Snopes.com gives a fairly detailed presentation of the dispute, both the EPA's side and the AAA's side.
It isn't clear where the 2012 date came from, but it's been in the viral scare emails that have been circulating (possibly a matter of confusion with the date the EPA approved E15, which was 2012?). Seems unlikely that if, as the AAA claims, E15 is harmful to cars made after 2001, it wouldn't also be harmful to cars made after 2012. (It's not a matter of post-2012 cars being "Flex-Fuel"--GM has been making Flex-Fuel vehicles since 2008.) Bhairitu wrote: > A little more recent info on the situation: http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20131205/NEWS/131209962/epa-to-lower-ethanol-blended-in-gasoline http://www.rubbernews.com/article/20131205/NEWS/131209962/epa-to-lower-ethanol-blended-in-gasoline > It's so funny though that the "air head" reporter on FOX said 2012. It's on their slides as "2012" as well, FWIW. > It's vehicles before 2001. Which might be a problem with my 1998 Forester. > Well, green groups can just give me a loan for a new hybrid at a $1 down > and a $1 a month. But it looks like E15 is not going to happen here in > California. On 12/10/2013 11:40 AM, Share Long wrote: Refuting Judy's sneaky lie: I don't watch Fox or any news. I don't have TV. As for snopes, I'll go with what AAA said about E15. YMMV... On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 1:17 PM, "authfriend@..." mailto:authfriend@... <authfriend@...> mailto:authfriend@... wrote: So you watch Fox News, eh? That could explain a great deal. BTW, before freaking out over E15 gas, read this from Snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/e15.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/gasoline/e15.asp Snopes's verdict is "Mixed"--parts of the E15 scare story are true, parts aren't. Share warned: > in case you don't already know about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceW9Nc1hVHU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceW9Nc1hVHU
