PDA

View Full Version : Ethanol fuel & engine problems



Tinster
02-19-2008, 05:39 AM
Here's good read on the ethanol blended fuels now being
sold just about everywhere. In the boating industry,
ethanol creates serious engine problems. We install water
seperation filters and many of us keep out tanks topped off
to help reduce the water absorption by ethanol.

I've had a few minor glitches while driving the Six at
highway speed and I now think they are ethanol related
(water contaminated). It appears that the older the car,
the more problems ethanol blended gasoline causes.

https://www.fuel-testers.com/ethanol_engine_precautions.html

I'm just a rookie when it comes to automotive skills but
the chemistry should apply to auto as well. All comments
from experienced auto guys are welcomed.

dale

DrEntropy
02-19-2008, 08:24 AM
Ethanol sucks. Period.

...just my professional opinion...

/bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/devilgrin.gif

Mickey Richaud
02-19-2008, 08:26 AM
Ethanol sucks. Period.

...just my professional opinion...

/bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/devilgrin.gif

And professionally expressed! /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/jester.gif

DrEntropy
02-19-2008, 08:29 AM
Couldn't help it. Goin' thru a dissertation doesn't seem to make any diff'rence, so... /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smirk.gif

RonMacPherson
02-19-2008, 12:37 PM
Seafoam!!!


1/2 a can at each fillup

ObiRichKanobi
02-19-2008, 03:35 PM
I won't even use ethanol in my modern vehicles. The "cleaner emissions" equals about a 10-20% drop in fuel economy in any vehicle I've put it in. Seems like an oxymoron...burn more fuel, but lower emissions /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wall.gif

14dna
02-19-2008, 06:14 PM
/bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/iagree.gif

Doc, you said that very well

I work for a Honda store and have had more running problems since Ethanol was introduced. Now our government wants to mandate an required amount per gallon.

I think I'm gonna take up brain surgery, at least the gov't can't tax it on amount of use, and God isn't changing the model every year

/bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/nopity.gif

Tinster; How are you? Don't let that 6 get ate up by corn gas.

Dave

Tinster
02-19-2008, 06:43 PM
Hey Dave !! Howdy to Annie and The Girls!!

I've got one water/fuel separator built into my Mercury
outboard. I installed another one myself between the fuel
tank and the engine.

I'm wondering if I should install one of these units into
my Triumph's fuel line.

What does anyone think? Here is the unit I installed in my
boat to protect my engine from ethanol fuel related
problems..

https://www.jamestowndistributors.com/use...Water+Separator (https://www.jamestowndistributors.com/userportal/show_product.do?pid=6427&familyName=Racor+-+Gasoline+Spin+On+Fuel+Filter%2FWater+Separator)

14dna
02-19-2008, 06:47 PM
/bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/cheers.gif

The girls and Annie say HI!!!!!!

If your getting moisture problems, then that filter would be a good idea. Can't hurt!

/bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/savewave.gif

Dave

DrEntropy
02-19-2008, 06:51 PM
I trust Racor products, just don't think it necessary with a gas burning car, Dale. You're more likely to suffer poor running and deterioration of "soft" parts than a water condition there. Mebbe toss some "dry gas" treatment into the tank every other fillup.

...To further muddy th' water... /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/jester.gif

TR6oldtimer
02-19-2008, 07:21 PM
Dale,
Ethanol aside, keep in mind, that a boat is a different animal, operating in a different environment. The boat I once had had a 500 gallon gas tank and I never had more the 100 gallons in it. A lot of air space, and moisture laden air came in. Every now and then, I opened the bottom drain to check for water. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. I always checked the drain on the fuel filter and never a drop.

So unless you know for a fact that you have a water problem, which I doubt you will with the current blends, don't do it. Just one more thing to go wrong.

Besides, if the TR6 stops because of water in the fuel, you can still walk farther then you can swim.

TR674
02-19-2008, 10:44 PM
Tinster
I won't go near the stuff. My wife has a new 4 wheel drive and she will be staying well away from it too. I read somewhere that the new car warranties are void if there are engine/fuel problems attributed to ethanol use. Any ethanol mixes sold in my state must be clearly labelled. On the east coast I think they can sneak in a % before requiring labelling.
Regards
Craig

AltaKnight
02-19-2008, 11:04 PM
I won't even use ethanol in my modern vehicles. The "cleaner emissions" equals about a 10-20% drop in fuel economy in any vehicle I've put it in. Seems like an oxymoron...burn more fuel, but lower emissions /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wall.gif
Of course; that's EXACTLY what they mandated in the 70's by requiring detuned engines and air pumps to clean the emissions at the price of hideous gas mileage!
Only a politician could figure that out.

Roger
02-20-2008, 04:36 PM
If you live in Texas you don't have any choice at a filling station.
Ethanol or stay still!

angelfj1
02-20-2008, 04:51 PM
I'm confused. I thought ALL gasoline being sold in the USA has ethanol, and that the max. percentage in 10%. So, how can you NOT be using it?

Al_WI
02-20-2008, 05:23 PM
Around here in Northern Wisconsin, several retailers offer and advertise their 92 octane with no alcohol added. They may be catering to the outboard motor/marine market.

Al

TR3driver
02-20-2008, 05:36 PM
Here's good read on the ethanol blended fuels now being
sold just about everywhere.Mmm, I dunno. I'm always suspicious of information from someone who is trying to sell me something. In this case they are trying to sell you a test kit, and giving all the reasons why you HAVE to have one.

Several of their comments seem to not apply or be distorted, IMO. For example, it's true that E10 is somewhat hygroscopic when it's dry (meaning it can absorb water from the atmosphere); but it can also dissolve that water (where it does no harm). Once it gets close to being saturated (ie having absorbed as much water as it can hold in suspension), it is no longer hygroscopic and stops absorbing water. Then if more water is added through some other means (like tank condensation), then only the extra water falls out of suspension. So unless liquid water is added AFTER it has absorbed as much as it can hold from the atmostphere, you should get only a relatively small amount of liquid water (and ethanol) at the bottom of the tank. This is actually pretty similar to the way non-oxygenated gasoline acts, and we've been dealing with that for 100 years; so maybe the sky isn't falling after all.

And pretty much all it takes to avoid the serious consequences that they talk about is some way of blocking the heavier water/ethanol blend from the carbs; like the sediment bowl on a TR2-4 or the paper element fuel filter on later TRs. IOW our cars are already equipped to deal with the problem, because it's been around for a long, long time.

These people are also trying to sell you something ... but for an opposing viewpoint, see
https://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/fuels/rfg/waterphs.pdf

foxtrapper
02-20-2008, 07:03 PM
I won't even use ethanol in my modern vehicles. The "cleaner emissions" equals about a 10-20% drop in fuel economy in any vehicle I've put it in. Seems like an oxymoron...burn more fuel, but lower emissions /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wall.gif
Of course; that's EXACTLY what they mandated in the 70's by requiring detuned engines and air pumps to clean the emissions at the price of hideous gas mileage!
Only a politician could figure that out.

It's not complicated, government pushes industry to do what it won't do on its own. Today the emissions standards are even tighter than they were back in the 70's, yet we've got cars with higher performance then ever in the entire history of the automobile.

Yes, cleaner fuels drop mileage. They drop emissions by about 40-60%, and mileage by about 5-20%. Overall, that's a net gain. Well shown on the various monitors stationed along highways and such.

Don Elliott
02-20-2008, 07:35 PM
What about the stories (rumours) we hear that it takes more energy to make ethanol than the gas it replaces and its production actually produces global warming.

I heard long ago that if all the methane produced in New Zealand by the sheep herds could be collected for use in cars, and if the cars could be modified to run on methane, then New Zealand would not need a petroleum to gasoline facility. There would be enough methane for all the cars to operate there all year long. Now this would save global warming !

TR3driver
02-20-2008, 08:16 PM
What about the stories (rumours) we hear that it takes more energy to make ethanol than the gas it replacesLikely true only if you ignore how much energy went into forming the petroleum in the first place. "Fossil" fuels are free energy, it's really tough for "renewable" fuels to compete with that. Until of course the fossil fuels are gone.<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:] and its production actually produces global warming.[/QUOTE]Too soon to say, IMO. Wait until some other experts have had a chance to go over their analysys and point out the flaws. Seems to me they had to make a whole lot of assumptions about what will happen in the future, without so much as a crystal ball. Different assumptions may well produce different answers.

Oddly enough, as I heard it, they gave a timeline for when the CO2 equation would balance again. That implies to me that they have some huge "one time" CO2 charge in their model, like perhaps they assumed that all the cleared forests would be burned rather than being put to good use. Maybe what that means is that we should also start using methanol from wood pulp as a fuel (or even wood pulp directly).
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:]I heard long ago that if all the methane produced in New Zealand by the sheep herds could be collected for use in cars, and if the cars could be modified to run on methane, then New Zealand would not need a petroleum to gasoline facility. There would be enough methane for all the cars to operate there all year long. Now this would save global warming ! [/QUOTE]Methane as a motor fuel is do-able, though it has many disadvantages. However, collecting methane from every sheep in NZ might be a problem /bcforum/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

foxtrapper
02-21-2008, 08:49 AM
All forms of energy take more energy to create than they give. That's basic thermodynamics and entropy and such.

Currently, the energy loss is greater in ethanol production than gasoline production. US based corn ethanol vs us based gasoline. It does not hold true for all forms of ethanol production or all locations. With technology changes, this will improve. How far it will improve is the great variable. There is also the matter of how you chose to look at things. Diesel fuel to run farm tractors is counted against ethanol production by the detractors. While the fuel to deliver the crude oil via ships and sometimes even the trucks delivering gasoline is frequently ignored. So watch your base units.

The pollution from ethanol production is tremendous. That is well known to the regulatory community. But political pressures and corporate spin doctors keep it from the public eye. News medias are starting to sniff around the subject though. Probably in a year or two you will start hearing special reports unearthing that ethanol is not the environmental wonder the ethanol producers claim it to be.

Domestic ruminant animals are tremendous sources of methane, and a few other VOCs. No effective means of capturing that methane has been developed. It's not just [censored], a lot of it is burps as well. New Zealand has focused on reducing the methane production by playing with the feeds. The US is doing this as well, but much more lackadaisically. Though some of the western regions of the US are taking it very seriously. Methane from concentrated animal lagoons and such have been developed and in use for decades in some cases. But there is a tremendous resistance to these operations by the public.

Much lack of progress on things is a NIMBY issue, not a regulatory issue. In my state we need additional power plants, can make a fortune by installing a natural gas terminal, need to get rid of our trash, etc. The Not In My Back yard crowd have successfully blocked them almost completely. NIMBY exists everywhere. It's understandable, but the new powerplants people want have to go somewhere.

Don't pity oil companies for a lack of refineries in the US either. There used to be lots of them. The oil companies themselves shut them down specifically to reduce capacity and thereby drive up prices. They weren't subtle or secretive about it. People routinely ignore this, and just bash the regulatory community for not giving oil companies a free ride to open up new refineries without any controls on emissions. Not that the regulatory community has stopped a single refinery project in the US. It's been the NIMBY crowd, every time. All the regulatory community does is say the refinery can't be a mess. The NIMBY crowd says you can't build it here, regardless.

Dave Russell
02-21-2008, 11:51 AM
I heard long ago that if all the methane produced in New Zealand by the sheep herds could be collected for use in cars, and if the cars could be modified to run on methane, then New Zealand would not need a petroleum to gasoline facility. There would be enough methane for all the cars to operate there all year long. Now this would save global warming !
Humans also. Maybe the - Gas Shaver - "Works on Natural Gas" will make a come back? https://www.gagworks.com/Gas-Shaver-p/6783.htm
D