• Hey Guest!
    British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!
    **Upgrade Now**
    (PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Tips
Tips

Harmful Gas?

Share this page

tr6nitjulius

tr6nitjulius

Jedi Warrior
Country flag
Offline
Yeah, yeah ... Julius, you've been using E10 or equivalent (MTBE) for almost as long as you've owned a TR. Don't believe anything from Faux News!

PS, it's been a lot of years ago now, but I briefly tried running a TR3A on straight moonshine (180 proof denatured alcohol). It actually ran pretty good, although it burned a lot more shine than gasoline (around 18 mpg IIRC). No harmful effects observed.
 
Last edited:
I find that news report hard to follow and scattershot, and many of the comments don't seem to hold a lot of logic to me. Don't understand the part about adding E15 stored in stainless steel tanks to regular gasoline at the pumps. Maybe she meant adding *ethanol* to regular gasoline?

But ... the effect of E15 fuel is a valid concern. I'd like to see the AAA report itself. We've had some very good threads on this before.

Tom
 
Aha! from the AAA website:

https://newsroom.aaa.com/tag/aaa-e15/

"AAA’s concern with E15 is not about ethanol. In fact, AAA believes that ethanol-blended fuels have the potential to save Americans money and reduce the nation’s dependency on fossil fuels. The problem is that available research, including the EPA’s exhaust emissions tests, is not sufficient evidence that E15 is safe to use in most vehicles."


 
I agree there are valid concerns. The biggest concern, IMO, is with cars made during the late 1960s through early 1980s, that have fixed main jets in the carbs and hence cannot easily be adjusted to the richer mixture required to properly burn E15 (or E85 for that matter). Those engines were already tuned to the edge of lean misfire (to reduce emissions) so burning E15 will push them over the edge (under at least some conditions) leading to unburned or still-burning fuel being dumped into the exhaust causing both a huge increase in emissions and potentially severe engine damage. I don't have the link handy, but there were even some EPA (or perhaps it was CARB) studies that showed that "oxygenated" fuel would cause a net increase in pollution because of that effect, even though there are (were) relatively few cars left on the road from that era.

However, unless you have a TR250 or early TR6 with the fixed jets & needles, your TR can easily be tuned to run properly on E15. And IMO E15 isn't going to "eat the fuel system" any more than E10 already has. By now, anyone living in CA has already made the changes required to tolerate ethanol (which include changing all the soft fuel lines and fuel pump diaphragm). Likely most of the rest of the US has as well, or at least will have by the time you can only buy E15.

My opinion, our efforts are better spent adapting to the future, rather than trying to prevent it.
 
Never mind this thread, I want to see more of that E-type! What a great color!
 
FWIW, I traced most of the flap over E15 back to a single study, which you can read here:
https://goo.gl/EmVWz

I see lots of flaws in the study; all it really proves to me is that some old cars can't complete a simulated 100,000 mile endurance test without being worn more than they were at the start of the test. Duh! A 2001 Honda CRV was worn out after over 200,000 miles without even using synthetic oil? What a surprise!

Of the 8 vehicle types tested, only 3 of them were even tested on E15, and one of those couldn't pass the test even on E0! And they didn't do any comparison at all to E10, which is what we're burning now.

There's lots more. For example, one of the engines that failed had already been upgraded in production to solve the exact problem they found; as it is actually sold in Brazil (where they routinely burn E22). They also admit that they really didn't know what condition the engines were in before the test, except that they discarded engines where either leakdown or emissions were already above the test limits. I wonder how many they discarded?
 
Randall - did you notice the source of that study? The "Coordinating Research Council" of Alpharetta GA.

The CRC describes itself (page two) as: "The Coordinating Research Council, Inc. (CRC) is a non-profit corporation supported by the petroleum and automotive equipment industries. CRC operates through the committees made up of technical experts from industry and government who voluntarily participate. "

Next page: "This report was prepared by FEV, Inc. [Henning Kleeberg FEV, Inc.] as an account of work sponsored by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC). "

The panel members listed are from all the major oil companies and automobile manufacturers.

T.
 
TR3driver said:
...The biggest concern, IMO, is with cars made during the late 1960s through early 1980s, that have fixed main jets in the carbs and hence cannot easily be adjusted to the richer mixture required to properly burn E15 (or E85 for that matter). Those engines were already tuned to the edge of lean misfire (to reduce emissions) so burning E15 will push them over the edge (under at least some conditions) leading to unburned or still-burning fuel being dumped into the exhaust causing both a huge increase in emissions and potentially severe engine damage...
Click to expand...

What should owners of those cars (I am one) do? As I understand it there are times of the year when all common pump gas contains up to 10% ethanol. Is this livable for cars with the non-tunable carbs (Strombergs in my case)?

What about these products -- snake oil or real help?

22264_1.21.12.jpg
Safeguard%20Ethanol%20Treatment.gif
 
When did you get a TR6, Geo? Or has your TR4 been fitted with later carbs? Early ZS carbs had adjustable jets; late ZS had adjustable needles. There was only a window of 2-3 years where the mixture was not adjustable.

If I had one of those, I would probably just monitor for signs of damage from running too lean. If I was sure it was a problem, I would probably modify the carb to be adjustable. I've not looked into it myself, but I think it should be fairly simple to substitute the piston & needle from a later carb, with the needle adjustment mechanism built into the piston.

The snake oil above may help with the phase separation problem, but I find it hard to believe that it will correct the mixture. But I don't know for sure. I should probably also mention that I do run Redline lead substitute and a few ounces of 2-cycle oil per tankful of gasoline; to hopefully help my current old engine deal with the E10. The lead substitute definitely stopped the valve seat recession; it remains to be seen if the upper cylinder lubricant will help with the rings & cylinder walls.
 
NutmegCT said:
Randall - did you notice the source of that study? The "Coordinating Research Council" of Alpharetta GA.
.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it likely explains (IMO) why such a sloppy study was done. But I'd rather try to judge the study on it's merits rather than the motives of those who commissioned it. I'm funny that way.
 
Lets just say there is more than one point of view on this.

Harvesting corn to use as gasoline is completely crazy and totally inefficient. It solves nothing, and it certainly isn't any better for "the environment". But, like my associates in China say: "a lie repeated 1000 times becomes the truth".

Like anything big brother gets into, huge subsidies skew reality. It may make make you (falsely) feel good, but it does nothing in terms of energy efficiency or "adapting to the future". It has so many of its own associated costs and problems. But of course the "non-Faux" news groups would never report that. They've drunk far too much Kool Aid. And after all, they know more about internal automobile engine efficiency than the 10 major auto producers who came forward in the news article that the "Faux" reported, documenting their positions on the warranty issue (nothing was "created" here - just reported) :rolleyes2:

I suggest we keep this board away from political lightning rods like alternate energy, social issues, gun control etc. I way get too much of that from the Porsche boards. I'm OK with the technical discussion on it, but please, let's leave the politics out of it.
 
hmmm - I don't think politics was involved in this thread until that post. Let's keep it that way!

Anyway, dealing with effects of ethanol in fuels is a quandary - regardless of the source of the ethanol. Would be useful to find some reports of how people are dealing with the problem, in addition to Randall's suggestions.

Tom
 
Back
Top