Quick2500

If you want, I can go into the physics of why you are wrong. Or, if I'm not good enough, I have a gentleman that holds a Ph D in applied mathematics from Notre Dame that can call you a moron.

buck35

It's all about selling new product, I get it ...right in the azz! Sell new engines , new cars, trucks, taxes taxes taxes.
the end user is hosed again. But a few will strike it rich.

obrien

The emission systems are required by the EPA. I doubt the manufacturers would put catalytic converters on marine engines if they didn't have to. Water in fuel is a much bigger problem now than it was in the past. The damage e10 does to fuel systems is bad enough. E15 is going to be worse. Mercury marine performed durability testing using e15 and there were numerous issue the came up due to that fuel. Yes you can make a lot of power on e85 but that doesn't do the normal consumer any good. The majority of boaters have stock engines that will not benefit from e85.
I also can't imagine what would happen if you left e85 in a fuel tank for mor than a month.
Schools like uti have seen fuel system damage on their school cars from fuel staying in the tanks for more than a month. Those are new cars not old junkers
There have been tests done on flex fuel vehicles that prove ethanol fueled vehicles get worse fuel mileage
Driving the same route using the different types of fuel

buck35

last I heard the epa was part of the federal government, that burns how many thousands or millions of gallons of fuel a day . Do you think the impending carbon tax will slow them down, as they are so concerned. We will pay dearly and a few will reap the benefits. My 02, carry on

TexasVines

hopefully you will enjoy hearing him tell you how smart he is one day when your boat has been grounded because the required emissions were above what you wanted to pay to keep boating and or the reliability and cost to keep it running no longer became worth the expense

have him explain to you how tier 3 and tier 4 diesel engines and their fuel use and reliability apply to real world people using them daily to try and make a living and deliver goods and services to the general public......because I am quite sure those real world people would rather have a fuel to use that delivers at or near (or even better performance) without the weight, cost, maintenance and downtime of emissions laden tier 3 and 4 diesel engines even if that fuel or fuel blend or fuel additive had issues of it's own when it first came on the market......but issues that could easily be addressed and that would lead to improvements in mileage and reliability and lowering of cost instead of ever increasing complexity that leads to even lower efficiency, reliability and higher cost

BUP

iTrader: (9)

The catalyst system for marine apps was put into effect before CARB and the EPA required it. Indmar had them in place at the end of 2005 for model year 2006 in all of Malibu wakeboard boats and any other wakeboard boat manu that used Indmar engines.

The reason why Indmar did it before they had to was as selling point to the wake surfer and wakeboard buyer for a huge reduction in CO poisoning behind the boat and other emission related health issues that type of buyer experiences behind the boat while doing their thing.

E-10 does have some pluses but also has more minuses used in our gas supply. Actually a form of alcohol has been in our gas supply since lead was taken out back in the 70's. Back then and thru out the 80's & 90's it was called Gasahol.

buck35

Is or was this mandate needed to save us from ourselves, no.
The money fighting oil pipelines just happens to own the railroad burning diesel to deliver it .the money always makes the rules.Sure as chit dont mean I have to like or agree with them .

TexasVines

just for kicks for all the math majors out there

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/0392/report.pdf

page 6

By using alcohol in an alcohol engine with a high degree of compression (about 180 pounds per square inch above atmospheric pressure much higher than can be used for gasoline on account of preignition from the high temperatures produced by compression), the fuel-consumption rate in gallons per horsepower per hour can be reduced to practically the same as the rate of consumption of gasoline for a gasoline engine of the same size and speed. The indications are that this possible 1 to 1 fuel-consumption ratio by volume for gasoline and alcohol engines will hold true for any size or speed, if the cylinder dimensions and revolutions per minute of the two engines are the same.

http://books.google.com/books?id=N8j...=power&f=false

page 40

#14 with proper manipulation there appears to be no corrosion of the interior due to the use of alcohol

so the fact that engines can be configured to get the same horsepower per hour per gallon on alcohol VS gasoline has been known since the early 1900s and even in the early 1900s they knew how to deal with corrosion and the US Navy performed 2000 test in the 1900s on gasoline VS ethanol engines.....so clearly they felt they could deal with water and fuel issues

the issue back then was oil was becoming cheaper than alcohol (no longer the case today) and alcohol was later banned in prohibition and after that oil was established

so all of these modern worries/boogie men ect dealing with ethanol have been well studied and either debunked, shown there is an easy solution or otherwise rendered a non issue decades and decades ago

and it was MTBE and the persistence specifically in water both from boat exhaust and more so from washing into bodies of water from land based engines that brought ethanol back into modern times anyway

it was NEVER intended when E10 first came around to be a primary fuel or to create energy independence, but that does not mean the many worth while qualities of it should be ignored because of (non) issues that can easily be overcome that would make ethanol or high ethanol blends a great fuel specifically for high horsepower and high performance marine engines especially when it is currently trading (without subsidies there are no longer subsidies and a mandate is not a subsidy in fact a mandate for use is actually counter productive to lowering the market price of ANY product) at $1.654 per gallon while RBOB is trading at $2.1470

Quick2500

LoL, using a theory from the 1900s does not mean that it does in fact apply to today's engines considering 180 psi was crazy high compression back then, too. Gasoline engines were poorly designed, underpowered, and in their infancy. Horrible citation. Keep trying, bub.

mike tkach

iTrader: (3)

if i remember correctly,ethanol was devised to cut our dependance of foreign oil.today we have enough crude oil being fracked right here in the united states to totally cut our use of foreign oil but we still import almost all of the crude oil we refine.we also still use e10 and soon that may go to e15.do you think politics plays a role in this stupidity?