• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

  • Beginning April 1st, and running through April 30th, there is a new 2024 BMW MOA Election discussion area within The Club section of the forum. Within this forum area is also a sticky post that provides the ground rules for participating in the Election forum area. Also, the candidates statements are provided. Please read before joining the conversation, because the rules are very specific to maintain civility.

    The Election forum is here: Election Forum

Ethanol Pushback?

43912 said:
I've often wondered about that. Maybe premium fuel is easier to find outside the US. This is a design consideration that BMW has opted for for some time. In the 70's we got around it by installing cylinder base spacers or dual-plugging heads. Modern engines use knock sensors to retard timing but I have personally seen pistons from a k1600 with broken ring lands.
Higher compression ratios do produce a bit more power and are more efficient but the small percentage increase hardly seems worth it.
Click to expand...

It's the classic dichotomy in engine design ... large displacement, slow revving or small displacement, high revving.

Europe has chosen the latter along with really high gasoline prices and taxation based on engine displacement and much consequent concern regarding consumption.

The USA chose for decades the high displacement alternative with low gasoline prices and little to no concern for fuel economy.

The bottom line for gasoline internal combustion engines is that high efficiency and high compression and advanced ignition are inseparable, and, indeed, you won't find many Euro vehicles running "low test" fuels.

It's fairly hilarious IMHO that so many Americans are nearly insulted by a requirement to use high octane fuel, perhaps expecting--in error--that low fuel consumption can occur with low octane fuels and retarded timing. The fact of the matter is that the EPA and the like are in fact studying how to get wider distribution of high octane fuels in the USA. Just know that the concern is consumption, not cost.

It's for sure my opinion but my opinion is also that it's pretty close to fact that in the automotive world Europe is the leader and the USA is in comparison a third world country--see 1950s designs, see bragging that the boat anchor that is the mouse motor is 50 (now 60) years old, see 45-degree V-twins, see "hemis"--and the obsession with low octane fuels is simply reflective of that "good ol' times" culture rather than much understanding of engine efficiency and modern technology. Politicians' unfortunate obsessions with electric vehicles is another story altogether, of course.
 
lkchris said:
It's the classic dichotomy in engine design ... large displacement, slow revving or small displacement, high revving.
Click to expand...

Those aren't the only two choices - there is also an offset-crankshaft-internal-combustion-engine (small displacement) optimized for efficiency mated to an electric motor (or two) and a big hybrid battery pack. My Prius Prime is @ better than 70 mpg over 3K miles and runs on regular gas (and electric) with a 26+ mile electric-only range.

Harry
 
lkchris said:
It's the classic dichotomy in engine design ... large displacement, slow revving or small displacement, high revving.

Europe has chosen the latter along with really high gasoline prices and taxation based on engine displacement and much consequent concern regarding consumption.

The USA chose for decades the high displacement alternative with low gasoline prices and little to no concern for fuel economy.

The bottom line for gasoline internal combustion engines is that high efficiency and high compression and advanced ignition are inseparable, and, indeed, you won't find many Euro vehicles running "low test" fuels.

It's fairly hilarious IMHO that so many Americans are nearly insulted by a requirement to use high octane fuel, perhaps expecting--in error--that low fuel consumption can occur with low octane fuels and retarded timing. The fact of the matter is that the EPA and the like are in fact studying how to get wider distribution of high octane fuels in the USA. Just know that the concern is consumption, not cost.

It's for sure my opinion but my opinion is also that it's pretty close to fact that in the automotive world Europe is the leader and the USA is in comparison a third world country--see 1950s designs, see bragging that the boat anchor that is the mouse motor is 50 (now 60) years old, see 45-degree V-twins, see "hemis"--and the obsession with low octane fuels is simply reflective of that "good ol' times" culture rather than much understanding of engine efficiency and modern technology. Politicians' unfortunate obsessions with electric vehicles is another story altogether, of course.
Click to expand...


Considering the cost adder for premium fuel in the US is around 20%, and the added efficiency for a full 2 point compression ratio increase from 10 to 12 is less than 5%, it still hardly seems worth it.

http://victorylibrary.com/mopar/otto-c.htm

As far as world engine design leadership, even Hyundai has a variable valve timing design that lasts over 100k miles, and rod bearings that don't need to be replaced every 60,000 as a preventative measure. Every manufacturer has its share of successes and failures.
 
Owner's manual, '84 K100RS says, use leaded or unleaded gasoline, minimum 91 ROZ. Fuels containing ethanol or oxygenates or methanol may cause driveability, starting and stalling problems.

Calling congress tomorrow.
 
8ninety8 said:
Owner's manual, '84 K100RS says, use leaded or unleaded gasoline, minimum 91 ROZ. Fuels containing ethanol or oxygenates or methanol may cause driveability, starting and stalling problems.

Calling congress tomorrow.
Click to expand...

The same people that had a health care replacement plan on Inauguration Day or some other Congress???
 
Ethanol

Are there any brands who do not use ethanol? What other sources of Non-ethanol fuel are there in the Northeastern US?
 
I see slightly over 1MPG, about 3% increase on my car. There is a 10% to 30% fuel cost increase.

On the big GS I see maybe 2 MPG, and not real sure about that.

It is NOT cost effective, unless you figure in additional maintenance . Even then fuel hose and a fuel pump are not that expensive.

Rod
 
GTRider said:
I would love to see the experiment started, with an end to subsidized alcohol and let regular gasoline, in a range of octanes, go head to head with gasohol. I just did a 2500mi round trip to the heart of gasohol land, 1k road miles there and back plus local driving. I was able to buy straight gas on the way there and back with no problem, and the price difference between E10 and straight gas (88 or 89 octane) was typically 10-15 cents. Strip the subsidy and E10 goes par or greater with pure gas. In that scenario I don't see pure gas having any problem surviving in the marketplace.

Locally, I have my choice of at least a half-dozen vendors selling non-alcohol gas at 88-91 octane ratings. Vendors are selling what people are buying, and enough people are willing at this time to pay a bit more to avoid the problems of alcohol to keep the vendors ordering non-E fuels. Sans subsidy, and the artificial pricing it induces, that trend would not only continue but steepen. IMHO, of course.

Best,
DG
Click to expand...

I would love to see the end of subsidized gasoline including all the related tax credits and the portion of the defense budget spent on getting OUR oil out of the middle east.
 
The petroleum industry gets tax treatment no different than other industries with investments in facilities needed to fund on going and future production. As for defense allocated costs, there is money spent for the Navy to keep sea lanes open. But, the seaborne petroleum traffic is only about 25% of seaborne traffic and trade coming and going to the U.S. Things like ag trade, metals trade, manufactured products, etc.
 
swall said:
The petroleum industry gets tax treatment no different than other industries with investments in facilities needed to fund on going and future production. As for defense allocated costs, there is money spent for the Navy to keep sea lanes open. But, the seaborne petroleum traffic is only about 25% of seaborne traffic and trade coming and going to the U.S. Things like ag trade, metals trade, manufactured products, etc.
Click to expand...

And every damn one of those subsidies to every damn one of those industries ought to go away. I hear about the "free market" all the time only to find out that what that really means for these businesses is "freeloader market", not "free market.
 
Last edited:
Hungry people would make ethanol in fuels go away-hungry people here in the USA. We have hungry people in other parts of the world and nobody cares enough to cease this practice. Certainly an unpleasant scenario. One cannot justify ethanol automotive fuels on an energy basis or reduced greenhouse gases if you believe that stuff is important. To grow corn profitably, aside from the land, you need fertilizer (natural gas and mined minerals), crop chemicals (Roundup), GM seeds (for Roundup resistance, amongst other characteristics), fuel for farm equipment, electrical power for storage and irrigation in some parts of the country, handling and drying, manufacturing farm equipment. I'm sure I left lots out.

The manufacturing of ethanol from corn takes lots of electrical power, natural gas for boilers and waste gas incineration, distillation. Ethanol cannot at this time be transported in pipelines, so is trucked or transported in rail tank cars. There is a useable product for animal consumption.

Then one has the damage it does to the automotive equipment it powers to some degree and the economic damage to the vehicles' owners.

All-in-all a terrible policy, created by politicians and lobbyists ostensibly for the public good. Now, firmly established in every political stripe as national policy and virtually unchangeable, barring a natural disaster. Not hardly worth talking about any more. (The health care debate going on is a result of some people trying to stop a similarly crappy policy from imbedding itself in American life, before it is too late.)

Larry
 
Paul,are you suggesting that if BMW takes depreciation on a $30 million paint plant installed in their Spartanburg facility that the depreciation (which is part of the US tax code) is a subsidy?
 
swall said:
Paul,are you suggesting that if BMW takes depreciation on a $30 million paint plant installed in their Spartanburg facility that the depreciation (which is part of the US tax code) is a subsidy?
Click to expand...

It's a similar subsidy to the tax breaks and development incentives (relocating a sub-division at state expense) they received from the state of South Carolina. All of that, so they can pay lower starting wages (~15/hr) today than the Big 3 did in 1981 (~22/hr).

Using government funds to lower wages..........that's progress.
 
I agree that a state tax abatement or some special infrastructure work for a specific project is a subsidy. But, in my hypothetical case of depreciation on a facilities investment, something that would be available to any company, that is not a subsidy. It is part of the U.S. tax code. If that treatment is considered preferential or otherwise unfair, then the U.S. tax laws need to be changed.
 
As for tax breaks, there is way too much political noise from both parties and from wall street that I will not even venture a guess into what is right or wrong. There is no absolute truth upon which to make a statement.
That said and returning to the intent of the thread - Ethanol added to gas sucks. I have four stations near me now that have pumps dedicated to non-E gas. It is all I use in my lawn equipment as I know of horror stories about machines that need major rebuilds resulting from E-gas. I also try to use it as much as possible for my R1200RT (in the ridiculous attempt to stop yet another 1/2 day spent getting another new fuel strip). As for the gas mileage, I get as much as 3 miles more per gallon in the winter when E is increased at the pumps. That is enough to justify the added cost but it also makes me think (maybe incorrectly) that the engine of the auto will be better in the long run.
 
36654 said:
It's a similar subsidy to the tax breaks and development incentives (relocating a sub-division at state expense) they received from the state of South Carolina. All of that, so they can pay lower starting wages (~15/hr) today than the Big 3 did in 1981 (~22/hr).

Using government funds to lower wages..........that's progress.
Click to expand...
Did you ever think that the Revolutionary War was a waste of time???
Did you ever think that reading and studying the Constitution in 6th/7th Grade was a waste of time??
Did you ever thing that Jesse Venturi had it right when he said the only difference between a Russian and a US election was one more block to pick?
How many elected officials know what the third word of the Constitution is? How many believe it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Gasoline _ Octane Rating_ Ethanol
2
Replies
37
Views
12K
h2onutz
H
pauls1150
AMA Posts Ethanol Alert!
3 4 5
Replies
81
Views
23K
BC1100S
B
mika
Morning Reads: 12 August 2008 Tuesday
Replies
1
Views
2K
mika
mika
mika
Morning Reads: Wednesday, 30 January 2008
Replies
8
Views
3K
testinglogin
testinglogin
Back
Top