QT no longer evil?

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588





Ethanol has been in use in the Midwest for decades, and there have been no mechanical problems there

here's where I beg to differ.

I've been driving since 1983; I remember the first incarnation of ethanol, back when they called it 'gasohol' in the mid to late eighties.  Older vehicles with more plastic and rubber components, when using gasohol, would have components fail directly caused by gasohol.  Alcohol by it's very nature dries rubber up unless it's treated for it.  Back then, most weren't.  I saw several carburetors fail; specifically mine, under the use of this.

Vehicles newer than 1990 should have no problems other than the diluted gas mileage, but to say ethanol causes no problems is an out and out lie.  Ask ANY auto mechanic from the eighties and they'll laugh at the statement you make.  I know, I was taking auto mech at vo-tech in the mid eighties and my instructors were pretty adamant about gasohol's negative effect on the vehicles of the day.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Replacing Koolees with Freezonis...now THAT was evil!

We'll see if they're evil if they rebuild the 21st & Harvard site with the high-glare "Scottsdale" lights their marketing people are so fond of (instead of Full-Cutoff lights that would be in compliance with their PUD).  
If QT is capable of satisfying the strict lighting codes in places like Tucson, they can do better here.

[cannon_fodder]

Hoss, I did not know about the law.  My response to Inteller was mostly because he was sharpshooting me so I returned the favor.  Plus I grow tired of his constant negativity.  Nonetheless, one criticism has been eliminated and the pump prices strongly indicate they are not leading a cartel to keep prices here high.

On the corn ethanol note as a whole, the policy is foolish.  

In Iowa (Iowan here) ethanol has been in common use for at least 15 years I can say with absolute certainty.  Many stations offer 15% ethanol gas and it is subsidized by the state, so the 89 Octane sells for less than the 87.  They advertise their ethanol with green stickers on the pump, instead of warning as we do here.

The effect on vehicles is widely debated.  I am not an expert on the subject but am of the opinion that it has minor effects.  Almost certainly any car built since 1995 has next to no ill effects (1995 was when ethanol was slated as a mandatory MBTE replacement).  Cars older than that might have some issues, I really don't know... old cars are suppose to have lead, so "regular" gas isn't ideal.

So as a product I am undecided.  Less energy for sure.  Harmful?  Probably not.  But as an energy policy it is foolish to turn corn into ethanol.  We can get it from Brazil cheaper than we can make it and sell the corn to them for their cattle.  WIN WIN economically and environmentally.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Hoss, I did not know about the law.  My response to Inteller was mostly because he was sharpshooting me so I returned the favor.  Plus I grow tired of his constant negativity.  Nonetheless, one criticism has been eliminated and the pump prices strongly indicate they are not leading a cartel to keep prices here high.

On the corn ethanol note as a whole, the policy is foolish.  

In Iowa (Iowan here) ethanol has been in common use for at least 15 years I can say with absolute certainty.  Many stations offer 15% ethanol gas and it is subsidized by the state, so the 89 Octane sells for less than the 87.  They advertise their ethanol with green stickers on the pump, instead of warning as we do here.

The effect on vehicles is widely debated.  I am not an expert on the subject but am of the opinion that it has minor effects.  Almost certainly any car built since 1995 has next to no ill effects (1995 was when ethanol was slated as a mandatory MBTE replacement).  Cars older than that might have some issues, I really don't know... old cars are suppose to have lead, so "regular" gas isn't ideal.

So as a product I am undecided.  Less energy for sure.  Harmful?  Probably not.  But as an energy policy it is foolish to turn corn into ethanol.  We can get it from Brazil cheaper than we can make it and sell the corn to them for their cattle.  WIN WIN economically and environmentally.

As a whole, ethanol isn't physically harmful except to those cars you noted, 1995 and before.  They started using neoprene to replace rubber/plastic parts about that point, which is resistant to the effects ethanol has on rubber (drying out of the rubber makes it rot).

I DO agree with you on the fact that corn ethanol is not the way to go.  In 2002, corn was selling for about $2 a bushel.  Now it's close to $7.  And the government subsidies are not helping matters in the least.

Switchgrass is being looked at, but sorghum based ethanol from what I understand has some people looking at it too.  I'm not against alternative fuels.  I'm just against those that cost more in the end run than what we're currently using.  And I have an E85 FlexFuel vehicle (2008 Dodge Avenger).  In the end, corn has gone up enough to not make the price difference worth the loss in gas mileage, at least in this area.  And there are only two E85 stations in the area that I know of, anyway (one in Glenpool and one in Owasso).

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Hoss, I did not know about the law.  My response to Inteller was mostly because he was sharpshooting me so I returned the favor.

yes, and you FAILED IT.  law is the law....gawd I hope no one ever uses you for council.  do some basic ****ing research.

[cannon_fodder]

The law isn't in effect yet.  Thus, it is NOT the law.  You see, when they say laws go into effect on a certain day, the law does not apply until that day.  For instance, this law requires notification of ethanol content by July 1st... so as of July 1st they are required to do so.  So technically they are not yet required to do so. [edit]It should be noted that I didn't both actually reading the law yet, as it has no bearing on my statement.  Just relying on what others have posted. [/edit]

See, you did the research and skill don't get the difference.  If asked today "am I required to post a notice of ethanol content" the answer is NO. See how that works?  That's why it was "sharpshooting" because it was a stupid little detail, much like your entire post.

And why would I do research on a casual observation?  I notice a beaver out at the water works over the weekend, didn't check to see if it was legally required before telling my boy about it.  I saw a sign at the BBQ place last night about a discount for Military Vets, didn't bother researching if that was mandatory.

As far as I know I wasn't handing out legal advice.  I made an observation about a sign I saw.  And EVEN IF it were required by law - it still satisfies the complaints logged.  So what difference does it make.

Speaking of failure; ignoring the premise - that my observation had any legal merit whatsoever, the statement fails on may other levels.

"Failed it."  What did I fail?  There is no object and even in internet speak the statement is incorrect.  You may say - "failed at it" or "you failed" or simply "FAIL."  The statement "I returned the favor" with the response "and you failed it" simply doesn't work.

"law is the law" is not an accurate statement.  A law that is not in effect is different than one in effect.  A law that is not enforced is different (no spitting on sidewalk, no working on Sundays).  A law that is being challenged is different.  You see, there are many variances and other fun little tricks to the law.

"gawd" I love it when you add an extra letter to a word to show how 1337 you are.

"Council" is a governing body.  No, no one uses me as a governing body.  People do, however, seek me for counsel.  Subtle, I know.

And finally, I did no research, let alone "basic f-bomb research."  The fact that a law will soon dictate such a sign does not change my major premise.

But hey, thanks for trying to be a jerk.  Keep working on it, it's amusing that a discussion on an ethanol makes you so mad you start swearing at a stranger on the internet.  I truely hope being an donkey on the internet helps rid yourself of whatever pent up angst you must have.  Now, try to say something nice about Tulsa... I double dog dare you.

[]

[joiei]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by patric

quote:It jumped to 3.79 at QT as of 4pm.

It was that price by noon at 21st & Harvard QT.
Dont know if that's splitting hairs...

it would be interesting to see if QT has a systematic staggering of prices that emanate from downtown to the outskirts of town to uniformly catch people driving home from work as well as the people who work close to downtown.

From my driving around the last couple of days, Midtown, out east and down south to 71st, the prices were pretty consistent all over town.  I haven't been out to Sand Springs yet, or down to Okmulgee or up to Owasso, but there wasn't a big gap in prices.

[Hoss]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Hoss, I did not know about the law.  My response to Inteller was mostly because he was sharpshooting me so I returned the favor.

yes, and you FAILED IT.  law is the law....gawd I hope no one ever uses you for council.  do some basic ****ing research.

Actually, in that context, the word is spelled 'counsel', not 'council'.

If you're gonna do a drive-by on someone, expect it to be scrutinized.....

[joiei]

currently gas buddy shows most stations at $3.79 expect for down south and up north.  All QT's were showing the same prices.  It isn't that hard to do some research before making unfounded biased statements.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The law isn't in effect yet.  Thus, it is NOT the law.  You see, when they say laws go into effect on a certain day, the law does not apply until that day.  For instance, this law requires notification of ethanol content by July 1st... so as of July 1st they are required to do so.  So technically they are not yet required to do so. [edit]It should be noted that I didn't both actually reading the law yet, as it has no bearing on my statement.  Just relying on what others have posted. [/edit]

See, you did the research and skill don't get the difference.  If asked today "am I required to post a notice of ethanol content" the answer is NO. See how that works?  That's why it was "sharpshooting" because it was a stupid little detail, much like your entire post.

And why would I do research on a casual observation?  I notice a beaver out at the water works over the weekend, didn't check to see if it was legally required before telling my boy about it.  I saw a sign at the BBQ place last night about a discount for Military Vets, didn't bother researching if that was mandatory.

As far as I know I wasn't handing out legal advice.  I made an observation about a sign I saw.  And EVEN IF it were required by law - it still satisfies the complaints logged.  So what difference does it make.

Speaking of failure; ignoring the premise - that my observation had any legal merit whatsoever, the statement fails on may other levels.

"Failed it."  What did I fail?  There is no object and even in internet speak the statement is incorrect.  You may say - "failed at it" or "you failed" or simply "FAIL."  The statement "I returned the favor" with the response "and you failed it" simply doesn't work.

"law is the law" is not an accurate statement.  A law that is not in effect is different than one in effect.  A law that is not enforced is different (no spitting on sidewalk, no working on Sundays).  A law that is being challenged is different.  You see, there are many variances and other fun little tricks to the law.

"gawd" I love it when you add an extra letter to a word to show how 1337 you are.

"Council" is a governing body.  No, no one uses me as a governing body.  People do, however, seek me for counsel.  Subtle, I know.

And finally, I did no research, let alone "basic f-bomb research."  The fact that a law will soon dictate such a sign does not change my major premise.

But hey, thanks for trying to be a jerk.  Keep working on it, it's amusing that a discussion on an ethanol makes you so mad you start swearing at a stranger on the internet.  I truely hope being an donkey on the internet helps rid yourself of whatever pent up angst you must have.  Now, try to say something nice about Tulsa... I double dog dare you.

[]

you are still failing it.

[joiei]

Inteller, what a pretty kitty you have, what is the cuties name?

[TUalum0982]

quote:Originally posted by zstyles



Taken from the TW comments today : -

I remember when QuikTrip spokespersons often came out with honest, straightforward statements, rather than the disingenuous spin which we're hearing on the subject of ethanol. It is part of the ongoing decline of the QuikTrip culture, which was once something to be proud of.

Anyway, QuikTrip can laugh all the way to the bank while saying their gasoline is "guaranteed," because how can you PROVE ethanol caused your car's problems? Furthermore, do you think QuikTrip is going to pay for repairs to every single car damaged by ethanol? Of course not.

It is all part and parcel of the heartless QuikTrip mentality that says, "It's okay if we take away lots and lots of stuff from our community, as long as we give back a pittance." In this case, QuikTrip is "guaranteeing" their gasoline, but it's a guarantee they know they'll never have to honor.

The reason they sell ethanol is that it's more profitable for them to do it that way. Period.

actually sir/mam you are wrong.  You don't have to "prove" you use QT gasoline, all they require you to do is show an estimate from a mechanic's shop that the problem with your car is fuel related and QT will reimburse you.  They don't require you to show previous gas receipts, credit card statements or the like.(which I would think they would). If it is over 2,000 dollars it must get approval by a certain someone higher up.  Don't believe me? Call the QT regional office and ask to speak with Pete, Donna, Brenda, or Derrick.  They will explain it in further detail.  I have seen numerous checks cut for patron's of QT because of so called "bad gas".  You should know the facts before you come on a message board talking endlessly from your *** about a subject you obviously know very little about.  

OMG...a company is in business to make a profit???!!  I am calling the Oklahoma Corporation Commission the minute they open!  You obviously once again know very little about how convienence store's operate.  QT and most all gas stations make very little on their gasonline.  Between all the federal, and state taxes on gas, they make a couple of pennies per gallon.  They make their profit off of fountain drinks, donuts, beer, and pop.  No one is forcing you to buy gas or even shop at QT, if you don't like them go elsewhere but don't come on a message board giving a ridiculous opinion on a subject you obviously know NOTHING about.  

I am curious though.....What are the "lots and lots of stuff" they are taking from the community you mentioned above?