Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Great News!!!!!

Oil Industry Stages Another Sham Anti-Ethanol Press Conference

By Marc J. Rauch

Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher

THE AUTO CHANNEL

AUTO CENTRAL - January 29, 2013: This morning, the American Petroleum Institute held their latest telephone press conference in their continuous attempt to undermine any alternative fuel solutions and keep us addicted to gasoline.

The information released by the API today during the press conference added nothing new or significant in their fallacious assault on ethanol…except one thing. The two presenters took on the surprisingly conciliatory pretense of “having nothing against ethanol.” They went so far as to say that there are fine “blending qualities”about ethanol.

They just don’t want it living in their neighborhood, so to speak.

API did what they have done for decades: they made up lies and insinuations, and they mischaracterized ethanol. To listen to them, anyone would think that vehicles that run on gasoline never experience any engine breakdowns or system failures, and that fuel pumps, fuel lines, pistons and cylinder walls only ever show signs of wear if alcohol somehow gets into the fuel system. They warned about consumers experiencing roadside breakdowns and costly repairs because of E15 use. What? Are they suggesting that the millions of vehicles that have broken down over the past 100-years only broke down because they used fuel other than gasoline?

To use the old phrase made contemporary again by Joe Biden: The API is full of malarkey.

The API guys stated, yet again, that the EPA prematurely approved the use of E15 in vehicles manufactured since 2001. API says that there hasn’t been sufficient study. They conveniently ignore the fact that alcohol/ethanol has been used in vehicle engines since the mid-1850’s; that virtually every independent study of gasoline vs. ethanol shows ethanol is the superior engine fuel; and that even the automobile industry’s top scientists (including the General Motors guys who invented leaded gasoline) believed that ethanol is the better fuel. They also ignore the fact that there are other countries on this planet that have relied on ethanol and various ethanol-gasoline blends for years, with no problems other than those that are customarily experienced by internal combustion engines.

In addition, they gloss over the fact that the government’s testing laboratories didn’t just take up the study of ethanol as an engine fuel in the past couple of years; they have studied ethanol and different blend levels for many, many years. Moreover, Ricardo Laboratories– the world’s leading and most respected private lab dealing with fuel issues – did its own study that shows that E15 can be used in all vehicles going back to the early 1990’s.

They have also mischaracterized, again, the EPA’s E15 waiver; making it sound like it wasn’t just a recommendation, but that it is a mandated imperial order. They referred to a recent AAA warning about E15 causing engine damage as if AAA conducted their own conclusive testing of the fuel. But AAA didn’t, they relied on the lies given to them by the oil lobby and then invented some of their own gross exaggerations to make the warning seem more urgent. It’s just more malarkey; hot stinky grotesque batches of malarkey.

But perhaps the single stupidest misstatement that the two presenters made today is when they characterized ethanol as being dangerously corrosive. Let me remind everyone that ethanol is alcohol. Alcohol can be consumed; it can be rubbed on your body; it is used to clean and disinfect sensitive medical instruments that are used on internal organs of the human body; and you can leave an open container of alcohol in a closed room without killing any people who may be in the room. Try doing these things with gasoline. And, if you only use gasoline and you experience water related problems such as freezing, you add alcohol to the gasoline to solvethe problem. In my estimation, if there is something that’s bad in ethanol, it’s the gasoline that's added to the alcohol to denaturize it.

The petroleum oil industry is controlled by foreign regimes and terrorist groups who want to keep us addicted to gasoline. Regardless of where and how the oil is found, it is controlled by OPEC. There are no“American” petroleum oil companies; they are international companies who may have offices here. They hire uninformed PR whores to spread their lies and they bribe politicians to keep us using their poison.

Even if ethanol caused some or all of the engine problems that the oil industry pretend that it does, the solution is not to not use ethanol. The solution is to ban the use of gasoline as an engine fuel and to mandate that all engine components be manufactured with regard to alcohol use. And of course, the ethanol should be produced in America by Americans. Simply put, I’d much rather have my fuel money go to American farmers than foreign terrorists.

Oil Industry Stages Another Sham Anti-Ethanol Press Conference

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)
Nothing to see here folks! Let's move along!

Avgwarhawk began this thread with what most on this forum would agree with. Dave disagrees and neither viewpoint will ever be changed.......on this web site at least.

Wayne, that's bull and you know it.

Chris started that thread with politically sourced misinformation. Pointing out (accurately & demonstratively) that it was political as well as false was somehow decreed in and of itself political and deleted by Matt without deleting the questionable misinformation itself. The whole point of this thread, since lost with the nearly immediate deletion of my ironic three word last post, was to show how you can state almost anything and fiegn sincerity. That post, "Nothing political here! :rolleyes:", vanished within hours. (The last 2 links I posted above are decidedly political in nature, coming from the ethanol industry just like that Chris's material had come from the petroleum industry {although mine didn't come from the "Politics" page of a partisan newspaper like his did:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:}. Thus the irony.)

The misinformation was then backed up by Chris and others with factual errors that pointed out a complete misunderstanding of the nature of gasoline and ethanol. There may be 2 sides to the issue of whether ethanol fuels are good, or whether global warming exists, but there's no way in Hades that there are 2 sides to the content of blend materials used to make e10 and e15 fuels, or what you'd get if you removed the alcohol from them, or whether octane is "something developed during WW2" and "added to gasoline".

I'm going to put this as simply and succinctly as I can, for however long this post stays with us (which won't be long): Ethanol fuels are probably the second greatest threat to the old car hobby. They are a serious issue that needs to be dealt with in a responsible manner ASAP. The bigger threat is the widespread misunderstanding of modern fuels, and how that misunderstandaing is being used to marginalize and exploit this group to it's detriment. Until there is a coordinated effort to understand the science behind the changes (those present and those coming) in motor fuels, and not just a reliance on presumptions of comfort backed up by chaff from groups with something to gain, we are sitting ducks.

Don't be too surprised if the same guy you're sending to Washington to protect "your gasoline", and his AM radio friends, are telling you in short order to convert your Oldsmobile to burn alcohol because they're not leaving you anything else to use.

Edited by Dave@Moon (see edit history)
Posted

Well, while many in the hobby have been discussing the virtues and non-virtues of ethanol-blended fuel, either at the current (generally) E10 level or the "desired" E15 level ("desired" and the degree of such tends to vary with where one's vantage point is in this whole situation . . . the "follow the money" on WHO initiated any testing to be done, especially on the "Pro" side of things, by my own observations).

But my research, the other night, ran across something VERY interesting! Something which had date stamps (on the articles) going back to 2008 on "a gasoline drop-in additive", even one which has EPA approval! Even tested by one outboard boat motor manufacturer AND Briggs&Stratton, with "passing" grades! AND, it's a bio-fuel item, which is even better, with lots of ways to make it!

At the blend level of 16.1%, this fuel blend performed as well as the current E10, but has NONE of the downsides of ethanol! It can be pipelined to distribution points, rather than trucked, as it has a very low degree of hygroscopicity (very similar to normal gasoline), with no phase-separation issues. NO issues with rubber fuel system components. NO issues with degrading metallic engine parts (aluminum was mentioned), either. It has about 12% less total energy content than normal gasoline, but 30% more than ethanol.

As I read these articles, it made me wonder, especially after seeing the 2008 dates on some of the articles, plus that it has EPA "drop-in" approval, WHY we got on "The Ethanol Highway" in the first place? PLUS "Why we're still there?"

It seemed, initially, that the more I read about isobutanol (also termed "bio-isobutanol" in some places), it also seemed that it has enough octane rating to be used as a fuel itself, but there's one "hitch" to that. It has a Reid Vapor Pressure rating of about "4.0", I believe. This would not be very good for cold-start driveability, but it would also be great in the hot southwest desert summer. Hence the need to be a blend agent rather than a fuel item by itself. The lack of moisture absorption makes it fine to ship via pipeline, which would mean that refiners could blend it at the refinery, then pipeline it to their own dedicated tank farm distribution networks, and then truck it to the individual filling stations . . . which should increase the quality of the end product in a manner better than the current "splash blend" of ethanol at distribution terminals.

The base "feed stock" for isobutanol can be a number of items, from corn to wood shavings. It also seems that there are several different "critters" which make things happen in the conversion of the base stock into the isobutanol product. LOTS of variability, in these combinations, it seems. No need to use corn or sugar cane, per se, as the only feed stock, either, as other similar sources seem to work just as well.

Another key element is that existing ethanol facilities, some of which were closed due to the drought conditions and decreased corn crops, can be converted to produce isobutanol reasonably quickly and economically. NO need to completely start over, just modify and add some things to the existing plants, which saves money.

Currently, isobutanol is one of the "notes" in the flavor of scotch whiskey, too.

It just seems that using isobutanol rather than ethanol would take most, if not ALL, of the controversial "carbon footprint" of ethanol production for gasoline use OUT of the mix, completely. Therefore decreasing the carbon footprint of gasoline use itself. After all, less gasoline base stock would be in the final product, at the 16.1% blend level which was tested . . . even more than E15, by a small amount.

Where this all hits US is that IB16.1 can be used just as we used to use normal gasoline. As it works as well as E10 with (generally) the same properties as gasoline, I suspect it would work just as well in ALL vehicles as it might in our more vintage carbureted engines, without costly and possibly irreversible calibrations changes. And, as one article I found mentioned, it would negate the need for "flexfuel" vehicles.

I still need to research this "new find" (although most of what I found is several years old!) to satisfy my own curiousities of how viable isobutanol would be as an ethanol substitute. At this time, it looks like a much more viable and long-term "green energy" solution than ethanol ever could be.

I found these articles while researching what was going on, in the present tense, with the E15 waiver activities. That's when I found the apparent waivers the EPA has been granting to the cellulosic ethanol side of things, as there has been no production of such things in the past and was not in 2012, either, although production amounts are mandated in existing legislation.

As for the "bad for modern engines" findings . . . I have a copy of an engine study on current production vehicles, which lasted for a long mileage amount. The tested vehicles were also certified as "flex fuel" vehicles. The main findings of this test centered around something we hadn't heard about since unleaded fuels came online -- valve seat recession. When valve seat recession happens, the valve seat is basically "beat out" such that the resultant "seat" is higher in the port bowl than the originally-machined/inserted valve seat was. If there is not enough tolerance of an effectively lengthening of the valve stem, the valve will not firmly seal against the combustion pressures in the engine, which leads to various results (excessive emissions is one, as is poor driveability and "missing"). It seems that pushrod engines are more tolerant of this situation than overhead camshaft engines are, from the designs of the engines in the test.

As the particular long-term/mileage test tended to cast new light on ethanol fuels' negative affects on the internal parts of modern engines, the EPA immediately responded with comments about the particular methodology of the test procedures. From what I could see, there were NO problems with how the tests were done, partially with the engines removed from the vehicles and placed on engine dynos and partially as they resided in their original vehicles' engine compartments (for on-road and chassis dyno miles). I could see no real bias in how this particular test was carried out or originally-configured, unlike some of the other tests I've seen and downloaded.

At the present time, though, it appears that isobutanol is the best replacement for ethanol in our gasoline (it also works well in diesel) supplies. I've seen far too many positives in it, compared to ethanol (even at the original "oxygenate" ReFormulatedGasoline level of about 5.67%), so far.

Respectfully,

NTX5467

  • Like 1
Posted

Isobutanol has been the victim among multiple lawsuits between competing producers which not only held back it's development and (especially) production, but resulted in an outright ban on it's sale for automotive applications from some producers for part of 2012. Those lawsuits were settled this past November, and hopefully it's future can advance unimpeded from now on.

It is more expensive to produce than ethanol, with (so far) much lower yields from the same size facilities and feedstocks. It also is more viscous than diesel fuel, which can effect it's use in some fuel systems. Isobutanol has an octane rating almost exactly the same as regular unleaded gas, which (while that sounds like an advantage) actually requires the gasoline blend feedstock to be refined to a higher octane (and therefore be more expensive) than feedstocks for ethanol blends like e10. Finally it's toxicity is much higher than ethanol, which will require more controlled handling procedures.

None of those are serious problems that can't be overcome, and thus far there's little doubt that isobutanol has an expanding future as a fuel and a commercial product. Whether it can be produced as efficiently and in the quantities possible for ethanol is yet to be seen, but it's advantages certainly make it worth pursuing. :)

Posted

The first 3 posts are informative because they show how misleading the big ethanol crowd can be. The unprofessional agenda driven rants comming from The Auto Channel who bills itself as "The Largest Independent Automotive Information Source", LOL, is typical of the misinformation they often spew. I realize that this sort of criticism is what gets these threads deleted so I'll just move on.

As bad as E15 is for our old cars, even worse than E10, The introduction of E15 could either replace E10 or present an opportunity for our hobby. While stations are not mandated (at this time) to sell E15, neither are they mandated to sell E10. They may choose to sell either or both. Most stations are presently sitting on 2 underground tanks. one for regular/E10 and one for premimum. If they choose to sell E15, they will likely use the regular tank instead of closing down the station while they dig up the lot and bury another tank, a costly job. What looks more promising for our hobby are the "Blender Pumps" that are being tested in the corn belt region. Blender pumps use the 2 tanks for straight gas and E85 and the pumps can provide either grade or selected intermediate grades such as E10, E15, and E20. If this trend continues, we may have pure gas readily available again. Federal law (at this time) does not prohibit the sale of straight gas. CA and few other states may prohibit its sale but most do not.The fuel dealers are required to dump a certain amount of ethanol on the public and they have been doing so mostly by E10. The blender pumps will allow the dealers to use up their E quota on higher blends. If the gov't agencies involved have a concern that access to pure gas will be misused, then they can certainly make another warning sticker (similar to E15 warning sticker) that would prohibit its use in anything other than antique vehicles, 2-cycle engines and lawn & power equipment.

Posted
What looks more promising for our hobby are the "Blender Pumps" that are being tested in the corn belt region. Blender pumps use the 2 tanks for straight gas and E85 and the pumps can provide either grade or selected intermediate grades such as E10, E15, and E20. If this trend continues, we may have pure gas readily available again. Federal law (at this time) does not prohibit the sale of straight gas. CA and few other states may prohibit its sale but most do not.The fuel dealers are required to dump a certain amount of ethanol on the public and they have been doing so mostly by E10. The blender pumps will allow the dealers to use up their E quota on higher blends. If the gov't agencies involved have a concern that access to pure gas will be misused, then they can certainly make another warning sticker (similar to E15 warning sticker) that would prohibit its use in anything other than antique vehicles, 2-cycle engines and lawn & power equipment.

That could work, but there are 2 problems with it--both of which would mean added expense for the antique owner and one of which for everyone.

First of all, as I stated above gasoline feedstocks have to be refined to an octane rating appropriate to the amount of ethanol they're going to be blended with. The higher the octane rating, the more refining is necessary and the more expensive the fuel is. By simply blending varying amounts of ethanol with a single grade of gas you'd be requiring that gas to be refined all the way up to standard (i.e. 87 octane), and thereby wasting the octane rating advance provided by the ethanol. 100% gas would be 87 octane, e10 would be about 90 octane*, e20 95 octane, etc. At the very least I'd guess you're looking at a 20-25 cent increase in the price of regular grade gas over what it would otherwise cost regardless of ethanol content. Also e85 would have to be handled seperately, since it would wind up being about 110 octane which is too high for most engines to handle long term.

The other problem is the potential for misuse. WAY too many people have been scared by propoganda into thinking that e10 is going to kill their '98 Ford Escort, and will almost certainly choose the 100% gasoline option unless it's made financially less viable for them. And yes, that probably means a higher gas tax on 100% gasoline in order to preserve it for those of us who really need it. A "sticker" isn't going to do it, becuase unlike using e15 in an older model car using the pure stuff won't do any damage to any car. You can bet there would be a mandated higher price to avoid biofuel additives, probably through gas taxes or possibly (through limiting sales quotas) requiring the gas companies to price the material higher themselves (as is currently being done with larger-engine light trucks by manufacturers who have to limit the number of those they build to stay under C.A.F.E. standards.).

It gets complicated quick. Fortunately e10 is going to have to be around for at least another decade or more as the dominant/standard fuel simply because there are too many cars around that are too old to use e15 by anyone's definition. Currently almost 1/2 of the cars on the road are older than the 2001 model year

========================.

*The Conoco "blend" pumps I saw in Illinios in Sept. 2011 rated their e10 @ 89 octane, the 87 octane was ethanol-free (and cost about 25 cents/gal. more than the 89 octane).

Posted

These pumps are already in service. I may not have been clear but the pumps do not blend etanol to pure gas. They feed from 2 tanks, one containing pure 87 octane and the other tank contains pre-blended E85 at I assume 87 octane or whatever it usually is. You pump from pure tank if that's what you select. You pump from the E85 thank if you select e85. You get a mix of the 2 tanks if you select a middle blend. If you select E10 you get (maybe) 86% pure + 14% E85 to equal a gallon of E10. The octane rate will also end up at the correct level between the pure & E85.

Posted
These pumps are already in service. I may not have been clear but the pumps do not blend etanol to pure gas. They feed from 2 tanks, one containing pure 87 octane and the other tank contains pre-blended E85 at I assume 87 octane or whatever it usually is. You pump from pure tank if that's what you select. You pump from the E85 thank if you select e85. You get a mix of the 2 tanks if you select a middle blend. If you select E10 you get (maybe) 86% pure + 14% E85 to equal a gallon of E10. The octane rate will also end up at the correct level between the pure & E85.

e85 is rated 105 octane as it is currently blended.

Posted

I believe there already is a higher tax on pure gas. I believe the Federal fuel tax is only on the gas and not on ethanol so if you buy E10 you only pay 90% of the tax. That was supposed to be an incentive to buy E blends. That may have changed. States may vary. In my state you are taxed on the blended gal.

Posted
e85 is rated 105 octane as it is currently blended.

I'm just doing the math in my head (& I went to public skool) but blending pure + E85 at those % would be about 90 octane.

Posted

I believe I've seen that isobutanol is about 100 Research octane, whereas ethanol is about 130 Research octane. But I seem to remember seeing one article which quoted (R+M)/2 for isobutanol closer to current regular gasoline. As noted, that might present some "special blends" to get octane high enough to run in the older 10.5 CR motors.

The viscosity issue with isobutanol is something I haven't seen anything about. No mention in the articles I've found.

A few years ago, I ran across a study commissioned by "The Auto Channel" to quell, once and for all, that E15+ fuels were not bad, in any way, for our vehicles. Talk about a "stated agenda", right up front!

I suspect that gasoline taxes are computed on "gallon units", without regard to just what makes up each gallon of gasoline.

One of our BCA chapter members related how they'd experimented with "less expensive" higher-ethanol blends of gasoline on a trip last summer . . . in a flexfuel-rated Buick Lucerne. He pumped a tank of the less expensive, higher-ethanol gasoline to see how it'd work. It ran good, but with less fuel economy. That's why he only experimented with ONE tankful. The lower purchase price was over-ridden by the lower fuel economy of that gasoline -- everything has "a price".

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

Posted
why does the oil industrycare??, i will just burn 15% more fuel. my 05 dodge gets more than 15% more mpg on pure gas.

If you're losing more than 5% of your gas mileage in a fuel injected car using e10 over ethanol-free gas, there's something wrong with it or the way you're measuring your mileage. Period.

As far as the "oil industry" is concerned, you have to ask which one. I'm sure the retail people are happy that reduced mileage means more sales for them, they're paid for whatever comes out of the pump.. The refiners and pipeline people are looking at reduced business, losing gasoline BTUs sold to ethanol BTUs sold. With the crashing sales of gasoline lately (see: U.S. Total Gasoline Retail Sales by Refiners (Thousand Gallons per Day) ), they are desperate to salvage every gallon they can make and sell.

  • 9 years later...
Posted

This is my first visit to this website. I came here because one of my readers told me he read a post about me that included a reprint of an article I wrote about ethanol in January 2013, and then a nasty criticism to my article in following month by someone identified as "jdome." The article is at the very top of this page.

 

First, I appreciate the reprint of my article.

 

Regarding the nasty criticism, I recognize that it is now nearly 10 years later. If I had known of the comment earlier, I would have responded then.

 

I have to laugh at jdome's comment for a couple of reasons, the first being that he makes the criticism behind the anonymity of an invented screen name, and he offers no references to denigrate my comments, nor does he hint about what credentials he might have to be able to make the criticism and call my article an "unprofessional agenda driven rant." 

 

The second thing is that it was correct in January 2013 to say that The Auto Channel was the "The Largest Independent Automotive Information Source." And now, nearly 10 years later it is still true. Moreover, while I had considerable expertise about ethanol fuel in 2013, I have even greater expertise now. And I can say for even greater certainty that what I wrote in 2013 was completely accurate.

 

As I wrote at the time, E15 is as safe to use as E10, and this has been proven many times. In 2017, I authored an essay titled "The Hypocrisy of Big Oil." The essay can be found at:

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2017/12/20/478776-hypocrisy-big-oil.html.

 

This report chronicled the extensive multi-decade use of ethanol-gasoline blends in Great Britain. The blends ranged as high as E30 and were sold by divisions of Standard/Esso and Cities Service. They were marketed as being safer, cleaner, more powerful, and less expensive than standard gasoline. Meanwhile, in the United States, Standard/Esso was busy inventing lies about ethanol and disseminating them via the American Petroleum Institute, just as I stated in my January 2013 article. The article also mentioned the extensive use of alcohol-gasoline blend in other European countries over much of the same time period. The upshot of this report is that virtually every European car that is considered a valuable classic today had the ability and opportunity to run on these blends without any damage being done to the automobiles outside of the normal wear and tear that they would have experienced from non-ethanol gasoline.

 

In addition, my articles since 2013 about Brazil's use of E15 and higher blends beginning in 1978 has proven the safety and efficiency of these fuels. In the last several years, the mandated fuel in Brazil increased to E20, E25, and E27. The vehicles in Brazil (cars, trucks, motorcycles, boats) are the same as used in America. If these vehicles can safely and efficiently run on E27 on the streets of Rio de Janeiro, then they can run on E27 on any street in America, Canada, England, France, Australia, Japan, etc.

 

Regarding other negative comments about ethanol that appear above, I have responded to and dispensed with all of them in the hundreds of reports I've written and published since 2013. Many of then are included in my 600-page book, "THE ETHANOL PAPERS," that was published online and in paperback about three years ago.

 

My second book about ethanol fuel is titled "YES, TIN LIZZIE WAS AN ALCOHOLIC." As the name suggests, the focus in on the Ford Model T having been designed and built to be fully capable of running on ethanol or any ethanol-gasoline blend. This is a much shorter book.

 

Incidentally, while both books can be purchased via Amazon Books, they are both available to be read online for FREE. If you visit The Auto Channel's website and do a search of the books' names it will take you to the appropriate pages.

 

I'll close with the comments that I routinely make about ethanol fuel:

All negative comments about ethanol fuel are incorrect. They are either lies, exaggerations, or myths. They were mostly invented by the petroleum oil industry.

 

Ethanol doesn't harm engines, it cleans engines. It doesn't suck water out of the air, but it will absorb water that naturally forms because of condensation. Gasoline can't do this so people have to resort to using engine additives that can cost as much as 2 or 3 gallons of gasoline. All liquids are corrosive, especially water. However, ethanol is less corrosive and compatible with more types of rubber, plastic, and metal than gasoline and aromatics. BTU values (energy content) are irrelevant when discussing internal combustion engines. Ethanol use does not affect the availability or price of food.

 

If someone is disseminating negative information about ethanol fuel they are WRONG! I don't care who they are, where they went to school, or who they know; there are no negatives to using ethanol fuel.

 

If anyone would like to debate me in public - on a live stage or online - I am available. The only requirement is that the person(s) has to be willing to identify themself. They can't hide behind a silly screen name.

 

 

  • Haha 3
Posted

Put some in your lawnmower and store it till next season and make your own judgments. If I plan to use it all in a month or two I see no major trouble with ethanol.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

Just another government push to screw up our old engines and force us to spend more money on new equipment. Had 2 different air-cooled engines this past year that had to have the carbs cleaned out because they sat too long. 

 

Next they will be telling us that electric vehicles save the environment. Wait!

 

Wayne

Posted
On 10/12/2022 at 7:25 AM, Marc Rauch said:

...If anyone would like to debate me in public - on a live stage or online - I am available. The only requirement is that the person(s) has to be willing to identify themself. They can't hide behind a silly screen name.

Marc,

 

In a typical daily driver automobile, Ethanol blended fuel is not a problem. Based on your reply, it is clear that you don't have much, if any, experience maintaining or operating an antique car. The real world is a bit more complicated than the text book world. Antique vehicles are not identical to modern vehicles. 

 

In an antique car with a vented gas tank that often sits for extended times in the typical hobbyist's garage, often for months over the winter, ethanol's attraction to water is a problem. Ethanol is also bad for lawn care equipment that might sit over the winter with fuel in the tank. Personal experience tells me that modern ethanol blended fuels tend to exhibit more of an issue with vapor lock in prewar cars than non-ethanol fuel blends that are available currently. For occasional use (as long as the fuel will be burned prior to the car being put into long term storage) ethanol fuel blends work as well as they do in a typical daily driver modern car. I would also add that while ethanol blend fuels were used many years ago, they apparently did not have the same vapor pressure or octane that is found in typical modern fuel blends. Typical antique cars with carburetors would run better with the lower octane fuels that they were originally designed for, but those are not available. This causes adjustments to be necessary and ethanol is not a positive addition to the mix for an antique car. 

  • Like 6
Posted

Hi Matt -

 

Thanks for your reply, but based upon your reply it's clear you didn't do much or any research on my background and don't know anything about the vehicles that I've owned, worked on, and restored. These include a 1958 MGA, a 1932 Elco yacht with the original Chrysler engine, and a 1956 Bentley S1 (this was my daily driver for a little over 20 years). I've also owned a wide variety of ICE power equipment. It's entirely possible that you have owned more older vehicles than me. However, there's some things I learned from restoring the MGA when I was 17 years old, that would be true right up to today with all internal combustion engine vehicles. For example: all spark plugs screw in and screw out the same way; the red cable goes to the positive terminal and the black cable goes to the negative terminal; fan belts and hoses require replacement and they all virtually attach in the same manner; condensation is a naturally occurring condition; gasoline will go bad over time; and the inefficient burning of gasoline causes the build-up of debris that will clog filters and foul plugs.

 

Added to the experience and knowledge gained from owning the aforementioned vehicles, I've been an automotive journalist for more than 30 years, and I've specialized in covering alternative fuels for about 20 years. My work on alternative fuels includes extensive hands-on testing of these fuels, and it's led to writing and publishing hundreds of articles, two books, and producing several videos on the subject. From this experience, I can tell you flat out and without any reservation that every single problem that is blamed on ethanol today already existed prior to the ubiquitous use of ethanol-gasoline blends in the United States. And every single problem caused by ethanol-gasoline blends since the enactment of the Renewable Fuel Standard is caused by the gasoline portion of the fuel, not the ethanol portion.

 

Unfortunately, you leap from one negative myth about ethanol to another. For example, you wrote that "ethanol's attraction to water is a problem." This is not true, ethanol's absorption characteristics is a benefit. As I'm sure you well know, ethanol is simply an alcohol, and alcohols are the active ingredients in most of the better known engine additives that are used to remove the water that forms due to condensation. Products such as Dry Gas and HEET were developed and sold beginning in the 1950s in America - again, way before the enactment of the Renewable Fuel Standard (roughly half a century before).

 

The regular use and availability of ethanol-gasoline blends in Great Britain and the rest of Europe from the early 1900s through the 1970s proved that all of the "antique" cars you can think of were capable of running safely and efficiently on these blends or on ethanol-free gasoline.

 

The use of ethanol-gasoline blends in Brazil starting in the 1920s proves the same thing, and Brazil's regular mandated use of ethanol-gasoline blends above E15 since 1978 cemented that fact. In the past several years, E20 and above has been the mandated fuel in Brazil. The significance here is that Brazil has the same diverse "fleet" of vehicles on their roads as we have in America. If older vehicles with carburetors can run safely and efficiently on any street in Brazil using E20-E27, then they can run safely and efficiently on any street in North America using E20-E27. In the research I've done for my articles and books, I've yet to come across any evidence that the vehicles in Europe and Brazil using ethanol-gasoline blends in the 20th century suffered greater problems than those vehicles using ethanol-free gasoline.

 

You mention an issue of vapor-pressure being so different in today's fuels than in the fuels of yesteryear, and that this issue can cause a problem for older cars with carburetors. Other than anecdotal evidence from people like Jay Leno, I know of no undisputed proof that any change in vapor-pressure has been a problem. If you have some material that supports your claim please post links to it. I will study it and respond accordingly.

 

In support of my comments, here are some links to my published papers that you may find interesting:

 

The Hypocrisy of Big Oil 

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2017/12/20/478776-hypocrisy-big-oil.html

 

UK's Department for Transport Uses Boogeyman Allusions to Sidetrack E10 Adoption  

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2018/09/02/626528-uk-s-department-for-transport-uses-boogeyman-allusions-to-sidetrack.html

 

YES, TIN LIZZIE WAS AN ALCOHOLIC

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2019/04/20/660939-yes-tin-lizzie-was-alcoholic.html

 

Every Spark-Ignited Internal Combustion Engine Ever Produced Has Been Damaged By Gasoline

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2016/06/12/248417-every-spark-ignited-internal-combustion-engine-ever-produced-has-been.html

 

Why Do Small Engines Suffer From Ethanol Problems?

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2015/09/01/140446-why-do-small-engines-suffer-from-ethanol-problems-video.html

 

Ethanol Does NOT Suck Water Out Of The Air

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2016/03/18/209988-ethanol-does-not-suck-water-out-air.html

 

Famous Manufacturer of Anti-Ethanol Additives Proves Ethanol's Safety and Benefits

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2019/08/10/677743-is-it-is-or-is-it-ain-t-famous-manufacturer.html

 

Automotive Aftermarket Saturated with Snake Oil Engine Additives

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2019/08/16/680489-automotive-aftermarket-saturated-with-snake-oil-engine-additives.html

 

Bell Performance Disputes Our Ethanol Hygroscopy Test and THEY FAIL MISERABLY!

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2020/04/07/806727-bell-performance-disputes-our-ethanol-hygroscopy-test-they-fail-miserably.html

 

Testing Anti-Ethanol Tests

https://www.theautochannel.com/news/2019/10/23/729704-testing-anti-ethanol-tests.html

 

Why Is Jay Leno Misrepresenting Ethanol

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2015/03/09/126358-why-is-jay-leno-misrepresenting-ethanol-video.html

 

 

 

Posted
4 hours ago, Marc Rauch said:

 

The regular use and availability of ethanol-gasoline blends in Great Britain and the rest of Europe from the early 1900s through the 1970s proved that all of the "antique" cars you can think of were capable of running safely and efficiently on these blends or on ethanol-free gasoline.

 

I did not research your background. I only responded to what you posted on the forum, which had no reference to any antique automobiles.

 

You apparently failed to understand my point. It is not the "running" on ethanol blends that is the problem. It is the long term storage of that fuel given the conditions in the real world of a typical antique hobbyist. Also, the same problem exists when people store lawn care equipment and other seasonal small engines during months in which they are not used. When fuel is stored in a gas tank for an extended period of time and becomes fuel and water, that is not a benefit. 

 

The differences in occurance of vapor lock between non-ethanol fuels and ethanol fuels is not based on any scientific paper(s). It is based on personal real world experience while touring in a 1937 Buick Century over the past decade using different fuels and driving in different parts of the US using various available fuels. 

  • Like 4
Posted
3 hours ago, MCHinson said:

I did not research your background. I only responded to what you posted on the forum, which had no reference to any antique automobiles.

 

You apparently failed to understand my point. It is not the "running" on ethanol blends that is the problem. It is the long term storage of that fuel given the conditions in the real world of a typical antique hobbyist. Also, the same problem exists when people store lawn care equipment and other seasonal small engines during months in which they are not used. When fuel is stored in a gas tank for an extended period of time and becomes fuel and water, that is not a benefit. 

 

The differences in occurance of vapor lock between non-ethanol fuels and ethanol fuels is not based on any scientific paper(s). It is based on personal real world experience while touring in a 1937 Buick Century over the past decade using different fuels and driving in different parts of the US using various available fuels. 

I guess you didn't understand my point, which is that any problem you can attribute to ethanol is actually caused by gasoline. The simplest proof of this is that any problem that exists with today's ethanol-gasoline blends existed in the decades before ethanol-gasoline blends were being regularly used in America (after the enactment of the Renewal Fuel Standard). 

 

I first encountered vapor lock when I bought my first new car in 1973 (a 1974 Pontiac Grand Prix). This was still in the days of leaded gasoline, no ethanol other than what I consumed during dinner. I was in Florida when it first happened, and then when I relocated back to New York it happened there, too.

 

You mentioned open venting systems as being particularly susceptible to ethanol. This is untrue, and Mercury Marine (the world's largest manufacturer of marine engines) agrees it is untrue, and of course boats typically have have open vented systems. Mercury did an online ethanol seminar in 2011 and they discuss this, in addition to addressing the ethanol hygroscopy issue. Keep in mind that Mercury sells all of its same motors in Brazil where the standard mandated fuel is E27. You can watch the seminar at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbkmY7TMKMg

 

 

On 10/12/2022 at 9:27 AM, JFranklin said:

Put some in your lawnmower and store it till next season and make your own judgments. If I plan to use it all in a month or two I see no major trouble with ethanol.

 

Posted (edited)
On 10/15/2022 at 12:51 PM, Marc Rauch said:

I guess you didn't understand my point, which is that any problem you can attribute to ethanol is actually caused by gasoline. The simplest proof of this is that any problem that exists with today's ethanol-gasoline blends existed in the decades before ethanol-gasoline blends were being regularly used in America (after the enactment of the Renewal Fuel Standard). 

 

I first encountered vapor lock when I bought my first new car in 1973 (a 1974 Pontiac Grand Prix). This was still in the days of leaded gasoline, no ethanol other than what I consumed during dinner. I was in Florida when it first happened, and then when I relocated back to New York it happened there, too.

 

You mentioned open venting systems as being particularly susceptible to ethanol. This is untrue, and Mercury Marine (the world's largest manufacturer of marine engines) agrees it is untrue, and of course boats typically have have open vented systems. Mercury did an online ethanol seminar in 2011 and they discuss this, in addition to addressing the ethanol hygroscopy issue. Keep in mind that Mercury sells all of its same motors in Brazil where the standard mandated fuel is E27. You can watch the seminar at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbkmY7TMKMg

 

 

 

I might need to simply stop replying to you since you are not reading or understanding what I have posted. I never stated that "ethanol" is the problem. I simply indicated that "ethanol blended fuel" exhibits a worse problem with vapor lock compared to non-ethanol containing fuel currently sold in prewar carbureted engines with mechanical fuel pumps with vented gas tanks in my personal experience with 1937 Buicks in the last decade. I never indicated that vapor lock only occurs in vehicles with ethanol containing fuels. It is simply a worse problem with ethanol containing fuels. Your attempt to misquote me to negate my argument is either caused by a lack of comprehension of what I posted or else simply intellectually dishonest. 

 

I also referred to issues with long term storage or ethanol blended fuels in small engines, when stored with fuel in the tank. The need to totally empty the fuel tank and run the system dry before long term storage in small engines only started when ethanol blended fuels arrived. Long term storage of non-ethanol containing fuels does not exhibit this same problem. I have worked on several neighbors' small engines when they have left ethanol containing fuels in the tank over the winter. Whether it is ethanol, some other component of the fuel, or water, causing carburetor and fuel tank problems, I don't really care. 

 

You seem to be convinced that you are morally right and that ethanol is a wonderful addition to motor vehicle fuels. I don't expect to convince you otherwise since you clearly feel intellectually and morally superior to those of us who have different experiences. A number of antique car owners can attest to the fact that you are misinformed on the real world effects of use of today's ethanol containing fuels in antique cars. I welcome you to start driving a prewar antique automobile on ethanol containing fuels, store the car in the off season, and then try going back to driving it regularly. If you try this, in a nice humid environment like I live in, I think you will have some different experiences and form a few different opinions than those that you currently have.   

Edited by MCHinson (see edit history)
  • Like 8
  • Haha 1
Posted

I had a 1987 Chrysler La Barron 2.2 Turbo Coupe that would vapor lock on hot days.  The under hood temps would have to drop to get the car to run again,  I would have to open the hood to speed  it's recovery. A late cross country trip from Minnesota to Nevada I would drive at night to avoid an hour or so cool down period. This only happened with a blended fuel that was the only gas sold off the freeway.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...