by diverting soybean oil to biofuels could “in turn increase the lifecycle GHG emissions associated with these incremental volumes,” according to the Environmental Protection Agency. EPA elaborates: “There would also likely be market disruptions and increased burden associated with shifting feedstocks among the wide range of companies that are relying on them today…”

For these and many other reasons, TCS has joined a growing chorus of diverse interests calling on Congress to address the broken RFS mandate and stop picking winners and losers. While the corn ethanol industry promised that decades of subsidies (tax credits, farm bill bioenergy subsidies, ethanol blender pump subsidies, etc.) would lead to better biofuels, corn ethanol has instead proven to be an expensive bridge to nowhere. The sooner Congress realizes the RFS is a dead end, the better for all of us.

• Ryan Alexander is president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan budget watchdog that has served as an independent voice for the American taxpayer since 1995. Its mission is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly and that government operates within its means. Please follow @taxpayers.

 

15% and 20% is a reality. EPA has done their tests and concluded that 20% ethanol is fine for all older vehicles. (If you learned of how they tested, you would laugh.)

Do we blame manufacturers who say 10% maximum?

10% when it is plain as day that the higher blends are forthcoming?

Maybe we should just buy newer vehicles designed for the higher ethanol levels.

 

Not every state requires listing the ethanol content.

Not every distributor accurately mixes the stated ethanol content.

No additive will prevent the corrosion caused by ethanol.

There are additives that help with phase separation.

 

Ethanol

I'm probably missing something but if ethanol is added to gasoline to help with emissions but you actually burn more fuel to go said distance, how is this helping the environment. If one really thinks about it, any exhaust will hurt something all the time. My daughter just bought an electric car. Great but how is the electricity produced? Me thinks that it comes from coal fired electricity producer.

What if we keep the same good gas as we had and make the cars get better mileage as I know we can, won't that be better?

 

I'm probably missing something but if ethanol is added to gasoline to help with emissions but you actually burn more fuel to go said distance, how is this helping the environment. If one really thinks about it, any exhaust will hurt something all the time. My daughter just bought an electric car. Great but how is the electricity produced? Me thinks that it comes from coal fired electricity producer.

What if we keep the same good gas as we had and make the cars get better mileage as I know we can, won't that be better?

Simple answer....$$$$$$$$$$ for Big Ag, Big Oil, and all the associated infrastructure, support, finance, lobbyists, etc., that have developed over the last 120 years of ICE power of "auto"motive devices. As always, it's ALWAYS about the money.


RL, thank you and the TCS group to which you belong. I was unaware of it, but will check it out and join if they promote common sense, market based solutions that benefit not just BIG money.

 

Sadly, everything takes on a political spin these years. Ethanol is no different as both parties try to be the biggest proponent of the Renewable Fuel Standard when securing votes in Iowa.

BMW Motorrad could make simple changes to their fuel system to allow for high ethanol content. Yet, like every other motorcycle manufacturer, they remain stubbornly reactive. Look how long it took manufacturers to react to the 10% blend.

Very upsetting to me as I expect manufacturers to build products for foreseeable future requirements. Gasoline pumps will only offer 20%, or more, ethanol blends in the foreseeable future.

For manufacturers to void warranties for the use of common gasoline is reprehensible.

 

What would it take to allow even 85% ethanol to be used as fuel?

50 cents in different materials?
Or,
$5.00 in different materials?

Easy software changes, which is so very common now.

Truly ridiculous for any motor manufacturer to have issues with ethanol. A component of gasoline that isn't going away anytime soon. Buck-up and deal with it BMW.

Some notes on the E85, or Flex Fuel, vehicles:

E85 and Flex-Fuel Vehicles
To understand the technology in a Flex-Fuel Vehicle (FFV), we must first consider a few facts about ethanol. Ethanol is corrosive. It also has lower heat value (about 28 per cent lower), which means more ethanol must be used to produce the same amount of energy produced by pure gasoline. Compared to gasoline, ethanol also has a higher octane rating.

For satisfactory operation using E85, a vehicle must have a fuel system that is E85-compatible to counter the corrosive nature of ethanol. This includes the fuel pump, fuel line and injectors. The engine must also be hardened, while components requiring attention include the pistons, piston rings, valves and valve seals. Since more ethanol needs to be used to produce comparable levels of energy got from gasoline, the fuel pump, fuel line and injectors must also have higher flow rates.

Because ethanol has a higher octane rating, the ignition timing can be advanced, and this is done by the ECU (Electronic Control Unit), which will advance or retard the ignition timing based on the amount of ethanol in the fuel. Advancing ignition timing improves engine performance, but in an E85 engine, this performance increase makes up for the lower energy produced by ethanol. It does not result in an overall increase in engine output, contrary to popular misconception. The ECU of an FFV adjusts the real-time fuel-flow rate and ignition timing. The flexible nature of the whole application enables the vehicle to run on anything from E0 to E85, hence the term ‘flex-fuel vehicle’ or FFV.

A common misconception about ethanol is that its use will increase engine performance due to its high-octane nature. Higher octane fuel does allow for advanced ignition timing but performance from this parameter alone is marginal. To achieve overall performance and engine output gains, other parameters need to be considered, including compression ratio (which is factory preset and cannot be changed without extensive modifications), air/fuel mixture, volume and flow rates, state of tune of the engine and ECU calibration.

 

I suspect that ethanol may have contributed to the failure of the fuel pump on my 2016 K16 at only 7000 miles. It had not been ridden in about two months and immediately upon starting, it ran rough and died. Had to towed to the dealer.

In FL, we have a ready supply of ethanol free 89 Octane gasoline at WAWA. Since the failure I only use ethanol free gas in it. I wish it was at least 90 octane, but I haven’t noticed any degradation in performance.

Ethanol has cost me a small fortune in repairs since its mandate. Are we the only country dumb enough to burn our food? Corn should be mixed with butter, not gasoline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

I only use non-ethanol gas in my '13 GTL, unless it's not available. Every third tank I add fuel additives. The octane is only 89, but I get better mileage and power than with 10% ethanol 93 octane. And the dealer approved of the no-ethanol.


I get it at WaWa stores.

 

There are various EPA mandates across the country. Not everyone is able to make ethanol-free gasoline purchases.

 

Minnesota is one of those states, but I can still purchase Ethanol-free gasoline for my motorcycle at least.
Since it's considered a recreational vehicle it's waived from the requirement of using E10.

As much as possible, I fill my BMW with Ethanol-free gasoline.......there is a Quick Trip just a mile from my house so I fill there often since they have 10 pumps available with Ethanol-free gas.

 

Ethanol lets me know how intelligent our ‘leaders’ are.

Thank goodness I know every ethanol free station within 3 hours of my house, any direction.

I imagine the lines will be even longer, and the prices for the fuel I use, to be even higher.

If this thing continues, I might have to move out of the city limits, so I can have my own fuel station, like we have on the ranch in MT.

 

Let Ethanol sit in your tank for a very short while and here is what you get:

Read through the posts, #26 has a pic of a tank that sat for a year with Ethanol in it.

https://www.st-owners.com/forums/threads/it-just-keeps-getting-better.123140/

 

Let Ethanol sit in your tank for a very short while and here is what you get:

Read through the posts, #26 has a pic of a tank that sat for a year with Ethanol in it.

Exactly why I'm so upset with manufacturers.

If your motorcycle was manufactured after 2005, there is no excuse for damage that like shown in the link.

Everyone who owns a vehicle older than 2005 is screwed.

 

Which car maker was the 1st to design their fuel system for ethanol? Even home-distilled ethanol.

 

I think of ethanol as being similar to the ‘fillers’ that are in many of our foods. It burns (or can be somewhat digested in the case of food fillers) but is not nearly as efficient as gasoline. And you pay to have it in your fuel.
Fortunately, here in the Texas Panhandle, ethanol free gas is becoming more and more prevalent. Most of the local farmers co-ops are carrying it and many of the mainstream stations have pumps for 86 and 90 octane (we are at 3500+ feet elevation, so octane numbers are a bit lower).

 

Makes me want to move back home, Canyon.