15% ethanol-Ok or not?

The CFC reference was explaining a mindset of the "disposable" world we live in, considered mudslinging only by the auto manufacturers. They created a problem with the fuel and find it more profitable to throw away the old one than fix the problem. There is no profit future in fixing the problem's

It appears we agree on that topic BUT it had nothing to do with anything other than a hand out to the auto industry. The high emissions cars are still on the road because the folks owning them could no more afford a new car at the time that they could now. Logic dictates this had nothing to do with emissions, this is about money.

 

Dave, I was thinking of buying a drum of 100 Oct pure gasoline (unleaded) and just pumping by hand from it for my fcar.

Is there a problem with doing just that? I imagine 100 gallons would last me a year+.

 

True ... I have to change my mind on it being about emissions. The US govt clearly does not care much about emissions, well not enough to be more important than the almighty dollar.

But mainly I was complaining that you were lumping CFC in as an ethanol fix (get newer cars on the road, that can handle the ethanol), which it clearly wasn't. CFC deserves criticism, but not related to corn subsidy or any ethanol problem.

I think we actually agree ...

 

Exactly. They still havent quite figured it out, but I dont blame them. DFI is pretty new in production cars. Tons of guys run regular fuel and even E85 with OEM fuel pumps. Manufacturers know 15% ethanol is the norm and they wouldnt be building parts that cant handle it.

Ethanol is very useful. Saves us from sending money overseas for oil, and the ethanol has a higher octane rating. Now, the octane rating doesnt really mean much for normal engines, but when cars start being built with higher compression ratios, it will make a big difference.

There are guys running 800+whp turbo 4 cylinders on E85. Ethanol matched with DFI and forced induction can make for a very efficient setup.

 

Years back I was buying racing fuel by the drum....

The insurance companies go ape shlt over that unless it is stored in a cement block out building. I think it is easier to take all the precautions required and just use pump gas.

 

Close enough.

 

1) """they wouldn't be building parts that cant handle it.""" In the context of new car production... maybe, and I wouldn't go any further than just maybe. In the context of currently produced repair/replacement parts for even cars only a few years old the statement has been proven incorrect. The car and parts manufactures are not to blame, their parts worked fine with the fuel they were designed for.


2) When a car is built for it. Until then expecting it to be useable in the older cars with the systems of the era and still meet current emissions requirements and a reasonable expectation of reliability..... it isn't a catch all, fix all fuel that works properly in anything. It does have its place and if a consideration was given to those with the older cars..... I would stand with your "very useful" statement. As it stands now its a PITA that was thrown at us and said "make it work". At 6000 ft altitude it boils in the carb float bowls at a temperature where you can still hold your hand on the carb.

3) Dirt trackers have been running pure alcohol for decades as well as your example above. These are new special purpose built engines designed around the fuel. Expecting a standard production engine from a few years back to run efficiently and cleanly with an expectation of reliability on this mixture is unrealistic. The BTU's produced by the current mixture comes no where close to that of fuel from days gone by. I have not studied it but have often wondered if the lack of efficiency of the new fuel actually does save gas. Surely the mileage goes down a good deal using the current fuel....enough to offset the savings gained by the use of alcohol as a replacement? It would be quite easy to bias the results of testing to answer this question so it would require multiple blind tests. Really its a moot question as we are stuck with what we have. It would be interesting to see if the ads supporting the "save on oil imports" have any merit, from the little I know this is highly questionable. Design for it and the results change and it is no longer in question. CFC? I for one do not know and we wont be crushing Ferrari's in the foreseeable future. It does make for an interesting debate. I am building my carbed 308 engine purposely for this fuel to see how well I can make it work under average driving conditions, not many things will remain unchanged in this build! I will either answer the questions on how we have to change these when they are apart or come up with a long list of new questions...I am hoping for the prior.

 

I also wonder (as Auraraptor asks) why those of us who don't drive our older Ferraris much don't just go to the speed shop and buy a small drum, say 10 gallons of race fuel. There's no storage issue.
And if so, what kind should we get? Unleaded, non-oxygenated?

 

Go to your nearest gas station that sells race gas. Get some of the lowest octane they have (probably about 100) no-lead. Of course, maybe there are places where anything in a pump has to be oxygenated...?

 

How does an aluminium carb body hold up to this stuff? Whenever I run an Indycar or the Cooper, I have to run/flush pure petrol, 1) to stop jellying, 2) to stop erosion of the aluminium when stored.

Also I have replaced fuel hoses annually for same reason.

As the percentage in road fuels increases are we going to see these issues??

 

Same here and is why I made the hoses, it was becoming a very dangerous situation.

The inside of the carb bowls is looking like the moons surface. The petrol and alcohol are evaporating and leaving behind the absorbed water which is wreaking havoc on the castings. I made the mistake of putting a few gallons of pump fuel in the fuel cell of a race car just to do some minor light load low RPM testing and forgot to purge that with race fuel.... The cells are not holding up any better than the hose! That ended up being a $2300 mistake on my own car, wont do that again. I now have a fuel cell printed with "Dan Gurney's All American Racers" from the early 70's that still has fuel in it and one that failed after 5 years... they are not all created equally and is now something we are watching closely on the Vintage race cars.

Upside we see is the cars used often are not seeing the worst of it because the fuel doesn't have time to separate. Once separation occurs the cars are starting up on a combination of water and alcohol that has settled to the bottom. Under that condition one surely wants to run the engines long enough to stir up the swill in the tanks and purge the alcohol water mixture from the carb bowls and get the suspended mixture back in there. Problem is some of the Weber's have the main jets sitting above the bottom of the bowls which allows for a nice sediment pond for the water.

 

I used to get my race fuel from a station that stored it in 1000 gal. tanks. Then, one day, they shut down (out of state family problems). So I found another station recommended to me by a local speed shop. That station had 3 different fuels, 100, 110, & 116 octane Sunoco 'leaded' grades stored in 55 gal. drums. They use a fuel pump sitting on a shelf above the drums w/a hose they drop into the drum you request. I'm pretty certain that the fuels aren't oxygenated. I told the owner about the prior station I bought my fuel from & he explained to me that 'high' octane fuel will lose its octane levels when stored over time (he also races his cars at the drag strip on weekends). He explained that it can happen pretty quick w/race fuel & this is why he has only 55 gal. of each grade delivered weekly. It's delivered on Thurs. & is usually sold out by Fr.. It is unlawful to dispense it into vehicles, so they pump it into your 5 gal. (or whatever qty.) jug you bring.

 

This site maintains a state by state list of e free gasoline stations.



http://pure-gas.org/about

 

ETHANOL SUCKS.........that's all anyone needs to know.

It's bad for many components in most cars, doesn't do anything to "spare the environment" (when you factor in all the impacts), doesn't make a dent in our dependence on foreign oil, hasn't reduced the tons of money this country spends subsidizing domestic corn production by one iota, and costs more (when you factor in all the true costs) to produce than non-ethanol fuel.

It is a scam which was been forced down the public's throats by politicians and special interest groups...

 

Doesn't do anything to help the environment, PERIOD. 20yrs ago, the Az. DOT conducted a fleet test of approx. 200 of their vehicles to determine emissions benefits of oxygenated fuels (ethanol and/or MTBE). Their findings: Helped on some, Made some worse, No effect on some. Bottom Line: NO defendable emissions benefits, in part due to 3-way catalyst systems in use at the time, which COMPENSATED for extra 'oxygen' from ethanol or MTBE.

Our legislature passed an oxygenated fuel mandate anyway. If anything, I'm sure any possible benefits in some situations are even less likely now with more modern emission systems, and rigorous emissions test programs. The law provided no opportunity to re-evaluate benefits, nor any sunset provisions. We're still paying for it, and stuck with it.