No more BP's is North Dakota
-
All the premium gas i've seen that has ethanol in it is at least like 93 octane.
-
if the BPs are leaving. Brady's or what ever it is now, is the only station I know of that sells anything above 91 in town(besides race gas and E85). Unless you go to the Shell in Hawley.
E10 gas is not going to eat the rubber in your fuel lines...... I know a couple people that are running E85 in there S13s with stock fuel lines and all that and have no issues.
Also, one of many links i found that state ALL gasoline sold in MN has 10% ethonal.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2007/11/15/ethanolpolicy/
-
I'm fairly sure that the premium gas contains no ethanol...
they have signs and shit that say to use it in lawn mowers and stuff instead of the other grades of gas....
and in nearly all the pumps, they have "contains ethanol" on the lower two grades, and no sticker on the premium fuel.
-
I have run E85 in my non-E85 ready car (I did tune for it though) for a couple of years now (since 2005 I think) with no ill results.
SmitEvo;199722 wrote:
It eats away at rubber hosesNot true anymore...hasn't been true since the 80's really
...it costs more to produce than normal gasoline without subsidies
North Dakota doesn't subsidize Ethanol anymore, and its still ~$.40/gallon cheaper than petro
it burns faster than regular fuel which means you have to use more.
Burns, if anything, slower (Higher Octane), you just need more ethanol to get the same amount of miles as gasoline (lower BTU's....for example, you need ~30% more E85 to travel the same distance as you would with regular gasoline). However, since it is a higher octane, you can run a bit leaner than normal and still avoid knock. I'm sure Bill or Andy can chime in a bit more on this subject.
Also, with Ethanol, there is no need for gas-line antifreeze (Heat) to keep the lines from freezing.
-
gas station on 25th st. right off intestate has 92....alont with the station in moorhead that has the race gas.
most bp's are changing to holiday stations.
-
tjamz;199810 wrote:
I have run E85 in my non-E85 ready car (I did tune for it though) for a couple of years now (since 2005 I think) with no ill results.Not true anymore...hasn't been true since the 80's really
Prove it...give me evidence not some statement.North Dakota doesn't subsidize Ethanol anymore, and its still ~$.40/gallon cheaper than petro
Bullshit...the FEDERAL government subsidizes it still and the farmers are first in line to receive aid. It costs more money to produce ethanol than regular gasoline. More transportation and refining costsBurns, if anything, slower (Higher Octane), you just need more ethanol to get the same amount of miles as gasoline (lower BTU's....for example, you need ~30% more E85 to travel the same distance as you would with regular gasoline). However, since it is a higher octane, you can run a bit leaner than normal and still avoid knock. I'm sure Bill or Andy can chime in a bit more on this subject. Bottom line it takes more than regular gasoline which offsets the cost savings.
Also, with Ethanol, there is no need for gas-line antifreeze (Heat) to keep the lines from freezing.
I dont agree...but the one positive is it is a cleaner fuel that does not pollute as much. I may be wrong, but am guessing that Andy and Bill would rather use regular race fuel if it was as cheap as normal pump gas.
-
I agree with brian ethenol costs a shitload to produce
-
SmitEvo;199829 wrote:
I dont agree...but the one positive is it is a cleaner fuel that does not pollute as much. I may be wrong, but am guessing that Andy and Bill would rather use regular race fuel if it was as cheap as normal pump gas.i would guess that they would still use it seeing as its 105 octane pump gas. its cheaper than normal gas becuase of the subsidies right now but when its over and theres more places producing it it will be the same price as normal fossil fuels. the only reason most cars get worse gas mileage off of ethanol is that its got 67% the potential energy and the engines that are runngin them are also setup to run gasoline. jack up the compression and add some timing to that same motor( higher octane) and youll get much more power and mileage out of it.
ethanol is also close to a ZERO emissions fuel becuase the plants that are used to make it use up CO2 to grow , and then gives it off when burned. it also lowers our dependacy on foreign fuels. by lowering our use of fossil fuels and using ethanol were also decreasing its demand which can slowy lower the price. not only does it help OUR economy around here, not to mention the fact that the main point of using it is that its RENEWABLE.its not going to do shit to your lines except clean them (research), theres no reason to hate on ethanol
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
SPANISH-RICE;199855 wrote:
i would guess that they would still use it seeing as its 105 octane pump gas. its cheaper than normal gas becuase of the subsidies right now but when its over and theres more places producing it it will be the same price as normal fossil fuels. the only reason most cars get worse gas mileage off of ethanol is that its got 67% the potential energy and the engines that are runngin them are also setup to run gasoline. jack up the compression and add some timing to that same motor( higher octane) and youll get much more power and mileage out of it.
ethanol is also close to a ZERO emissions fuel becuase the plants that are used to make it use up CO2 to grow , and then gives it off when burned. it also lowers our dependacy on foreign fuels. by lowering our use of fossil fuels and using ethanol were also decreasing its demand which can slowy lower the price. not only does it help OUR economy around here, not to mention the fact that the main point of using it is that its RENEWABLE.its not going to do shit to your lines except clean them (research), theres no reason to hate on ethanol
yes it takes DECADES to ruin rubber lines, I stand corrected. Sorry Tjamz. I agree that it is supposed cleaner and it will lower our demand from other countries for oil by 10%, but it is not worth the cost to produce. Read this article...
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm
-
SmitEvo;199859 wrote:
yes it takes DECADES to ruin rubber lines, I stand corrected. Sorry Tjamz. I agree that it is supposed cleaner and it will lower our demand from other countries for oil by 10%, but it is not worth the cost to produce. Read this article...http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/apr2006/bw20060427_493909.htm
not worth the cost to produce? it practically makes it self, the biomass left over after creating ethanol can be burned and used to power the plants that make it, brazil's done it with sugar cane for years. brazil is one of the only countries that is completly fuel independent with its own ethanol production and fossil fuel mining. and in brazil its cheaper to produce sugar cane ethanol and its still very competive in price there, because they care enough about it to actually put some R&D behind it. there just arent enough places making it yet. youll be signing a different tune in 50 years when were practically running out of fossil fuels and you have to pay out the ass for a gallon of fossil fuel. the fact that its more expensive to make NOW should hardly out way the benefits of using a clean burning and RENEWABLE "race" fuel.
here a psht, there psht, everywhere a psht psht
PVC SQUAD MEMBER #2- 95 CIVIC EX- DD 320whp on a mustang dyno
-
dind ding ding!!!! we have a winner!!!
and for those who add the cost of producing corn into the equation of making ethanol.... guess what.... we as farmers are going to produce it and sell it.... no matter who it goes to....
ethanol is the future.... just get used to it
-
Corn based ethanol is nowhere near as efficient as switchgrass/cane based. I can agree there. Do you honestly think that crude oil isn't subsidized substantially? How about the multi-billion dollar battleships that escort tankers in and out of the Persian Gulf? Protection is a subsidy, even if it is indirect. Add to that the numerous gov't contracts that go to oil companies? For those that say the American farmer should not be subsidized, I think you are crazy! First of all, having a food source grown here is better than being at the will of another country to export it to us....we've already seen what happens when we rely on foreign sources for energy, lets not make that same mistake with food/renewable energy.
-
I personally think burning food as fuel for our cars is the wrong direction to take. I'm all for Hydrogen fuel cell technology though. I think that is the answer to our problems. Still will need to make it affordable though. I guess once they figure it out, then a gallon of water will cost $4.00.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login