Just got this sent to me, looks like we are getting 15% ethanol soon. Anyone concerned about this with old school cars?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...nol-fuel-cars/
Printable View
Just got this sent to me, looks like we are getting 15% ethanol soon. Anyone concerned about this with old school cars?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011...nol-fuel-cars/
imp. No opinions or concerns on this? Any chance of eroding gaskets or burning up valve guides prematurely? Or efforts to curb these issues?
Yes, certainly I'm concerned, but since I don't really know what the effects will be of another 5% of alcohol it's hard to know what LEVEL of concern to have. My concern is not of eroding gaskets or valve guides but rather of the effects on rubber and injector internals. It may also once again (as the first 10% did) alter the mixture requirements of old engines such as ours. This sure does point out the results of good lobbyists, who never let the facts get in the way of a political plum.
True on the political front, ugh! Any tricks out there to help curb potentially bad effects of ethanol? For example, a buddy of mine uses Marvel Mystery Oil mixed in his 100LL while operating his C-150 to keep the compression up for annual inspections. What's funny is he always gets good compression numbers. Granted, when a cylinder starts getting low, his mechanic pounds on the rocker arms and valve springs with a rubber mallet until carbon breaks free and then the compression goes up. Not very scientific, but very effective. I also hear of other people loading up on fuel stabilizer to counter ethanol erosion during storage times.
I also have other buddies that run jet fuel in their diesel powered vehicles (including a VW TDI) and laugh at you when you mention the higher sulfer content. So far the their vehicles run fine, and don't have additional knocking or overheat issues.
In short, I see and hear these voodoo stories and get the jist of what they are trying to accomplish, but at the end of the day I really know just enough to hurt myself ha ha. I don't want to get experimental with my old magnesium case and MFI unless I get some practical expert advise. Since the rules are changing... again, it looks like it's time to revisit the chemistry on this. Thanks for the response.
(from the linked article) :
"gives consumers the option of purchasing domestically produced renewable transportation fuels and supporting American farmers and ranchers."
What A load of crap. The farmers that grow corn crop for ethanol , I believe , are heavily subsidised by the Fed.
AND corn is made for eating (human or animal feed stock) . Or use the crop space for some other human food crop.
Even forgeting about any direct upfront monetary subsidies :
"Ethanol Fuel from Corn Faulted as ‘Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning’
David Pimental, a leading Cornell University agricultural expert, has calculated that powering the average U.S. automobile for one year on ethanol (blended with gasoline) derived from corn would require 11 acres of farmland, the same space needed to grow a year's supply of food for seven people. Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.
Mr. Pimentel concluded that "abusing our precious croplands to grow corn for an energy-inefficient process that yields low-grade automobile fuels amounts to unsustainable subsidized food burning". "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Don't believe anything the bastards say , or try to do (EPA).
corn production for food for the US and overseas exports is now at 60% and the balance is for ethanol.If you are wondering why there is unrest in North Africa and in the far east over food price increases,it is directly traceable to higher corn prices due to diminished crops for export from the US.We are being forced to pay higher prices because the EPA is a dictatorship with no accountability.The lobby pays the politicians in the form of campaign contributions and the consumer gets screwed.Not much new there, is there?
spring planting numbers will control.. 50% sold..
No lie. ADM and the "energy independance" minions have done food farmers and the public no favors.Quote:
Originally Posted by sithot
What we need is a switchgrass or Jerusalem artichoke lobby to counter the BS...
A lot of us boaters with fiberglass tanks got hosed as well. Looks like the class-action got shot down, so we'll have to deal with fresh tanks and re-power on our own. Engines were destroyed by the crap that goes into solution when ethanol reacts with old gelcoat. :mad:
FWIW, using Marvel Mystery seems to help with E10 at least in my carb'd cars. But the injected CSL has even been unhappy with 110 Sunoco, which is 10% too. It's all we can get.
When you cut production,prices increase.We are the largest exporter of grain and corn in the world.The poor countries are coming unglued over a number of issues, the price of food being one. The map shows startling evidence of this:http://www.zerohedge.com/article/int...nd-price-hikes
For as much as we drive, a drum of 100GT Sunoco Unleaded will do the trick. No ethanol, designed to last years instead of weeks and better combustion. For now it costs more but well worth it, since they took the gas out of the gas you will need to explore other alternatives.
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,