I have been away from these forums for more than 1 1/2 year. I got a bit tired of the backfirings, even some harassments, luckily enough from only some very few debaters and due to my opinion about how pointless and dangerous the ethanol additives are to gas used as fuel to a good number of old and newer vehicles, engines, boats, fuel tanks and lines, etc. This has become more obvious to many fire brigades in many countries and the Norwegian police when monitoring fire accidents, specially the last two years. Some of the insurance companies have already given their customers notice about reduced compensation when the damage is likely to be caused by long-time use of mixtions of ethanol and gas. They have a reason for that reaction.
Medias have reported quite often about unexpected fires in normal traffic in Norway. Specially cars with rear engines, such as VW and Porsche have been totally burned out and this also happen to newer cars with very narrow space for cooling the air near to the engine. Crafts have been blown up after filling ethanol-gas or may be more dangerous: the engine has stopped due to water or other impurities in the gas tank in open sea. Lawn movers have been overheated and with broken parts or melted bearings as result. The list of non-acceptable damages most likely due to ethanol is starting to be quite long and the more additive we are forced to accept, the more trouble and danger more and more people will experience.
As to the steadily wanted proofs or tests from or after such happenings you certainly will find lots of examples on internet showing what has happened in different countries.
Visit stories here below from firefighting and tests burning ethanol and how difficult those flames are to kill. Pure ethanol becomes an white-coloured, nearly unvisible fire ball when it ignites. It is burning just like napalm and "impossible" to control for days. Using water to extinguish will only help the flames to increase or spread, due to the oxygen in the water.
This video is from 2008 . If ethanol still is allowed linto loads of fully loaded tankers driving on the highways with pure ethanol, and not ONLY USE cargo trains for maximum safety reasons all people along the highways and neighbourhoods are put at extreme risk. Use the railways! And drop the ethanol in gas!
Solan G, # 32797
Take advantage in your hobby by being member of VCCA!
VCCA members have access to a list of over 50 Technical Advisors who can help you with your car. It's worth the price of membership! While you can get a lot of information for free in this forum, sometimes the info that you REALLY need is only available from the right person. This is what "The World's Best Chevrolet Club" is all about!
Many people are not aware that Ethanol is transported in it's own tanker and stored separately from the pure gasoline. This is because it separates, reacts to water which is often present in the bottom of the gasoline tank, and is corrosive to standard tanks and pump hardware.
When you pump your fuel the system blends the ethanol into the gasoline flow to provide an accurate ratio.
1938 Canadian Pontiac Business Coupe (aka a 1938 Chevy Coupe with Pontiac shaped front sheet metal - almost all Chevy!) 1975 4-speed L82 Vette
I think Europe started the ethanol brigade. Down here I think it premixed at the depot before delivery to the public point of sale. There have also been attempts to force "biodiesel" as well but they are having problems with the injector pumps on the older engines and the common rail system fails very soon after using it. Tony
Solan, I think you have fallen for all the lies that the big petroleum companies spread. I have been using ethanol for years and never had any problems! You stated above that " It is burning just like napalm and "impossible" to control for days. Using water to extinguish will only help the flames to increase or spread, due to the oxygen in the water.' I seriously that you have ever been around napalm so how would you know anything about it. And when has anyone ever used water to put out a gasoline fire! Ethanol is no more volatile than gasoline.
Living in the Netherlands and use for my dayly driver a small VW. For the last years the fuel had a maximum of 5% ethanol but since a few months we also got the 10% and most fuel stations sell only that. Since I use it i noticed that I got a n average of 5% higher consumption.....
Many, if not most people with old equipment or old autos will have ran into some issues potentially caused by ethanol blended fuels. The problems associated with ethanol are well documented but these fuels can work just fine if kept fresh (used up within a month or so) and kept away from moisture or condensation.
Ethanol blended gasoline does indeed require different fire fighting means as ethanol will quickly break down the foams used for gasoline fires. Ethanol also forms a vapor at a different temperature than pure gasoline which changes ignition points and characteristics of the fire.
There are alcohol resistant foams (AR-AFFF) on the market. The International Association of Fire Fighters specifies "Alcohol resistant foam must be used during any emergency involving gasoline that is blended with ethanol. The ethanol content prevents the formation of the film between the foam and the gasoline mixture and will break down the applied foam, rendering any non-alcohol resistant foam virtually useless".
I would expect that all Fire Departments in areas where ethanol fuels are used would have moved to the current AR-AFFF rated foams.
1938 Canadian Pontiac Business Coupe (aka a 1938 Chevy Coupe with Pontiac shaped front sheet metal - almost all Chevy!) 1975 4-speed L82 Vette
No use pointing out the truth here. Solan is a fanatic on Ethanol. Fanatic = Someone who want change the subject and won't shut up.
Seems no one can point to an example of a problem realized solely from use of ethanol ethanol. They will produce carburetors from King Tut's tomb and show the gummed up gadget and say it was caused by ethanol.
I expect that any day now they will open up a time capsule from the seventeenth century and discover that all objects contained therein were deemed worthless owing to ethanol seeping in form somewhere. Go figure.
Recently had a tanker here in N.H. crash and spill it's load of gasoline . The haz-mat crew has been on site cleaning up and they are not only cleaning up the gasoline but also the foam used to prevent a fire. While we all may have different opinions regarding ethanol I think it best to adhere to Chat policy and discuss the subject and not the poster.
Sounds like the majority of postings from outside CONUS folks may be pointing to improper mixing of Ethanol with gasoline. Going beyond the 10% mixture can cause those problems with almost immediate engine damage. I saw that happen at a few stations in Vermont years ago, when there was a mixing malfunction at the gas pumps. Motorists only got a few miles before their engines quit. Fortunately, the stations involved compensated anyone who could prove they filled up there.
Here in CA they are trying to ram 15% Ethanol (a.k.a "E85") down motorists' throats, while not warning them that pre-2001 cars/trucks cannot use it. They are enticing folks to fill up by offering this junk gas at $1 less per gallon than the normal 10% blends.With gas prices hovering about $3.50 a gallon here in Lotus Land, folks are lining up to pump this junk.
I see SEMA is still lobbying to try to get the EPA to stop pushing this junk gas.
This is in no way an attack on you personally but maybe you or others please help me better understand your post..
Why can a we burn E-85 in our post 2000 engines without damage but not our pre-2001 engines?
How does "going beyond the 10% mixture"cause "problems with almost immediate engine damage"? This implies or strongly infers mixture at 11% would cause such damage. If so then E-85 use should cause expentially faster damage. Maybe not even exiting the gas station.
How does the price of any blend of gasoline/Ethanol have any direct bearing on its ability to cause damage?
When we fill out tanks with anything above E-10 exactly what part or parts of out engine is subject to almost immediate damage?
Seems that this latest attack on Ethanol is merely concerned with putting out fires of different kinds; something that our firefighters may need to know but has no direct bearing on our engines or hobby except, perhaps, we experience a situation where we have fuel fire where the fuel is directly escaping the fuel system and combustion chambers.
I have been using E-10 in my 41 216 for years now and haven't noticed any difference from using regular gasoline back in the 50s through now. I wonder why that is?
Until some compelling evidence is realized, I will continue using E-10. When E-15 is available for a buck less per gallon you can bet I will fill up the tank. A buck is a buck. Until something blows up that I can directly pinpoint being solely related to Ethanol I see no great cause for concern.
Problems associated with extinguishing fires containing Ethanol may be a concern for out firefighters and that alone, so far, is the only real concern with its use.
Thanks for your post. I am always interested in anything, other than mere hype, coming down the pike that may harm the old 216. So far I haven't realized anything that does. You know.
Wklipedia "There are a few major differences between FFVs and non-FFVs. One is the elimination of bare magnesium, aluminum, and rubber parts in the fuel system. Fuel injection control systems have a wider range of pulse widths to inject up to 34% more fuel (which in turn produces more power). Stainless steel fuel lines, sometimes lined with plastic, and stainless-steel fuel tanks in place of terne fuel tanks have been used. In some cases, FFVs use specific engine oil that neutralises acidity. For vehicles with in-tank-mounted fuel pumps, precautions to prevent arcing, as well as flame arrestors positioned in the tank's fill pipe, are sometimes used." FFV=Flex Fuel Vehicle's are designed to run on E85.
E85 might be cheaper at the 1st pump but you will be there more often and therefore will cost you more in the long run. My 1992 subaru is 50c cheaper per tank of 95 petrol than a tank of 94E10, the 95 (at the time of test) was 10c more per litre than the E10 but over the tank full. Not a big saving but better in my pocket than the oil companies. Tony
Charlie, No offense taken. Your questions are constructive. First, most manufacturers do not recommend running E85 (or E15 ) in pre-2001 vehicles because the increased Ethanol content will deteriorate most rubber components in your fuel systems--particularly in your carburetors, throttle bodies, rubber hoses and seals, thereby softening and dissolving rubber components. Increased ethanol levels above 10% also affect BTU and the burning qualities in engines. Because of the increased flash point of blends above 10%, you will consume more fuel and your mpg will decrease. Price decrease doesn't affect performance, but keep in mind you are only getting 85% gas vs 90% gas, so the cost savings is minimal to nil when you figure in your fuel mileage and costs. Getting back to damage on pre-2001 models, this is one reason why the auto mfrs have been fighting the move to increase Ethanol content from 10 to 15% as a mandate from EPA.
See Tonw and M08's comments above. As for your 216, it should run fine on the readily available 10% blends, with a few common sense practices such as: 1. Ethanol blends are hydroscopic and absorb water readily, so keep your tank full to minimize it, particularly if the car sits. A tank of gas stays fresh for about 1-2 months if kept full and no additives are used 2. Use a fuel additive like Startron, Sta-bil, etc. to minimize water absorption, as water will corrode fuel lines and metal components.
I use Startron marine additive to keep any water suspended in the fuel, and MMM to lube fuel components in my 235. It seems to help, although it does sputter once in a while and requires mixture tweaking between winter and summer fuel blends. Here in CA, we have our own refineries by mandate, and my 235 tends to run lean or rich depending on which blend I run.
There are many vigorous arguments pro and con, but these are mine for what they're worth. I'm not a chemist, so take them as offered as a non-expert. Make your own judgements according to your own personal experience. Cheers,
Rick
"Never time to do it right the first time, but always time to do it over."
Wrong. E85 is not 85% Ethanol, it is 15% Ethanol, 85% gas. Running almost pure alcohol in a gasoline engine leads to immediate damage. Some states differ in how they label E85. Some label as E15. Both are 85% gas.
Rick
"Never time to do it right the first time, but always time to do it over."
From U.S.Energy Administration :There are three general categories of ethanol-gasoline blends: E10, E15, and E85. E10 is gasoline with 10% ethanol content. E15 is gasoline with 15% ethanol content, and E85 is a fuel that may contain up to 85% fuel ethanol. The ethanol content of most of the motor gasoline sold in the United States does not exceed 10% by volume. Most motor gasoline with more than 10% fuel ethanol content is sold in the Midwest where most ethanol production capacity is located. Gasoline dispensing pumps generally indicate the fuel ethanol content of the gasoline. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=27&t=10
My biggest issue with the burning of ethanol is the residue; while the end result may be "cleaner" than the burning of gasoline ON THE THREE POLLUTANTS TESTED BY THE EPA, it contains a variety of aldehydes, ALL OF WHICH ARE POISONOUS, AND ALL OF WHICH ARE WATER SOLUBLE. This means that the exhaust residue WILL pollute our water supply. Since the burning of gasoline does not result in the production of aldehydes, the EPA tests were not set up to test for them.
And while other issues exist, I can live with them, even though they cost me money.
Others issues include:
(1) Lower fuel economy on older engines because of two things: (A) lower specific energy, and (B) higher AKI than will successfully burn in older engines. I have personally run 1000 mile back-to-back tests when real gasoline was readily available, on mid-1960's vehicles (higher compression than the older vehicles, so not as much loss) and found a 7~8 percent reduction in fuel economy.
(2) Less power on carbureted engines (due to lower specific energy) unless carburetors are recalibrated; which makes the fuel mileage in (1) above worse.
(3) Potential damage to engine components: this is a long term concern, not a its-going-to-blow-up-immediately. I have carburetors made of zinc alloy from the 1930's when ethanol was also used in some areas (seems every other generation has to be taught that gasoline and alcohol do not mix) that have holes corroded completely through the bottoms of the bowls. The damage to various forms of rubber has been well-documented.
So can E10 be burned in older cars? Certainly. But some carburetor recalibration may (or may not) be necessary.
How about E15? Sure, but carburetor recalibration will probably be necessary.
In any case, due to the reduced specific energy thus the reduced mileage, one will virtually ALWAYS spend more for E10 or E15 even though the initial cost at the pump is lower.
I know, its the "new math"
But I really don't like the idea that our grandchildren are going to curse our generation for further polluting our planet (intentionally)!!!!!
EDIT: After re-reading my post, I see that I ignored E-85. That is probably because I never even consider it for other than racing. When E-85 first came out, several local stations offered it for sale. Even the folks with FFV's are sufficiently intelligent to determine that the mileage loss didn't come close to being economical, even with the reduction in initial cost. Plus, the fuel tanks on the FFV's were not 50 percent larger, as they needed to be Today, simply because of demand, I am unaware of any station within a 50 mile radius that offers E-85, and we even have a local race track.
In order to attempt to clear the air and have all understand some of the effects of adding ethanol (or other oxygenate) to gasoline please review the first part of the Wikipedia article on "GGE". GGE is the easiest to understand comparison of the energy contained in motor fuels. BTU content equates to the amount of "work" that is produced. i.e. the expected distance that can be driven on a gallon of fuel.
As you should see there are less BTUs in a gallon of gasoline with 10% ethanol than regular gasoline. And even less that with 85% ethanol. Some will think that those ratios will accurately predict the expected miles per gallon but that is not completely accurate. Internal combustion engines require controlled fuel mixture burn rates. If the rate is to slow power will be lost because not all the fuel will contribute to pushing the piston down. If too fast then power is lost pushing the piston up with increased cylinder pressure. That known as "spark knock" can quickly damage cylinders. It is also necessary to have the exact ratio of fuel and air to get the maximum energy from the fuel. Computer controlled fuel injection engines do a better job of making those adjustments than carbureted ones. We old car folks can try to make manual adjustments to carburetors but generally without complete success. As you might have noted that same situation happens with "Summer" and "Winter" gasoline blends.
In order to attempt to clear the air and have all understand some of the effects of adding ethanol (or other oxygenate) to gasoline please review the first part of the Wikipedia article on "GGE". GGE is the easiest to understand comparison of the energy contained in motor fuels. BTU content equates to the amount of "work" that is produced. i.e. the expected distance that can be driven on a gallon of fuel.
As you should see there are less BTUs in a gallon of gasoline with 10% ethanol than regular gasoline. And even less that with 85% ethanol. Some will think that those ratios will accurately predict the expected miles per gallon but that is not completely accurate. Internal combustion engines require controlled fuel mixture burn rates. If the rate is to slow power will be lost because not all the fuel will contribute to pushing the piston down. If too fast then power is lost pushing the piston up with increased cylinder pressure. That known as "spark knock" can quickly damage cylinders. It is also necessary to have the exact ratio of fuel and air to get the maximum energy from the fuel. Computer controlled fuel injection engines do a better job of making those adjustments than carbureted ones. We old car folks can try to make manual adjustments to carburetors but generally without complete success. As you might have noted that same situation happens with "Summer" and "Winter" gasoline blends.
Chipper - you explained it better than I, but his is what I was alluding to when I mentioned the AKI of ethanol, which is 116. AKI 116 is much slower burning than AKI 87 (what we normally would use), thus much of the ethanol is actually unburned unless one has a high performance (racing reference) engine with maybe 12 to 1 compression, and a lot of timing.
And I think by now most enthusiasts understand AKI, but will mention it anyway. AKI (A)nti (K)nock (I)ndex is the combination of the (R)esearch and (M)otor octane ratings.
AKI = (R + M) / 2
I didn't mention my mileage tests with EFI engines, but I also did tests on late 1980's engines with EFI. The results, to me were unbelievable until I repeated the tests. Typically, E10 produced a 15 percent mileage loss!!!!!! Then I started trying to figure out why, and my guess would be that the extra oxygen in the ethanol confused the O2 sensor, which was the input to the computer controlling early EFI. The extra oxygen fooled the computer into thinking the mixture was lean, so the computer specified additional fuel to compensate. So with the early EFI systems, the vehicles actually used more gasoline (plus the ethanol) than they would have if the ethanol was not included. Again, the new math
Jon, For as long as ethanol has been the primary oxygenating agent in gasoline one would think that particularly auto enthusiasts would have a working understanding of the situation.
I appreciate the additional information you supplied. Hopefully readers will understand it and we won't have to repeat posting it too many more times.
The total effect of ethanol involves what it does either by itself and/or when combined with water and other fuel system components. That is another more complicated situation. It is unfortunate that some on this site don't apparently want to understand and/or recognize the facts.
This thing about Ethanol has been kicking around on one thread or another for a long time. Well, it seems forever.
First it was claimed it would destroy or severely shorten the life of our old engines. I've seen no evidence that it does. Certainly nothing worthy of worriment for our old cars and their engines.
Then it would destroy the gas tank, fuel hoses, fuel lines, gaskets, et cetera. No evidence here either.
Then it would reduce gas milage by a high, lately,. of up to 15 percent. No proof of that using any controlled scientific method that I've seen. I may have missed hearing about that test.
Then it will be necessary to use foam to clean up spills. I think they use foam to clean up just about everything that is cause for a hazard placard. No surprise there.
Now some say it will effect the environment and, soon, wipe out every living thing on earth starting with critters that inhabit our ditches. Maybe. I would hate it if that happened. Poor tadpoles. Don't worry the cock roaches will survive and may even thrive on the stuff.
Lately the proportions of Ethanol to gasoline in E-85 can't even be agreed upon. (I posed this question some months ago and was flatly told that it was 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. Such information was not challenged at the time). I need to watch more episodes of the "Big Bang Theory." Maybe Sheldon knows and will mention it.
Question: Are we chasing our tails here desperately and relentlessly seeking any and all data that condemns ethanol and/or its use in any application. Seems so. Corn? Follow the money? Who knows.
As for me I will continue to use E-10 and not worry about gas mileage or cost at the pump. Cheaper price equating to a tradeoff of a little less MPG is acceptable to me. I will assume that firefighters have been suitably trained and know how to deal with ethanol. Critters in ditches by the side of the road can fend for themselves. I will not try to estimate mpg using any unscientific method. Such amateur tests vary way too much owing to many different factors and, thus, can be highly misleading. It'll take more than a couple tankfuls and a sharp pencil for extensive records over months of use. A mere couple of fill-ups won't do it.
The hype about the ills of ethanol goes on and on and on. Yet, there remains no evidence that it is such a unfathomable problem that it needs to be addressed by the hobby.
I think Chipper probably knows more on the subject than the rest of us and I don't even know what he's saying. Something about fig newtons. Maybe.
Best,
Charlie
BTW: There is no intent to disrespect anyone contributing on this thread or any other wherein ethanol was mentioned. I'm merely repeating what others have either implied or have uttered words to the effect.
I think it is important when referencing what others have posted to do so accurately. When not quoting that person and reporting what they say it then becomes interpretation or opinion of what they have said. In my post above I posted that a fuel spill was being treated with FOAM to PREVENT a fire and the FOAM is part of what is being cleaned up. (Due to hazardous chemicals in the foam). The foam is not used to CLEAN UP the spill.
