What about cars that need to run 87???

Hmmm

Anyone get the idea that it would be simple and inexpensive to mix this 'new' stuff with a bit of regualr gasoline to bring the octane rating down and still cost less then regular gasoline? Is the concept that hard? Really? Even if it brings it down to 93/95, a "normal" car would run just fine.

But im sure with the newer cars, mfgs. could reflash the ECU with a tune for the higher octane gas. As for older cars...just bump the timing way up on your next tune-up. All problems solved.

 

No, with higher octane fuel you will be ok, lower octane is when cars have problems. Only thing that may suffer will be CATs, due to unburnt fuel.

 

Ok you're totally not getting this. The car would run the same as before without a new tune. You just can't take advantage of the extra benefits without a re-tune.

That's why its a waste to buy premium (higher octane) fuel for a car that's not tuned for it. It doesn't break the car you just don't get any extra benefit.

 

High octane (within limits) is not a problem. It's low octane that's harmful.

Sure you could blend it, but from the info provided there is no reason to. Blending this fuel would raise the cost and you would get fewer miles per gallon.

 

The higher octane won't do anything. Cars "meant to run on 87" means nothing. it just means they won't detonate on 87.

Bottom line...so this is clear to everyone. The 104 Octane isn't enough to make the Spark Plugs ineffective...so it will still burn, and burn just the same as 87 for cars not taking "advantage"

 

I skimmed the article, but the processes involved in the making and distribution of ethanol pretty much cancel out any "green" factor gained. Add to that the fact that it further encourages people to cut down forest to grow corn because it's value will go up and it will definitely have a negative effect on the environment. Even beyond that problem it also will increase hunger across the world as the price of their food is going up because it's now a fuel. It's a bad idea that is the brain child of the agricultural industry's lobbyists.

 

From the article:
"The Ruseks claim that sorghum, which isn't a typical U.S. crop, can produce six times the ethanol per acre of corn, turning on its head the argument that ethanol production consumes more energy than it produces."

Not to mention that ethanol can be produced from other source (such as switchgrass) which grows on land not suitable for food crops.

 

Like I said, I skimmed it, I missed that. It still does not change the fact that it encourages people to cut down more trees for crops thus impacting global warming.

 

Sounds like a problem that can be legislated. Besides all human activity that requires land encourages people to cut down trees.

My point is, it does not require people to cut down trees. You can physically stop people from cutting down trees and still mass produce ethanol.

 

In this country, yes. In other countries with less oversight I could see it being a problem.