A Complete Waste of Space

Here 95 is regular and 98 optional. Got me some 100 octane in Germany, dangerous in an almost overheating motorcycle .

I just bought 100 watt light bulbs last week, and got a pack of 50-150-250 reading bulbs for the family room.
And, Pud, I can think of several areas here in the East where you don't get ethanol mix.

The operative word Slick was "commonly available".
The customary word is "may contain up to 10% ethanol".
The future word will probably be "may contain up to 15% ethanol".

I'm aware that in some specific localities non-ethanol fuel is obtainable.
Those sources are drying up faster than R_D's sheep.

Putting ethanol in gasoline is like placing styrofoam in popcorn.
Ethanol is hard to burn and styrofoam is hard to flush...
Ain't it wonderful...ya gotta full tank...and ya paid more for it.

Ya ever wonder why?
They don't burn ethanol in conventional aircraft engines?
Vaporization, corrosion to fuel system and fuel separation.

It seems to me...that those folks who can tell ya the coefficient of friction in KY lube?
Are the ones also telling ya?
Burning corn is good for you and yer motor.

Any who....if'n ya don't believe me?
Substitute Canola for KY and tell me how yer "fish stick" feels....

I'll agree that ethanol at high enough levels is corrosive as hell. That is why a lot of states make it available only seasonally. Further, I'll argue that the effect of using all that ethanol is causing food prices to spike, as it's sucking the corn supply dry to make the stuff. Now, this is hardly some new phenomenon, not an Obama thing whatsoever. It was fueled by the Ag lobby efforts over 15 years ago. It's great for farmers. I know down in VA, we have had more acreage in corn than previously, due to the demand, at the expense of beans and other feed products for livestock. Like I say, great for farmers, not so good for livestock managers, terrible for consumers paying more for everything from cereal to beef and pork. All done in the name of energy independance, when what we should be focusing on is lower fuel consumption nationwide.

Agreed.

Pudfark wrote:How's about you show me where you can commonly buy gasoline without ethanol?
The same way....they shoved 10% down yer throat?
Is the same way 15% is gonna be delivered....with the same amount of choice.

The same thing that's happened to 100 watt light bulbs....

The same agenda Obama & Co. advocate and unilaterally legislate/mandate.

Old Pudfark sez: " Don't be surprised...when yer either pushing yer Jeep or hitching yer mules to it. "

Now you're being dense. 10% doesn't do damage. Of course we don't like it, but at least we can use it in all our cars without hurting them.

That's not the case with 15%. They can't force us to use a formula that will do damage to our cars. It will be available to those who have the cars that can handle it. Some of the new cars can handle 85%.

Race cars have been using 100% methanol for decades, but they have to be setup for it.


I have to wonder if you think Romney wouldn't be doing the same thing Obama is doing. Your thinking is so biased you sound like HH most of the time now. Something I wouldn't be proud of.

Run 3-4 month old ethanol gas through a two stroke engine...see what happens.

Buzz, are you 12 years old?

"Race cars have been using 100% methanol for decades, but they have to be setup for it." This is relevant, how?

Romney is relevant to this, how?

Why are you here, Buzz?
Go "fish"....

I've come to a conclusion about you Pud.

You're either never serious, or you're the dumbest son of a bitch I know.

or both?

The worst part about adding ethanol in fuel is that it will have an effect on the price of raw materials (food)... but well I guess that won't bother speculators, quite the contrary.

Our planet is already stretched to produce enough food for the whole population. The intensive agriculture is ruining whole areas, and we want to add more to produce "biofuel"?

I smell another ecological catastrophe thanks to your 'biofuel'.

Nic