QLD To Consider Mandating Ethanol in all Petrol Bowsers

[castellan]

Originally Posted by wookie836

it will be to the majority of society who needs to buy fuel. i dont understand how 10% ethanol blended fuel is such a environmental saver with its lower emissions but higher fuel consumption. it cant be anything more than 10% better over fuel. thats certainly going to save us from al gores hockey stick environmental charts

Well it's all about what comes out the exhaust pipe that ADR27A was all about and they put EGR on most engines back then but not all as Valiant 6 cyl use another system but lost the small 215ci 6 cyl and holden 308 manual did not need EGR.
So you see a 173ci 6 cyl did not pass in the HX holden because she had to work to hard in the test so most engines grew bigger in most cars at the time to pass the new laws.
It was all about the health of people in the big citys and Sydney had stricter ADR law than the rest of aus.
Then it came to unleaded, only so you could use a cat converter to burn more nasty fuel coming out the exhaust but now the problem is the unleaded fuel is the danger envro problem so E10 is the fix to that problem.
The problem is real and it is not a lie.

[dragons90]

Originally Posted by DAVO_XR

Yeah. Because E10 will completely fix the whole problem right? So, what then? The "reserves" will last 10% longer? Its always the stupid yuppies that are all about this crap that live in the houses with the heaters and aircons on, drive the sports cars, living the whole modern life and the fancy food. If you're that concerned about it, why dont you sell your car and walk everywhere? Because its ridiculous right? And you dont want to right? Now you know how us devils and anti environment nazzis feel.

I don't believe they can mandate ethanol in all fuels because of the amount of cars that can't run it, I'm to young to remember with leaded fuel, weren't new cars forced to run on unleaded in 1986 but leaded fuel wasn't removed from sale till 2000 and was replaced with LRP for a while after that.
Look at this another way, here's a top gear ep with jay leno talking about a alternative powered hydrogen car.
Skip to 4:50http://bcove.me/f82wvx5j

Oil may not run out tomorrow but its better to wean off of it slowly and extend it rather then wake up one day and there be no petroleum based products, I believe a lot of the oil reserves out there are a lot more expensive to extract and refine. If it means using less petrol in your daily so you can enjoy it on the weekend so be it.
If the gov is serious about ethanol they should encourage manufactures to import e85 combatable cars.

[burnz]

Originally Posted by dragons90

I don't believe they can mandate ethanol in all fuels because of the amount of cars that can't run it, I'm to young to remember with leaded fuel, weren't new cars forced to run on unleaded in 1986 but leaded fuel wasn't removed from sale till 2000 and was replaced with LRP for a while after that.
Look at this another way, here's a top gear ep with jay leno talking about a alternative powered hydrogen car.
Skip to 4:50http://bcove.me/f82wvx5j

Oil may not run out tomorrow but its better to wean off of it slowly and extend it rather then wake up one day and there be no petroleum based products, I believe a lot of the oil reserves out there are a lot more expensive to extract and refine. If it means using less petrol in your daily so you can enjoy it on the weekend so be it.
If the gov is serious about ethanol they should encourage manufactures to import e85 combatable cars.

yep import after 2016 when holden goes, all their cars are E85.

[Franco Cozzo]

One of the updates to the VE Commodore meant it could use E85.

[yearby]

I think that making ethanol blended fuel mandatory would be step in the right direction if it was done in a slow increase over a long time and it was done in all states. Think of it this way, if the fuel was mandatory, all car importers and manufactures would produce vehicles that where better suited to the higher octane fuel that the ethanol mix would allow. Even people who restore their cars or even chase performance modifications would eventually change their engines to suit. Just like some people now have the cylinder heads modified to suit unleaded fuel.

I keep hearing about how ethanol fuel has less energy content and how it decreases fuel economy, which is true in the situation at the moment. But the truth is that ethanol fuels with there higher octane allow higher compression ratio's, which in turn improve thermal efficiency. Higher thermal efficiency means more energy transferred into vehicle motion, at present time petrol engines only use about 33% of energy in the petrol to propel the vehicle, the other 66% is wasted heat out the exhaust and thru the radiator. An engine designed to run on E85 should be running close to 16:1 compression ratio. So even Holden's E85 cars are just a compromise at best.

If all the people in the world who now are using ethanol blended fuels stopped and started using ordinary petrol, what price do you think you would pay for a litre of petrol?? Today fuel prices would be just a pipe dream.

As for using food crops, that not necessary either, the best way to produce fuel is using algae in ponds, and we have plenty on salt lakes to do that in. We just need the demand so companies will invest in the production.

I see it as a win win situation, but if everyone is too afraid to do anything, nothing changes and the future outcome is a our peril.

Regards Peter

[new2ford]

Originally Posted by wookie836

oil reserves are not dwindling, theres so much oil out there thats still untapped. if we reall had a oil crisis tomorrow that would seriously dent the worlds supply, over night the other wells would get tapped. basic rules of supply and demand. while the big oil corporations of the west, own the worlds banking systems, the only thing that is going to change in the next 2 decades is how much you pay for fuel, whether youre paying top dollar for oil base fuel, or paying top dollar for blended fuel.

One for you!

Dangerous Times As Energy Sources Get Costlier To Extract
Stephen Leeb Stephen Leeb , Contributor
20 comments, 7 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments
Peak OilRemember the term “peak oil”? With all the oil now available from oil shale, tar sands, and other new sources, many analysts assume that the old talk of peak oil has been proven dead wrong. They buttress this conclusion with statistics showing decreased per capita oil usage, a signal, they say, of our entry into a golden era of rising supply and falling demand that will cut energy prices and fuel economic growth.

The optimists believe that our energy problems have been largely solved. I wouldn’t bet on that. The real issue with oil isn’t how much we have or even whether we can continue to increase production. That’s what peak oil had come to represent and why, in retrospect, it was a misleading term.


Rather, what really matters is the cost of resources, in terms of resources required, including energy resources, to keep producing oil. On that front, the U.S. is losing ground at an alarming pace.

Simply put, it takes energy to get energy. In today’s world, it takes rising amounts of energy to get all the new energy sources out of the ground and ready to use.

The critical concept is “energy return on investment,” or EROI. This means the amount of energy obtained from each unit of energy invested. When oil first began to flow, its EROI was around 100, according to State University of New York professor Charles Hall. Drillers would use one barrel to extract 100 barrels from the ground. As more wells were drilled and producers added infrastructure, the EROI ratio dropped. New wells over time grew less productive, further decreasing EROI. In the early 1950s the EROI associated with refined oil products like gasoline was about 20. Today, it takes about one barrel of conventional U.S. oil to produce the equivalent of nine barrels, or 378 gallons of gasoline.

Meanwhile, the EROI for nonconventional oil, that is, oil produced from shale and tar sands, stands even lower, at about four. For every barrel of oil used to drill, producers obtain only four barrels of nonconventional oil, or 168 gallons of gasoline.

The lower the EROI, the less energy can be made available for the economy. If EROI were one, the economy would be channeling all energy produced into making energy. In other words, it would be curtains for our civilization. SUNY professor Hall estimates that for an industrial society to function and grow, EROI should measure at least five to nine. Oil from tar sands and shale does not make that cut.

It’s telling that, based on 12-month averages, oil prices today are only some 5% below their all-time peaks, although, according to the Energy Information Agency, per capita consumption of oil has decreased 17% from its 2007 high. Why don’t we see a larger price decline? Economics 101 would suggest that greater supply coupled with lower demand should produce tumbling prices. That isn’t happening, since we funnel much of the extra oil made available by lower demand and rising production into oil production itself.

What explains the significantly lower EROI of non-conventional energy sources? To understand, we must realize that all resources are inextricably interconnected, and also require energy to produce. We can’t overlook the reality that drilling apparatus and infrastructure needed to extract oil from shale also demand large quantities of steel, derived from iron ore, whose production and refinery in turn require energy.

Huge energy costs are also inherent in the transport of water, chemicals and other materials essential to fracking. Tar sands likewise require mining equipment whose manufacture and transport consume still more energy. Mining tar sands, moreover, also uses natural gas.

These added costs appear on the balance sheets of banks, where oil and gas lending is the fastest-growing category. Indeed, according to Schlumberger SLB -1.02%, the industry’s capital expenditures for oil and gas have grown by about 12% annually over the last decade. Oil and gas production grew less than 2% a year in the same period. Clearly the more money and resources needed to maintain adequate production of oil and gas, the less money and resources available for other endeavors.

One vicious cycle playing out in America starts with the consumer, who has had to cut back on energy use. Less energy translates into less mobility, less shopping, and in general fewer consumer expenditures. Fewer consumer expenditures mean less demand and more pressure on corporations, which are also squeezed by higher resource costs. Wages in turn get squeezed, but resource prices remain high, and the vicious circle is completed. It is no surprise that this century has seen a 10% decline in real median income, which when measured in time and depth is probably the most protracted on record.

Things may be even worse than that, however. EROI refers to how much energy is needed to produce more energy. The concept leaves out a lot of linkages among resources. Resource-intensive production of oil and gas increases the scarcity and costs of other resources such as water and therefore of food, which depends on water as well. Other resources such as copper and iron ore that use lots of water and energy are also squeezed, and you have another vicious, potentially catastrophic, cycle. It would take me too far afield to focus on all these interrelationships, but an examination of the more general concept of resource return on investment, or RROI, would probably find the U.S. in a lot worse shape than as measured only by EROI, or the amount of energy required to get more energy.

Let’s consider how to use EROI to determine the most potentially rewarding energy investments. Clearly energy sources with EROIs above five are attractive. According to an April Scientific American article, both wind and solar energy make the grade. Neither uses water to generate energy, further conserving precious resources. Unfortunately, it is hard to find clear beneficiaries of wind or solar, as companies in this space are highly competitive with one another. However, I do continue to recommend silver, a critical ingredient in photovoltaics, the most pervasive and fastest-growing form of solar energy. I view the recent slump in silver prices as an exceptional buying opportunity.

As for oil and gas producers, I see the critical metrics as free cash flow and growing production. There was a time when negative free cash flow was not so bad for oil companies. It often signified investment in growth. Today, however, given the ever-increasing amounts of oil and other resources needed to produce oil, negative free cash flow frequently suggests that a company is running in place.

Oil and gas stocks with negative free cash or slumping production, especially those involved in non-conventional hydrocarbons, will probably require ever greater spending to sustain that growth, which to me is a recipe for long-term disaster. In fracking especially, another factor contributing to the lower EROI ratio is the high depletion rate of the wells. In an earlier era, producer growth related closely to the number of wells drilled. Today, oil production from a new well often declines sharply after the first year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspe...er-to-extract/

[wookie836]

global warming - receeding glaciers - access to the arctic regions and new sea trade routes re opened

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrole..._in_the_Arctic

also if prediction of 200 billion barrels of oil in Antarctica is close to being accurate, it will be the third largest oil reserve on the planet. its probably not 200 billion but the oil is there waiting.

dont think they wont go there to squeeze every dollar they can out of the snow and ice to increase the profits of BP, exxon, Shell, Chevron etc. even if we use e85 only, we are still using oil.

[Crazy Dazz]

Obviously there is a time and place for government regulation, without it we'd be in anarchy (and still using leaded petrol.)
However the leaded petrol example actually points out the major problem with government mandates. At the end of the day, you have some shrivelled up little prune, hiding their gross incompetence in the public service, motivated by bitterness and spite, drafting regulations on topics they now nothing about.
So we banned leaded petrol, not because lead is an extremely toxic heavy metal and was poisoning kids who lived near main roads, but because it interfered with the operation of catalytic converters...
And why do we need Catalytic Converters? Because obviously what is necessary in cold wet European & North American cities, where they have 50 million cars in an area half the size of Hobart, MUST also be applied in regional Australia.
(Which is not to say they're not beneficial, and clearly getting rid of lead was a very good thing, but as usual the governments reasons for doing something were ludicrous.)

In regards to ethanol, that is a clear instance of where the government should NOT get involved. If an individual wants to ruin their engine, believing they are making an iota of difference to global warming, then that's a choice they are free to make.
Only narrow-minded imbeciles try to force other people to comply with their whims, in order to justify their own choices.

[NAK302]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

Obviously there is a time and place for government regulation, without it we'd be in anarchy (and still using leaded petrol.)
However the leaded petrol example actually points out the major problem with government mandates. At the end of the day, you have some shrivelled up little prune, hiding their gross incompetence in the public service, motivated by bitterness and spite, drafting regulations on topics they now nothing about.
So we banned leaded petrol, not because lead is an extremely toxic heavy metal and was poisoning kids who lived near main roads, but because it interfered with the operation of catalytic converters...
And why do we need Catalytic Converters? Because obviously what is necessary in cold wet European & North American cities, where they have 50 million cars in an area half the size of Hobart, MUST also be applied in regional Australia.
(Which is not to say they're not beneficial, and clearly getting rid of lead was a very good thing, but as usual the governments reasons for doing something were ludicrous.)

In regards to ethanol, that is a clear instance of where the government should NOT get involved. If an individual wants to ruin their engine, believing they are making an iota of difference to global warming, then that's a choice they are free to make.
Only narrow-minded imbeciles try to force other people to comply with their whims, in order to justify their own choices.

your last sentence simply refers to every government in the western world. the problem for the normal folk is these governments have succeeded time and again, mainly due to apathy among the majority who are led to believe in whatever they are told.

[Syndrome]

We the consumer should be given the choice if we want to use fuel with ethanol, not have it forced upon us.

[69XWGT]

If you own a boat you had better have deep pockets.

Ethanol and boat engines just don't mix

[burnz]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

We the consumer should be given the choice if we want to use fuel with ethanol, not have it forced upon us.

you have a choice!

[noflac52]

There is a lot of carry on about ruining engines in this thread but it is largely mythical.

Engines can be adapted to run on ethanol.

The mandating is only about service stations supplying the fuel to customers who want to use it. Its not mandatory to use it. DOH!

The other side of the coin when it comes to choice is that people who want to use ethanol have the choice to use it and if service stations don't stock it there is no choice. It is just like all the other fuels that are available when you go into a service station you can choose between five or six different fuels and put in the one you like best.

So all the posters who don't want service stations to stock ethanol are just denying a section of the community free choice of the fuel they choose to use while enjoying their own free choice of the fuel they think best suits their own needs.

It smacks of " this is what I want but I don't want you to have what you want"

Bottom line. If you don't like ethanol don't use it but at least allow those who want to use it the freedom of choice to do so!

[Lardman]

Bring on genetic engineering and algae to use as ethanol and biodiesel.

All you need is sunshine and salty water or farm runoff.

Then use solar to power the refinery, boom: carbon neutral fuel that doesn't take up food.

[yearby]

There are more important issues closer to home for using ethanol blended fuels than global warming, peak oil, or reducing fuel dependency, cost or even being compatible with old cars. Two news articles in the last couple of days highlight this-

1. Children being dropped off a school by their parents/buses are being exposed to very high levels of contaminates produced by vehicles at the school entrance. This is because most if not all vehicles are idling at the same time during the pickup and drop off time.
When measurements are taken at the school gate, readings show very high levels of CO, NOx and particle matter. The contaminates inhibit the health, growth and the learning ability of all who are in the vicinity.

2. A study of 10,000 female nurses in the USA before, during and after pregnancy has shown that exposure to vehicle emissions increases the likely hood of a woman having a child with autism. The study showed that the possibility of having a child with autism was directly proportional the distance from the nearest main road. It also recommended that woman who wanted to reduce the risk, move to areas of less pollution.

What has this got to do with ethanol fuel you may ask. Well, a little known fact is that ethanol fuels reduce all these emissions on all petrol vehicles regardless of whether it's a 1928 model A or the latest FPV GT. It has been proven time and time again in the lab and on the road. Even a 10% blend of ethanol makes significant improvements to tail pipe emissions. The greatest improvements are on pre-computer controlled cars.

CO (carbon monoxide) and HC (hydrocarbons) are the result of too rich a fuel mixture, so when a carburettor style vehicle is run on 10% ethanol fuel mix, the mixture is chemically leaned out cleaning up the CO and HC.

NOx (oxides of nitrogen)(note- x is a variable so as to represent all the different molecules of the nitrogen and Oxygen) is formed under extreme pressure and temperature such as inside the combustion chamber of the petrol engine. When an engine is run on an ethanol mix the combustion temperatures are lower thus reducing the NOx

Particle matter is the soot mainly attributed to diesel engines, ie the school bus and 4x4's. Ethanol burns very clean without particle matter.

What I have listed here is only the tip on the iceberg so to speak, it does not cover all the health issues of pollution in the community nor does it go into the costs of supporting the sick. But what I hope to highlight is that we can't drive our polluting vehicles through someone else's back yard and complain about them using up the taxes we pay because they can't work, or mentally ill or sick or what ever. Everyone must take some responsibility. I for one are prepared to replace the rubber hoses in my 63 falcon more often than I normally would or get my FPV GT tuned for an ethanol mix, it's such a small price to pay compared to the cost of an autistic child for the course of their natural life.
Everyone has a choice, true, so does the next generation have a choice to live and breath in a healthy environment.

[wookie836]

Originally Posted by yearby

2. A study of 10,000 female nurses in the USA before, during and after pregnancy has shown that exposure to vehicle emissions increases the likely hood of a woman having a child with autism. The study showed that the possibility of having a child with autism was directly proportional the distance from the nearest main road. It also recommended that woman who wanted to reduce the risk, move to areas of less pollution.

do you have a source for this claim??

[mik]

Originally Posted by nstg8a

Always makes me laugh when I hear people say 'oh my car runs like a dog and has no power on e10 but runs mint on anything else, e10 is crap!'

Personally I think if a fuel that has ethanol making up less than 10% caused such dramatic effects as half the naysayers claim then they should be looking very closely at their car.
. If the tune is so knife edge that a small percentage of the fuel doesn't have quite the bang as the rest of it, and causes it to run like a **** there's something wrong.
And I really doubt it's the fuel.

My fairlane is my daily at the moment, I get between 330-370 Kim's from a tank all city driving. Doesn't matter whether it's e10, 98 whatever...
No car I've owned has experienced any dramatic effects, good bad or otherwise running on e10
I hear people say they get 50kms less a tank when they run it, but did they drive exactly the same as the previous tank? Was the temperature the same?
So many variables, and such a small economy difference how can anyone really say e10 is the cause?

I have had my henry for nearly 10 years, it doesn't miss a beat on unleaded and in fact I do notice less ks out of the tank using ethanol...... im not imagining it, I might add it pings its guts out on the stuff, perhaps it comes back to fuel qaulity ?
But my car most definitely runs better on non ethanol, it is even noticeable on cold start up.

[Maka]

If e10 returned the mileage of ulp for the same price as ulp........

cheers, Maka

[Crazy Dazz]

[Crazy Dazz]

Originally Posted by noflac52

The mandating is only about service stations supplying the fuel to customers who want to use it. Its not mandatory to use it. DOH!

Ok, that's different,
but actually worse.
IF there is any sort of market for it, somebody will supply it.
So what we're talking about is forcing businesses to invest millions supplying a product nobody wants.
My local servo is pretty good, it is always woefully busy, but the bowsers supply regular, diesel, and premium (half have 95 and half 98.) So when filling up the XR4 or Saab, I take pot-luck on 95 or 98, and I can always get diesel for the Patrol. What do you suggest they drop to put ethanol in very bowser??? They'd probably have to take diesel from half and Premium from the other half. All to stock a fuel nobody will buy. What a joke.

What's next? Can we force every servo to sell my favourite brand of iced coffee?

[BHDOGS]

Why wouldnt people buy it most people have no idea about cars and buy pieces of **** cars everyday for mega money add petrol thats a cent cheaper and the masses of idiots will jump out of the windows to buy it.

[Jack960]

Originally Posted by Jallopy

E10 must be ok ...... but I always wonder why it is banned from Aircraft.

It is banned from aircraft due to its chemical properties. It has a low flash point and its energy content is too low. Aircraft fuel specifications are much more strict than car fuel specifications.

I reckon they should get rid of ethanol and run butanol, there are biobutanols that contain more energy and can be cheaper than ethanol.

[2011G6E]

Still waiting for an explanation as to how exactly deliberately making your car get worse economy is "good for the environment"...

And what are all the people supposed to do who have cars which simply cannot use the crap. Just be good little consumers and go out and buy a new car? Forget about driving?
My Celica can't use it, my 2008 GSX1400 says in the handbook that it can use it (not for long periods, only now and then), but that you must be very careful it is actually absolutely no more than E5 to at a maximum E10 (because service stations wouldn't stoop to watering down fuel more than the 10% level, would they...). My old Vespa and Kawasaki triple can't use it because of the rubbers and seals in the two stroke systems, and even if I could I'm not going through an extremely expensive rebuild of the engines just to suit some ludicrous green agenda (to replace the crank seals on my triple for example requires pulling down the crank and getting it professionally set up and pressed back together, which reportedly costs around two grand...and that's assuming you can even get "ethanol compatible" seals for such an old bike...).
Even my mothers 1996 Mazda 121 cannot use it. Some surprisingly modern cars and motorcycles simply cannot use the stuff, full stop.

So when do the compensation cheques start rolling out for all of us who have to garage our beloved vehicles because we could no longer use them?

I'll take a new Harley Ultra Classic Electraglide, thanks Mr Premier...

[noflac52]

2011G6E you are making mountains out of mole hills. This way over the top reaction to something that no one is making you use is pretty pointless really and I doubt anyone cares what it will cost you to bring all your engines up to so called ethanol spec because you aren't going to use it anyway. That's your choice! Just let other people use it without getting on their case! Everyone lets you run the fuel you choose without making a song and dance about it!

CrazyDazz I assume that you must have done an indepth survey of motorists to come up with "no one wants to use it" to support your point. Well your survey is flawed because thousands of people in NSW are using it by choice not because they are being told to or because the pumps for other fuels are no longer there. Everyone here can still get any fuel they like to use.

While the arguments about it not being suitable foe all vehicles are theoretically correct I have been running cars of all types on it for 25 years or more and none of them have actually had any problems at all from using it. This includes carburetted and fuel injected engines. I also run a Yamaha Royal Star on it with no ill effects.

[2011G6E]

This way over the top reaction to something that no one is making you use is pretty pointless really and I doubt anyone cares what it will cost you to bring all your engines up to so called ethanol spec because you aren't going to use it anyway. That's your choice!

Except of course for the awkward fact that we are discussing the suggestion that it will be mandated for use, and those of us dinosaurs with old cars and bikes that can't use it will not have a "choice".

People scoff and say "What about the fear campaigns about old cars and unleaded fuel back in 1987! What are you worried about".

OK...fair enough...however, you could simply buy additives which replaced the lead with other substances. I use such an additive in my Celica and have had no problems. However, there's no "additive" you can simply put in your fuel to cancel out the ethanol content and undo the potential harm to your fuel system in cars not designed for it or which cannot use it. It's a completely different thing.

[2011G6E]

Here's the list of what can and cannot use it. Plenty say yes, but only for E5, which I haven't seen for sale here.
http://www.fcai.com.au/publications/...-blend-petrol-
My Celica isn't listed but it falls under the "Hilux" heading interestingly enough, as the low powered 21RC engine was mainly used in the Hilux and a few other models.

Lot of expensive cars there that can;t use it. Not to mention motorcycles...no Kawasaki, Suzuki, Yamaha, or Honda is supposed to use the stuff. As I said, my handbook says you can, but not long-term, and it isn't really recommended...whatever happens is your problem.

[GasoLane]

I don't often agree with Casey Jones above but I'll have to this time

From the Mercedes Benz Aus site..........

As ethanol is already being supplied through some petrol outlets it is important that Mercedes-Benz owners are aware of our official company position in this matter.

Daimler AG. recommends that your vehicle be operated on fuel containing no more than 10% ethanol. Use of fuel with an ethanol content higher than 10% may result in engine malfunction, starting and operating difficulties and materials degradation. These adverse effects could result in permanent damage to your vehicle. Purchasing your fuel from a reputable supplier may reduce the risk of exceeding this 10% limit or of receiving fuel with abnormal properties. It should also be noted that when using ethanol blended fuels an increase in fuel consumption can be expected due to the lower energy content of ethanol.

[noflac52]

[QUOTE=2011G6E;5101855]Except of course for the awkward fact that we are discussing the suggestion that it will be mandated for use,

The mandated for use only applies to the supply of it in service stations in NSW The Qld mandate won't get through anyway because it is too radical.

As I said before its theoretically correct that a lot of vehicles can't run on it but in the real world the effects are minimal.

Mercedes Benz and numerous other companies say that their vehicles shouldn't run on it and this is mainly for warranty claims. Manufacturers are always recommending certain products to use that are claimed to be best for the vehicle but I think in most cases you will find they probably partially own or wholly own the company concerned.

It wasn't that long ago that they would void your warranty if you didn't take the car to one of their service centres. They always try this stuff on and they always will.

I run a 64 falcon on it and the rubber technology in 64 was nothing compared to what you get now days and it doesn't hurt it one bit. Its done a lot of k's on it too.

[ebxr8240]

[Burnout]

While the3re is nothing wrong with ethanol fuels added to petrol or not, those of you who support its use will all do so right up until you go hungry..........