• who@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    The concern for most people is not the range of a gas tank. It’s about the fact that they’ll have to fill the tank more often, which means paying more often to travel the same distance, which rather undermines the claim of lowering the cost.

    The price per mile matters more than the price per gallon.

    And then there’s the additional cost of repairs when the ethanol prematurely dissolves your car’s seals and hoses.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      13 days ago

      I get that Americans can’t do simple math, but 30% less range for 60% less cost always makes economic sense.

      Ethanol does not prematurely dissolve seals and hoses on any car made in the last 30 years, and even if it does on older classic gas guzzlers, the hoses can be replaced for tens of dollars.

      Lot of Facebook Dad facts in this thread.

      • who@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        13 days ago

        Note that “rather undermines” does not mean “completely negates”. In any case…

        30% less range for 60% less cost always makes economic sense.

        Be sure to let everyone know when this new mix sells for 60% less than the current mix.

        Ethanol does not prematurely dissolve seals and hoses on any car made in the last 30 years,

        As far as I can tell, it’s closer to 25 years. Be sure to let everyone with an older car know when you plan to buy them an upgrade.

        I get that Americans can’t do simple math,

        Lots of assumption and rudeness in your comment. Please learn to be better. Goodbye.