US standard octane levels are lower than the rest of the world.

I learnt something.

I'd ask what that difference was, but I'm hiding from this thread ...

Big boom,little boom stuff.

Octane is a measurement of resistance to detonation - how much you can compress the gas/air mixture without it exploding.  Higher octane means you can compress it more.  You use high octane fuels in high performance engines because you can get better compression ratios and therefore more power. 

You should use the minimum octane rating that your user manual says.  If you use higher octane fuel, you don't get any benefit from using it and you're just throwing extra money down the drain.  If you use lower octane fuel than your engine was designed for, you'll likely see a degradation in power and might develop problems with engine knocking.

The US rates octane slightly different than the rest of the world, which accounts for some of the difference in octane ratings at the pump.  It's no surprise, considering that we insist on measuring everything differently.

Does the USA have transparency in ethonol % ?

Most gas stations have signs indicated that the fuel can be up to X% ethanol.  A couple of states mandate 10%.  It's probably safe to assume that they use the highest posted % of ethanol because it's cheaper.

I really think the US is fucked up on the ethanol issue.  Corn based ethanol production is a stupid idea.  I'll probably make a thread on that later.

Yeah, isn't it much easier to produce cane or sugar beet-based ethanol? I heard something like that, but the corn lobby is too powerful apparently.

The aerodynamics benefits from the compressed suspension would/might void some of the fuel consumpition issues.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't all the extra weight matter a lot more for acceleration than anything else? If you were driving 100 miles in a straight line, on a flat surface, I'm not sure the extra weight would make that much of a difference.

That much of a difference ? ~shrug. I have no clue.

I'm just playing the "fool who throws in a line every now and then" on this thread. As long as I dont go off topic, I think it's okay.

Checking the consumption of real trucks ( not what americans call trucks ) on the highway cycle should give an answer.

Yeah, isn't it much easier to produce cane or sugar beet-based ethanol? I heard something like that, but the corn lobby is too powerful apparently.

Find the place in the US where you can grow cane in the quantities that you can grow corn, and you'll have a winner.

Even then, switchgrass is the winner in cost/benefit comparisons on ethanol production.  And that's where the corn lobby steps in.

*peeks into thread*
*leaves again*

Yeah, isn't it much easier to produce cane or sugar beet-based ethanol? I heard something like that, but the corn lobby is too powerful apparently.

The aerodynamics benefits from the compressed suspension would/might void some of the fuel consumpition issues.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't all the extra weight matter a lot more for acceleration than anything else? If you were driving 100 miles in a straight line, on a flat surface, I'm not sure the extra weight would make that much of a difference.

To maintain momentum at a particular weight requires a particular amount of fuel, add or remove weight will adjust the amount of fuel used to maintain that momentum.

Yeah, isn't it much easier to produce cane or sugar beet-based ethanol? I heard something like that, but the corn lobby is too powerful apparently.

Find the place in the US where you can grow cane in the quantities that you can grow corn, and you'll have a winner.

Even then, switchgrass is the winner in cost/benefit comparisons on ethanol production.  And that's where the corn lobby steps in.

I'd imagine places like Florida or some of those Gulf states would be suitable for growing sugar cane. And from what I can tell, sugar cane is probably more efficient in its land use than corn.

I'd imagine places like Florida or some of those Gulf states would be suitable for growing sugar cane. And from what I can tell, sugar cane is probably more efficient in its land use than corn.

But that's nothing, comparatively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_Belt

Well, the strip of land between the Great Dividing Range and the Pacific Ocean in northern Queensland is where we grow sugar cane, and it aint a whole lot of space, but somehow manages to produce far more sugar than we need.

So I'm thinking that a comparatively small amount of land could produce enough sugar to produce a lot of ethanol.

That said, ethanol is fine in theory, but you dont get the same bang for your buck energy wise from ethanol as from straight petrol.

There are also other countries that grow tons of sugarcane.  If the USA didn't use quotas and tariffs to protect the corn industry, it would make a lot more sense to, you know, use that free market thingy people always go on and on about.

Ethanol doesn't make sense as a long term solution anyway.  We really need to address the one car one person live 50 miles from work mentality that governs much of the US.  That's really not sustainable long-term, unless someone is going to invent the personal fusion reactor sometime soon.

This I agree with. Ethanol isnt a sustainable long term fuel, neither is LPG, CNG, bio diesel or coal derived fuels. Hydrogen is, but theres 2 real problems with it.

The reason I drive a large car with a comparatively large engine is that I live 12 kilometres from work, so the cost to me isnt something I cant sustain. In other words, because I can. There's very little public transport going out that way in the morning, so I drive.

If I lived 40-50 kilometres from work, I'd be driving something small, and probably turbo diesel. If I lived closer to where I work, say within 2 kilometres, I'd walk.

There are also other countries that grow tons of sugarcane.  If the USA didn't use quotas and tariffs to protect the corn industry, it would make a lot more sense to, you know, use that free market thingy people always go on and on about.

That assumes that the other countries will be working on a free market principle as well.
Most of the countries that grow cane in Central & South America are AT LEAST very socialist.  The Brazilian government has some pretty retarded taxation on their ethanol fuel production and - I think I remember the guys in POA telling me this - severe restrictions on the amount of raw cane that can be shipped out of country.

Sugar cane is a decent idea...if you place the refinery near the crop.

Sugar cane is a decent idea...if you place the refinery near the crop.

Brazil's set up works fine.
I guess this is a situation where "near" is subjective, allowing you to redefine it at will.

There are also other countries that grow tons of sugarcane.  If the USA didn't use quotas and tariffs to protect the corn industry, it would make a lot more sense to, you know, use that free market thingy people always go on and on about.

That assumes that the other countries will be working on a free market principle as well.
Most of the countries that grow cane in Central & South America are AT LEAST very socialist.  The Brazilian government has some pretty retarded taxation on their ethanol fuel production and - I think I remember the guys in POA telling me this - severe restrictions on the amount of raw cane that can be shipped out of country.

I don't really know enough about how Central & South America are implementing their reforms to argue one way or another about how they do business. 

If the US market was open to sugarcane and/or ethanol produced elsewhere, I would be willing to bet that another country would be more than happy to do business.  We do business with plenty of countries that don't like us in a variety of other markets, after all.

Sugar cane is a decent idea...if you place the refinery near the crop.

Brazil's set up works fine.
I guess this is a situation where "near" is subjective, allowing you to redefine it at will.

My thinking is : Close enough to not void any enviro/fiscal benefits.