Non-ethanol fuel: Do we care?

SVreX wrote: Most stations I stop at for diesel now have stickers saying the diesel has ethanol content. I am hoping that is not true in diesel. Maybe the employees are just not too bright and put the stickers in the wrong place. Maybe its actually biodiesel, and is mis-labeled. Regardless, I get E36 M3ty fuel economy with the darned stuff. Like 25% drop.

We're actually working on this problem and the resulting corrosion in our lab at work. The problem is that the ULSD is contaminated by either cross-hauling in a single tanker, or by a common-rail vent system in either compartmented tankers or at the stations. The reality of it is that most ULSD is significantly contaminated with ethanol these days. Plus, legally they can add up to 5% content that is undisclosed, so who knows what's there. The other thing I've recently learned is that the addition of biodiesel and the removal of sulfur result in conditions that significantly reduce the effectiveness of the water separator filters in the vehicles. The takeaway is that I'll be halving the service interval on my fuel filter and making sure there's a lubricity additive in every gallon in my old powerstroke. (LINK to more info)

But back on topic...all my stuff is new enough that I run whatever mix they have at the pump, usually E10. The only exception is the 1973 Evinrude on my old boat, that gets nonethanol and usually stabilizer. Luckily there's a Pure station around the corner from my house.

On a related tangent I'd be really happy if someone would install an E85 station near me. I want to feed the MS3 corn juice so badly.

My main concern is not the use of the fuel and its hygroscopic nature. The only thing that it affects is my lawn mower and chainsaw when they sit for months at a time without use, and those are easily combated with an additive or dropping the bowl off the carb.

My concern is that ethanol is a really big waste of energy that is being shoved down our throats as an environmentally friendly thing. It may reduce icky things from the tailpipe, but producing ethanol is a big net waste. Think about it; horticulture's big thing is growing things that make sugars and other nutrients to feed us and livestock. We produce way too much of it. So much that the government buys it to subsidize farming and then lets it rot. So we turn a little bit of it into ethanol, which 1) consumes the sugar from the feedstock and converts it into alcohol, 2) only about 3% of the feedstock by mass gets converted to alcohol, 3) which leaves 97% waste in the form of mostly useless spent feedstock. Not to mention, the process releases tons of CO2 along with all the environmental impact of the growing process itself. The only shiny side is that the feedstock had to first consume that CO2 and convert it to sugars.

If you want to save the planet, ethanol is NOT the way. Don't cover up my egregious and flagrant use of hydrocarbons and IC engines by telling me that an ineffective band-aid will help. Thinking that 3% yield from a biofuel is sustainable is ridiculous thinking. Believing that it is sustainable is equivalent to believing that you can run your car on water, or that the first law of thermodynamics and other major fundamentals of physics are bogus.

The best we can do so far (that I have researched) is algae making much higher percentages of oil for feedstock for diesel. Not only does it make nearly half its mass in oil, and nearly all of it can be used as fuel, the diesel engines in which it burns is more efficient. But at our current consumption, not even all the biomass in the world will generate enough feedstock to support our gluttonous habits.

This is most prevalent in our legislation. In many states you can drive a V10 pickup in the commuter lane if you have two people. It doesn't matter that your getting 9mpgs burning oil that was dragged up from miles below the surface of the earth. But a bio-diesel burning car with one person that is getting 35mpg and simply re-introducing carbon that was already pulled out of the atmosphere by the plants that produced the feedstock? No. That's immoral, and your diesel is evil and destroying babies with by injecting them with cancer.

Now... E85 as a performance choice or a race class requirement? Great. Its mostly a performance wash with higher consumption, but it is causing engineering discoveries. I view it much like space exploration. Its not the destination, but the journey has created major leaps in scientific discovery.

There are no nearby sources for E-zero, so everything runs on E-10. I haven't had any real issues with it other than certain types of replacement fuel lines harden quicker than expected. 2-stroke equipment stills starts after sitting for months. E-10 tends to get blamed for troubles caused by owner neglect or incompetence.

Modern engine management makes ethanol reformulation unneeded for reducing emission, but agri-business loves the income which means congress does too.

ChasH wrote: There are no nearby sources for E-zero, so everything runs on E-10. I haven't had any real issues with it other than certain types of replacement fuel lines harden quicker than expected. 2-stroke equipment stills starts after sitting for months. E-10 tends to get blamed for troubles caused by owner neglect or incompetence. Modern engine management makes ethanol reformulation unneeded for reducing emission, but agri-business loves the income which means congress does too.

Agreed on the consumer neglect. Since 2008 with the new EPA regs on small engines, the fuel management systems have become finnicky and require more delicacy. That plus the fact that most of them are now produced in 3rd world countries with lower standards of assembly and quality control. People blame the fuel.

I don't agree, however that it reduces emissions. It does at the tailpipe, but what carbon cost did it require to get it to the tailpipe? Its like hybrid cars. Sure, you get 50 mpgs, but how about the battery production that has to take place in countries without emissions standards, plastic body panels made from crude oil, and all the other production carbon emissions that happen? Those massive assembly plants don't cool and heat themselves, and the lights don't stay on with fairy farts.

curtis73 wrote:

ChasH wrote: There are no nearby sources for E-zero, so everything runs on E-10. I haven't had any real issues with it other than certain types of replacement fuel lines harden quicker than expected. 2-stroke equipment stills starts after sitting for months. E-10 tends to get blamed for troubles caused by owner neglect or incompetence. Modern engine management makes ethanol reformulation unneeded for reducing emission, but agri-business loves the income which means congress does too.

Agreed on the consumer neglect. Since 2008 with the new EPA regs on small engines, the fuel management systems have become finnicky and require more delicacy. That plus the fact that most of them are now produced in 3rd world countries with lower standards of assembly and quality control. People blame the fuel. I don't agree, however that it reduces emissions. It does at the tailpipe, but what carbon cost did it require to get it to the tailpipe? Its like hybrid cars. Sure, you get 50 mpgs, but how about the battery production that has to take place in countries without emissions standards, plastic body panels made from crude oil, and all the other production carbon emissions that happen? Those massive assembly plants don't cool and heat themselves, and the lights don't stay on with fairy farts.

I tend to agree with most of what you're saying. The addition of ethanol to our gasoline does help those who live in cold humid climates with the reduction of gas line freeze ups. This was common "back in the day" when I had to add methanol to the tank during the winter. They still sell this stuff and people still put in their tank but it's not required anymore.

The enviomental issues with ethanol production have been overridden by the fact that the corn producing states and their politicians are strong supporters of this mandate as it puts money in the pockets of farmers and ADM. The fact that it raises the price of food in general to everyone doesn't seem to matter to them.

curtis73 wrote: I don't agree, however that it reduces emissions. It does at the tailpipe, but what carbon cost did it require to get it to the tailpipe? Its like hybrid cars. Sure, you get 50 mpgs, but how about the battery production that has to take place in countries without emissions standards, plastic body panels made from crude oil, and all the other production carbon emissions that happen? Those massive assembly plants don't cool and heat themselves, and the lights don't stay on with fairy farts.

Well at least in terms of EVs, they're still much cleaner overall. Production is a little dirtier up front:

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/max-baumhefner/electric-cars-are-cleaner-today-and-will-only-get-cleaner-tomorrow

But fueling is much cleaner:

https://electrek.co/2017/06/05/electric-cars-cleaner-than-gas-powered/

And that's not even looking at the big picture of fueling. The amount of energy needed just to refine a gallon of gas is in the same ballpark as the amount that would be needed to put 20 miles worth of charge in an EV:

https://greentransportation.info/energy-transportation/gasoline-costs-6kwh.html

Just a bit of anecdotal evidence, not on cats but on small outboard motors.

I'm very active on sailboat racing (catalina 22) and we all use small outboards in the 2.5 to 6 hp range.

Most everyone, especially those with newer motors, has been switching to non ethanol fuel as the motors would give all kinds of issues that are fixed by it. Clogging of jets etc. Some use the Tru fuel found at Lowe's etc. I've tried it and there's a significant difference in smoothness and power.

Can also get it in Oklahoma or in far enough towns from dfw.

I've found that my 2013 MG Stelvio and my 1980 MG LeMans knock under load if I feed them E10.

My Ducati bevel is just down on power with E10.

The wife's Shadow, my old CX500 and the GL1100 that I no longer own all didn't seem to care.

In reply to David S. Wallens: Do you like more power? Well alcohol in the fuel adds power. Your own tests have shown that (I refer to the fuel test you did a while back) It also helps keeps the combustion chamber clean. (and yes spark plugs don't need as frequent cleaning anymore).. As for storage, well Stabil seems to be the answer. My boat sat for more than a decade(1998 was the last year used and 2009 I started it again) and once I added fresh gas to it.. It started right up.. Now to be fair I did add some Stabil before it went into storage.. and it was a 105 gallon tank more than 1/2 empty. It idles and runs just fine so I haven't bothered to rebuild the carb..

Trans_Maro wrote: I've found that my 2013 MG Stelvio and my 1980 MG LeMans knock under load if I feed them E10. My Ducati bevel is just down on power with E10. The wife's Shadow, my old CX500 and the GL1100 that I no longer own all didn't seem to care.

What octane was the E10 you used? 87, 91? you see alcohol has either 114 or 116 octane depending on if it is ethanol or methanol alcohol..

NoBrakesRacing wrote: Just a bit of anecdotal evidence, not on cats but on small outboard motors. I'm very active on sailboat racing (catalina 22) and we all use small outboards in the 2.5 to 6 hp range. Most everyone, especially those with newer motors, has been switching to non ethanol fuel as the motors would give all kinds of issues that are fixed by it. Clogging of jets etc. Some use the Tru fuel found at Lowe's etc. I've tried it and there's a significant difference in smoothness and power. Can also get it in Oklahoma or in far enough towns from dfw.

Older carbureted outboard motors tend to have enough issues that there are all sorts of myths about them.. Yes a few using cheap plastic or rubber fuel parts had issues but those issues would have been there had the world not moved on and added ethanol to fuel..

jimbbski wrote:

curtis73 wrote:

ChasH wrote: There are no nearby sources for E-zero, so everything runs on E-10. I haven't had any real issues with it other than certain types of replacement fuel lines harden quicker than expected. 2-stroke equipment stills starts after sitting for months. E-10 tends to get blamed for troubles caused by owner neglect or incompetence. Modern engine management makes ethanol reformulation unneeded for reducing emission, but agri-business loves the income which means congress does too.

Agreed on the consumer neglect. Since 2008 with the new EPA regs on small engines, the fuel management systems have become finnicky and require more delicacy. That plus the fact that most of them are now produced in 3rd world countries with lower standards of assembly and quality control. People blame the fuel. I don't agree, however that it reduces emissions. It does at the tailpipe, but what carbon cost did it require to get it to the tailpipe? Its like hybrid cars. Sure, you get 50 mpgs, but how about the battery production that has to take place in countries without emissions standards, plastic body panels made from crude oil, and all the other production carbon emissions that happen? Those massive assembly plants don't cool and heat themselves, and the lights don't stay on with fairy farts.

I tend to agree with most of what you're saying. The addition of ethanol to our gasoline does help those who live in cold humid climates with the reduction of gas line freeze ups. This was common "back in the day" when I had to add methanol to the tank during the winter. They still sell this stuff and people still put in their tank but it's not required anymore. The enviomental issues with ethanol production have been overridden by the fact that the corn producing states and their politicians are strong supporters of this mandate as it puts money in the pockets of farmers and ADM. The fact that it raises the price of food in general to everyone doesn't seem to matter to them.

I'm not sure you can blame all the increase cost of food to the use of ethanol.. vegetables fruit and lots of other things have gone up mainly due to higher transportation costs. Due mostly to regulations regarding driving too long.. So yes some truckers are making a better income.. So are some farmers.. That's the thing about rules of any sort.. We spend a little more to eat and a trucker or farmer makes a little better living..

frenchyd wrote:

NoBrakesRacing wrote: Just a bit of anecdotal evidence, not on cats but on small outboard motors. I'm very active on sailboat racing (catalina 22) and we all use small outboards in the 2.5 to 6 hp range. Most everyone, especially those with newer motors, has been switching to non ethanol fuel as the motors would give all kinds of issues that are fixed by it. Clogging of jets etc. Some use the Tru fuel found at Lowe's etc. I've tried it and there's a significant difference in smoothness and power. Can also get it in Oklahoma or in far enough towns from dfw.

Older carbureted outboard motors tend to have enough issues that there are all sorts of myths about them.. Yes a few using cheap plastic or rubber fuel parts had issues but those issues would have been there had the world not moved on and added ethanol to fuel..

Nailed it.

Trans_Maro wrote: I've found that my 2013 MG Stelvio and my 1980 MG LeMans knock under load if I feed them E10. My Ducati bevel is just down on power with E10. The wife's Shadow, my old CX500 and the GL1100 that I no longer own all didn't seem to care.

That's because E10 needs to run slightly richer than E0. So if the thing runs a hair on the lean edge of best power or knock margin already, you might need to tweak it richer. Do that and I bet it'll run just fine on E10.

On the 1999 Miata, after tracking about 500 miles on each, I found that the ethanol-free gas gave me better gas mileage. It was about a wash with the cost; I still filled it with that when I could just because I didn't like to fill up a lot. Difference was more noticeable with the 1991 BMW.

Otherwise, the only differences I've noticed are in old lawn implements (Honda and Briggs--the Honda started easier on the non-ethanol, the Briggs started easier but not any better) and on our old 1985 Mercury Outboard. That engine is noticeable better on non-ethanol--we switched kept switching gas lines to two different tanks for about a 30 minute run; the non-ethanol gas made it run a hell of a lot smoother.

Note that it still died on both, which mostly tells me that it is a horribly unreliable engine that has lived a very rough life.

Since the only non E-10 locally is 40 cents higher that 87 E-10 I guess I will stick with and I have had no abnormal problems. No rubber parts replaced on either the 30 yr. old Craftsman mower nor the 25 yr. old Tecumseh powered snow blower.

As mentioned earlier and I also have said, no need to add alcohol in the form of Dri-Gas in our cold winters.

I Don't agree with the regulation but I can live with it.

What exactly does the ethanol do the fuel lines? A few months ago I had a fuel leak from a line on an older car and they were almost like brittle. I had to replace them all.

kanaric wrote: What exactly does the ethanol do the fuel lines? A few months ago I had a fuel leak from a line on an older car and they were almost like brittle. I had to replace them all.

Rubber can get brittle just from age. Most of the ethanol related failures I've seen has been the inner layer of the line getting soft and collapsing, which restricted or blocked fuel flow.

In reply to Zomby Woof:

I would agree but the newer 4 stroke outboards seem to have the most trouble running E10. Supposed to be because of smaller jets for better economy and emissions.

Some of the old two strokes, like mine, don't seem to care but run smoother on E0.

It doesn't run better, however, when the lower unit gets full of water and freezes.

My Honda V-Twin powder lawn mower runs like crap when not at full power. Had to run ethanol fuel for a few years before we got the non-ethanol around here. I still need to replace the carb because of it. My small machines only get non-ethanol so they will run when needed.

I generally use non-ethanol in the FX16 because it sits for weeks at a time. I just don't need fuel issues when I'm ready to autocross.

Cars with fuel injection have no issues with non-ethanol.

frenchyd wrote: In reply to David S. Wallens: Do you like more power? Well alcohol in the fuel adds power. Your own tests have shown that (I refer to the fuel test you did a while back) It also helps keeps the combustion chamber clean. (and yes spark plugs don't need as frequent cleaning anymore)..

David's test was on one engine, and it may have been explained by knock threshold, A/F ratio changes in the map, or many other factors.

But you can't get around physics. Ethanol contains fewer BTUs both by weight and volume than gasoline and power (all other things being equal) will be reduced using concentrations of ethanol.

In the case of a purpose-built ethanol engine, you can maintain the approximate power output by increasing compression and fuel delivery, but as a performance-enhancing fuel as a substitute for gasoline it is not.

In general (looking at MPG, power, and cost-per-mile), ethanol is basically a wash. In a flex-fuel vehicle, you'll spend less per gallon to buy ethanol, but the computer will also inject more fuel and the net cost-per-mile will be about the same. The big downside is that burning E85 (while being primarily a wash on cost) will reduce power proportionally.

Most of the modern flex-fuel stuff makes more power on E85, not less. Some of the manufacturers actually advertise numbers for both. You do need to burn quite a bit more E85 than gas, but if the engine isn't super low compression and you change the timing curve for E85, it'll make as much or more power (and because you're vaporizing more fuel, it'll suffer less from high intake charge temps).

ultraclyde wrote: Plus, legally they can add up to 5% content that is undisclosed, so who knows what's there.

5%? With that much allowance, I will be shocked if there isn't a secret organized effort to slowly dispose of the world's most dangerous toxic wastes through the fuel supply!

So far I'm seeing a lot of colloquial anecdotes about ethanol. Separating myth from fact:

1) 100% Ethanol contains approximately 76,330 BTUs per gallon. 100% Gasoline (depending on quality and blend) contains about 116,000 BTUs per gallon. Ethanol therefore contains approximately 34% less energy. Source
2) 100% Ethanol is stoichiometric at 9:1. Gasoline is stoich at 14.7:1. It takes approximately 38% more fuel delivery to burn Ethanol in an IC engine. Source
3) Ethanol is hygroscopic which is why it is used as "gas line anti freeze." Any water it tends to come in contact with, it will readily dissolve. This is one of the reasons why fuel problems tend to exist with ethanol blends sooner in its shelf-life than straight gasoline. In a short-term period (such as in a vehicle that is driven frequently), water problems are typically non-existent. In long term storage (such as a lawn power equipment) it often presents as what I call "white crusties"; a white, flaky mineral-like buildup primarily on brass components in the fuel system.
4) Ethanol will degrade rubbers and plastics faster than gasoline. Ethanol is capable of dissolving polymers and esters out of some plastics and rubbers causing them to get brittle or hard. Most newer vehicles are equipped with rubber and plastic compounds that aren't as affected by Ethanol. Any jet-clogging issues that typically exist come from "flakes" of degraded rubber fuel lines that leave debris in the carburetor.

I gotta run for now, but as a long-time hotrodder, auto customizer, small engine repairman, and long-time auto repair technician and service writer, I had to chime in with some fact-y things to make sure we were moving in the right direction.