Is this true? - gas/water/alcohol

[Guest edalfa]

I know there has been alot of discussion about the quality of gasoline recently but I heard a new twist on it yesterday. I had to bring my hand mower in for repairs. It ran fine but would cut out for no apparent reason, restart reluctantly and then run fine again. The repair shop asked if the gas was new. He went on to say that water in the new gas begins to separate in a week! I asked if stabilizers made a difference and he said that it does slow down but not halt the process. In my case, I have pretty much ruled out gas as a culprit as the lawn tractor has had no similar problems. I was kind of thinking that it was the electronic kill switch given the abruptness of the shutdown. We shall see.

Has anyone else heard anything similar about gas? I had thought that stabilizers are designed to prevent such issues. Is this not the case with current gas?

Ed

[R Walling]

"water in the new gas" ? I would think that with 10% alcohol in the gas, water would be the least of any problems.

After all "dry gas" is nothing but alcohol.

[Barry Wolk]

I do know that new gas is formulated differently than it used to be. Many old car appear to run rich on today's fuel.

This happened to me on my '55 Porsche. There was black soot in the tail pipe. A mechanic friend said that the jet size needs to be reduced to make the engine run right. We changed the idle jets from .055 to .050 and it ran like a top.

I have never heard of gas separating, but I suppose it's possible.

[Reatta Man]

Water doesn't 'seperate' from gas because it never was able to mix with gas in the first place.

"Dry Gas' and additives like it mixed alcohol with the gas. Alcohol WILL mix with water (the rubbing alcohol you buy in the store is usually 10-30% water) and the alcohol will allow the water to pass through the engine when mixed with the alcohol.

However, no gas forms, seperates from, or comes with water in it. You could get cheap gas right out of the pump with some water in it from some mom-and-pop stores that buy from the very cheapest supplier you can find. But name-brand gas is usually consistently good quality.

As for your mower, do you mean a 18-24" push mower with a four-stroke engine? You are probably right; have someone hold the kill switch down with the engine running, and then try to move the kill switch cable where it attaches to the engine. It can be as little as 1/8 to 1/16th of an inch from the contact that kills the engine. If it is too close, and contacts that piece of metal, it will kill the engine.

And, by the way, find a new repair shop..... Real small-engine mechanics know better.

[joe_padavano]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Wolk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do know that new gas is formulated differently than it used to be. Many old car appear to run rich on today's fuel.

This happened to me on my '55 Porsche. There was black soot in the tail pipe. A mechanic friend said that the jet size needs to be reduced to make the engine run right. We changed the idle jets from .055 to .050 and it ran like a top.</div></div>

I certainly won't argue with your success, but downjetting due to modern gas doesn't really make sense. The 10% ethanol in most gasoline today has less energy content than straight gasoline, so you should need to <span style="text-decoration: underline">increase</span> the jet size if your problem was due to today's gasoline. As an example, carburetors for E85 require much larger jets (and actually larger fuel flow passages) than those for normal gasoline.

Keep in mind that besides being a bow to the agricultural lobbies, the original reason for mandating "oxygenated" fuels (ie, ethanol added) in the late 1970s was to trick the non-computer controlled carburetors of the time into running leaner and thus emitting fewer hydrocarbons in the winter when the choke would be closed for a longer period of time. The fact that today's computer-controlled EFI systems automatically richen the mixture to compensate (and thus decrease mileage) is a detail lost on lawmakers.

I'm guessing that if old cars are found to run "rich" on today's gasoline, the problem is more likely to be the float. Modern additives attack plastic floats, rendering them less buoyant. The float sinks, raising the level in the float bowl and causing the carb to run rich. The correct fix for this is to use a brass float and to reset the float level if necessary, not changing the jets.

[TG57Roadmaster]

Yesterday was the AACA HNR's Red, White & Blue car show/monthly meeting and a bunch of folks broght out there old cars. I live 140 miles away and filled up ($60) for the trip up. The '57 Buick used 3/4 of that tank, where it should have been more like 1/3.

On the way home last night, I filled up again ($70; used precious premium both times) and the car used it's usual 1/3 of a tank. Was that first fill up "bad" gas, watered-down, or what?

BTW, it was a cookout, and that was the most memorable $75 burger, beans & slaw <span style="font-style: italic">ever!</span>

TG

[rocketraider]

I've seen this first-hand in the wagon, maybe because I drive it the most, but I also noticed it on the K-car last week.

I keep pretty detailed fuel mileage records on them all, so I can't say this is a fluke.

Using 87 octane gasoline from the same BP station, on the same route at the same speeds and conditions, gas mileage was all over the place on the wagon. Some tanks would deliver its normal mixed-driving 17 mpg, others would drop as low as 11 mpg- which got my attention.

Filled it up at that BP one morning and drove it to Charlotte NC- 142 miles and it used 13 gallons of gas. 11.2 mpg!!??

Filled it up at a Shell for the drive home. Same route, same speeds, everything the same except fuel. It got 19.2, which is about normal for steady-state driving on that car.

I had also noticed some pinging on 87 BP and had to run 89 to stop it, with no change in the all-over-the-place gas mileage. It does not ping on other brands 87- even el cheapo cut-rate no-brand gas.

It has to be the gas. I don't use BP gasoline any more.

Now the K-car being fuel injected and computer-controlled, you don't see that much variation. Consistent 28 mpg in mixed driving. I put some 10% ethanol gas in it last week trying to save a dime a gallon.

Me 4-cylinder FI K-car, which has delivered steady 27-29 mpg its whole life, got 20.1 mpg on that ethanol shat. 30% drop in mileage. I didn't save anything. Back to non-ethanol gas for me, if I have to pay more for it.

If you're burning 30% more fuel to accomplish an unequal improvement in air quality, I don't see where you're saving anything- gasoline, environment, money, nothing.

It has to be the gas. Yup- lawmakers can't see past ADM money.

[joe_padavano]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rocketraider</div><div class="ubbcode-body">...Back to non-ethanol gas for me, if I have to pay more for it...</div></div>

You're lucky if you can find it. Here in NoVa, we don't have a choice. I wouldn't mind if the prices were equivalent - pay by the BTU, for example - but they're not. We pay a premium for the privilege of getting worse gas mileage.

[Dave@Moon]

Ethanol has about 10% less energy than gasoline per unit volume, and comprises 10% or less of anything that can legally be sold as "gasoline" in the U.S. You should <span style="text-decoration: underline">never</span> see a mileage reduction of more than 3-5% using E10. If you do, something is wrong with the car or with the fuel (bad gas is always a possibility). (If ethanol were completely inert then it'd only be replacing 10% of the fuel and effecting mileage by about that much!)

Most likely if there's a large difference between the two then there's a problem with dirty injectors or jets. Ethanol is not as volitile as most gasoline components, and will not atomize as readily if there's an injector problem. Almost certainly that's the problem here. It could also be aggravated by dirty plugs, cyclically made dirtier by the incomplete buring of the fuel.

My Prius gets noticeably lower mileage on ethanol, and a load of good fuel injector cleaner helps with that a great deal. You'd expect that with a 3-5% loss on a 45-50 mpg car. If you're noticing a <span style="text-decoration: underline">regular/serious</span> reduction in mileage in a 20 mpg car on E10 then something is definitely wrong with the car.

[Barry Wolk]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: joe_padavano</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Barry Wolk</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I do know that new gas is formulated differently than it used to be. Many old car appear to run rich on today's fuel.

This happened to me on my '55 Porsche. There was black soot in the tail pipe. A mechanic friend said that the jet size needs to be reduced to make the engine run right. We changed the idle jets from .055 to .050 and it ran like a top.</div></div>

I certainly won't argue with your success, but downjetting due to modern gas doesn't really make sense.</div></div>

Didn't to me either. If you'll note I said "appears to run rich" by evidence of black soot in the tail pipe and on the spark plugs. I really don't have a technical answer for you, only anecdotal evidence that it idled poorly with the larger jets and purred like a kitten with the smaller jets. He even switched back and forth twice to confirm the results.

On the return trip from Cincinnati we got 29.33 mpg at a steady 55-60 mph.

[Paul Dobbin]

I know the fleet manager for our county's 2150 vehicles and he says his tests show ethenol robs 30% of fuel economy and 30% of power.

So other than it being good for corn farmers and record

growth in fuel & gorceries costs, what's it good for?

Why is the scientific community so quiet about this?

We just got 16.23 MPG in our 1934 Ford on the Sentimental Tour using $3.86 Exxon regular.

[Reatta Man]

Paul,

What were his results based on, 10% ethanol, or 85% ethanol?

[Studemax]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So other than it being good for corn farmers and record

growth in fuel & gorceries costs, what's it good for? </div></div>

The eco-freaks like it because it doesn't pollute the air.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why is the scientific community so quiet about this?</div></div>

Because they are getting paid to make it look good!

Actually, real worlders have known that alcohol has less energy than gasoline for years. Much of the public is finding out the hard way. The scam will be exposed soon, and corn prices will go back down.

[Dave@Moon]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> The eco-freaks like it because it doesn't pollute the air.</div></div>

As opposed to all those red-blooded Americans that can't wait to die of emphysema, see all the vegegation turn brown, and watch polar bears drown at the same time? Really?

When you're calling the vast majority of people "freaks" you're not doing your argument any good.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Because they are getting paid to make it look good! </div></div>

More likely it's because they're trained to evaluate dispassionately, and not be influenced by their heros on <span style="font-style: italic">Fox News</span> or in the <span style="font-style: italic">National Review</span>. (Have you looked at "scientist" salaries lately? ) Also they may just have spent a career actually doing the evaluations necessary instead of just swallowing whatever some pundit blows their way.

The fact of the matter is that everything good or bad you've heard about ethanol came from a scientist, and there is such a thing as a consensus opinion on the subject. The facts are that ethanol production (which at first was a net energy consumer) has progressed to where it now generates 20-30% more than it consumes. The further facts are that without developing ethanol production that number wouldn't have changed, and the further improvements in efficientcy that are certain to come (largely from shifting production away from corn) won't happen without trying either.

Oh yeah, and the scientists are probably smart enough to factor in the lower BTU content of ethanol when evaluating the efficientcy of energy production.

Smart people aren't all that dumb, you know!

[Barry Wolk]

Good job Dave.

[speedbump]

Being a new guy here, I don't want to get involved in any head banging, but I am an old engine builder. E-85 gets a bad rap because of flex fuel vehicles which were, in my opinion, just another flim flam add to sell a little more of old technology with new tail fins. Properly done, an engine designed to run on E-85 can be as or nearly as efficient as a gasoline engine. The key is higher compression which the flex fuel vehicles cannot add because they still need to run on 87 octane fuel. Since they can't get the added compression E-85 will support, the effieiency of the engine falls off horribly and everyone sings the E-85 blues. A true flex fuel engine could have 11 ot 11 1/2 compression ratio, which E-85 will support and have the gasoline part of the equation be 92 octane which will marginally support that compression. The computer would have two fuel maps, depending on fuel type, as well as a safety program which wouldn't allow the engine to be heavily loaded (VE wise) while it was on gasoline. That would save the engine from the moron drivers who so many computer car owners have become. (read: government saves us from ourselves because we forgot how to think, but that's a story for another day) I think a flex fuel vehicle built this way, and the technology is easy and available, would make the popularity of E-85 and ethanol a lot higher. AND..we could have a lot more driving FUN and still be a little green.

[Reatta Man]

Speedbump,

In criticizing ethanol, many people forget that Indy cars have been running on pure alcohol for YEARS!

In 2006, they even started switching from methanol to ethanol.

Oh, by the way, the octane rating of the fuel they use at Indy? 113 octane.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/27/sportsline/main1662809.shtml

[Guest edalfa]

Any ideas on what had to be done to get the Indy cars run on ethanol?

Ed

[Reatta Man]

Ed,

Basically, get someone to write a check for several million dollars!

Seriously, the engines in Indy cars have virtually no similarity to what we know and use every day. They are made to start up, and operate at nearly 100% of the maximum RPMS they can sustain.

You can, by the way, get an ordinary car to run on pure alcohol. But, as someone who lived in Brazil and ran his car on their alcohol fuel told me, you wouldn't like it.

[old gto]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

You can ... get an ordinary car to run on pure alcohol ... But ... you wouldn't like it.</div></div>

<span style="color: #3333FF">Please continue.

"You wouldn`t like it because......." </span>

[Shop Rat]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: old gto</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You can ... get an ordinary car to run on pure alcohol ... But ... you wouldn't like it.</div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Reatta Man</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

<span style="color: #3333FF">Please continue.

"You wouldn`t like it because......." </span> </div></div>

Mostly because they tend to get "a touch of the melancholy" and then they just want to hang around and sing about how good it was in the old days.