Current Conditions
30°F - CLEAR
Some drivers shun ethanol
Motorists say better mileage makes them go out of their way for 'pure gas'
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Sep 15, 2008
00:24 EST
By PATRICK BURNS, Staff

Two weeks ago, Jeff Shabbir discovered the gas he sells at his Terre Hill service station contained no ethanol.

That's when Shabbir decided to advertise "ETHANOL-FREE GAS" in block letters on the sign outside his Main Street store.

"My customers say they don't want gas with ethanol," Shabbir said recently.

So how did domestically produced corn ethanol, once the darling of alternative fuels, fall out of favor with his clientele?

"What happened was $4-per-gallon gas," Shabbir said. "People want better gas mileage, and ethanol doesn't deliver that."

Shabbir said customers report that ethanol-free gas provides a boost of up to five miles per gallon compared to E-10 fuel, the gasoline blended with 10 percent ethanol that is commonly sold at most gas stations in the state.

The U.S. Department of Energy believes the difference is less dramatic. It has stated it takes 1.03 gallons of E-10 for a vehicle to cover the same distance as a gallon of pure gasoline. But opinions vary on how much ethanol-free gas really delivers.

Ross DiBono, executive director of the Pennsylvania Gasoline Retailers Association, said it's a myth that motorists achieve significantly better gas mileage using ethanol-free gas.

"Besides that, refiners get a 5-cent-per-gallon tax credit for adding ethanol, so you have to factor in that you'll spend more money buying regular gas," DiBono said.

Ron Horning of Terre Hill said ethanol-free gas yields about three extra miles per gallon in his older pickup truck and other later-model vehicles.

Horning purchases ethanol-free gas at Charlie's Fuel & Deli, 1634 W. Main St., Ephrata. The station eliminated high-test gasoline in favor of "pure gas," which sells for about 10 cents more per gallon compared to the E-10 fuel, which is also available at Charlie's.

Owner Charlie Rutt said many customers are confused about the merits of pure gas. Still, Rutt said about 15 percent of his gas sales are ethanol-free gas purchases, a figure that grows daily.

"People will drive out of their way to buy pure gas," Rutt said. "I'd estimate that customers say they get about a 30 percent increase in gas mileage."

John Jascoll of Manheim Township said he has tracked the mileage he gets from his 1999 Mercury Sable for several years and found his expenses rose dramatically when last year he could no longer find ethanol-free gas.

Jascoll said his gas mileage dropped from 25 mpg to 17 mpg after switching to E-10 gas. During the intervening year, when the price of gas rose about $1 per gallon, Jascoll said the cost of driving 10,000 miles leaped from $1,200 to $2,352, when he switched to E-10 fuel.

"How does a $1 increase in the price of gasoline over the past 12 months double the amount I spend on gas?" Jascoll asked.

Jascoll said he can't find ethanol-free fuel, certainly not at large convenience-store chains.

Most stations have complied ahead of time with Gov. Ed Rendell's 2006 mandate that all gas stations in the state sell gas containing at least 10 percent ethanol once in-state production of ethanol reaches 200 million gallons per year.

Scott Hartman, the chief executive officer of Rutters Farm Stores, said gas retailers can get ethanol-free gas if they want it. It's available at regional gasoline terminals in Mechanicsburg, Highspire, Spring Township and Lancaster (near Park City Center).

"Ethanol attracts and absorbs water; it is not blended at refineries," Hartman said. "Both ethanol and gas are stored at regional terminals and that is where the ethanol is blended or injected into the gasoline."

Echoing a sentiment documented in numerous Internet blogs, Horning believes the corn-based fuel is unhealthy for gas combustion engines.

"I believe pure gas definitely makes the engine run better," Horning said. "I think so, but some people will debate that."

Rutt said many of his customers say ethanol-free gas dulls the performance of power tools and lawnmowers.

"In the long run, you'll be much better off buying pure gas," Rutt said.

Despite that perception, Hartman said he's not interested in selling ethanol-free gas at Rutters' chain of more than 50 stores in York, Lancaster, Adams, Cumberland and Franklin counties.

He said ethanol-free gas likely would benefit gas sippers such as the Toyota Prius, which are typically owned by drivers who pay very close attention to gas mileage.

"But other cars will not see a noticeable difference," Hartman said. "I think the savings people get is more in their head than what actually happens on paper."

Hartman and DiBono both said people are probably confused by Internet stories about E-85 fuel, which contains only 15 percent gas and 85 percent ethanol.

"It's true that with E-85 you'll get only about 65 to 75 percent of mileage you'd get with a regular gasoline," DiBono said.

E-mail: pburns@lnpnews.com


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 26 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
QUOTE (TheMeanGeek @ Sep 16 2008, 05:39 AM)
Mat - to put is simply - You are naive if you believe that only the rich will be taxed. All taxes (corporate or the rich) end up coming out of our pockets. "Our" being defined as the consumer. If you don't understand how this can be, do two things for me. 1.) Take a macro enconmomics class. 2.) Stay away from the polls untill you take the class.

So please explain to us, no matter who wins, how anything gets paid down without either redistributing the money that's already coming in, or increasing someone's taxes. Or is that just a ficticious number that really doesn't matter?And don't tell me the market will take care of it on it's own. I look forward to this explanation.
onlyinlancaster
QUOTE (onlyinlancaster @ Sep 16 2008, 07:55 PM)
So please explain to us, no matter who wins, how anything gets paid down without either redistributing the money that's already coming in, or increasing someone's taxes. Or is that just a ficticious number that really doesn't matter?And don't tell me the market will take care of it on it's own. I look forward to this explanation.

I don't question the need for taxes. I question the amount needed. At this point in my life and this countries history more and more is being taken from citizens who produce and outright given to those who don't produce. Taxes are correct for police, fire and roads. But to give it to people for not doing anything is wrong.

Even justified taxes doesn't change my statement either. All taxes, needed or not, comes out of the consumers pockets. To buy tangible good such as fire protections and roads is not a transfer of wealth though. To give it to social programs (over two thirds of our taxes) IS a redistribution of wealth. And that wealth ultimately comes from the consumers pockets. The rich are and will always in the position to make that statement true. Otherwise, there will be no rich and I'm not sure society would be better without the rich.
TheMeanGeek
QUOTE (pml @ Sep 15 2008, 09:33 AM)
Well we did the additive to no avail. Maybe the damage was already done. We are having a marina check it out. Supposed to be very well respected in the area.
Does anyone know if jet skis need additive as well?

If the jet ski is a 4-stroke engine, as most made since 95 are, yes.
grieker
QUOTE (onlyinlancaster @ Sep 16 2008, 07:55 PM)
So please explain to us, no matter who wins, how anything gets paid down without either redistributing the money that's already coming in, or increasing someone's taxes. Or is that just a ficticious number that really doesn't matter?And don't tell me the market will take care of it on it's own. I look forward to this explanation.

You forgot the third side of the triangle, when income exceeds expenditure, we call this surplus, when expenditure exceeds income, we call this debt.
To pay down the debt, we need short term surplus which can be the result of increased income or reduced expenditure.
There is tons of wasted money that goes into gov't coffers and never comes out. Eliminate even half the waste and there's no need to raise taxes or cut services. I would recommend both reducing waste and cutting services, but in this "gimme gimme" society, as soon as you say "we really can do with a new fire engine for two more years, this one is working great and does not require a lot of work to keep it running" you have all sorts of people, some justified, some not, up in arms.
Another area of waste, the fire engine was just an example, is gov't borrowing. Sometimes this is needed, the fire house burned down, the equipment is a total loss and there's not enough money in the "rainy day" fund to cover the loss, the insurance was only enough to cover the building. So borrowing is the right thing to do, because well lets just say I don't want to be the citizen who's house is on fire in a township with no fire truck.
But... this same township who's spending $500 a month on maintaining an old, but not obsolete, fire engine who opts to pay $2000 a month in interest on a new fire truck loan is misguided. There's other options, used fire trucks are bought and sold would a used one for 1/5th the cost perform well enough until the money needed can be accumulated with out making all the interest payments? What about an extra carnival, people love these things. Where I live, the fire dept is volunteer, the ambulance is paid. The fire guys are great, so are the EMTs. But the EMTs are "at work" 24 hours a day for two days straight. The ambulance company is paid each time they pick someone up and by member fees. The fire guys only come to "work" when there's a fire. They don't get paid.
Both operations are on the fire department's grounds and once a year, they hold a carnival. Ever kid in town will be there at least once, most accompanied by parents all of them spend money on everything from vendors and rides to donations and raffle tickets.
solitary
QUOTE (TheMeanGeek @ Sep 17 2008, 07:44 AM)
I don't question the need for taxes. I question the amount needed. At this point in my life and this countries history more and more is being taken from citizens who produce and outright given to those who don't produce. Taxes are correct for police, fire and roads. But to give it to people for not doing anything is wrong.

Even justified taxes doesn't change my statement either. All taxes, needed or not, comes out of the consumers pockets. To buy tangible good such as fire protections and roads is not a transfer of wealth though. To give it to social programs (over two thirds of our taxes) IS a redistribution of wealth. And that wealth ultimately comes from the consumers pockets. The rich are and will always in the position to make that statement true. Otherwise, there will be no rich and I'm not sure society would be better without the rich.


I agree with what you said but have you ever looked at the percentages of taxes and where they go? The so called freebies are not very high on the list. Don't mind spending 10 billion per month in iraq? We have the largest military in the world.Do we have to be 10 times larger than number 2?What's wrong with 5 or 6 times larger? What could we do with all those savings? It's not the handouts. It's larger than that. What about the handouts to the rich? Don't they bother you more than the miniscule to the poor?What if they didn't collect handouts? Welfare is welfare. It is way worse on the rich end than it is on the poor end. Why can't people get that? And no it isn't right on the poor end either.
onlyinlancaster
Top Ads