Mazda 6 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,477 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Well I read this article today. Seems like many states are doing this. Although DEM says it will most likley have no affect on performance of most engines, this picky bastard engine will probably notice it. Any thoughts?



More ethanol added to gas

The DEM says most motorists won't notice a difference when they start using the fuel in their vehicles.

01:00 AM EDT on Friday, April 21, 2006

BY G. WAYNE MILLER
Journal Staff Writer

PROVIDENCE -- Motorists may have noticed a change recently when stopping to fill up their tanks -- and it's not just the steadily rising price of fuel. It's a notice that gasoline sold in Rhode Island now includes up to 10 percent ethanol, a domestic renewable-energy source.

Motorists will be unlikely to experience a difference in engine performance or fuel economy, according to the state Department of Environmental Management, which issued an advisory yesterday.

"By and large, the general message is that consumers won't really notice any difference," said Stephen Majkut, chief of DEM's Office of Air Resources.

The addition of ethanol is in compliance with the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, which requires an increase in renewable fuel nationally. Gas sold in several other states, including New York and Connecticut, has included ethanol for more than a year.

Made from corn, among other renewable sources, ethanol is added to gas to make it burn more cleanly. It can be used instead of methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, an additive that is difficult to clean up when it is spilled or reaches drinking-water sources, as happened in Pascoag five years ago. A Rhode Island law passed in the wake of the Pascoag pollution prohibits the sale of gas with MTBE after June 1 of next year.

Although most engines will not be affected by the addition of ethanol, some older models could experience trouble. Rubber seals and hoses in engines built before 1980 could wear out more quickly, according to the DEM. The agency also said that fiberglass gas tanks used in boats built more than about 20 years ago could also be at risk. The agency advised owners to contact the manufacturer.

The DEM said that adding ethanol could contribute to a slight, short-term increase in the price of gas.

"They had looked at the issue of price several months ago," DEM spokeswoman Stephanie Powell said yesterday of DEM officials. "And at that time, they though it could impact the price by 2 or 3 cents a gallon."

Powell said such a bump is a result of distribution facilities having to upgrade their systems to accommodate ethanol.

Ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol, is chemically identical to the substance in alcoholic beverages. "Obviously something you put in gasoline is not drinking-grade alcohol," Majkut said.

Some see ethanol as a long-term solution to dependence on imported oil, which analysts expect will cost more and more, given world uncertainties and the emergence of China and India as major consumers of petroleum.

A small number of automobiles sold in the United States can run on 85-percent ethanol fuel, but the fuel now is sold at only a few service stations. President Bush is among those who have called for greater use of American-made ethanol.

For more information on the addition of ethanol to gasoline, visit the DEM Web site, www.dem.ri.gov. Click on "Programs," then "Air Resources," and finally, in the right-hand column, "RI Converts to Ethanol Gasoline -- FAQs."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
I'm in CT and have been puting gas with 10% ethenol in since January. Gulf stations and Cumberland Farms use the 10% (and I believe are the same gas if I'm not mistaken). I've also used Sunoco and Mobil and at the one's Ive gone to I've noticed no difference between them and the Ethenol gas.

The one place I did notice was a Shell station (this particular shell was know for being a crap station which I was unaware) and that made my car run differently than the other stations.

So as for the Ethanol I'd say dont worry too much as long as you stick to the 93 and if you do notice any difference let the rest of us know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
979 Posts
I have also been using a gas station here that has been using Ethanol since January, and they are incedently the cheapest around... I have noticed no difference in any of the cars I put it in..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,477 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
That reminds me, and not to start a new thread, but does Sunoco still sell Ultra 94? I went to a local Sunoco yesterday and they call it "Ultra 93" now.

I have been using Shell V-Power from a local station that has been good before, but the car seemed sluggish. So yesterday I put Mobil 93 octane in and the car seems to be performing better. I wanted to try the Ultra 94.... but couldn't find it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
59 Posts
What you might notice is that your fuel economy goes down a little. Ethanol's energy content is ~50% of gasoline. So you will get less miles out of one tank of gas from the new blend. That and the gas price will go up while the market deals with the transition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
823 Posts
They've had ethanol blend here in the midwest for quite a while. It's the 89 grade fuel, and generally about 10 cents cheaper than the 87.

For the longest time, when I briefly lived in a smaller town, the 87 and 89 were priced the same. So I would swap between the two every other fill up. Seemed like the fill ups with the 89 were always shorter, but I didn't keep track of anything. Also ran into a little vapor lock (found out later after talking to my mechanic) in my grand am one summer, and the mechanic recommended to stop using the 89.

Ah, well, long story short, I've never used the 89 in my grand am, because I don't want to put corn in my gas tank. Maybe narrow minded, but I read somewhere (was on the internet, so if someone else knows, please back me up or put me down) that the amount of ethanol in the fuel was a bit more than 10%, and if your engine was designed to handle it, it shouldn't have that much blend in it. Again, not knowing anything about fuel combustion or engine design, I welcome anyone (crossbow?) to give a more knowledgable opinion.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,540 Posts
I noticed in NJ, the gas station I go to has 10% Ethanol for a while now. I get lousy gas milage (17~18 vs 18~19 before)in my Dakota. I haven't seen effect on my MS6. I have been getting about 25 MPG. I haven't really notice effect on performance because I have been putting that stuff in since I got my car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
I noticed in NJ, the gas station I go to has 10% Ethanol for a while now. I get lousy gas milage (17~18 vs 18~19 before)in my Dakota. I haven't seen effect on my MS6. I have been getting about 25 MPG. I haven't really notice effect on performance because I have been putting that stuff in since I got my car.
[/b]
Illinois has had up to 10% for a long time now, few years. Not a big deal
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
Adding Ethanol is waste of time. It's junk! You end up burning MORE gas to go the same distance.

We (California) just got rid of ethanol. I'm sad to see though it was pushed on you guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
676 Posts
Adding Ethanol is waste of time. It's junk! You end up burning MORE gas to go the same distance.

We (California) just got rid of ethanol. I'm sad to see though it was pushed on you guys.
[/b]
(SORRY FOR THE POLITICAL RANT)

The problem is that the law makers arent seeing the big picture. By switching to "American" made ethanol we are lead to believe that it will solve our energy problems and increase our country's security. While the security bit may be true (less dependence on the middle east and all that non-sense), using ethanol is not the answer to our looming energy crisis. In order to supply just american cars with enough ethanol we would need to make the entire midwest one giant corn field. And furthermore,using ethanol in cars still produces CO2. So what law makers should be doing is spending money on hydrogen and other non-polluting, renewable resources not freakin corn. Hell ExxonMobil should have given the CEO only a 50 or 100 million dollar retirement bonus and invested the rest in alt fuel technologies, instead of the 400 million he got (while we were stuck paying $3 at the pump) :swearin: :goon:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
i've been putting in 94 ethanol blended gasoline since i've bought the car. fuel consumption is indeed higher with this gas compared to non oxegenated premium gas(about 60 mi less)..... but i have no choice since the only 93 octane gas sold here is ethanol blended
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Adding Ethanol is waste of time. It's junk! You end up burning MORE gas to go the same distance.

We (California) just got rid of ethanol. I'm sad to see though it was pushed on you guys.
[/b]
That isn't all it does.... Ethanol will eat the cork seals, will harden the poly seals through the evaporation of the silical molecules ( or sumpin exotic like dat ;) )
And it will, if the mfg used less than optimal lines, cause the brokendown material to enter the fuel stream and possible colapse.
We have know this for years, that is why after Congressional and regional hearings, a STATEMENT on the pumps must be used and that HEALTH warnings must be posted in PLAIN VIEW for customers.
The ONLY stations, when I stopped working for the EPA as a contractor, Certifying operations for new and existing stations( or closing them down until corrections were made ), that pumped Ethenol were ARCO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
(SORRY FOR THE POLITICAL RANT)

The problem is that the law makers arent seeing the big picture. By switching to "American" made ethanol we are lead to believe that it will solve our energy problems and increase our country's security. While the security bit may be true (less dependence on the middle east and all that non-sense), using ethanol is not the answer to our looming energy crisis. In order to supply just american cars with enough ethanol we would need to make the entire midwest one giant corn field. And furthermore,using ethanol in cars still produces CO2. So what law makers should be doing is spending money on hydrogen and other non-polluting, renewable resources not freakin corn. Hell ExxonMobil should have given the CEO only a 50 or 100 million dollar retirement bonus and invested the rest in alt fuel technologies, instead of the 400 million he got (while we were stuck paying $3 at the pump) :swearin: :goon:
[/b]
Actually, ethanol comes out to be about neutral in terms of pollution because while it still produces CO2, that "one giant corn field" will produce oxygen while growing, so it balances out. They spent a lot of time on hydrogen (BMW had hydrogen powered cars running the autobahn about five or six years ago) but the technology just isn't here yet to make it a viable option, not the process of extracting fuel from hydrogen is hideously expensive when compared to ethanol. The other appeal of ethanol is while it burns faster and gives you lower gas mileage (but seriously, people bitch about how they need gas mileage then drive like idiots, slamming the gas when coming out of lights, so frankly, this criticism has little merit in my regard), it's higher octane. SAAB has been playing with ethanol a lot in the last few years, and the same engines when modified to run on ethanol have seen increases in peak power of about 20 percent. I don't know about you, but I'd love my engine to get a 30hp boost simply from switching fuels. Anyways, ethanol is more corrosive, so it will require some new filters and reinforced lining technologies, but jesus, that's a small price to pay for something that has the potential to be PRACTICAL within the next decade. It's not perfect and it will naturally take time to integrate (all systemic changes take time), but to writing it off as junk is both incorrect and inattentive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
I'd like to know where the compassion is for the poor starving folks that don't have food so that we can have 10% Ethanol added to our gas thirsty SUV's?

Oh BTW, Hydrogen is moving along faster than you think. Out here in California we have a huge contigency of manufactures testing their Hydrogen cars with the cooperation of some of the biggest oil companies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
I'd like to know where the compassion is for the poor starving folks that don't have food so that we can have 10% Ethanol added to our gas thirsty SUV's?

Oh BTW, Hydrogen is moving along faster than you think. Out here in California we have a huge contigency of manufactures testing their Hydrogen cars with the cooperation of some of the biggest oil companies.
[/b]
The fact that people are starving in the world has nothing to do with a lack of food, but more so for political and economic reasons. There is more than enough food to go around the world and back again. Take Somalia in the early 90s... The problem was not a lack of UN aid and food but the fact that local warlords with AK47s were raiding the food storage locations and conveys, stealing the food, then not allowing the public access to it, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths from starvation (which is, incidently, why we went in, as relatively well portrayed in Black Hawk Down). Here in the US, there are surpluses of fruits and vegetables that the the French will not eat nor allow the US to export in foreign aid simply because the fruits, though perfectly safe, have been altered through special growing/breeding practices thanks to science to be bigger and thus provide more per fruit (but apparently improving upon nature's design in okay if it's the flu shot, but wrong if applied to the fruits we eat), and thus "unnatural." In other words, we are sitting on a ton of food that is clogged up in a bureaucracy. Having cornfields for ethanol won't make a damn difference in that regard.

And again, I'm not contesting that hydrogen is making progress on all fronts. But simply not fast enough. Hydrogen fueling requires restructuring of distances of interstate rest stops and fuel depots, requires all car manufacturers to develop ENTIRELY NEW engines and fuel storage systems, whereas ethanol merely requires modification to current designs for its implementation. In 50 years, we may indeed be driving hydrogen powered automobiles. But it's not going to happen within the next 10, much less 3-5. Ethanol, on the other hand, has the potential to have a more immediate effect.

Seriously, I don't mean to sound condescending, but do your homework before you start making statements like the ones above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
Research what? Hydrogen is further along than you think, and the fact that oil companies are behind it should show you what cards they are playing.

If ethanol is so great, why did we (California) drop it off at the curb like yesterdays garbage?

It's funny you slam an alternate fuel source (hydrogen) for not being here today, yet ethanol is far from being fully implimented as the earth saving fuel that seem to think it is.

Well I'm off to Google 'condensending'. :nana:

BTW, ease up on the defensive posture, you're making yourself very transparent.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Research what? Hydrogen is further along than you think, and the fact that oil companies are behind it should show you what cards they are playing.

If ethanol is so great, why did we (California) drop it off at the curb like yesterdays garbage?

It's funny you slam an alternate fuel source (hydrogen) for not being here today, yet ethanol is far from being fully implimented as the earth saving fuel that seem to think it is.

Well I'm off to Google 'condensending'. :nana:

BTW, ease up on the defensive posture, you're making yourself very transparent.
[/b]
You're misunderstanding my points. I am not disregarding hydrogen, nor contesting its potential, nor am I saying ethanol is the be all and end all of automotive fuels. I am not saying it is ready to become America's fuel tomorrow, even even in a year. The fact that oil companies are behind hydrogen is great, but seriously means nothing in reality. Does that mean the automotive has the finances, means, and ability to implement it anytime soon? No. And if you take a look at the automotive industry, you will see that yes, they wish to see practical hydrogen power in the future. But the American consumer is not going to wait a decade for them to work all the kinks out of the technology. Consumers are impatient, and the intermediary solution between petrol and hydrogen is ethanol. I never "slammed" hydrogen but merely stated that jumping to conclusions and calling ethanol junk is brash and illogical.

As for defensive posturing, if backing my arguments up with valid facts and examples as opposed to simply repeating "hydrogen is further along than you think" is defensive, then I'll stay that way, thanks.

And I wasn't aware I was supposed to be opaque.

And clearly if California doesn't do something, no one should.

Anyways, we're arguing over something that's really not going to change either way, so I'm finished.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Research what? Hydrogen is further along than you think, and the fact that oil companies are behind it should show you what cards they are playing.

If ethanol is so great, why did we (California) drop it off at the curb like yesterdays garbage?

It's funny you slam an alternate fuel source (hydrogen) for not being here today, yet ethanol is far from being fully implimented as the earth saving fuel that seem to think it is.

Well I'm off to Google 'condensending'. :nana:

BTW, ease up on the defensive posture, you're making yourself very transparent.
[/b]
i'm a little confused. i thought it was MTBE that California (and many other states) dropped or are dropping as a fuel oxygenate, not ethanol. In fact, I'm pretty sure Cali is the #1 consumer of ethanol oxygenated fuels in the country.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/ethanol/index.html - specifically states that MTBE was dropped in favor of ethanol.
http://www.ethanol.org/documents/EthanolHandbook2006_000.pdf - (warning, large PDF) is the Ethanol handbook that shows a state-by-state breakdown of ethanol and ethanol blended fuel usage.

and if you're wondering if ethanol has an effect on fuel prices? http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzeth18...-business-print

-s
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,022 Posts
No- I'm talking out of my ass.

I wanted to see how far Mr. koocct562 would go.

My first comment about compassion for the hungry was tongue in cheek. Sarcasm anyone?

I then read big old presentation all about how the UN and other dignitaries are to blame for the world hunger, I though I'd scratch an itch.

Sorry for the diversion.


BTW, the minimum amount of ethanol in California by volume is 5.7%.

Do you see many FFV (E85) vehicles? They are working on pushing that here. If I remember correctly Cali is going to be using the ethanol blend year round now, it used to be only used during the winter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,652 Posts
i'm a little confused. i thought it was MTBE that California (and many other states) dropped or are dropping as a fuel oxygenate, not ethanol. In fact, I'm pretty sure Cali is the #1 consumer of ethanol oxygenated fuels in the country.

http://www.energy.ca.gov/ethanol/index.html - specifically states that MTBE was dropped in favor of ethanol.
http://www.ethanol.org/documents/EthanolHandbook2006_000.pdf - (warning, large PDF) is the Ethanol handbook that shows a state-by-state breakdown of ethanol and ethanol blended fuel usage.

and if you're wondering if ethanol has an effect on fuel prices? http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzeth18...-business-print

-s
[/b]
yes, we have ethynol here in cali. i just went to shell today and it said 10% ethynol on the pump. argh. :irate:
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
About this Discussion
20 Replies
15 Participants
SVOGT
Mazda 6 Forums
Mazda6club.com is a forum dedicated to the Mazda6 / Atenza. Come and discuss reliability, performance, modifications, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top