Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iOGdndid26uCZRDbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
>>
>> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>>
>>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
>>>> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
>>>> thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>>
>>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
>>>> amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the
>>>> fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems
>>>> to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global
>>>> warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2
>>>> emissions.
>>>>
>>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on
>>>> to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food
>>>> supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Jeff,
>>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about
>>> one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of
>>> ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>>> Pete
>>>
>>
>>
>> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of corn
>> from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
>
> Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process get
> a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef, drink milk,
> eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want diesel fuel?


Wait a damn minute!

I can pay another dime or two per pound for my steaks, spend a bit more for
milk for my children, cough up more cash for my corn flakes, but start
messing with my beer and I have to draw a line in the sand.

Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen
> to all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes
> mandated?

It's unlikely that it will become mandated and you CAN put E85 in your
car. It won't run as well*, mileage may suffer along with performance
but it will run. There are some VERY old cars that could have problems
with gaskets in the fuel system due to the alcohol but that's very
unlikely, we've been running "oxygenated" fuels for years now and any
gasket bothered by alcohol has long ago been replaced.

> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded
> gasoline to meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the
> road, but eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded
> fuels, and the legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I
> suppose those drivers have to buy leaded additives to use in their
> cars

It was found out that older engines had no problems with unleaded fuel
other than accelerated wear on valves and valve seats. After testing,
Harley-Davidson issued a statement that any motorcycle built after 1925
would run on unleaded fuel, other car and motorcycle manufacturers also
found no problems other than the need for more frequent checking of
valve clearances.



*"Won't run as well" = PC for "It'll probably run like CRAP!"

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen
> to all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes
> mandated?

It's unlikely that it will become mandated and you CAN put E85 in your
car. It won't run as well*, mileage may suffer along with performance
but it will run. There are some VERY old cars that could have problems
with gaskets in the fuel system due to the alcohol but that's very
unlikely, we've been running "oxygenated" fuels for years now and any
gasket bothered by alcohol has long ago been replaced.

> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded
> gasoline to meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the
> road, but eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded
> fuels, and the legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I
> suppose those drivers have to buy leaded additives to use in their
> cars

It was found out that older engines had no problems with unleaded fuel
other than accelerated wear on valves and valve seats. After testing,
Harley-Davidson issued a statement that any motorcycle built after 1925
would run on unleaded fuel, other car and motorcycle manufacturers also
found no problems other than the need for more frequent checking of
valve clearances.



*"Won't run as well" = PC for "It'll probably run like CRAP!"

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen
> to all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes
> mandated?

It's unlikely that it will become mandated and you CAN put E85 in your
car. It won't run as well*, mileage may suffer along with performance
but it will run. There are some VERY old cars that could have problems
with gaskets in the fuel system due to the alcohol but that's very
unlikely, we've been running "oxygenated" fuels for years now and any
gasket bothered by alcohol has long ago been replaced.

> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded
> gasoline to meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the
> road, but eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded
> fuels, and the legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I
> suppose those drivers have to buy leaded additives to use in their
> cars

It was found out that older engines had no problems with unleaded fuel
other than accelerated wear on valves and valve seats. After testing,
Harley-Davidson issued a statement that any motorcycle built after 1925
would run on unleaded fuel, other car and motorcycle manufacturers also
found no problems other than the need for more frequent checking of
valve clearances.



*"Won't run as well" = PC for "It'll probably run like CRAP!"

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Related Question, but different
 

"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:

> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen
> to all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes
> mandated?

It's unlikely that it will become mandated and you CAN put E85 in your
car. It won't run as well*, mileage may suffer along with performance
but it will run. There are some VERY old cars that could have problems
with gaskets in the fuel system due to the alcohol but that's very
unlikely, we've been running "oxygenated" fuels for years now and any
gasket bothered by alcohol has long ago been replaced.

> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded
> gasoline to meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the
> road, but eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded
> fuels, and the legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I
> suppose those drivers have to buy leaded additives to use in their
> cars

It was found out that older engines had no problems with unleaded fuel
other than accelerated wear on valves and valve seats. After testing,
Harley-Davidson issued a statement that any motorcycle built after 1925
would run on unleaded fuel, other car and motorcycle manufacturers also
found no problems other than the need for more frequent checking of
valve clearances.



*"Won't run as well" = PC for "It'll probably run like CRAP!"

--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

Re: Related Question, but different
 

Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iOGdndid26uCZRDbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>
>>>
>>> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>
>>>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm
>>>>> not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't
>>>>> that a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the
>>>>> same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now
>>>>> add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself,
>>>>> and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train
>>>>> wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or
>>>>> exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands
>>>>> on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the
>>>>> food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff,
>>>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>>>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes
>>>> about one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one
>>>> gallon of ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of
>>> corn from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
>>
>>
>> Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
>> get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef,
>> drink milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want
>> diesel fuel?
>
>
>
> Wait a damn minute!
>
> I can pay another dime or two per pound for my steaks, spend a bit more
> for milk for my children, cough up more cash for my corn flakes, but
> start messing with my beer and I have to draw a line in the sand.

Yeah, not sure which one of the Denver TV stations broke the sad news
recently in an interview with a local brewer who was complaining that
more and more fields that used to be good old barley are now being
planted with corn.

Re: Related Question, but different
 

Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iOGdndid26uCZRDbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>
>>>
>>> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>
>>>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm
>>>>> not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't
>>>>> that a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the
>>>>> same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now
>>>>> add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself,
>>>>> and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train
>>>>> wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or
>>>>> exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands
>>>>> on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the
>>>>> food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff,
>>>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>>>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes
>>>> about one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one
>>>> gallon of ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of
>>> corn from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
>>
>>
>> Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
>> get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef,
>> drink milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want
>> diesel fuel?
>
>
>
> Wait a damn minute!
>
> I can pay another dime or two per pound for my steaks, spend a bit more
> for milk for my children, cough up more cash for my corn flakes, but
> start messing with my beer and I have to draw a line in the sand.

Yeah, not sure which one of the Denver TV stations broke the sad news
recently in an interview with a local brewer who was complaining that
more and more fields that used to be good old barley are now being
planted with corn.

Re: Related Question, but different
 

Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iOGdndid26uCZRDbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>
>>>
>>> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>
>>>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm
>>>>> not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't
>>>>> that a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the
>>>>> same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now
>>>>> add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself,
>>>>> and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train
>>>>> wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or
>>>>> exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands
>>>>> on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the
>>>>> food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff,
>>>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>>>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes
>>>> about one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one
>>>> gallon of ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of
>>> corn from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
>>
>>
>> Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
>> get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef,
>> drink milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want
>> diesel fuel?
>
>
>
> Wait a damn minute!
>
> I can pay another dime or two per pound for my steaks, spend a bit more
> for milk for my children, cough up more cash for my corn flakes, but
> start messing with my beer and I have to draw a line in the sand.

Yeah, not sure which one of the Denver TV stations broke the sad news
recently in an interview with a local brewer who was complaining that
more and more fields that used to be good old barley are now being
planted with corn.

Re: Related Question, but different
 

Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
> "Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iOGdndid26uCZRDbnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
>> Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>
>>>
>>> "Peter Stolz" <pstolz@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>>> news:i4_ii.32508$YL5.8051@newssvr29.news.prodigy.n et...
>>>
>>>>> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm
>>>>> not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't
>>>>> that a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?
>>>>>
>>>>> If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the
>>>>> same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now
>>>>> add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself,
>>>>> and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train
>>>>> wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or
>>>>> exaserbated by CO2 emissions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands
>>>>> on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the
>>>>> food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeff,
>>>> Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more
>>>> cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes
>>>> about one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one
>>>> gallon of ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense?
>>>> Pete
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, we take a gallon of fuel away from the farmers, and a bushel of
>>> corn from the food chain. What is the upside of this again?
>>
>>
>> Some groups who have an early presidential candidate selection process
>> get a pretty healthy money bribe at your expense if you eat beef,
>> drink milk, eat corn, [and the latest victim] drink beer, or want
>> diesel fuel?
>
>
>
> Wait a damn minute!
>
> I can pay another dime or two per pound for my steaks, spend a bit more
> for milk for my children, cough up more cash for my corn flakes, but
> start messing with my beer and I have to draw a line in the sand.

Yeah, not sure which one of the Denver TV stations broke the sad news
recently in an interview with a local brewer who was complaining that
more and more fields that used to be good old barley are now being
planted with corn.

Re: Related Question, but different
 

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:05:10 -0700, XS11E <xs11e@mailinator.com>
wrote:

>"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen
>> to all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes
>> mandated?
>
>It's unlikely that it will become mandated and you CAN put E85 in your
>car. It won't run as well*, mileage may suffer along with performance
>but it will run. There are some VERY old cars that could have problems
>with gaskets in the fuel system due to the alcohol but that's very
>unlikely, we've been running "oxygenated" fuels for years now and any
>gasket bothered by alcohol has long ago been replaced.

You CAN put anything you want in your car, but that doesn't mean it's
a good idea. There's a big difference between "oxygenated" fuels and
85% ethanol.

If the fuel system in your vehicle was not built to withstand the
effects of E85, don't use it. There's a reason manufacturers
designate E85 capable vehicles as FFV vehicles.