keepthefaith Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 10% ethanol isn't enough to harm engines and engines are built to run on the stuff. Ethanol is somewhat corrosive to aluminum and traps a bit more water than gasoline but these are negligible differences especially at 10%. Like previously said, Ethanol doesn't offer any meaningful advantages being in gasoline either. Getting rid of it in gasoline would probably be a net gain overall. We'd do better as a country if we could just adopt 1 fuel standard for all 50 states. There are something like 25 different fuel specs based on tiny differences in local fuel laws and then we also have winter fuel blends in a lot of states making it even more complex. Oil companies get hammered for expensive gas yet the states and feds tax the crap out of it and force oil companies to refine so many variations all of which makes it more expensive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 What's the problem with ethanol and small engines? Wasn't that supposed to be problem w/engines like 20+ years ago... I have been running 10% ethanol in a my engines for 20 yearss now.. Even my late 80's early 90's cars ran perfectly fine... Small engines too... Lawn mower I can't kill is going on 17 years old. Does this have something to do with the whole MTBE debate? Can't believe you haven't heard commercials from these folks who pontificate on the airwaves about the harm ethanol can do to car engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I've actually heard Stossel go on about how this idea is not inconsistent with his philosophy and he's not necessarily opposed to this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I've actually heard Stossel go on about how this idea is not inconsistent with his philosophy and he's not necessarily opposed to this. If you mean to say that it is not inconsistent with a libertarian philosophy you would be right. It is inconsistent with anybody who has a working brain though, not for philosophical reasons but for practical reasons. It is a big waste of time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 I've actually heard Stossel go on about how this idea is not inconsistent with his philosophy and he's not necessarily opposed to this. What idea, specifically? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) What idea, specifically? The black box keeping track of your highway use and then taxing your proportionally. I think it was on O'Rielly... IDK though I'm not here trying to say this is a libertarian-sanctioned thing I'm just saying I once saw Stossel talk about it. I was somewhat surprised at his take but after the fact it doesn't seem so surprising. Don't get me wrong, count me as one of the people who love my free roads and will throw a fit if I can no longer mooch off the government when I drive around. Edited November 1, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 Oh, yeah. They concept of paying for usage (consumption tax) is very libertarian, the idea of the black box, however, is not. All roads should be toll roads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted November 1, 2013 Share Posted November 1, 2013 (edited) Oh, yeah. They concept of paying for usage (consumption tax) is very libertarian, the idea of the black box, however, is not. All roads should be toll roads. Well the black box is only necessary if you are using the roads. hehe I mean, toll roads have cameras anyway... Edited November 1, 2013 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts