[jasonzemos]

This comment is just 400% wrong. And to make the claim that the OP was uneducated just misleads everyone here on HN. I'm someone who has run E85 blends in my 2006 turbo Subaru for the last 4 years. I can personally attest to E85's increased stability and cooling power from my time personally playing and tuning on a chassis dynamometer and gathering real world data. I would prefer E100 if they could sell that at the pumps too: it simply reduces the chance of pre-ignition or dual flame-front events from the petroleum blend.

I think as scientists and engineers it's extremely important we separate the empirical facts from the political propaganda.

Flagged.

[hcurtiss]

Flagged? Seems to me it's pretty tough to get around the mpg arguments. Likewise, the wear on engines is well known in the marine environment -- which is not all that different from driving on PNW roads in the winter. Most of our cars ran fine on E0, and I'm not at all sure what you're concerned about in terms of pre-ignition or dual flame-front events (my car, like most, was designed to run on 87 octane).

[foobarian]

How do you know it's wrong? The argument is that ethanol degrades an engine more quickly than gasoline; presumably testing this would require studying a whole fleet of engines for a long span of time--probably longer than 4 years.

[tehwebguy]

> I think as scientists and engineers it's extremely important we separate the empirical facts from the political propaganda.

Right but a single anecdote about your own car doesn't move the conversation forward. It sounds like you may know more on this subject than most, give us some details and sources.

[cwkoss]

Your tone isn't helping your argument. Just saying.