About E85,


Jul 3, 2006
A few days ago I read an article by the DOE or another such government entity telling us how badly the ethanol industry is doing. It seems that quality control is out the window. In the rush to get the industry established the producer are making junk.
The artcle looked at the producers as a whole and on closer inspection only 2 producers actually made ethanol that made the grade/met govt. standards to be called real fuel. It called the rest "moonshine". I have tried to find that article and post a link but had no success.
In the article they showed photos of beekers demonstrating how contaminated most ethanol are and how easily they became unstable by shaking them up.
We are in trouble folks. The Ag industry is benefiting from Obama's quota of 36M gals. to be produced by 2016. He says its for energy independence.
I'll look again and see if I can find it then post a link.
likely a media slant thing.

e85 is not perfect but nothing is. I am sure there are some quality issues that slip through just as there have always been some batches of bad gas or stations that get bad reputations

what I have observed from reading articles and lots of posts and debates from people discussing e85 on many different forums is this :

if you run e85 you cant say enough good about it most of the time such as posting personal best et's ,making more power on the dyno for $2.40 a gallon than you did previously with $9 a gallon 116 octane , removing intercoolers now that they have become a restriction with the cooling properties of ethanol ,etc...

if you dont or havent run it then you have skepticism or help perpetuate anything negative about the fuel , sometimes even posting negative stuff without even including a link to substantiate it.
I would be totally shocked if this is true. Each batch must be certified by the ethanol plant (COA), which must travel with the truck (or rail shipment), and the receiver (an oil company). Verification by outside lab must also be done on schedule. Furthermore an oil company would like nothing better than to catch a subpar batch so I have a hard time believing they would not also test- heck- it is the oil companies that demand the denaturant be an ultra, ultra low sulfur so they do not have to take out any more from the gas blendstock than they have to (costs money). The next line of defense is the state motor fuel inspector who must take the raw products and E10 back to his lab for quality testing.

Furthermore the oil companies own many of these plants today- Valero, Marathon (partnership w/Andersons), Sunoco, Koch/Flint (i think they just bought one or two a while back), and a couple more in the USA.

Why try to save a cent/gal or so on a railcar shipment when you just might get to end up paying nearly 35-40 cents in demurrage and return freight for the pleasure of trying to ship subpar ethanol???

To add to the difficulty of cheating is that pipeline companies also get involved in many cases- because in many terminals they own the tanks and thus can dictate even stiffer standards and testing even though the product never passed thru the main line.

It is just too cheap and easy to make on-spec ethanol to even think about cheating. This is not Brazil where they have both anhydrous (like US spec) and hydrous (for E100 ffv) cars.

Part of the US spec specifies clarity. It must be water clear with no haze, no sediment. You cannot shake up a batch and make it unstable even if it did not have clarity.
Its an article about biodiesel not E-85 Lmao....!


Quoted from the article.

In many ways, the production of biodiesel in the USA is still the equivalent of making moonshine. That’s one reason why major manufacturers are worried about what it might do to the engines we now operate.
Looks like a nice project and perhaps will help in the future- but I prefer something with higher octane, far less toxins, stinks less, and is here right now-ethanol. I've spent some 25 years (and still am in it) messing with gas and diesel fuels and putting up with the shenanigans of that business- including all their denials when problems arise with their products.

Dont take me wrong- I think USA made products are very important for our national security and trade balance and the project you posted will help that. But don't throw ethanol under the bus- we need it too.
Tell me more about the "less octane" as I saw no mentiom of it in the article. While your at it the same goes for "far less toxins, stinks less".
Ethanol is here now, I agree. Moonshine has been around forever.
You say you know allot about diesel? Here is another article. The product has no aromatics, is biodegradeable, no particulate emissions (burns without smoke), no sulpher, no nox, co2, very high cetane and the proces has been around since the late twenties and available now. I have samples of it. It looks like clean water in the jar, is stable for 8 years, EPA says it is biodegradeable has been given ASTM approval, FAA approval. has been tested bt the USAF, USN, United Air L:ines, Continenta/ and passed, Now Audi. You can drink it and it wont harm you. No more Gulf or Alaska oil spills.
Synthetic diesel fuel powers 1,000 miles of Audi
Crow - This is good information. A lot of it re-hashed again and agian however I must say we try to keep this forum pointed towards E-85 and how it relates to our cars.

This thread has a more politcal note to it. Hopefully Hot Air will move it to the appropriate forum.
My apologies if I bother YOU. The complaint was, does e-85 affect our cars in unexpected and or adverse ways. I offerred a different, verifyable source, information that might shed light on the subject.
I thank you for sharing your concern but I will continue to respond to those interested. This not about politics it s about FUEL.