E85 Boondoggle of the Day: E20

e85 boondoggle of the day e20

Hey! Here’s an idea! While we wait for the whole country to switch to E85 (and Mexicans to renew their tortilla riots), let’s double the percentage of ethanol in “normal” U.S. gasoline from 10 percent (E10) to twenty percent (E20). Sounds great! You know; if you’re an ethanol producer. And that’s as good a description as any for the majority of the people who read Ethanol Producer (EP) magazine. In the none-too-subtly titled “Overcoming E20’s Objections,” the September issue of that august journal identifies ground zero in the campaign to increase gasoline’s ethanol content by 100 percent. “In 2005, Minnesota passed unprecedented legislation requiring that the state’s fuel consist of at least 20 percent ethanol by 2013. The state already enforces an E10 mandate and is home to more than 300 E85 fueling stations. To raise total fuel consumption to a level of 20 percent, the state has two choices—consume enough E85 to total 20 percent of all fuel consumed or convince the U.S. EPA to grant a waiver to the Clean Air Act and allow E20 to be used in all gasoline.” Can you guess which way they’re going? To that end, The Gopher (It) state is already researching E20’s effects on ethanol industry profits auto engines. To scribe Kris Bevill’s credit, problems are identified– plastic corrosion, catalytic converter temperature increases, lost mpgs– before the expected coat of gloss is applied. Bottom line? “As far as the national initiative is concerned, we’ve started the ball rolling in that direction,” “marketing specialist” for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture Mark Groschen told EP. “If it didn’t happen until 2015, well that would still be progress wouldn’t it? If we got 15 percent instead of 20 percent—15 is more than 10. We’re just trying to make progress.”

Join the conversation
2 of 37 comments
  • ChuckR ChuckR on Sep 07, 2008
    We should have a Boston Ethanol party!!! No, wait. That sounds messy. As long as its mixed with fruit punch instead of gasoline, its sounds like fun.

  • RogerB34 RogerB34 on Sep 07, 2008

    Non FFV cars are E10 max due to seals and fuel pump. FFV E85 cars need more frequent oil changes. Ethanol is highly corrosive.

  • Inside Looking Out Why EBFlex dominates this EV discussion? Just because he is a Ford expert?
  • Marky S. Very nice article and photos. I am a HUGE Edsel fan. I have always been fascinated with the "Charlie Brown of Cars." Allow me to make a minor correction to add here: the Pacer line was the second-from-bottom rung Edsel, not the entry-level trim. That would be the Edsel Ranger for 1958. It had the widest array of body styles. The Ranger 2-door sedan (with a "B-pillar", not a pillarless hardtop), was priced at $2,484. So, the Ranger and Pacer both used the smaller Ford body. The next two upscale Edsel's were based on the Mercury body, are were: Corsair, and, top-line Citation. Although the 1959 style is my fav. I would love a '58 Edsel Pacer 4-door hardtop sedan!
  • Lou_BC Stupid to kill the 6ft box in the crewcab. That's the most common Canyon/Colorado trim I see. That kills the utility of a small truck. The extended cab was a poor seller so that makes sense. GM should have kept the diesel. It's a decent engine that mates well with the 6 speed. Fuel economy is impressive.
  • Lou_BC High end EV's are selling well. Car companies are taking advantage of that fact. I see quite a few $100k pickups in my travels so why is that ok but $100k EV's are bad? The cynical side of me sees car companies tack on 8k premiums to EV's around the time we see governments up EV credits. Coincidence? No fooking way.
  • EBFlex "I'd add to that right now, demand is higher than supply, so basic business rules say to raise the price."Demand is very low. Supply is even lower. Saying that demand is outstripping supply without providing context is dishonest at best.