E10 → E15? Not so good?

[Pskhaat]

Another not-so-interesting article concerning the move E15 fuel in many places in the US:

http://www.businessweek.com/print/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm

Empirically when I run my Cruisers on E0 (good ol' gasoline thank you) I see wonderful mileage results (like 130%) and I've always suspected E10 (and I'm sure higher blends by some distributors) as the culprit for a fuel rail failure in an FJ80 I know as well as serious timing retardation in my commuter vehicle.

I fear for not the plastic things on my vehicles but rather the condition of the combustion chamber. On E15 shall we expect a reduced time-to-rebuild henceforth?

 

[ox4mag]

Another not-so-interesting article concerning the move E15 fuel in many places in the US:

http://www.businessweek.com/print/lifestyle/content/may2009/bw20090514_058678.htm

Empirically when I run my Cruisers on E0 (good ol' gasoline thank you) I see wonderful mileage results (like 130%) and I've always suspected E10 (and I'm sure higher blends by some distributors) as the culprit for a fuel rail failure in an FJ80 I know as well as serious timing retardation in my commuter vehicle.

I fear for not the plastic things on my vehicles but rather the condition of the combustion chamber. On E15 shall we expect a reduced time-to-rebuild henceforth?

Well, the cost benefit of E85 vs. regular fuel is an interesting one to analyze because while there may be reduced CO2 emissions and E85 is generally 85% of the cost of regular fuel, mileage is significantly hampered causing the need to use more E85 to get to the same place you'd go to with regular fuel. I installed an E85 conversion kit into my Jeep TJ last May, right before a 1400 mile roundtrip journey to a Jeep Jamboree (when gas prices were skyrocketing) and my gas mileage dropped nearly 20% and the trip cost me an arm & a leg. So monetary costs play a roll, and we're not even talking about the morality issue that comes into play when talking about the use of food-based fuels to power our vehicles instead of feed the hungry.

 

[bigreen505]

E10 conservatively costs me 2-3 mpg on the Trooper. Not sure I want to see what E15 does. E85 was a great (ok, half-baked) idea on paper, but it is a false economy all the way around and IMO is nothing more than attempt by oil companies to keep diesel engines out by convincing people they can get all the green/sourced at home/etc. advantages from their F150.

 

[slooowr6]

I never bought in the ethanol idea. It reduce mpg so much I just don't see the point. Is there anywhere in Ca. we can still get 100% gas??? :ylsmoke:

 

[ShortBusGeek]

First, I'd back ethanol if they weren't trying so dang hard to get it from corn. There are plenty of other ways to manufacture it that don't require so many input resources.

Secondly, auto manufacturers know that many gas stations in the US sell an E10 blended fuel. Now, wouldn't it be smart of the auto companies to start producing vehicles that ran on the stuff? It doesn't take a genius to figure out how to make a vehicle E100 proof, does it? (I say E100 because we all know that from time to time people goof up, and someone's bound to forget to blend it at all, or mixes it wrong or whatever...)

Personally, I don't worry how much ethanol is in any of the gas other than the political issues... my diesels run B100 biodiesel without so much as a hiccup. Sure, it costs more, but I figure the money's better spent on a small local company that's putting more money into alternative fuel research than on Exxon, from which an executive VP a couple years ago or so was quoted as something along the lines of "we don't spend money on alternative fuels research because it's not profitable".