== This is a completely uneducated comment.
Ethanol has poor energy to mass ratio and is unstable and/or reactive chemically with things that aren't stainless-steel, which make up certain "mission-critical" sub-systems of petrol-designed-combustion engines. Its notorious clogging/eating EFI systems/sub-systems that are not "hardened" or and/or specially maintained. The only really "good use" of ethonal is in applications that have terrible environmental side-effects. For example, e85 is very useful if you want to make a cheap substiture for high-octane fuel in performance applications. But notice in California, "octane" ratings are limited to prevent "high-performance" applications for fuel because as a general rule they are "environmentally unsound". But e85 has terrible gas mileage (1/3 less than e10), which even in everday use means more haulage or more mass==more road wrear, more stops to refuel, etc==more environmental damage.
I could go on, but will spare you the rant =D
TLDR: Petrol is a better store of energy/mass a nd depreciates a motor at a slower rate.
[edit: To answer the GP question, the easiest way to get reliable fuel without ethanol is to buy "race gas" with octane ratings > 100+ at something like 2x the price of normal octane fuel ~87.]
I think as scientists and engineers it's extremely important we separate the empirical facts from the political propaganda.
Flagged.
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.
The content is user-generated and maintained, so if you find one, add it.
If I had any political power, I'd end the ethanol subsidies. That would be the simplest change to save ~$20b or so ($6b in direct costs, higher corn prices, corn subsidies, use of fossil water and other limited resources, less fuel efficiency)