Ethanol going to 15%?

Assuming this info is correct (http://www.sunocoinc.com/Site/Consum...unoco260GT.htm) the 100octane is 9% ethenol? Hope I'm mistaken...
Mark

I found an old invoice, what you want is the 260GTX. The X is actually 98 octane and has no ethanol, and is green in color instead of the clear 260GT. Hope that helps!

I use the Grand Am spec fuel which has no ethanol, instead of the 260GT which has a 10% ethanol label on each drum. I am not close to my drum right now or I could just read the label to you, but ask your Sunoco guy about the Grand Am fuel which is called something else. The ethanol was a major problem for the fuel cells so they had to go with something else, works perfectly for a stored vehicle. I can't imagine how bad the 15% stuff could be, maybe we just need to install an aviation water/fuel petcock on our cars and drain it off before starting...if you have a plastic tank that might work!

At 15% I would strongly consider not using pump fuel for anything more than a stock T or a 356B Normal...the 911R definitely needs better than that. The issues with ethanol in the past have been the destruction of rubber in the fuel system and attracting water if it sits for any length of time (rusts out the bottom of fuel tanks since it is heavier than the so called fuel, and is the first to get sucked into the system after sitting a while). The actual running problems have been noticeable but not that big of a deal so far. At some point it will become a big deal, and we may find out soon that 15% really compromises the ability of older cars to perform correctly in addition to the known issues. At the very least use the highest octane available because the higher octanes have to sit longer in the tanks at the stations, so they add a stability agent that prevents the fuel from breaking down in a matter of weeks.
Cam 2 is fine, but perhaps overkill unless your CR is 12:1, and has its own set of issues including staining your fine equipment either blue or purple. Cam 2 seeps out of every orifice in the fuel system that has a gasket. As you get into newer cars that have oxygen sensors Cam 2 is not an option, as it moves the life of an O2 sensor from perhaps 500hrs in a racing engine to perhaps 50hrs, so I just use the no-lead, no ethanol 98 GTX for pretty much everything. In the old days there was a need for the lead for lubrication of valve guides and seats, but I think pretty much every older engine has been rebuilt with more modern materials to make up for that nowadays.
I am happy to be proven wrong, that is just my take on it...

Diesel rules! ;)

Tom

Yeah, my wife's TDI Jetta makes great power, handles well and you look down to see 50mpg showing most of the time. Hard to beat that, but I don't recall many Porsche options there unless you are plowing your garden...

Diesel?

Wait till your modern, clean, common rail diesel picks up a load of sub-standard fuel. With systems running at 30,000psi lubricity becomes a significant issue. We are seeing repair bills of $10k + just for pumps and injectors!

Interestingly, modern petrol engines will tolerate ethanol but modern diesels generally won't tolerate bio-diesel.

We can sit here and whine or we can let or elected officials know what we, the voters think. While the big lobbies may finance elections, we are the folks who actually cast the ballots. Decide what you want to do, do it, tell your freinds what you did and why.

This is what I sent to my elected offcials:

Sentor/Representative:

I saw this article in the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/22/bu...ethanol&st=cse) titled "E.P.A. Approves Use of More Ethanol in Gasoline".

I am opposed to increasing Ethanol in motor fuels for several reasons:

1-Without a federal subsidy it does not appear to make economic sense. To my way of thinking, in these hard economic times, if things can not be economically feasible on their own merits, they need to go;
2-Ethanol is known to reduce fuel economy. Since CAFE Standards are getting increasing strict, this seems counterproductive;
3-Ethanol is corrosive to cars many metals and elastomers and does not have a very good "shelf life" when stored in commonly used materials. This means that many cars will have their service life adversely affected and require the owner to replace their car more often incurring a financial harm; and
4-Per the Article "... Lisa P. Jackson, the E.P.A. administrator, said the agency’s testing had found otherwise. “Recently completed testing and data analysis show that E15 does not harm emissions control equipment in newer cars and light trucks,” . This is all well and good but what about fuel economy, premature failure of fuel system and engine components, and impact to non-automotive engines? IT seems to me that EPA has taken a very narrow view of this change and is "conveniently" ignoring other issues which may be more significant.

I ask you, as my Senator, to oppose this change.

Thank you,