Quote:
Originally Posted by logansowner
2% sounds reasonable, 10% is ridiculous. If 10% ethanol resulted in a 10% drop in economy it would mean that ethanol had an energy content of 0.
My understanding is that 100% ethanol would result in about a 25-30% loss. So logically at 10% a 2-3% loss should be expected. In this case, 7 cents in savings over say $4.00 gas is only about 1.5%, and if you lose 2-3% economy, you are still paying more.
The days of cheap fuel are over, any alternatives are going to be inflated to at least match the cost of gas...nobody is going to sell for less than the maximum they can get. Until some person decides to be a martyr for the good of the nation and take less profit on their alternative fuels, we are screwed. And these people are very, very rare. Only one I can think of is the guy who founded Virgin, he seems to be willing to pay more for the good of society.
Also, I think we need 3 choices. We already have 3 pumps. Any car can run 20% ethanol. All E10 gas should become 20%. Not a money thing.... a moving the money to American and not Arabia thing. Then have 100% gas for the people whos cars may not like alcohol. Then I think E85 needs to go to maybe 75%, at least in the winter, if anyone has ever tried to start an engine in real cold weather on alcohol...it can be a fun experience.
|
WRONG. 
A lot of cars can not or should not run any more than E10 at the very most. My owner's manual says E10 is the most E I can run, any more and the warranty may not be honored. Fine fix I'd be in if all I could get is E20 which would cut my MPG and kill my warranty.
The jury is not in on E10, mandating it is just one more stupid, shoot-in-the-foot action that PC-panicked legislatures are taking without sufficient information. Not that that ever stopped them before.