Among them, the promise - never fulfilled - to reduce the price of gasoline at the pump to compensate for the increase in consumption
It is not possible for the president of the Republic to use so many lies to justify another increase in ethanol in gasoline, from 30% to 32%. This time, the car and motorcycle factories publicly spoke out against this decision.
Below, see the government’s four lies about this measure:
The government says it is supported by the Fuel of the Future Law. It is not true, because it allows the alcohol content to be raised by up to 35%, provided that the technical feasibility is proven – which did not happen.
It was also stated that the 32% of ethanol in gasoline has already been tested. Lie: the trials with 32% were carried out in 2025, when the content rose from 27% to 30%, but only as a margin of tolerance to avoid problems with deviations in the mixture. Now, in order to approve the 32% ethanol, the tests should use a content of 34% or, at least, 33%.
The third lie is in the tests to approve the new contents. They are not performed in a technically acceptable way, as they only analyze drivability (idle, acceleration and temperature variations).
The durability and compatibility of the components with the new ethanol content, which is hygroscopic (absorbs water, which can cause oxidation of the parts) remains to be proven. In short: long-term tests are not carried out. Do you know why? Because of the government’s “urgency” to approve the measure.
Abraciclo, which brings together the motorcycle factories, contested the results of previous tests, which indicated failures not only due to the difficulty of starting them on colder mornings, but also, and mainly, in the resumption of acceleration.
These problems are much more dangerous on two wheels than on four wheels, as they endanger the safety of the motorcyclist when overtaking or when he is leaning on a curve. The government? He despised and turned a deaf ear to Abraciclo, simple as that.
This goes straight to the driver’s pocket: the increase in consumption with the new ethanol content was not compensated by a reduction in the price of gasoline, as promised never fulfilled by the President of the Republic.
In view of this, where are the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which should defend the citizen, and the National Transport Confederation, which represents consumers?
No one is against biofuel. The protest is against the increase in ethanol content (and biodiesel) by force, down the driver’s throat.
