E-15 Is Coming To a Station Near You.

[Pat]

USA reported today that E-15 is being implemented. How it will affect our Marauders is a question for each to answer. Can stock survive, mild tune, aggressive tune?

Gas economy will certainly suffer as it does under E-10.

[Vostok]

I just read up all the info on this and I don't like one word of it...

[FordNut]

What about small engines like lawn mowers, leaf blowers, weedeaters. They won't last a season. And it's not even economically viable without government subsidies or mandates which result in higher prices for consumers. Our government at work again.

[EMAS]

It is unlikely that E15 will be showing up at your local station anytime soon. The EPA has only approved it for use in 2007 and newer cars. To sell E15 the pump must be labeled "For use only in 07 up vehicles" So at this point it is unlikely that any station will be converting their mid grade tank to E15. You can be certain that no station is going to install another tank and the plumbing to be able to sell E15 with such a small percentage of vehicles that can "legally" use it. If they approve it for 01-06 models or in a few more years then yes it may be the only option.

Now if you live in one of the states/municipalities/areas that mandate E10 you may find your local gov't trying to up it to a E15 mandate. Particularly MN as they have threatened to mandate E20 in the very near future.

[WI Fordguy]

E15 has been used in Iowa for quite awhile. Never used it in the Marauder, but the Ford trucks didn't suffer any. Now 4 wheelers, mowers, etc.......? The 93 octane is unblended most of the time, is that going to change?

[EMAS]

E15 has been used in Iowa for quite awhile. Never used it in the Marauder, but the Ford trucks didn't suffer any. Now 4 wheelers, mowers, etc.......? The 93 octane is unblended most of the time, is that going to change?

Not "legally". E10 is the highest blend that has been approved for use in non-FFV vehicles, until just this week. You may find it at some blender pumps that dispense blends between E10 and E85 and the pumps must have labels next to the buttons for anything higher than E10 that states that it is only for use in FFVs.

[Vortex]

Now this is one "conspiracy" that Ive read about that I agree with. Ethanol is a gimme to the corngrowing states of the midwest and to companies like Archer Daniels Midland.

"If we look at the raw data, it becomes apparent that it takes 1 bushel of corn to make 2.5 gallons of ethanol. Now that doesn’t seem so bad, until you ask yourself, “How much water does it take to grow that bushel of corn?” Let’s look at some more raw data. Did you know that it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce that one bushel of corn? That’s a lot of water for 2 and half gallons of Ethanol. Let’s take this thinking a step further. If it takes 2,500 gallons of water to create 2.5 gallons of ethanol, then it takes 20,000 gallons of water, to make 20 gallons of Ethanol. Think of it like this, the average firetruck holds up to 1,000 gallons of water. Now imagine 20 firetrucks lined up side by side, that’s how much water it takes to make 20 gallons of Ethanol."

Add to that the fact that you cannot send ethanol down a pipeline, it has to be transported by truck or rail and you will start to get the picture. To me our fresh water resources are worth way more than the fuel made from ethanol. Ill agree with Sen. McCain on this one.

[a_d_a_m]

The EPA has only approved it for use in 2007 and newer cars. Good to know, if this is indeed true!

[mercman1951]

Sell now!!!!

[boatmangc]

What a sham, I don't even want to get started, what this crap has to offer that is environmentally sound evades me.
The amount of stuff I have added to the local landfills as a result of E10 in boats is sinful.
. I have replaced fuel tanks, fuel lines, engines, injectors, fuel pumps, all from perfectly sound boats that were damaged by this junk.
I guess fiberglass fuel tanks and rubber fuel line in the landfill has no environmental impact.
Any positives this stuff has in emissions are certainly swallowed up by the waste of resources it takes to produce it, the costs due to loss of fuel mileage and no savings at the pump
GRRRR! :mad2:

[Dragcity]

Add water for mashing in the fermentation process. Then add more water to chill the ethenol during evaporation/condensation during distilling.

Oh, don't forget to add all the fuel burned to heat the mash to 180 degrees for hours and hours while distilling.

Corn is for eating. At least feed it to the pigs. I like PORK.

[Jimimac43]

The "Green People" Don't care what it takes to produce or use this crap. The end result is, in their mind a plus. Waste water, fuel, disposal of by- product, damaged engines, lower fuel economy, ad-nauseum. The truth is all this eco friendly crap doesn't work.

[Rockettman]

The "Green People" Don't care what it takes to produce or use this crap. The end result is, in their mind a plus. Waste water, fuel, disposal of by- product, damaged engines, lower fuel economy, ad-nauseum. The truth is all this eco friendly crap doesn't work.

That's ok...as usual, this will all be figured out by the government and the E-co morons long after it's too late to go back.

This is new to anyone...I didn't think so!

[FordNut]

Remember when the government mandated MTBE be added to gasoline? After it contaminated numerous wells and aquifers they figured out maybe it wasn't a good idea to ruin the water supply in an attempt to clean the air. There are always unintended consequences and the government seldom has the foresight to consider them.

[secretservice]

I've yet to ever see the 10% gas go over 6.2% ethanol.. So I imagine when the 15% rolls out, it might finally actually hit 10%... Don't ask me how I know... I don't want to be banned for wanting less dependence on foreign oil for my country. :shake: Go ahead guys. Keep lining the Sheik's pockets.

[secretservice]

If anything, it's cheaper than leaded race gas. Just factor in your fuel delivery at 133% of what you do now. Plus no lead.

[Leadfoot281]

Now this is one "conspiracy" that Ive read about that I agree with. Ethanol is a gimme to the corngrowing states of the midwest and to companies like Archer Daniels Midland.

"If we look at the raw data, it becomes apparent that it takes 1 bushel of corn to make 2.5 gallons of ethanol. Now that doesn’t seem so bad, until you ask yourself, “How much water does it take to grow that bushel of corn?” Let’s look at some more raw data. Did you know that it takes 2,500 gallons of water to produce that one bushel of corn? That’s a lot of water for 2 and half gallons of Ethanol. Let’s take this thinking a step further. If it takes 2,500 gallons of water to create 2.5 gallons of ethanol, then it takes 20,000 gallons of water, to make 20 gallons of Ethanol. Think of it like this, the average firetruck holds up to 1,000 gallons of water. Now imagine 20 firetrucks lined up side by side, that’s how much water it takes to make 20 gallons of Ethanol."

Add to that the fact that you cannot send ethanol down a pipeline, it has to be transported by truck or rail and you will start to get the picture. To me our fresh water resources are worth way more than the fuel made from ethanol. Ill agree with Sen. McCain on this one.


A gallon of Ethanol must weight 80 tons if what you say is correct.

[CBT]

Now this is one "conspiracy" that Ive read about that I agree with. Ethanol is a gimme to the corngrowing states of the midwest and to companies like Archer Daniels Midland.

I've had this saved on my favorites tab for a long long time, never thought I'd get to share it!
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-241.html

[CBT]

A sample of the gigantic article I linked to:

Since 1978 far more evidence has accumulated showing ethanol's harm to the environment. As a 1986 USDA report noted, "Alcohol blends are significantly more volatile than alcohol-free gasolines. Evaporative emissions reported for ethanol blends are 5 percent to 220 percent above emissions for straight gasoline."(61) A May 1990 study by former California Air Resources Board chief Thomas C. Austin concluded that the standard gasohol mixture of 90 percent gasoline to 10 percent ethanol "could cut carbon-monoxide emissions by 25 percent but that hydrocarbons would rise by as much as 50 percent and nitrogen oxide by 15 percent. Moreover, because gasohol gets a 6 cents per gallon subsidy (or 60 cents per gallon for pure ethanol), ethanol-using motorists end up paying more for dirtier air."(62) The National Academy of Sciences likewise concluded that "using ethanol as a blending agent in gasoline . . . would not achieve significant air-quality benefits and, in fact, would likely be detrimental."(63)

[secretservice]

ADM officials stress ethanol's environmental benefits, but that is a very different tune than was sung in the 1970s. In fact, the environmental problems of ethanol have long been obvious. The Clean Air Act of 1977 actually banned products such as ethanol. President Carter's EPA announced in 1978 that "recent EPA and Department of Energy tests . . . show slight increases in nitrogen oxide emissions and substantial increases in evaporate hydrocarbon emissions" from cars using gasohol."(59) But because ethanol amounted to only about 0.005 percent of the nation's gasoline sales, EPA administrator Douglas Costle ruled that "there is no significant environmental risk associated with its continued use."(60)

Since 1978 far more evidence has accumulated showing ethanol's harm to the environment. As a 1986 USDA report noted, "Alcohol blends are significantly more volatile than alcohol-free gasolines. Evaporative emissions reported for ethanol blends are 5 percent to 220 percent above emissions for straight gasoline."(
So have we not learned anything new since 1977? The world used to be flat too. The Evaporative emissions "numbers" are irrelevant too, as evaporative emission controls are "slightly:rolleyes:" better than they were in the 70's. :shake:

[secretservice]

And yes, I read the whole goddam thing. :D

[secretservice]

Skim-read it... :rolleyes:

[MM2004]

And yes, I read the whole goddam thing. :D

Ummm...

Mike.

[secretservice]

Did I do something bad? :o

[james79stang]

we have already had the posted up to 10% violated here. a few have had to go to the shop and have the fuel drained and systems flushed just so they could start again. we are having alot of hard starting issues and check engine lights that have said "low catalist effencency". a bottle of seafoam and a fillup of un 10% and a distance run seams to help the issue.