Oh really?

Try buying a NEW car today for half the price of a NEW car in 1976. >>>>>>>>

Like I said, all depends on what you are buying. I have the window sticker for my Cherokee, brand new in 96 it was almost $34,000...I see banners on this site advertising them for around $30,000.

Let me repeat s l o w l y.....CORN as a commodity has increased in cost MOSTLY due to the use of it in ethanol, IF we stopped growing corn for ethanol the cost of a bushel would drop dramatically. ON the other hand IF we started using sugar beets instead we'd see the price of that commodity increase.

The cost of legacy benefits for GM is higher per car then the raw materials going into them.

Do you know how much "The Lisa"(VERY high end PC) cost when it was released by Apple around 1983? Over $10,000 and I can do more with the lap top I'm sitting on which cost me $700.

I paid $250 for my first CD player back in 85.
Like I said it all depends on the item/commodity.

 

 

Indeed. Another few things with prices, if you watch comercials from the 80's, 90's for places like taco bell, you'll notice they talk about OUTRAGEOUS LOW PRICES, and oh wow, it's the same price now, they just mark it up while you aren't paying attention just to market it down again, it's a cycle. Not to mention that the example of the TV is not right, since with how technology progresses, any Tech that has time to be refined (like lcd tv's) will go down in price, due to better production methods, cheaper components, etc.


Ethanol, gas prices, and corn are all just bs that lines the rich's pockets. Why? Because over half of consumers are stupid, and the others are forced to keep consuming because they have to.

Also, you are what you eat.

 

The problem is not so much the engines ability to run on E20 or E30, because they will.

Inquire with the people who are doing the testing about the fuel delivery system to the motor?

I bet they are using materials in the fuel lines, carbs,injectors and pumps that are designed to handle higher blends of ethanol.

Tell them to go to the Auto Parts store and get a fuel delivery system designed for say a 1985 vehicle. Set it up alongside a similar test fixture using newer fuel components.

This will give you two test setups, both with new components but one with older spec components.

Then have them run E30 through them for an extended time ( until one fails ). The one with the older spec'd parts will fail first.

I am not convinced that E10 does not do harm, but the harm it does is at a much slower rate that component failure won't occur early enough for it to be a concern.

I bet if you look into Fuel Pump failures the rate of failures increased with the introduction of E10. But again it was occurring in older vehicle so part of the rate was masked by the vehicle age.

Through regulation the government is determined to remove older vehicles from the highway.

Cash For Clunkers was not just to get the economy going. They want them cars DESTROYED so that even parts of them would not make it back on the street.

 

I really don't want to have to explain it, but using technology isn't the best of examples because you are forgetting about Moore's Law.

The industry is constantly getting more and more expensive, but every 1 to 2 years the industry can pack twice as much on half the size which makes things cheap and gives us more at the same time.
A wafer back in 2001 cost x amount of dollars. Today it is obvious that the wafer costs a lot more money. Maybe 2x as much. In 2001, CPUs were made on 180nm chips. Today they are on 32nm. The wafer of 2001 and today are the same size, but the difference is today on 32nm you can fit many more CPUs on a wafer. 180nm might be 1000 CPUs, but 32nm might be 6000 CPUs.

So the companies costs for each wafer went up 100%, but their yield ratings went up 600% which reduces the overall cost of each CPU. A rough explanation but it gets it done.

It is a result of Moore's Law. Research it if you need too.
Don't take this for granted either because Moore's Law is expected to end soon.

 

Okay, just finished reading this entire thread... Phew! Tons of good info! But one question. If a station has 10% ethanol in the fuel it has to have the sticker correct? I filled up at a shell in Illinois on night and found no sticker, went to another shell in a different town and did find a sticker. Do you know if shell runs 10%? Or if the sticker is mandatory?

 

in Racine Wi we cant get gas thats not ethanol and i just moved here from iowa where 87 was non ethanol. I noticed a 2-3 mpg drop with e10. So I say screw ethanol completely. They use reformulated gas in the summer here and my dad blew up his john deere riding lawnmower the first summer after he moved here, that ran like a champ for 10 years before that with zero problems

 

I really don't want to have to explain it, but using technology isn't the best of examples because you are forgetting about Moore's Law.>>>>>>>>

No it's not the best example but the point was that corn is much more expensive because it's used for ethanol. As I stated if you used sugar beets instead you'd have an inverse relationship between corn and sugar beets causing sugar beets to increase in value while corn decreases. Government involvement has kept corn artifically inflated beyond it's food value.

 

Some stations use it some don't. Google it there is a list somewhere of stations near you that do not use it

 

Love the discussion I started for my first post on my iPhone app!! Thanks for all the response

 

Laws on the requirement of a sticker announcing the Ethanol Fuel can vary from state to state. We had a station in Maryland that did not have the sticker at one time and everyone thought it was selling gas with no Ethanol.

I asked the owner and he assured me it was 10% Ethanol, he even showed me his latest delivery invoice and it too indicated 10% Ethanol Blend.

I asked why he did not have his pumps marked and he explained it was not required, then went on to say that it was required only during the time when a station was transitioning to Ethanol.

 

First: Corn has risen disproportionaly because population has risen exponentially increasong demand all around. For food, and ethanol, among other things, like feeding the cattle to feed more people and so on. Like anything with life, its a cycle, and as it adds in more factors, more things get effected
Secondly: And by drilling in CO, prices of other things, such as beef are going to increase due to less land to raise cattle and other "crops"
Third: natural gas is also not a viable solution because 1) all the conversions (gas stations, engines, ect) 2) it uses, polutes and wastes another resourse we take for granted, WATER. Which is already in short supply
Finally: look at the big picture not just a corner. More research needs to be done to find a sufficent solution that is best for all, not just one side. Because there will be ripple effects throughout the equation equation, meaning you may not pay for it at the pump, but somehow somewhere along the line you will.


And 1 more thing, try growing sugar beats in america. The climate is different in brazil thats why they can and because of less vehicles and comuting they can be successful with their ethanol production. America practices affulence well, and that is why ethanol cannot be as successful here as other places