Some gas stations, here in Oklahoma City where I am visiting, have signs proclaiming their gas is 100% gas — not 10% ethanol. The price is higher for the pure gas and people are willing to pay it. Fuel mileage is reportedly better – enough to offset the modest premium at the pump.
Gas stations all over the state that have pure gas advertise as much.
The price of E85, an 85% ethanol blend that burns cleaner than straight gasoline, fell 0.5 cents to $3.089 a gallon on average, AAA reported.
Ethanol, which is made from renewable resources like corn, is thought to be more sustainable than gas, but it is less efficient.
As a result, a car that burns E85 would actually pay $4.065 a gallon to get the same mileage as a car that runs on gas, according to AAA. (source: CNN Money)
“Our Gas is Ethanol Free”
In Missouri we have an ethanol mandate which means we get a 10% ethanol/90% gas blend regardless of our preference. State Treasurer Sarah Steelman, who recently lost her bid to be the Republican candidate for Governor, had advocated repealing the mandate. Engines must be specially designed to operate on E85 but normal engines can tolerate the 10% mixes.
We can’t all switch to alternate fuels as long as the alternates get a bad rap.
Currently there are "18 comments" on this Article:
Colorado does the 10% ethanol thing in the winter (only) to address seasonal air pollution issues. Yes, mileage does decrease with the ethanol mix. Whether it’s a “fair” trade-off, I’m not sure, but I do like having options.
.
From all I’ve read, ethanol, to date, has been been heavily subsidized, with the primary beneficiaries being the farmers and the rural distillers. The subsidies, by definition, are coming from us urban taxpayers. If there were a viable end industry in sight, I’d be more supportive. But with the amount of energy needed to create an equivalent amount of ethanol costing more than the end product, I don’t see a sustainable concept – you can’t lose money on every gallon and make it up on volume!
.
That said, I’m certainly no fan of our increasing dependence on foreign petroleum resources, either. Personally, I see a future where plug-in hybrids are combined with solar panels, both on the roofs of the vehicles and on the roofs of our home garages, and solar will be our primary resource for local trips (the bulk of most urban and suburban driving), with the fueled engine only serving as a backup, used primarily only for trips longer than 50 miles. If so, 150-200 mpg starts to be a real possibility for many, many people, and the fuel source becomes essentially irrelevent!
Ethanol from corn is the wrong alternative fuel. It’s a shame so many politicians have jumped on the corn ethanol bandwagon, as it’s just not sustainable. Sadly, its failure will likely reflect poorly upon other biofuels.
It’s time for environmentalists to wake up and see the futility in trying to prop up the car culture. EROEI for corn ethanol is so abysmally low, if postitive at all, it’s simply not worth it. And yes, there are fewer calories (or BTUs) in ethanol than gasoline. Cellulosic, switch grass, agricultural waste, they still are all based on removing the so-called wastes that need to be returned to the soil for fertility to continue.
How about we start taking mass transit seriously in this country? Michigan could create a new industry for themselves producing streetcars. One person per car travel is a waste of money and energy no matter where it comes from.
Feeding cars instead of people is immoral. Last year it took over $6 billion in federal/state subsidies, tax credits, etc. and 25% of corn crops to produce enough to support only 15 days of our fuel consumption. In the mean time, we have seen this increased demand in higher prices for food, milk, eggs, and other substitutes.
– –
Our foreign suppliers of oil can see the nightmare we’ve created for ourselves. Assured that we will become more vulnerable, they increase output to satisfy the additional cries for help. The idea that batteries, hydrogen, etc. will increase mpg to over 150 is dreamy but it ignores the concomitant costs and other measures of efficiency. Oil is a precious commodity and should be managed accordingly.
– –
It’s really shameful that we have put our society in such a vulnerable position as we have more than doubled our % dependency from foreign sources in the last 30 years. When we once walked or cycled to local stores, the vast majority now drive which causes more traffic, more noise, demands for bigger parking lots, pollution, poor health and obesity. Ethanol offered some hope but has proven how silly public policies become when based on desperation instead of logic.
Because we can! The out-of-pocket expenses aren’t unaffordable (it’s a choice we make) and the “luxury” of being able to go where I want when I want in air-conditioned comfort, with or without traffic jams and parking hassles, simply beats waiting at a bus stop or riding a bike or a scooter in the heat, humidty, rain, cold, ice, snow wind AND taking twice as long (or longer) to do the same trip! We’ve devolved to the point now where, locally, Metro has hit the tipping point, where we will liklely see continued cutbacks (when increases are desired) simply because the majority of SOV motorists/voters see little or no need to subsidize a system that less and less meets their needs! The same goes for the two-wheel alternatives – poor infrastructure and a minority of inattentive or outright homicidal drivers simply scare too many riders off the road.
Jim,
Improving infrastructure for transit (and biking) is what I am referring to. Transit trips would not take twice as long if there was infrastructure for it.
As for the perceived lack of convenience, that’s exactly what it is – perceived. When riding transit I am actually cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter than I am when driving a car (and yes, my car does have working AC and heat). I also don’t have the inconvenience of scraping ice off my car, looking for parking, or dealing with road rage.
People don’t reject transit because it is inconvenient, they reject it because they somehow feel that driving the biggest truck possible and wasting as much as possible is what defines being American.
Corn is something big oil can control, that’s why it has such popular reviews among politicians.
Contrast that the support of solar energy whose tax credits were first killed by Regan. Even today alternative forms of energy suffer from a lack of support. You can’t even be paid for electricity you generate back onto the grid in Missouri. California has such a law, as well as tax credits for photovoltaic collectors.
But hey Missouri passes multimillion dollar tax credits for Paul McKee so he can wreck North St. Louis. But Lord, the State legislature doesn’t want to serve the people, they only want to serve their elite backers.
Big oil can’t own the sun or wind, damn. They think that by lowering prices now they can diffuse criticism and perhaps elect a republican who will do their bidding.
Kara – I support public transit that works well. Since moving here four years ago, I’ve lived in two different places (Kirkwood & Lindenwood Park) and worked in three different locations (St. Charles County, Olivette and Clayton). Out of those possible combinations, I’ve yet to find a viable commuting alternative using Metro. What takes 20 minutes driving myself invariably takes 2-3 times as long by train and/or bus. Call it simple greed, but I simply can’t justify giving up an hour or more every day to use transit to get to work.
.
And don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see a viable public transit system here. But to see that happen, Metro and our local political leaders face a daunting task, convincing local voters to increase tax support for a system that is struggling to maintain service levels on the Missouri side of the river. For multiple reasons (limited resources, entrenched constituencies, racism, elitism, limited vision, no real state support, etc., etc.), Metro is stuck with trying to maintain a system that primarily serves downtown. The growing suburban areas (where both the population and the number of potential destinations continue to grow) see little in the way of increased service and little reason to support higher taxes.
.
Bottom line, Metro needs more money, a lot more, to create a viable system to serve St. Louis County. There will likely be a ballot issue for a tax increase on the County ballot in November. Will it pass? I doubt it. I have yet to see any specific plans on how or where the “new” money would be spent, and I’m actually looking for the information! For the typical voter, in someplace like Ballwin, there’s no sane reason (yet?) to vote to increase the sales taxes they pay. And if the tax measure fails, Metro has made it pretty clear that service will be cut next year, to balance a shrinking budget. And less service will give even more people more reasons to avoid using transit.
.
Finally, I disagree with your last comment, “People don’t reject transit because it is inconvenient, they reject it because they somehow feel that driving the biggest truck possible and wasting as much as possible is what defines being American.” Yes, there are a minority, primarily young and male, who use their vehicle to “define” themselves and to make up for inadequacies in other areas. But for many other people, transit is increasingly being considered as an option to save money in these tight economic times, but a combination of poor scheduling options and simple fear (real and imagined), especially around here, discourage too many from “making the leap”. (And the gang attacks on/near Metrolink recently sure haven’t helped.) Plus I resent your assumption that I’m “driving the biggest truck possible” – my Miata gets 27-28 mpg and gets filled up only every couple of weeks. 😉
I wasn’t implying that you specifically drive too big a vehicle, I was just making a point that Americans in general are not open to transit because they feel that it is intrinsically un-American. Our local governments do not need to rely on a tax increase to fund a basic civic need. If they took transit seriously they could divert some funds from highway and bridge building to go toward transit improvements. The federal government could offer grants and subsidies to local municipalities to improve transit infrastructure, if they took it seriously. Instead all talk from all the candidates and politicians revolves around alternate fuels. None of them would dare even say the word “transit” for risk of being called a socialist. The fact is automobile travel and everything that goes with it (including infrastructure to support it, wars, etc) has been heavily subsidized for a long time. Personal automobile travel has always been very expensive. Now it is just a little more expensive, but in a way that is easily visible to the citizen.
FAVORITISM RULES in MO-Lou: Whether it’s highways, parking lots, ethanol producers or tax credits for developers, the message is clear. Political connections whether it’s through the Governor’s mansion or the local police department pays well, for both sides. Now the FBI has raided one of the largest towing/parking lot managers in the region on what was originally described as lawful activity.
– –
The subsidies flow through to local citizens via highway/road designs that favor over consumption of oil. We have become more dependent on foreign oil than ever before and have designed our roads and public policies to support these dependencies. Urban design is extremely important in offsetting/reducing self destructive habits and IMO that is the major benefit of UR in raising local consciousness.
– –
As reported in the NYTimes in an opinion piece by Friedman, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. Danes imposed on themselves a set of gasoline taxes, CO2 taxes and building-and-appliance efficiency standards that allowed them to grow their economy — while barely growing their energy consumption — and gave birth to a Danish clean-power industry that is one of the most competitive in the world today. Denmark today gets nearly 20 percent of its electricity from wind. America? About 1 percent.
– –
He further states: after appointments here in Copenhagen, I was riding in a car back to my hotel at the 6 p.m. rush hour. And boy, you knew it was rush hour because 50 percent of the traffic in every intersection was bicycles. That is roughly the percentage of Danes who use two-wheelers to go to and from work or school every day here. If I lived in a city that had dedicated bike lanes everywhere, including one to the airport, I’d go to work that way, too. It means less traffic, less pollution and less obesity. Frankly, when you compare how America has responded to the 1973 oil shock and how Denmark has responded, we look pathetic.
– –
In our region alternatives to autos/trucks/SUVs are not attractive. Yes Metro is very poorly managed here and its credibility is largely destroyed. We will pay dearly for these serious mistakes. Even worse, Metro abandoned the plans to include bike paths along the Extension and MOdot has refused to include such infrastructure designs in the New 64. StL County continues to make road designs that are unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists. Bottom Line: gas prices are still too cheap (addictions too strong?) even though locals continue to complain. Prosperous communities around the world are enjoying the benefits and freedoms that come with $10/gallon fuel. Desperation will become a stronger influence in our debates for remedies, unfortunately.
I drove an old Infiniti with injectors that weren’t designed to handle American ethanol. The ethanol ate through the potting material which caused coil failure. I got rid of the car.
Modern cars benefit from ethanol, as it helps keep fuel systems cleaner. Unfortunately, there is a negative effect on fuel economy.
I have been using 100% gas in Oklahoma for a year. I get almost 15% better mlleage on two different cars and it costs about 8 or 9% more to buy. The cars run better and since switching I have not had the check engine light go on . The message is alays about oxygen sensor problems. Reading the code costs about $70 and there is always some $400 solution according to the dealer. I have talked to several other people and they have the same experience. Ethanol is a joke (and an expensive on at that). It’s terribly corrosive and has no cost benefit for the public. Jerome
I second your statement. I drive a Ford F150 2007 5.4 for work everyday for sometimes 12 hours at a time. The truck is E-85 approved and I have tried it as a few stations in Oklahoma offer it. The power difference is significantly lower on E-85 and the fuel mileage is terrible. I switched to E-10 and power was back but fuel mileage was still not as good as pure 100% gasoline. The price difference is nothing compared to the better mileage and engine performance you get with pure gas. One more example of what any percent of ethanol will do is on lawn equipment. My 2-stroke weed trimmer stopped starting correctly and only ran with choke on, i took to repair shop where they showed me how the plastic fuel line and fuel filter inside fuel tank was deteriorating and clogging up. He ask me where i purchased fuel and then proceeded to show me a technical bulletin from brigs and stratton stating not to use and ethanol blended fuel as the alcohol will deteriorate the fuel system. I replaced fuel line and filter and a year later using pure gas there have been no problems with trimmer.
I filled up in Oklmulgee on Sunday Aug 2 with 100% gas. I paid $2.43 per gallon and have been paying on average $2.38 in Dallas. I average 26 miles per gallon highway, but with this tank I averaged 30.6 mpg. I like the better mileage and am willing to pay for it.
The less mileage you get per gallon, the more gallons you buy, therefore the more taxes they get. And this doesn’t touch the Ethanol Industry. Some states are wanting to tax the mileage you drive, the first year they are talking about $.01 a mile then going to .10 the next. This is because people are buying high mileage autos and they are not getting as much tax as they would have if they were driving low mileage autos. They just want to tax everything.
I think they should band driving anything but high mileage and charge $3.00 a gallon taxes. What we need to do is have our employer send our pay to tho the government they can take what they need then send our bank what is left. I think the democrats would go for that. Â Â
The less mileage you get per gallon, the more gallons you buy, therefore the more taxes they get. And this doesn’t touch the Ethanol Industry. Some states are wanting to tax the mileage you drive, the first year they are talking about $.01 a mile then going to .10 the next. This is because people are buying high mileage autos and they are not getting as much tax as they would have if they were driving low mileage autos. They just want to tax everything.
I think they should band driving anything but high mileage and charge $3.00 a gallon taxes. What we need to do is have our employer send our pay to tho the government they can take what they need then send our bank what is left. I think the democrats would go for that.
AARP Livibility Index
The Livability Index scores neighborhoods and communities across the U.S. for the services and amenities that impact your life the most
Built St. Louis
historic architecture of St. Louis, Missouri – mourning the losses, celebrating the survivors.
Geo St. Louis
a guide to geospatial data about the City of St. Louis
“Our Gas is Ethanol Free”
Colorado does the 10% ethanol thing in the winter (only) to address seasonal air pollution issues. Yes, mileage does decrease with the ethanol mix. Whether it’s a “fair” trade-off, I’m not sure, but I do like having options.
.
From all I’ve read, ethanol, to date, has been been heavily subsidized, with the primary beneficiaries being the farmers and the rural distillers. The subsidies, by definition, are coming from us urban taxpayers. If there were a viable end industry in sight, I’d be more supportive. But with the amount of energy needed to create an equivalent amount of ethanol costing more than the end product, I don’t see a sustainable concept – you can’t lose money on every gallon and make it up on volume!
.
That said, I’m certainly no fan of our increasing dependence on foreign petroleum resources, either. Personally, I see a future where plug-in hybrids are combined with solar panels, both on the roofs of the vehicles and on the roofs of our home garages, and solar will be our primary resource for local trips (the bulk of most urban and suburban driving), with the fueled engine only serving as a backup, used primarily only for trips longer than 50 miles. If so, 150-200 mpg starts to be a real possibility for many, many people, and the fuel source becomes essentially irrelevent!
Ethanol from corn is the wrong alternative fuel. It’s a shame so many politicians have jumped on the corn ethanol bandwagon, as it’s just not sustainable. Sadly, its failure will likely reflect poorly upon other biofuels.
It’s time for environmentalists to wake up and see the futility in trying to prop up the car culture. EROEI for corn ethanol is so abysmally low, if postitive at all, it’s simply not worth it. And yes, there are fewer calories (or BTUs) in ethanol than gasoline. Cellulosic, switch grass, agricultural waste, they still are all based on removing the so-called wastes that need to be returned to the soil for fertility to continue.
How about we start taking mass transit seriously in this country? Michigan could create a new industry for themselves producing streetcars. One person per car travel is a waste of money and energy no matter where it comes from.
Feeding cars instead of people is immoral. Last year it took over $6 billion in federal/state subsidies, tax credits, etc. and 25% of corn crops to produce enough to support only 15 days of our fuel consumption. In the mean time, we have seen this increased demand in higher prices for food, milk, eggs, and other substitutes.
– –
Our foreign suppliers of oil can see the nightmare we’ve created for ourselves. Assured that we will become more vulnerable, they increase output to satisfy the additional cries for help. The idea that batteries, hydrogen, etc. will increase mpg to over 150 is dreamy but it ignores the concomitant costs and other measures of efficiency. Oil is a precious commodity and should be managed accordingly.
– –
It’s really shameful that we have put our society in such a vulnerable position as we have more than doubled our % dependency from foreign sources in the last 30 years. When we once walked or cycled to local stores, the vast majority now drive which causes more traffic, more noise, demands for bigger parking lots, pollution, poor health and obesity. Ethanol offered some hope but has proven how silly public policies become when based on desperation instead of logic.
Because we can! The out-of-pocket expenses aren’t unaffordable (it’s a choice we make) and the “luxury” of being able to go where I want when I want in air-conditioned comfort, with or without traffic jams and parking hassles, simply beats waiting at a bus stop or riding a bike or a scooter in the heat, humidty, rain, cold, ice, snow wind AND taking twice as long (or longer) to do the same trip! We’ve devolved to the point now where, locally, Metro has hit the tipping point, where we will liklely see continued cutbacks (when increases are desired) simply because the majority of SOV motorists/voters see little or no need to subsidize a system that less and less meets their needs! The same goes for the two-wheel alternatives – poor infrastructure and a minority of inattentive or outright homicidal drivers simply scare too many riders off the road.
Jim,
Improving infrastructure for transit (and biking) is what I am referring to. Transit trips would not take twice as long if there was infrastructure for it.
As for the perceived lack of convenience, that’s exactly what it is – perceived. When riding transit I am actually cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter than I am when driving a car (and yes, my car does have working AC and heat). I also don’t have the inconvenience of scraping ice off my car, looking for parking, or dealing with road rage.
People don’t reject transit because it is inconvenient, they reject it because they somehow feel that driving the biggest truck possible and wasting as much as possible is what defines being American.
Corn is something big oil can control, that’s why it has such popular reviews among politicians.
Contrast that the support of solar energy whose tax credits were first killed by Regan. Even today alternative forms of energy suffer from a lack of support. You can’t even be paid for electricity you generate back onto the grid in Missouri. California has such a law, as well as tax credits for photovoltaic collectors.
But hey Missouri passes multimillion dollar tax credits for Paul McKee so he can wreck North St. Louis. But Lord, the State legislature doesn’t want to serve the people, they only want to serve their elite backers.
Big oil can’t own the sun or wind, damn. They think that by lowering prices now they can diffuse criticism and perhaps elect a republican who will do their bidding.
I personally think the cat is out of the bag.
Kara – I support public transit that works well. Since moving here four years ago, I’ve lived in two different places (Kirkwood & Lindenwood Park) and worked in three different locations (St. Charles County, Olivette and Clayton). Out of those possible combinations, I’ve yet to find a viable commuting alternative using Metro. What takes 20 minutes driving myself invariably takes 2-3 times as long by train and/or bus. Call it simple greed, but I simply can’t justify giving up an hour or more every day to use transit to get to work.
.
And don’t get me wrong, I’d like to see a viable public transit system here. But to see that happen, Metro and our local political leaders face a daunting task, convincing local voters to increase tax support for a system that is struggling to maintain service levels on the Missouri side of the river. For multiple reasons (limited resources, entrenched constituencies, racism, elitism, limited vision, no real state support, etc., etc.), Metro is stuck with trying to maintain a system that primarily serves downtown. The growing suburban areas (where both the population and the number of potential destinations continue to grow) see little in the way of increased service and little reason to support higher taxes.
.
Bottom line, Metro needs more money, a lot more, to create a viable system to serve St. Louis County. There will likely be a ballot issue for a tax increase on the County ballot in November. Will it pass? I doubt it. I have yet to see any specific plans on how or where the “new” money would be spent, and I’m actually looking for the information! For the typical voter, in someplace like Ballwin, there’s no sane reason (yet?) to vote to increase the sales taxes they pay. And if the tax measure fails, Metro has made it pretty clear that service will be cut next year, to balance a shrinking budget. And less service will give even more people more reasons to avoid using transit.
.
Finally, I disagree with your last comment, “People don’t reject transit because it is inconvenient, they reject it because they somehow feel that driving the biggest truck possible and wasting as much as possible is what defines being American.” Yes, there are a minority, primarily young and male, who use their vehicle to “define” themselves and to make up for inadequacies in other areas. But for many other people, transit is increasingly being considered as an option to save money in these tight economic times, but a combination of poor scheduling options and simple fear (real and imagined), especially around here, discourage too many from “making the leap”. (And the gang attacks on/near Metrolink recently sure haven’t helped.) Plus I resent your assumption that I’m “driving the biggest truck possible” – my Miata gets 27-28 mpg and gets filled up only every couple of weeks. 😉
Jim,
I wasn’t implying that you specifically drive too big a vehicle, I was just making a point that Americans in general are not open to transit because they feel that it is intrinsically un-American. Our local governments do not need to rely on a tax increase to fund a basic civic need. If they took transit seriously they could divert some funds from highway and bridge building to go toward transit improvements. The federal government could offer grants and subsidies to local municipalities to improve transit infrastructure, if they took it seriously. Instead all talk from all the candidates and politicians revolves around alternate fuels. None of them would dare even say the word “transit” for risk of being called a socialist. The fact is automobile travel and everything that goes with it (including infrastructure to support it, wars, etc) has been heavily subsidized for a long time. Personal automobile travel has always been very expensive. Now it is just a little more expensive, but in a way that is easily visible to the citizen.
I’d rather have cheap corn for my table instead of cheap fuel for my car.
FAVORITISM RULES in MO-Lou: Whether it’s highways, parking lots, ethanol producers or tax credits for developers, the message is clear. Political connections whether it’s through the Governor’s mansion or the local police department pays well, for both sides. Now the FBI has raided one of the largest towing/parking lot managers in the region on what was originally described as lawful activity.
– –
The subsidies flow through to local citizens via highway/road designs that favor over consumption of oil. We have become more dependent on foreign oil than ever before and have designed our roads and public policies to support these dependencies. Urban design is extremely important in offsetting/reducing self destructive habits and IMO that is the major benefit of UR in raising local consciousness.
– –
As reported in the NYTimes in an opinion piece by Friedman, Denmark, which was so badly hammered by the 1973 Arab oil embargo that it banned all Sunday driving for a while, responded to that crisis in such a sustained, focused and systematic way that today it is energy independent. Danes imposed on themselves a set of gasoline taxes, CO2 taxes and building-and-appliance efficiency standards that allowed them to grow their economy — while barely growing their energy consumption — and gave birth to a Danish clean-power industry that is one of the most competitive in the world today. Denmark today gets nearly 20 percent of its electricity from wind. America? About 1 percent.
– –
He further states: after appointments here in Copenhagen, I was riding in a car back to my hotel at the 6 p.m. rush hour. And boy, you knew it was rush hour because 50 percent of the traffic in every intersection was bicycles. That is roughly the percentage of Danes who use two-wheelers to go to and from work or school every day here. If I lived in a city that had dedicated bike lanes everywhere, including one to the airport, I’d go to work that way, too. It means less traffic, less pollution and less obesity. Frankly, when you compare how America has responded to the 1973 oil shock and how Denmark has responded, we look pathetic.
– –
In our region alternatives to autos/trucks/SUVs are not attractive. Yes Metro is very poorly managed here and its credibility is largely destroyed. We will pay dearly for these serious mistakes. Even worse, Metro abandoned the plans to include bike paths along the Extension and MOdot has refused to include such infrastructure designs in the New 64. StL County continues to make road designs that are unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists. Bottom Line: gas prices are still too cheap (addictions too strong?) even though locals continue to complain. Prosperous communities around the world are enjoying the benefits and freedoms that come with $10/gallon fuel. Desperation will become a stronger influence in our debates for remedies, unfortunately.
I drove an old Infiniti with injectors that weren’t designed to handle American ethanol. The ethanol ate through the potting material which caused coil failure. I got rid of the car.
Modern cars benefit from ethanol, as it helps keep fuel systems cleaner. Unfortunately, there is a negative effect on fuel economy.
I have been using 100% gas in Oklahoma for a year. I get almost 15% better mlleage on two different cars and it costs about 8 or 9% more to buy. The cars run better and since switching I have not had the check engine light go on . The message is alays about oxygen sensor problems. Reading the code costs about $70 and there is always some $400 solution according to the dealer. I have talked to several other people and they have the same experience. Ethanol is a joke (and an expensive on at that). It’s terribly corrosive and has no cost benefit for the public. Jerome
I second your statement. I drive a Ford F150 2007 5.4 for work everyday for sometimes 12 hours at a time. The truck is E-85 approved and I have tried it as a few stations in Oklahoma offer it. The power difference is significantly lower on E-85 and the fuel mileage is terrible. I switched to E-10 and power was back but fuel mileage was still not as good as pure 100% gasoline. The price difference is nothing compared to the better mileage and engine performance you get with pure gas. One more example of what any percent of ethanol will do is on lawn equipment. My 2-stroke weed trimmer stopped starting correctly and only ran with choke on, i took to repair shop where they showed me how the plastic fuel line and fuel filter inside fuel tank was deteriorating and clogging up. He ask me where i purchased fuel and then proceeded to show me a technical bulletin from brigs and stratton stating not to use and ethanol blended fuel as the alcohol will deteriorate the fuel system. I replaced fuel line and filter and a year later using pure gas there have been no problems with trimmer.
I filled up in Oklmulgee on Sunday Aug 2 with 100% gas. I paid $2.43 per gallon and have been paying on average $2.38 in Dallas. I average 26 miles per gallon highway, but with this tank I averaged 30.6 mpg. I like the better mileage and am willing to pay for it.
The less mileage you get per gallon, the more gallons you buy, therefore the more taxes they get. And this doesn’t touch the Ethanol Industry. Some states are wanting to tax the mileage you drive, the first year they are talking about $.01 a mile then going to .10 the next. This is because people are buying high mileage autos and they are not getting as much tax as they would have if they were driving low mileage autos. They just want to tax everything.
I think they should band driving anything but high mileage and charge $3.00 a gallon taxes. What we need to do is have our employer send our pay to tho the government they can take what they need then send our bank what is left. I think the democrats would go for that. Â Â
The less mileage you get per gallon, the more gallons you buy, therefore the more taxes they get. And this doesn’t touch the Ethanol Industry. Some states are wanting to tax the mileage you drive, the first year they are talking about $.01 a mile then going to .10 the next. This is because people are buying high mileage autos and they are not getting as much tax as they would have if they were driving low mileage autos. They just want to tax everything.
I think they should band driving anything but high mileage and charge $3.00 a gallon taxes. What we need to do is have our employer send our pay to tho the government they can take what they need then send our bank what is left. I think the democrats would go for that.