EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

[Mike T.]

Disappointed by the news yesterday.
EPA announced they are following President Trump's promise to "promote domestic biofuel production and support our nation's farmers."
They declined waiver requests to allow smaller oil refineries to produce non-ethanol gas.
What a disappointment! I was finding a few stations over the past year that offered non-ethanol gas. My cars run better on non-ethanol and the storage issue is much more forgiving too.
The President also said the EPA would not stand in the way of states that decide to let gas stations dispense E15 from pumps that now dispense E10.
Not good. Old car guys lose out to the farm lobby. Disappointed in the President too.

[Bill M.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

Only way to keep corn prices up and the price of gas constantly climbing. I am surprised that this scam will be allowed to continue as well

[Rich G.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

I might be wrong, or things may have changed but I thought the alcohol was added at the terminal, not the refinery. I say this because after Super Storm Sandy here on Long Island we had a gas shortage in the days after. One reason was no power at the gas stations but another was claimed to be that although there was gas at the terminal, there was no alcohol to mix with it. The barge was aground. The NYS government was lobbied to give a disposition for a few days. The barge got there before the politicians.

Like I said, I may be totally off base.

Rich

[Michael J.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

You are correct, the ethanol is added at the product terminals. My supplier of my ethanol free premium has it available at his terminal, but it is not available at the retail stations he supplies. He mixes the gasoline grades he gets by pipeline from the refineries with the ethanol, which is transported by rail or tanker truck, at his terminal for further distribution to retail stations.

[Ken R.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

Our local Murphy station at Walmart has a nozzle at pump for non ethanol gas which I use in lawn mower, etc. About only one around here with it though. You can buy gallon cans of it at Home Depot but it is expensive. Murphy's is about $.40 more per gallon than the ethanol blended.

[John F.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

Our QT (Quick Trip) station has it here in Georgetown, TX.

[Tim G.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

John, I was in Liberty Hill, TX today and saw that Quick Trip stores do have non ethanol regular grade fuel at their stores. Austin has only one terminal, (the Koch terminal) and the ethanol is infused at the Koch terminal. I'm not sure if non ethanol fuel is transported in from San Antonio or if they have non ethanol batches they pump into transports for QT stores. I'm glad we finally have non ethanol fuel in the Austin area.

[Dan A.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

I live between Houston and Galveston and our local Buc-ee’s mega convenience store has several non ethanol pumps. My 72 LT-1 and Ski Nautique love it. It is around 40 cents a gallon more than premium unleaded but as little as I use both the extra cost is insignificant. I hope they continue to sell it.

[James G.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

https://www.pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=TX

Has all the stations in TEXAS......and USA listed. I like VP Racing. The commercial station pump is 91 octane however is a blend. ONLY ''true racing non-ethanol VP 91'' fuel can be bought at a jobber / dealership terminal and can only be put into a 5 gallon can and not your car. Expensive also.

ALSO available at your favorite race track.

[James G.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

I have been running Sunoco 110 which is available locally at $9.99/gal by the gallon, VP last time I bought it was $13 a gal in 5 gallon cans ($65) -
That being said, many of my customers across the country run 100LL aviation - (because it is the same anywhere they buy it) which last time I checked I could get at approx $4/gal if I buy a drum.

[Mike T.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

This was the source of my information:

kiwaradio.com/local-news/epa-rejects-gap-year-waivers-from-ethanol-blending-rule/

Hope you guys are right and we can still keep getting it.

[Mark E.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

Am I missing something? Maybe it's different with you solid lifter boys, by my 454 with 10.25:1 CR runs fine with E15. From a performance perspective, ethanol increases octane allowing me to run more ignition advance.

Another benefit is E10 and E15 can absorb some water thereby reducing corrosion in the fuel system.

The only performance downsides I know about: You'll need to use alcohol compatible rubber components, e.g. fuel hoses, fuel bowl inlet needle, accelerator pump seal; it also evaporates a bit more quickly in the fuel bowl.

My beef with ethanol fuels is the environmental impact (increased use of pesticides and herbicides, refining process and transportation), and poor use of precious limited farm lands when petroleum is so abundant.

[Michael J.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

In my case, it has nothing to do with CR, but with several fuelie tankers (ethanol is death to Rochester FI systems), and carb tankers, ethanol absolutely destroys the fiberglass tank over time. I have had to repair a couple and deal with past owners using it, not gonna do that again.

[Jim L.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

In my case, it has nothing to do with CR, but with several fuelie tankers (ethanol is death to Rochester FI systems), and carb tankers, ethanol absolutely destroys the fiberglass tank over time. I have had to repair a couple and deal with past owners using it, not gonna do that again.

I don't follow. Perhaps you could elaborate?

While I don't like having to use the Kalifornia version of E10, I can't point to any damage its use has caused any of my FI units.

[Michael J.]

Re: EPA decision on Non-Ethanol

I have had gaskets and o-rings deteriorate, and stick the needle in the high pressure pump assembly.