Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
fleebut

Ethanol Negative Marketing

Recommended Posts

We wonder why more customers don't chose higher blends of ethanol? Why doesn't the public demand E15 and flex fuel cars? Think of a busy shopper with minimal time to care of such things. The consumer whom is treated to an avalanche of advertising and warnings. All the information is attempting to influence their choices in life. They want a fast decision. They want a simple choice and one that is secure and will not harm them in the long run. We know the public has generational evidence upon the wise decision of choosing plain gasoline. Yet, some that want more will "feel" better about their choice if they spend more for premium fuel. Premium has to be better and the trusted supplier is providing easy evidence that it surely does keep the engine clean, for example.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The petrol industry knows this truth. They know they only need to put a hesitation or question in front of a consumer to make shy away from choosing ethanol. The shopper is in the state of mind in which they don't know what they don't know. If they happen to glance at positive information they can quickly read an opposing viewpoint. The product is presented with glaring warnings; that can't be good. To restrict the use and only use the product in approved applications. They warn the product is not a i.e. a Shell product. They read the advertisements for more expensive premium fuel with the improvements of containing no ethanol. The additives all claim to protect you engine from ethanol. Small engine additive market is booming with warning and expensive products to store you engine or to operate even with ethanol. If the ethanol industry must respond defensively to these attacks, the battle is already won and not by ethanol.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the positive images or promotions of ethanol that are indeed strong. E15 is the fuel of choice for expensive and all capable race teams. Wow, what a powerful message!

 

E15 is less expensive. Consumers are most concerned on saving money and especially so on needed comore time mmodities. That force of marketing will eventually win out upon consuming public over time. Double that force if they have a perception if they think the fuel is less harmful to the environment. I think you will, eventually, see an sea change in attitude with continued use of the E15 fuel. I do believe E15 is the bridge that petrol fights as they know full well the consuming public, if adapting to the fuel, will realize they been lied to by the corporate fuel suppliers.

 

E85 fuel is a bridge to far, if the cost of gasoline is reasonable. The E85 choice is riddled with cautions and difficulties for consumers. Present day autos and especially with small engine technology are not all adapted to this fuel use. A shopper must know what to do with E85 fuel and hence all the negative warnings that the consuming public is treated to, just reinforces the fuel's attributes to poor quality fuel. Most all of the negative stereo types are spawn from E85 technical difficulties of the ICE state of operation, in which the engine is not maximizing the fuel attributes. It's easy for the competition to fear monger in this arena. The public has a perception that it is very difficult to engineer and risky to adapt a engine to run ethanol blends. They think the fuel is a compromise and will in effect compromise lifespan.

 

Now, normally the gov't could enter into this discussion with credible consumer information and promotion their in of the truth. Also, regulations could be filleted to offer ethanol blends a positive image. This "positive" image regulation  much more powerful as compared to image of gov't mandate. How simple and positive to the consuming public if they were treated to a choice of unleaded, mid grade, and premium fuels with ethanol being the denominator of higher grades of fuel from the get go. With E15 and E30 ethanol content. If the gov't offered up liability clause and temporary reduction in pump and storage regs to facilitate quick pump conversion to blender pumps the industry would be flying high. The consumer and auto manufactures would love the fuel. Small engine manufactures would not be affected.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The small engine manufactures are blistering ethanol fuel image. I recently bought a  Yamaha generator, Remington chain saw, and Remington grass trimmer. Many bold warning to avoid ethanol, use fresh gas no more than one month old, and to use synthetic oil for the two cycle engines. The generator had a sales statement that the engine is tested to meet stringent EPA air standards. The generator met those standards for the longest duration as compared to the competition. That would be 200 hrs. So, the long standing conflict with EPA air quality standards and the polluting small engines, continues. The EPA was thinking of banning the two cycle for years, but the industry adapted the 50:1 oil ratio to quell the action. The industry promoted the 50:1 engines as new and better, but I can personally attest to the hairy edge and failures of operating two cycles engines on such minimal lubrication. I think they utilized low friction coatings to minimize need of lubrication, that had a poor life span. I've learned to drop back to the standard of old 32:1 and haven't had a problem for years. The new engines do have remarkable air quality. They look to have a small catalytic converter device on the exhaust. I read the more popular oil ratio is now 40:1 and haven't read any promotion of 50:1. Also, the synthetic oil has always been the best performing two cycle on the market.

 

The two cycle does rely on much operator care, something that in modern day is a lost art as we are spoiled with modern equipment that usually has minimum maintenance. Old timers knew when to quit sawing from the heat and noise of the chain saw. They carried a screw driver to tweak the hi and low carb jets to gain max power and avoid destroying the engine. Gasoline has always suffered a short shelf life as the hundred of compounds with in the mix threaten to precipitate into a corrosive engine harming brew. Gunk is not as bad since much of the sulfur is now removed. Also, plain gasoline had a horrible time with moisture as the fuel can only absorb a very small percentage before causing even more problems. Gasoline of yesteryear did a better job in thermally protecting the engine per high sulfur and lead content, but at a cost of poor air quality. Currently the E10 fuel is a mixed blessing. The oxygenate improves air quality and solves the moisture problem. Depending on base stock the fuel may have a better shelf life as the additive usually replaces the most volatile unstable components of gas, but that is not a guarantee as the nation has various gasoline base stocks. E10, as you know, will make the engine burn leaner if the engine is adjusted to plain gasoline. In theory, this will result in higher engine temperature and more power. Two cycle engines do have a challenge to prevent thermal destruction as every revolution of crank presents another combustion event. Again, better to error the fuel mix to provide more lubrication oil.

 

The summary: Small engine manufacturers primary concern is the two cycle engine as the engine has always threatened poor engine life. Gasoline fuel is the weakest link and the biggest trouble spot for these engines. Ethanol has been positioned as the whipping boy for the industry that is riddled with challenges attempting to meet EPA air standards and varying fuel content. Gasoline has a wide variety of components and low stability that makes for a tough engineering feat with varying ethanol content. The two cycle really requires rock solid fuel character, something plain gasoline can not deliver. Also, the industry must accommodate the needs of current fleet of old equipment. Meaning they can't break with "new" fuel requirements. The recent news of European fuel company may just solve the problem. It's a synthetic produced from bio alcohol that maintains the gasoline character, but at rock standard quality and just about unlimited shelf live. The fuel is premixed and packaged in convenient can size. Sold in store self quantities. This approach seems fool proof and most capable to prevent engine problems and improve EPA conformance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2014- Retired as national manager of Toyota Motor Corporation’s advanced technology had some interesting comments posted on Environment 360-

 

Ethanol has remarkably destructive properties in your gas tank, especially on cars and engines that aren’t driven very much, like seasonal boats. It absorbs water, and the water gets throughout the fuel system, and dirt or

I don’t believe anybody in the scientific community is seriously looking at bioethanol from corn.”

debris that’s normally in your tank gets emulsified. That gets plated out in your fuel system, and your car runs very poorly. This has been documented time and time again, and it’s especially bad for cars or applications that aren’t designed for high levels of ethanol. It really has no upside, and when we consider all of the damage that it does to our ecosystems, it is done for no good reason. I don’t believe anybody in the scientific community or at the Department of Energy is seriously looking at bioethanol from corn, except for the politicians.

 

​Wow, a very misleading comment. The laymen's translation, ethanol will dry your fuel storage and safely purge the moisture through normal engine operation. A great thing. The additive does absorb water and prevent the water from stalling out the vehicle or causing the gasoline to quickly  degenerate.  If water is a problem the alcohol additives come to the rescue. 

 

 "Debris that’s normally in your tank" , well that is a bad thing and will nonetheless continue if using plain gasoline. Ethanol does clean up after gasoline and some of the debris will be captured by the filter. It's bogus to claim the debris will plate out in the fuel system. The truth is just the opposite. Ethanol will clean the entire fuel system including injectors and maintain peak operation. Also, when ethanol dissolves gasoline gunk it will merely travels through the fuel system and out the tail pipe. I've fueled up old '89 cars with E85 and experienced no fuel filter change required. Our E10 is already cleaning and drying fuel systems across the country. Seems to work good.  

 

 "Consider all of the damage that it does to our ecosystems" What is he talking about? He is promoting a false stereotype, that agriculture is bad and not part of ecosystem. It's just lose talk with huge bias and inaccuracy. Just a gross dismissal of an entire industry as bad.  That statement is nothing but propaganda intended to hurt an industry and such statements prove to me this guy is in bed with petrol. He dismisses the battery car to easily as well.  Agriculture technology as well as biofuel is improving just as readily as the hydrogen fuel cell in which he promotes per the fact the technology has the most head room to improve.  His position with they hybrid status is accurate and one would think an intelligent person would naturally migrate to the painless adaptation of every more biofuel to really deconstruct GW damage. Biofuel is the only energy source that radically decrease carbon emissions per renewable and biomass production. This solution dovetails with nature and energizes the potent natural carbon cycle.  The fuel will tip to negative carbon rating, something no competitor energy source could accomplish. Those wishing for other solutions are just exercising a ploy to quickly dismiss the solution per falsehoods.  The ILUC is one such invention that is only a theory, yet is readily applied to sabotage ethanol's carbon rating as to prevent the fuel from achieving a higher status per GW concerns. How many theoretical penalties are attributed to competing energy supplies?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Toyota has never(?) produced a flex fuel vehicle for retail sale in this country.    Interesting that a such a "big-shot" would make comments especially when they sent a top level mechanic to Minnesota to inspect the 2003 Prius that ran on E85 (Project Creed) for like 60,000 miles and nothing was found "broken".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Project Creed reads like a pretty good report on '03 Prius running E85. The check engine light did come on, but only because the engine controller could detect the fuel. The system still maintained proper fuel operation and engine conditions. Meaning the check engine light was meaningless as the owner probably already knew they were burning E85. I think auto companies are forced to do this as it is of paramount concern of the EPA. They do not want the car company or consumer to easily get away with a flex fuel vehicle without their agency getting the certification money. Meaning, it isn't legal unless they say so, and require auto companies to make sure the car doesn't operate on high blend ethanol. I posted a while back that my wife's '09 ford focus suffered E85 fueling because apparently the engine controller put the operation into limp  mode. This is a mode to really impress the owner they need garage work. I'm quite sure the EPA regulators required this for the sole purpose of preventing citizens from gaining a flex fueled vehicle without their permission.

 

The '03 Prius operated with much air emission improvements. Only upon cold starts did the fuel emit more, but the operation mode more than offset the entirety. In my book this is excellent results as the engine is designed or engineered for gasoline. If ever they worked to optimize the engine for E85 fuel, that would be a double improvement, even in cold start operation. These gasoline vehicles will always sabotage fuel mileage with E85 operation per the oxygen sensor. Meaning the vehicle is tuned to gas with transmission and operating parameters all the way around. The current fleet of vehicles (as you know) is not designed to maximize ethanol per down speeding and downsizing. They don't exploit the octane boost for more efficient high compression and high boost, nor early ignition advance . I really think the EPA is missing the intent of lawmakers with ethanol. The agency focuses on their control power and conformance without regard to overall reduction in pollution. They never allow open market influence to do the job of regulators, preferring instead to sort out the fly poop from the pepper at maximum control and cost.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the "success" of this study, Toyota emphatically insists their power plants may not use concentrations greater than E10.

 

The study convinced me and a couple of colleagues sharing membership on a Prius Yahoo group to try using ethanol blends. We quickly discovered the threshold for triggering the Check Engine warning lamp. When a nearby Speedway starting carrying E85 fuel in 2006, I started using it continuously at various concentrations between 50% and 85% using a conversion kit. Two failed conversion kits, and 110,000 miles later, I'm back to splash-blending E60 for my semi-monthly fill-ups. I recently filled up with E10 and was surprised by a cold engine stumble and a startling lack of peppiness. While the fuel economy improved dramatically under E10, I happily returned to E60 and the improved performance.

 

I replaced the gas tank a few years back, but could not determine whether the failed internal sensors were a result of the ethanol concentration or an animal strike years earlier that caved-in one side of the tank. Without a long term study, all we have are lame anecdotes like this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've witnessed this phenomenon many times, especially within business or industry experience.  It is getting worse. Modern politics have developed a conformance measures that have maximum power to destroy private citizens and business wealth. Nowadays, this revenue stream is a growing and most valuable income to government coffers. They have pushed regs and law to afford an immense latitude to punish wrong doers. This is beyond the original intent to dis sway entities to not act bad. Government alone has coercive force that acts as a deterrent, but I will say the combination is a threat to citizens enjoyment of life within the country. The IRS and EPA probably the two biggest offenders. They act as unelected tyrants sometimes. Some shout hurray when for example Volkswagen or Shell get hammered as that fits within their agenda of dislikes. I'm a little shocked of the gov't control of media and power they sway. One example of dozens, that I have personally experienced. A private company with stellar employment retention and safety record got hammered, that I worked for. Everyone knew what was going on and truthfully. A beloved community preacher of high character (minority) was friends with the owner. He pushed his influence to get his son in law hired by the company. This guy was nice and GQ quality. But it was evident that his narcissism or ego was damaged upon a good pay machine operator job. I think he was influenced to much from typical culture that influences youth and although popular, highly corrosive to themselves and society. Need I say more? Anyways, he devised a scheme to drill his hand per automation of the machine. He immediately sought legal damages to max. He lost, but the federal Health and Human services was unleashed to punish the company. I had to show the recent grad (minority) all around the shop. It was obvious her bias and prejudice. Not even working from regulation manual, she just pointed and demanded costly changes. We didn't argue, just implemented stupid requirements. All who go up against such action must drop to their knees and offer no negative propaganda/complaints of the gov't action. The press will go wild with tabloid news that is carefully screened by fed talent. This is just wrong and a very unattractive development.

 

So, my guess your blaming the wrong person. Toyota is just following company procedure to stay out of gov't trouble zone.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×