Defeating 15 % ethanol

[Ron Hill]

First of all, making ethanol from corn takes more natural gas than anyone talks about. Natural gas heats the corn causing it to "FERMENT" and make ethanol. So, this BS about corn as a renewable fuel is a JOKE.

There was a study released by our government and funded by our government that said ethanol caused more pollution the petroleum fuel...Of course, the Owebama Regime says the study is flawed.

10% ethanol in gasoline dropped horse power by 22%.

Who is the largest farmer in America? Parker Daniel Middleton or some company with a name like that.

[champ20B]

..."I imagine a 2 liter of any kind would get good mileage. But...what about a dodge dart with a 170 slant six? I know that a 3.7 liter 225 slant six will get close with one of these cars cause I drove one before."

You'd be really lucky to break 25 mpg with one of those engines. Furthermore, my little Focus--it does zero to sixty in 6.3 seconds, per a car magazine--will probably out pull that old slant six. It makes 163 hp (with the new rating system) which is more than enough.

Jeff

PS: Let's get back to marine subjects, okay?

Everything from auto or marine, lawn ect is all in on the ethanol issue. I thought I was on a feasible track. I brought up observations, facts, and contradicting factors to question the legitimacy of bombarding America with ethanol to begin with.

And a slant six 225 was an excellent marine engine. It was a hulk, had amazing mileage, had a 4.2" piston stroke with a boat load of torque. Also, the drive trains behind these engines ranged from compact cars all the way to 2-ton haul trucks. It made 160 hp at only around 3800 rpm with a small 2BBl carb and had twice the low end torque of a engine of which you speak. That is right on the money for a inboard boat. Furthermore, I can do 18-20 mpg with good driving techniques and my truck runs clean. I don't need ethanol. My old merc mark-20 outboard likes it, but that noisy abomination of engineering would have been better as an alky racer than a fishing motor anyway. It always runs for me though. Anyway, Like the previous reply, leave the corn to the chickens.

MOONSHINE IS FOR DRINKIN.......NOT DRIVIN!!!!

[Master Oil Racing Team]

Think about unintended consequences. Just one very little fact that can add up to a big problem. Look at not the cost of corn being diverted to making ethanol, but at the price of masa. Masa is the basic compound of corn, water and a few ingredients that is used to form tortillas, tamales, and many Mexican dishes. Regardless of whether the Mexicans or others from Central America or South America can get across our borders for an easier life, the ethanol craze drives up prices for everyone that is just looking to put food on the table. We can pump it into our gas tanks and drive to a Taco Bell and pay more, but more and more of those who are starving drift to the north to be able to just get some food in their bellies. It's both political parties that take money to push the ethanol train. It's time to derail the "pushers.

[champ20B]

Everything from auto or marine, lawn ect is all in on the ethanol issue. I thought I was on a feasible track. I brought up observations, facts, and contradicting factors to question the legitimacy of bombarding America with ethanol to begin with.

And a slant six 225 was an excellent marine engine. It was a hulk, had amazing mileage, had a 4.2" piston stroke with a boat load of torque. Also, the drive trains behind these engines ranged from compact cars all the way to 2-ton haul trucks. It made 160 hp at only around 3800 rpm with a small 2BBl carb and had twice the low end torque of a engine of which you speak. That is right on the money for a inboard boat. Furthermore, I can do 18-20 mpg with good driving techniques and my truck runs clean. I don't need ethanol. My old merc mark-20 outboard likes it, but that noisy abomination of engineering would have been better as an alky racer than a fishing motor anyway. It always runs for me though. Anyway, Like the previous reply, leave the corn to the chickens.

MOONSHINE IS FOR DRINKIN.......NOT DRIVIN!!!!

Another thing I want to bring up is mileage. An experienced mechanic just told me that the old six bangers in the 1960s-80s (like the slant six dodge) would easily do 30-40mpg all day with good driving. Good driving means effort on the drivers part and not a computer injection/oxygen sensing system doing it. Fact is, despite government and organization claims, todays cars aren't saving gas compared to past designs that much at all. Jeff just clarified that with a souped up 4 cylinder that makes 6 cylinder power. Why? Why not make a 6 cyl with 163 hp and have better torque? Because it would last longer. That's why 6 CYLINDERS ARE MAKING 200-360HP NOW!!! Does that sound like an effort to save fuel? Not to me. Why can we get 400hp pickup trucks?! So they break quicker. Sell more cars and trucks!! keep the ethanol flowing!! Then there are those little badges that say FLEXFUEL...really? Clean fuel, green house gasses, and the better mileage and still have SUPER POWER...is all just hype to sell cars. The corn whiskey infused gas is to implore you to buy them sooner and make some big money for the car and corn industry to get square with Washington. Remember the bailouts for the car companies? Heck, the banks that were bailed out probably own much of the land the corn is grown on. Gotta make money fast somehow!!

There is no fuel crisis, because companies are making these high powered cars and trucks this way.

There is no pollution crisis because you can buy a diesel truck that smells like the start up of a BBQ contest hosted by KINGSFORD.

And the government does not always make any effort to cut back on HP or pure gasoline for their own equipment on all accounts.

We, as everyday citizens, are having ethanol that causes accelerated damage to cars dumped on us so the stock holders in the corn industry can make money and we run out and keep buying replacement cars more often. It is just another lobbyist ploy.

[zul8tr]

While getting rid of ethanol in our fuel and converting those lands back to more useful endeavors like food for humans would be great, but it looks like once the government gets involved it is hard to get them out of it even if the facts indicate they should. An example is the helium production that started back after the WWI era.

After WWI this was the logic - "In Europe, countries such as Germany were building sturdy, if slow, inflatable airships. The U.S. military was worried about a blimp gap. So Congress ordered a stockpile of helium to help American dirigibles catch up. It was assumed to be a temporary arrangement."

And today - "Only the federal government could survive selling said commodity under market value by subsidizing it with other people’s money and then scratch its head wondering why no one else had jumped into the game. “Why is no one playing this delightful game of Three Card Monty with us?” "

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/2...-not-a-parody/

So hold on to your wallets the government pick pocket is still here.

[7500Blizzard]

For you guys running older stuff or higher compression ratio motors if you live where it's available run E85 as it's about 105 octane. And yeah until the entire fuel system on these older cars is cleaned out from A to Z and the 35+ year old rubber is changed you'll have problems. And there's no way 10% causes a 22% horsepower loss.

[Ron Hill]

For you guys running older stuff or higher compression ratio motors if you live where it's available run E85 as it's about 105 octane. And yeah until the entire fuel system on these older cars is cleaned out from A to Z and the 35+ year old rubber is changed you'll have problems. And there's no way 10% causes a 22% horsepower loss.

I may have made the number up, but: My son-in-law manages or is the Finance Manager of Ford of Orange in Orange, California. ON a new F-150 it said, "25 miles per gallon with unleaded gasoline. 19 MPG with gasoline with ethanol."

I thought 25 minus 19 was 6 and 6 X 4....in my head was 22%. HOW MUCH POWER LOSS WITH ETHONOL ADDED TO GASOLINE?

[7500Blizzard]

Well at 22% it's like saying your 200 merc turned into a 150 because you put 10% e-gas in it. So does your 80+mph boat now run only 60-65mph because you changed gas? I think not.
And even those mileage numbers seem skewed somehow. We know pure ethanol is roughly 30% less efficient than pure gas. So in theory if you put10 gallons of e-gas in a tank it will it will have 9 gallons of gas and 1 gallon of ethanol. So basically you would have the equivalence of 9 2/3 gallons of gas. So at 25 mpg for pure gas your at 250 miles and at 9 2/3 your at about 241 miles so theoretically it should be less than 1 mpg difference.
Not saying your son-in-law is wrong but doesn't that computer compute per driving style.

[Powerabout]

I'd like to see 100% ethanol and huge comp engines to use it and see if that is more efficient

[7500Blizzard]

100% pure ethanol is less efficient BTU wise than gas. but at 113 octane lots of guys use as cheap race gas. But it can support more hp than gas everytime. If you were to actually build a motor for the specific fuel it would be interesting to see how efficient it really could be. Because even the flex/fuel cars don't account for it running E-85 in one is like running race gas in you regular everyday car. A waste!!!

And when all the numbers are crunched it actually takes about twice the energy to produce a gallon of gas versus ethanol and almost 10 times as much water.