Need help with the right gas

[Nami990]

I have a 1979 Lincoln Versailles and It only takes premium. It also has a carburetor. The ethanol free gas near me is only 87 grade and not the 91-94 that premium is. Should I use the ethanol gas that is a lower grade than what is needed or should I use the premium gas with ethanol? My understanding is that Ethanol going into a carburetor https://showbox.tools/ can damage it and not having the right fuel grade can damage an engine over time and significantly impact performance. Any help is appreciated.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Nami990 (see edit history)

[carbking]

I am quite surprised this vehicle would require premium fuel, as the compression ratio is listed as 8:1.

 

Not arguing, just surprised.

 

If it truly requires premium, then use the fuel with the proper octane.

 

The "short" reasoning is quite easy: engines cost more than carburetors!

 

However carburetor damage because of ethanol can occur, but the damage is probably overstated in a lot of internet posts, and local enthusiast discussion.

 

Carburetor damage from ethanol is of two forms: long term damage and short term damage.

 

Long term damage - ethanol absorbs water, and the combination can create metal decomposition in the bottom of the carburetor bowl. This is probably not going to show up in less than 20 years, if the vehicle is not driven, and the fuel is allowed to get old in the carburetor bowl.

 

Short term damage - ethanol is hard on SOME neoprene components. Typically, this would mean carburetors with neoprene diaphragm type accelerator pumps, or carburetors with neoprene plunger type accelerator pumps. Some carburetors have other neoprene components. With the ethanol fuel, expect to rebuild carburetors more often than with non-ethanol fuel. However the time to failure (both short term and long term) is dependent on the usage. A daily driver will probably not show long term damage for 50 years! A daily driver will probably go 8~10 years without carburetor issues if the carburetor has been rebuilt using ethanol-resistant components.

 

Personally, I use ethanol-diluted fuel (E-10) in my vehicles, as I no longer have a local choice. But I have leather plunger type accelerator pumps in my carburetors. I am having to rebuild the two carburetors on one of my shop trucks after 22 years, simply because I thought air conditioning would be nice; and the gentleman in the shop adding the air conditioning system has medical issues, and the truck sat unused for 19 months. The carburetors dried out, and one float stuck, there was NO damage.

 

No offense meant, but I would check the source of your comment that your vehicle requires premium fuel. If this is stated in your owner's manual, then that is exactly what you should use. But if the source is a good friend, I would try to locate an owner's manual.

 

Jon.

[Pfeil]

Interesting article appeared today;

There Is Nothing ‘Green’ About Ethanol

A new study shows that the corn lobby’s favorite fuel is worse for the environment than gasoline.

 

A study released this week by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) revealed that corn-based ethanol is likely doing more damage to the environment than if we used straight gasoline.

“Even without considering likely international land use effects,” researchers said, “we find that the production of corn-based ethanol in the United States has failed to meet the policy’s own greenhouse gas emissions targets and negatively affected water quality, the area of land used for conservation, and other ecosystem processes.”

In other words, ethanol is a failure.

But that’s not what we’re supposed to hear. We have been told since the government forced us to use alternative fuel blends — the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) — in 2005 that ethanol is grand. Putting corn in our gas tanks would reduce our dependency on foreign oil, reduce our carbon emissions, and just make us all around better people. So said the environmentalists. With few exceptions, so said the Republican and Democrat presidential candidates who wander through Iowa every few years. And, of course, so said the media.

We were treated to a completely different set of outcomes, the most obvious being that ethanol did not save us any money at the pump. The PNAS study lists several others, obtained from a thorough examination of the RFS in its totality, from the planting of the corn to the processing of the fuel to the pumping of your gas.

According to the study, in the years 2008-2016, the RFS led to a 30% increase in corn prices. Prices of other crops rose by 20%, along with a multitude of grocery items that rely on corn. Cereal, anyone? Corn cultivation in the U.S. expanded by 8.7%. And to be clear, this expansion, along with the outsized impact corn has had on food prices, was driven overwhelmingly by the need for corn as a biofuel, not as a food source.

Along with all this corn came fertilizers, and there was a nationwide annual increase of up to 8%. Overuse of the land depleted the soil, caused soil erosion, polluted natural water sources, and diverted water from other crops. It takes three gallons of water to produce a gallon of ethanol.

When taking all factors into account, even the use of gasoline to run the tractors that till the soil (which releases carbon into the atmosphere), the PNAS study found that ethanol-treated gasoline is 24% more carbon intensive than conventional gasoline.

This finding totally contradicts what the Department of Agriculture had to say about ethanol in its own 2019 study, which found that ethanol was 39% less carbon intensive than gas. Gee, a government study that found a government program was working perfectly. Imagine that.

To be fair, the Agriculture Department study did not perform a holistic analysis of the entire RFS program, so its numbers may depend on the context. Or at least, that is probably the argument that ethanol’s staunch defenders will use when asked about the disparity.

The Renewable Fuels Association, the ethanol lobby group, was more direct in its response to the PNAS study. “Completely fictional and erroneous,” said Geoff Cooper, the group’s president and CEO.

Naturally, many who stand to lose something from the disappearance of ethanol will fight to keep it. It’s the law of government inertia. Failure alone does not kill a bad policy. Only enough people accepting the truth can do that.

If we truly are serious about creating effective biofuels that will not harm the environment, then we need to be honest about the performance of ethanol. The technology isn’t there yet, but it may be soon. America is by far the world’s largest producer of biofuels, responsible for 47% of global output in the last decade. This is a market we can dominate, if we produce a quality product that does what it says it does. It’s time to admit the failure that ethanol has become, learn from it, and move on.

[60FlatTop]

17 hours ago, carbking said:

but the damage is probably overstated in a lot of internet posts, and local enthusiast discussion.

 

It is only February and that could be the understatement of the year.

 

I put Mobil regular leaded in all my cars. It is rated at something like 88 octane. The '60 Electra has most of the 10:1 compression left. The others are less, including the John Deere mower.

Since tachs became common in cars I have noticed I rarely exceed the mid to high 3,000 RPM range in normal driving. And it is quite rare for me to drive abnormally. I know how the mechanical and vacuum advance work. I just don't drive in those ranges where I would suffer from octane rating.

 

I also drive as much as I can and keep flushing fuel through the system. In good weather I top everything off on Sunday afternoon. That addresses the biological colonization of the quiet parts of my system. I hear the stories of Monsanto life forms taking over, but haven't seen it. My '60 Electra started acting up with a rough idle and stalling at stops about 14 years after I bought the car and my initial rebuild. I was scared of what I would find in the carb. Removing the air horn/float bowl cover showed this:

 

Pretty clean after all those horror stories. Turned out to be a bad condenser.

 

The two biggest issues have proven not to apply in my instance. Use lots of fuel and don't be a Yahoo. You will be fine.

 

Oh, I am also not a big fan of added fuel line filters and the floats bowls do back me up.

[JACK M]

16 minutes ago, 60FlatTop said:

regular leaded in all my cars.

Don't use leaded inn cars with catalytic converters.

[Walt G]

Thank you Jon and Thank you Bernie!  from all of us here.

I hope to this year get a post war car ( early 1970s or a bit earlier ) to use as a grocery getter for more fun in addition to the 2004 Envoy that is my current transportation since it was 4 years old. Not being familiar with the post war needs/requirements of cars ( as I have been focused on pre WWII for over half a century) reading all this has been a much needed education. When I do get the post war car I want I am sure I will have some questions that are really basic and simple for all of you folks that have owned that era machine and used them for some time. I will be a novice.

Walt

[avgwarhawk]

The 79 should run fine on regular.  It is a lower compression engine.  Also, the ethanol, I have not had any issues with rubber products or residue in the carb.  In fact, I rebuilt both carbs on my Buicks.  I was astonished that the bowls and ports were in good unclogged shape.   I run the cars every 2 weeks in the winter and regularly in the summer.  Don't give the ethanol a chance to do anything when sitting!       

[Frank DuVal]

49 minutes ago, 60FlatTop said:

I put Mobil regular leaded in all my cars.

Typo? You mean unleaded or non-ethanol? Or you go to the airport?

[60FlatTop]

My comment was meant to be regular unleaded. 88 octane may have helped clarify that. Just the common variety stuff at most pumps.

 

I hope some were able to glean something from the rest.