Defeating 15 % ethanol

[Fastjeff57]

Listen up folks!

The ONLY way we the people can defeat the 15 % ethanol crap is NOT to buy it! The forces of greed combined with the enviro-whackos are against us, but there still is a way out. To wit:

Cars built before 2012 are not designed for 15 %, and manufacturers have warned that warrantees will not be honored if it is used. That means every gas station MUST also sell the 10 % crap.

So here's the deal: If no one buys 15 %, the tanks at gas stations around the country will be filled with gas they can't sell. It won't be long before the gas station owners (and gas suppliers) are SCREAMING at the SOBs in Washington that stuck us with this crap. And that is how we will get rid of it.

The plan is this: If you have a 2012 or newer car, and can buy 15 %...DON'T!! If your car is on fumes, and there's no other alternative, put in the minimum you need to get to the next station. Then buy 10 %.
If we all stick together on this, WE will win!

Jeff

PS: Please pass this on to all your intelligent friends

[vspeedster]

Agree Jeff. Thanks for posting.

[omcstratos]

Let their ethanol gas sit in the tanks and turn to that crap separation. Maybe they will eventually figure out how "great" it is.

[champ20B]

Listen up folks!

The ONLY way we the people can defeat the 15 % ethanol crap is NOT to buy it! The forces of greed combined with the enviro-whackos are against us, but there still is a way out. To wit:

Cars built before 2012 are not designed for 15 %, and manufacturers have warned that warrantees will not be honored if it is used. That means every gas station MUST also sell the 10 % crap.

So here's the deal: If no one buys 15 %, the tanks at gas stations around the country will be filled with gas they can't sell. It won't be long before the gas station owners (and gas suppliers) are SCREAMING at the SOBs in Washington that stuck us with this crap. And that is how we will get rid of it.

The plan is this: If you have a 2012 or newer car, and can buy 15 %...DON'T!! If your car is on fumes, and there's no other alternative, put in the minimum you need to get to the next station. Then buy 10 %.
If we all stick together on this, WE will win!

Jeff

PS: Please pass this on to all your intelligent friends
This ethanol stuff is outright dangerous. Everybody cannot afford new cars to handle this crap!!! It deteriorates fuel systems that can spring a leak and catch fire! I drive a 1969 chevy CST-10 short fleetside. It has a 396 4bbl/dual exaust with four speed. It took me years to fix it up. I had to put a fuel regulator on it. One day, I was driving home and I smelled gas. I pulled into a theater lot and discovered that the ethanol ate up the seals in the component and it was pouring gas. luckily, I was able to fix it and save my truck and probably myself as well.

[Fastjeff57]

Glad you and your truck are okay. Had a similar problem with one of my kit cars, whose brand new fuel hoses disintegrated over the winter; when I fired her up, gas was leaking everywhere!

Jeff

[smittythewelder]

No comment, other than that you all should read this:

http://www.goldeagle.com/UserFiles/file/STA-BIL%20files/White_Paper_Ethanol_%20Blended_Gasline.pdf

(Gold Eagle owns the Sta-Bil product line)

[David_L6]

Don't just skip buying 15%, try to buy pure gas. I go out of my way to buy gas without ethanol. There are only two stations in Shreveport that have gas without ethanol and neither of them are close to anywhere I normally go. I have to pay more for pure gas but I get slightly better mileage with it.

[Fastjeff57]

Good man!

Jeff

[Eddie Kjerulff]

I know in Louisiana pure gas is available. But in northern Illinois we don't have an option you either run that crap or stay home. Believe me I was spoiled down south no worries about leaving gas in tank . I can't do that up there You gotta run seperators and stabil in everything boat related or you will spend a lot of $ and time fixing stuff. Phase separation sucks !

[wawa c]

i read most of smitty's attachment. a lot of technical jargon and such. but to get to the bottom line, is this what it is saying? ethanol does not cause any measurable harm. we are mostly at the mercy of the other additives blended in to combat the weather or other outside circumstances. someone with the facts please shed some light on this.

[Fastjeff57]

The problems happen when the tanks are vented, allowing moisture to enter and form the "white gook". Cars/ trucks, with their vented tanks, don't have that problem, but most boat tanks are vented.

Jeff

[champ20B]

i read most of smitty's attachment. a lot of technical jargon and such. but to get to the bottom line, is this what it is saying? ethanol does not cause any measurable harm. we are mostly at the mercy of the other additives blended in to combat the weather or other outside circumstances. someone with the facts please shed some light on this.

The problem with the ethanol "moon-shine" gasoline is that, (according to my old chemistry-1 professor), ethanol/alcohol dissolves aluminum and certain types of rubber. Furthermore, it will deteriorate "so called" alcohol proof plastics and rubber fuel components by a reaction that will cause them to harden and crack or break over a relatively short period of time. It is not the other additives necessarily. If one has ever come across an old Alky outboard engine that has long been out of service, one may notice that the fuel lines and seals are hard as a rock and/or broken. Yes, it burns clean, but it is no good for domestic use in any type of domestic vehicle at too high of a quantity per unit of gasoline.

[7500Blizzard]

The problem with the ethanol "moon-shine" gasoline is that, (according to my old chemistry-1 professor), ethanol/alcohol dissolves aluminum and certain types of rubber. Furthermore, it will deteriorate "so called" alcohol proof plastics and rubber fuel components by a reaction that will cause them to harden and crack or break over a relatively short period of time. It is not the other additives necessarily. If one has ever come across an old Alky outboard engine that has long been out of service, one may notice that the fuel lines and seals are hard as a rock and/or broken. Yes, it burns clean, but it is no good for domestic use in any type of domestic vehicle at too high of a quantity per unit of gasoline.

Yeah but other than both being a form of alcohol Methanol and Ethanol are two completely different things.

[champ20B]

Yeah but other than both being a form of alcohol Methanol and Ethanol are two completely different things.

Absolutely..........they are. The difference of these two forms of alcohol is that ethanol can be consumed. It is used for consumption, hand sanitizer, perfumes as well as alternative "clean" fuel. Although ethanol and methanol look the same, methanol is very poisonous to ingest. Methanol is used for certain chemicals/solvent. Methanol is also used in formaldehyde. Ethanol makes a homogenous ( two or more substances making a single) mixture when combined with water and methanol breaks down when water is present. Ethanol is volatile and burns a blue flame whereas methanol burns a more yellow to white flame. Methanol doesn't burn as easily as gasoline and is easily extinguished with water. Besides burning thoroughly under high compression, the fore mentioned safety factor is one reason racers of various motor sports like methanol racing fuel. Equally, both of these have certain negative affects on aluminum, fuel systems and rubber seals.

[7500Blizzard]

True. But a lot of the problems that seem to occur are from people that don't do a couple simple things. Or different regions seem to have problems. I know we put about 2500 gallons through our boats and sleds every year, some sit for prolonged periods some used daily depending on season. I haven't cleaned a carb on our stuff in over 10 years, or had to replace any extra lines or what not. I stabilize my fuel at the end of the season and fog my motors and that's it. Oh and I stabilize the pontoon as it's not used much.

[champ20B]

True. But a lot of the problems that seem to occur are from people that don't do a couple simple things. Or different regions seem to have problems. I know we put about 2500 gallons through our boats and sleds every year, some sit for prolonged periods some used daily depending on season. I haven't cleaned a carb on our stuff in over 10 years, or had to replace any extra lines or what not. I stabilize my fuel at the end of the season and fog my motors and that's it. Oh and I stabilize the pontoon as it's not used much.

Yes, todays ethanol gasoline is clean stuff. It will keep carburators and injectors clean. For example, methanol is used as an ingredient in some carburetor-cleaners. Ethanol will do the same alike. As you mentioned, fogging an engine and using stabalizers specific to todays fuel is a very good idea. Evacuating the fuel system and fogging will preserve the crank-seals. The only thing is that rubber fuel lines should be inspected regularly because some of these measures may stop short of protecting these components regardless, even if the fuel system is drained for storage.

Another thing I know about ethanol-gasoline is performance. A lot of people ask about this, and I have heard answers both ways....but from my experience, todays ethanol gas does make more power, better response, easier starts, and is cleaner burning....and easier to clean up on the engine as well. It doesn't smell as oily/kerosene like as the non-ethanol kind. I know this because I tried it on my Mark-20 mercury once while fishing a few years back. I tried non ethanol and noticed that the old mean green machine really didn't like it as much as the alky-gas. It was noticeably more sluggish and smelled like a diesel engine. I just ran alky gas in it after that. Like you, I preserve the engine well afterwards. I use it, a WM7 super-10 wizard, and a three cylinder Johnson 35 for my fishing activities regularly. All are great engines, but I have had to replace fuel lines several times in the last 12 years or so.

[7500Blizzard]

Glad to hear I'm not the only one that doesn't really have problems with. I also don't see any loss of power or even mileage. And most people that do so because of altering factors. Kinda like saying premium is better than regular in a bone stock motor.

[champ20B]

Yes, todays ethanol gasoline is clean stuff. It will keep carburators and injectors clean. For example, methanol is used as an ingredient in some carburetor-cleaners. Ethanol will do the same alike. As you mentioned, fogging an engine and using stabalizers specific to todays fuel is a very good idea. Evacuating the fuel system and fogging will preserve the crank-seals. The only thing is that rubber fuel lines should be inspected regularly because some of these measures may stop short of protecting these components regardless, even if the fuel system is drained for storage.

Another thing I know about ethanol-gasoline is performance. A lot of people ask about this, and I have heard answers both ways....but from my experience, todays ethanol gas does make more power, better response, easier starts, and is cleaner burning....and easier to clean up on the engine as well. It doesn't smell as oily/kerosene like as the non-ethanol kind. I know this because I tried it on my Mark-20 mercury once while fishing a few years back. I tried non ethanol and noticed that the old mean green machine really didn't like it as much as the alky-gas. It was noticeably more sluggish and smelled like a diesel engine. I just ran alky gas in it after that. Like you, I preserve the engine well afterwards. I use it, a WM7 super-10 wizard, and a three cylinder Johnson 35 for my fishing activities regularly. All are great engines, but I have had to replace fuel lines several times in the last 12 years or so.

I forgot to mention, that my fuel pump diaphragm went bad twice during this time due to deterioration. I replaced the pump with a different kind of three way pump with better material that is replaceable. It is an OMC type pump and it is mounted on top of the top cylinder of my merc.

[champ20B]

I forgot to mention, that my fuel pump diaphragm went bad twice during this time due to deterioration. I replaced the pump with a different kind of three way pump with better material that is replaceable. It is an OMC type pump and it is mounted on top of the top cylinder of my merc.

Yes, I know that the merc had a pressurized fuel delivery. But I modified that when I first restored the motor with a now obsolete pump. I later went to a new OMC pump. I have yet to see how it will hold up for the next decade or so.

[A Mosny]

My days with outboard racing and repair lasted from 1975 thru 1985 and during that period I cleaned and de-gummed many carbs and fuel systems from 6 hp all the way to 35' off shore boats. Sitting without gas turn over was the issue in every case, additives were only beginning to be developed and the gas degraded. Now a senior citizen and still maintaining 4 outboards I'm glad to say I have not had a gas related issue in years with the use of regular 10% pump gas with stabilizers only during the winter when it sits. I work in the chemical industry and use both methanol and ethanol by the thousands of gallons, distill it, and re-use it...good stuff for making color pigments for automotive paint and cosmetics. We have no issue with corrosion but hoses and gaskets are a different story. Material of construction is the key and with the right material and preventative maintenance things last. Our pontoon has a 5 year old 115 Suzuki which is serviced and checked annually and has never failed to promptly start but this year the fuel line was replaced because it had hardened. For me this is normal wear over 5 years. I have no issue with ethanol gas and when used with up dated equipment works great. The link to the gasoline report was very helpful in understanding the gas/ethanol history. Just my 2 cents...Thanks

[champ20B]

My days with outboard racing and repair lasted from 1975 thru 1985 and during that period I cleaned and de-gummed many carbs and fuel systems from 6 hp all the way to 35' off shore boats. Sitting without gas turn over was the issue in every case, additives were only beginning to be developed and the gas degraded. Now a senior citizen and still maintaining 4 outboards I'm glad to say I have not had a gas related issue in years with the use of regular 10% pump gas with stabilizers only during the winter when it sits. I work in the chemical industry and use both methanol and ethanol by the thousands of gallons, distill it, and re-use it...good stuff for making color pigments for automotive paint and cosmetics. We have no issue with corrosion but hoses and gaskets are a different story. Material of construction is the key and with the right material and preventative maintenance things last. Our pontoon has a 5 year old 115 Suzuki which is serviced and checked annually and has never failed to promptly start but this year the fuel line was replaced because it had hardened. For me this is normal wear over 5 years. I have no issue with ethanol gas and when used with up dated equipment works great. The link to the gasoline report was very helpful in understanding the gas/ethanol history. Just my 2 cents...Thanks

As far as outboards go......in accordance to my recent statements.......ethanol can be lived with. But, when it comes to older cars and trucks (particularly carburated) it can be a dangerous problem. With an outboard, its easy to replace stuff when needed because of the problems associated. One can get to fuel lines, pumps, carb and so on as it goes bad, and easily inspect it all right there. But when you have a car with a hot set of headers or manifolds fuel can leak onto, and lines under the vehicle, and goodness knows... those rubber fuel tanks like the 1970s thru 80s dodge trucks use, it aint easy to catch potential fuel system failures. I know this first hand. So as I said before, "this stuff is outright dangerous". Just because I run it in my outboard doesn't mean I think ethanol gas is o.k overall. I don't. I believe that there should be non ethanol offered at most every gas station. Not every one can use this stuff and like me, many still drive older vehicles. I would run non ethanol in my truck, but it has a factory big block v-8 with a 10.25:1 compression. That's how it came from the factory, its not a hot-rodded vehicle so don't do the "I told you so" thing, Please:p!!! The octane boost stuff seldom does what is claimed and non ethanol isn't always available in 97 grade high test. I have to do 97 in ethanol because I would do more damage otherwise. YES!!!! OCTANE DOES MATTER!!!!! NO, YOU WONT NOTICE IT ON A ORDINARY ENGINE!!! But if you are running an early high compression v-8 or some later model high compression inboard marine engines that are similar to these, they WILL KNOCK, PING, AND DIESEL WHEN YOU TRY TO SHUT THEM OFF! 97 octane drastically reduces and stops this and that's a fact.

[Master Oil Racing Team]

We have one fueling station in Orange Grove, Texas that has one pump that is pure gasoline. I was fueling up a two gallon tank for my lawn mower when a local city policeman drove up. It's a small city. There are just a couple, plus the chief. I asked him what he thought about the non ethanol fuel because he only followed orders about where to fuel up. He told me "When you guys call....you want us there now! This is the only place we fill up. We have more power and we can respond quickly." I asked him then if he really thought it gave him more power and he said "Yeah....our motors are different. We had problems when we ran the regular gas. We put on a lot of miles, and when we need to go...we need to go. Regular gas won't give us the speed and acceleration.". The non ethanol gasoline at this station is more expensive and you have to have a special card in order to pump the gas. The card is issued by the company, and no other credit card will work. The City of Orange Grove, Texas would not go to the expense if the straight gasoline fuel had not proven itself less expensive in both down time and response time.

[A Mosny]

There is no "I told you so" thing going on, just discussion. In this case, as well as many others, you need special fuel for a special application, the same as the man next door with the SS 396. He comments frequently because the correct fuel for his high compression application is not readily available any more and he travels far to get it so he can enjoy his mussel car. As far as being outright dangerous, any fuel is dangerous because they all burn. Maintenance, inspection, and up grade is important for any auto, outboard, snow machine, or weed eater and so forth to prevent leakage on those hot parts. Good discussion though and good luck finding the fuel you need at a reasonable cost. Cost for ethanol free gas and higher octane fuel are outrageous. I guess it all comes down to reduced demand results in reduced supply.

[Master Oil Racing Team]

The cost is basically a result of government regulation. Ethanol free gas is higher due to reduced supply because it is batch made. But our government requires many different blends of gasoline depending upon what part of the country the gas is sold in and the time of year. Refineries have to finish up whatever they are making and switch to something else causing time, sampling, testing, etc. That does not include lost production from turnarounds which can take several weeks or more. If left up to the refiners themselves, we would have a good finished product at a much cheaper price. Remember when a pipeline went down that was shipping a Chicago specific blend? Rather than being able to use gasoline from a closer refinery, the gasoline made for Chicago had to be trucked up from Louisiana or Mississippi....wherever it was making that blend. The costs went above five dollars per gallon due to the added transportation costs.

[champ20B]

The cost is basically a result of government regulation. Ethanol free gas is higher due to reduced supply because it is batch made. But our government requires many different blends of gasoline depending upon what part of the country the gas is sold in and the time of year. Refineries have to finish up whatever they are making and switch to something else causing time, sampling, testing, etc. That does not include lost production from turnarounds which can take several weeks or more. If left up to the refiners themselves, we would have a good finished product at a much cheaper price. Remember when a pipeline went down that was shipping a Chicago specific blend? Rather than being able to use gasoline from a closer refinery, the gasoline made for Chicago had to be trucked up from Louisiana or Mississippi....wherever it was making that blend. The costs went above five dollars per gallon due to the added transportation costs.

Fuel cost, pollution paranoia, and these over powered small block v-8 and six cylinder engines. That's what really gets me. It seems we are in a double standard way of life every time one turns around! The goal of government is or was to eliminate old cars and trucks with big, so called, fuel wasting engines. Yet, we can buy a 440hp Laguna Seca BOSS 302 Mustang, a SRT 392 cid hemi dodge challenger (425HP), or a chevy Silverado with 405hp v-8, a dodge 1500 hemi with 390+hp. And don't forget the barrage of 280-360 hp v-6 family cars out there. Why??? I have an old truck with a big block four barrel v-8. It is just as fast and pulls as good and gets as good......actually better fuel economy than these bulky, heavy, square Tonka trucks people drive today. Really, I'm not kidding, it does. Its easy to maintain as well. That's why I don't care about new vehicles. They don't save gas any better than old cars if one knows how to drive the old cars. There is always a fuel shortage thing thrown at everyone, then there is the guilt trip-"your old vehicle is polluting mother earth!" and so on. Yet, there is that 500 hp truck or car winning an award for innovation at Sema! I think it is all ridiculous. Ill just stick to a good heavy duty, long lasting elephant motor with a trusty carburetor. The problem is the people behind the scenes trying to mess it up with that dang ethanol. CONSPIRACY ANYONE???LOL!!! But really, it is a bit of a pain though at times.

Another thing that grinds my gears are those awful diesel pickup trucks!!! Now here is pollution!!! Guys, if I can smell it (it is really bad, makes my eyes burn and chest hurt) it is polluting. The smell of these charcoal chuggers/ kerosene cars is ridiculous!! Now I have been a trucker over a 15+ year period. Semi trucks are not such a problem even though they average 475-550 HP @ 1100-1250 ft lbs of torque. They don't pollute as much because they are 15-18 liter engines.... that's 800- 1000+ cubic inches. The pickup trucks are trying to get the diesels they use to power like these commercial freight haulers!! It is childishly insane!! Any time a small engine powered by diesel is having a overshot of fuel for more power, it will stink and pollute. Those monster turbos and pollution systems really can only do so much for these little 400+ cid v-8 engines. They shouldn't make more than 200BHP. It should be a law. Not to change the subject.

[champ20B]

We have one fueling station in Orange Grove, Texas that has one pump that is pure gasoline. I was fueling up a two gallon tank for my lawn mower when a local city policeman drove up. It's a small city. There are just a couple, plus the chief. I asked him what he thought about the non ethanol fuel because he only followed orders about where to fuel up. He told me "When you guys call....you want us there now! This is the only place we fill up. We have more power and we can respond quickly." I asked him then if he really thought it gave him more power and he said "Yeah....our motors are different. We had problems when we ran the regular gas. We put on a lot of miles, and when we need to go...we need to go. Regular gas won't give us the speed and acceleration.". The non ethanol gasoline at this station is more expensive and you have to have a special card in order to pump the gas. The card is issued by the company, and no other credit card will work. The City of Orange Grove, Texas would not go to the expense if the straight gasoline fuel had not proven itself less expensive in both down time and response time.

Well, if the police department is using non ethanol, then that proves something. Come to think of it, I never saw law enforcement vehicles at a local gas pump near my home neither. I believe they have a city depot where all county vehicles fuel up. In fact, that is quite common. Wonder if its got ethanol in it? Maybe the government doesn't want to use ethanol in the stuff they ride in. It sure aint about saving tax dollars. Some of these dodge chargers they use aren't cheap. Fact is, they don't need them. The job can be done as quickly and effectively with any type of vehicle. It is about protocol and stationing of officers in specific areas and staying on track. Law enforcement officers are specifically trained in pursuit driving techniques, braking, and recovery of control in a skid. It is not about having a big engine, but how you control the situation and use communication for assistance, keeping in mind that other motorists are nearby and unaware of a potential situation and that a badge is no magic shield. It doesn't make one impervious to accidents or goof ups. And no, the engines in police cars are just regular engines anyone could buy. They just have the rpm limiter turned up if permissible, have heavy duty shocks, sway bars, and a heavier radiator. The cooling system is more about sitting idle at a road work site for extended periods of time more than anything. They used to buy ford crown victorias set up this way and they were called "police interceptor package". They would then send it to a local automotive electronics outfit and have the lights, communication, ect installed. That is all. The fact is you could catch a Ferrari with a dodge diplomat with proper techniques and protocol. Trust me, the bad guy is the one loosing control and he would end up stopping himself before too long.

To sum it up, he was just talkin big......"OUR ENGINES ARE DIFFERENT AND WE NEED THE ACCELERATION!!!" O.K...:rolleyes:

[Fastjeff57]

...."That's why I don't care about new vehicles. They don't save gas any better than old cars if one knows how to drive the old cars."

Got to disagree with you here. Our Ford Focus (with its direct injection, 2 liter gas engine with 12 to one compression ratio) gets fabulous gas mileage is has excellent performance. We get high 30 mpg egularly, and just yesterday got 44 mpg on a trip! That was beyond belief for cars a decade ago, and its NOT one of those super lightweight traps either (like a Fiat 500). So progress IS being made.

Jeff

[champ20B]

...."That's why I don't care about new vehicles. They don't save gas any better than old cars if one knows how to drive the old cars."

Got to disagree with you here. Our Ford Focus (with its direct injection, 2 liter gas engine with 12 to one compression ratio) gets fabulous gas mileage is has excellent performance. We get high 30 mpg egularly, and just yesterday got 44 mpg on a trip! That was beyond belief for cars a decade ago, and its NOT one of those super lightweight traps either (like a Fiat 500). So progress IS being made.

Jeff

I imagine a 2 liter of any kind would get good mileage. But...what about a dodge dart with a 170 slant six? I know that a 3.7 liter 225 slant six will get close with one of these cars cause I drove one before. It would go forever on just a little bit of gas. Furthermore, you could pull a bass boat with these things and not break it. And still, in a equal comparison, a 1976 dodge 100 pickup with a 440 v-8 will do as good as a 2014 dodge 1500 with a 392cid/390hp hemi as long as you don't step on the throttle too much. One could simply let the torque of the 440 do its job, it will keep up with traffic very well. The beauty of a big engine is that you only need to barely crack the throttle to get going. The little bit of fuel that is used has enough leverage with the bigger crankshaft and so on to move mountains! "GIVE ME A LEVER AND ILL MOVE THE WORLD! " a famous quote...... . The point is in all of this, and this really got me going, is that all of the pollution scare tactics, fuel shortage claims ect ect are nothing but hype. It is aimed at making people buy new stuff or feel that they must. Then you have electric cars... LOL!!!!!! The fact is, that a bigger problem will arise from this. Where in the world, so to speak, will the batteries be disposed eventually. And would we really save energy? NO, not in the long run!! And don't think about nuclear energy. There isn't that much of the core stuff needed to build that many plants for this in the world. And what about time? I could imagine waiting for a charge up instead of a quick fill up on a long trip. Its been tried before and just doesn't work out the same at all. The electric companies would love to reach Saudi Royal Family status though. They could be the new fuel barons with electric cars. The bottom line is that we can still run to the dealer and buy muscle cars and trucks today regardless. They are making diesel 3/4-1 ton mosquito foggers by beefing up a little diesel 6.5 liter engine to make 350hp and 800+ torque when it should only make 200hp and 400+ torque (then nobody gets chemically induced migranes at traffic lights). Heck, the truck don't have enough weight or traction to constitute that kind of power!! And then the Government, in many but maybe not all places, don't run ethanol. But we are bombarded with it. Its like....(Papa gets the ice cream and the kids get ice milk). It is all double standard. Citizens are always regarded as a problem (polluting) one way or another by the powers that be, and we have to accept the corn liquor gasoline for it. And it doesn't really help much. Yes it burns clean, but look at the pollution done to the Mississippi river going into the gulf for the coarse of production of ethanol. Trade one issue only to gain another because there are always those who wants to have the cake and still eat it too. Convenience will always come with a price, and that is something that must be accepted no matter how far technology goes. We just have to eliminate the greater problems for that which makes lesser, and stick with it!

[Fastjeff57]

..."I imagine a 2 liter of any kind would get good mileage. But...what about a dodge dart with a 170 slant six? I know that a 3.7 liter 225 slant six will get close with one of these cars cause I drove one before."

You'd be really lucky to break 25 mpg with one of those engines. Furthermore, my little Focus--it does zero to sixty in 6.3 seconds, per a car magazine--will probably out pull that old slant six. It makes 163 hp (with the new rating system) which is more than enough.

Jeff

PS: Let's get back to marine subjects, okay?

[Master Oil Racing Team]

:)Okay. Marine engines=water. Water=good. Marine engines like gasoline. Gasoline is good. Ethanol likes water. Gasoline no likes water. Keep ethanol away from my gasoline. Keep the corn in the cribs for the hogs and in the dirt for chickens, and the rest for frying fish we caught from our boat and hushpuppies to go with the fish.:D

[Ron Hill]

First of all, making ethanol from corn takes more natural gas than anyone talks about. Natural gas heats the corn causing it to "FERMENT" and make ethanol. So, this BS about corn as a renewable fuel is a JOKE.

There was a study released by our government and funded by our government that said ethanol caused more pollution the petroleum fuel...Of course, the Owebama Regime says the study is flawed.

10% ethanol in gasoline dropped horse power by 22%.

Who is the largest farmer in America? Parker Daniel Middleton or some company with a name like that.

[champ20B]

..."I imagine a 2 liter of any kind would get good mileage. But...what about a dodge dart with a 170 slant six? I know that a 3.7 liter 225 slant six will get close with one of these cars cause I drove one before."

You'd be really lucky to break 25 mpg with one of those engines. Furthermore, my little Focus--it does zero to sixty in 6.3 seconds, per a car magazine--will probably out pull that old slant six. It makes 163 hp (with the new rating system) which is more than enough.

Jeff

PS: Let's get back to marine subjects, okay?

Everything from auto or marine, lawn ect is all in on the ethanol issue. I thought I was on a feasible track. I brought up observations, facts, and contradicting factors to question the legitimacy of bombarding America with ethanol to begin with.

And a slant six 225 was an excellent marine engine. It was a hulk, had amazing mileage, had a 4.2" piston stroke with a boat load of torque. Also, the drive trains behind these engines ranged from compact cars all the way to 2-ton haul trucks. It made 160 hp at only around 3800 rpm with a small 2BBl carb and had twice the low end torque of a engine of which you speak. That is right on the money for a inboard boat. Furthermore, I can do 18-20 mpg with good driving techniques and my truck runs clean. I don't need ethanol. My old merc mark-20 outboard likes it, but that noisy abomination of engineering would have been better as an alky racer than a fishing motor anyway. It always runs for me though. Anyway, Like the previous reply, leave the corn to the chickens.

MOONSHINE IS FOR DRINKIN.......NOT DRIVIN!!!! ;)

[Master Oil Racing Team]

Think about unintended consequences. Just one very little fact that can add up to a big problem. Look at not the cost of corn being diverted to making ethanol, but at the price of masa. Masa is the basic compound of corn, water and a few ingredients that is used to form tortillas, tamales, and many Mexican dishes. Regardless of whether the Mexicans or others from Central America or South America can get across our borders for an easier life, the ethanol craze drives up prices for everyone that is just looking to put food on the table. We can pump it into our gas tanks and drive to a Taco Bell and pay more, but more and more of those who are starving drift to the north to be able to just get some food in their bellies. It's both political parties that take money to push the ethanol train. It's time to derail the "pushers.

[champ20B]

Everything from auto or marine, lawn ect is all in on the ethanol issue. I thought I was on a feasible track. I brought up observations, facts, and contradicting factors to question the legitimacy of bombarding America with ethanol to begin with.

And a slant six 225 was an excellent marine engine. It was a hulk, had amazing mileage, had a 4.2" piston stroke with a boat load of torque. Also, the drive trains behind these engines ranged from compact cars all the way to 2-ton haul trucks. It made 160 hp at only around 3800 rpm with a small 2BBl carb and had twice the low end torque of a engine of which you speak. That is right on the money for a inboard boat. Furthermore, I can do 18-20 mpg with good driving techniques and my truck runs clean. I don't need ethanol. My old merc mark-20 outboard likes it, but that noisy abomination of engineering would have been better as an alky racer than a fishing motor anyway. It always runs for me though. Anyway, Like the previous reply, leave the corn to the chickens.

MOONSHINE IS FOR DRINKIN.......NOT DRIVIN!!!! ;)

Another thing I want to bring up is mileage. An experienced mechanic just told me that the old six bangers in the 1960s-80s (like the slant six dodge) would easily do 30-40mpg all day with good driving. Good driving means effort on the drivers part and not a computer injection/oxygen sensing system doing it. Fact is, despite government and organization claims, todays cars aren't saving gas compared to past designs that much at all. Jeff just clarified that with a souped up 4 cylinder that makes 6 cylinder power. Why? Why not make a 6 cyl with 163 hp and have better torque? Because it would last longer. That's why 6 CYLINDERS ARE MAKING 200-360HP NOW!!! Does that sound like an effort to save fuel? Not to me. Why can we get 400hp pickup trucks?! So they break quicker. Sell more cars and trucks!! keep the ethanol flowing!! Then there are those little badges that say FLEXFUEL...really? Clean fuel, green house gasses, and the better mileage and still have SUPER POWER...is all just hype to sell cars. The corn whiskey infused gas is to implore you to buy them sooner and make some big money for the car and corn industry to get square with Washington. Remember the bailouts for the car companies? Heck, the banks that were bailed out probably own much of the land the corn is grown on. Gotta make money fast somehow!!

There is no fuel crisis, because companies are making these high powered cars and trucks this way.

There is no pollution crisis because you can buy a diesel truck that smells like the start up of a BBQ contest hosted by KINGSFORD.

And the government does not always make any effort to cut back on HP or pure gasoline for their own equipment on all accounts.

We, as everyday citizens, are having ethanol that causes accelerated damage to cars dumped on us so the stock holders in the corn industry can make money and we run out and keep buying replacement cars more often. It is just another lobbyist ploy.

[zul8tr]

While getting rid of ethanol in our fuel and converting those lands back to more useful endeavors like food for humans would be great, but it looks like once the government gets involved it is hard to get them out of it even if the facts indicate they should. An example is the helium production that started back after the WWI era.

After WWI this was the logic - "In Europe, countries such as Germany were building sturdy, if slow, inflatable airships. The U.S. military was worried about a blimp gap. So Congress ordered a stockpile of helium to help American dirigibles catch up. It was assumed to be a temporary arrangement."

And today - "Only the federal government could survive selling said commodity under market value by subsidizing it with other people’s money and then scratch its head wondering why no one else had jumped into the game. “Why is no one playing this delightful game of Three Card Monty with us?” "

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/26/bad-news-the-federal-helium-program-is-not-a-parody/

So hold on to your wallets the government pick pocket is still here.

[7500Blizzard]

For you guys running older stuff or higher compression ratio motors if you live where it's available run E85 as it's about 105 octane. And yeah until the entire fuel system on these older cars is cleaned out from A to Z and the 35+ year old rubber is changed you'll have problems. And there's no way 10% causes a 22% horsepower loss.

[Ron Hill]

For you guys running older stuff or higher compression ratio motors if you live where it's available run E85 as it's about 105 octane. And yeah until the entire fuel system on these older cars is cleaned out from A to Z and the 35+ year old rubber is changed you'll have problems. And there's no way 10% causes a 22% horsepower loss.

I may have made the number up, but: My son-in-law manages or is the Finance Manager of Ford of Orange in Orange, California. ON a new F-150 it said, "25 miles per gallon with unleaded gasoline. 19 MPG with gasoline with ethanol."

I thought 25 minus 19 was 6 and 6 X 4....in my head was 22%. HOW MUCH POWER LOSS WITH ETHONOL ADDED TO GASOLINE?

[7500Blizzard]

Well at 22% it's like saying your 200 merc turned into a 150 because you put 10% e-gas in it. So does your 80+mph boat now run only 60-65mph because you changed gas? I think not.
And even those mileage numbers seem skewed somehow. We know pure ethanol is roughly 30% less efficient than pure gas. So in theory if you put10 gallons of e-gas in a tank it will it will have 9 gallons of gas and 1 gallon of ethanol. So basically you would have the equivalence of 9 2/3 gallons of gas. So at 25 mpg for pure gas your at 250 miles and at 9 2/3 your at about 241 miles so theoretically it should be less than 1 mpg difference.
Not saying your son-in-law is wrong but doesn't that computer compute per driving style.

[Powerabout]

I'd like to see 100% ethanol and huge comp engines to use it and see if that is more efficient

[7500Blizzard]

100% pure ethanol is less efficient BTU wise than gas. but at 113 octane lots of guys use as cheap race gas. But it can support more hp than gas everytime. If you were to actually build a motor for the specific fuel it would be interesting to see how efficient it really could be. Because even the flex/fuel cars don't account for it running E-85 in one is like running race gas in you regular everyday car. A waste!!!

And when all the numbers are crunched it actually takes about twice the energy to produce a gallon of gas versus ethanol and almost 10 times as much water.

[Ron Hill]

Well at 22% it's like saying your 200 merc turned into a 150 because you put 10% e-gas in it. So does your 80+mph boat now run only 60-65mph because you changed gas? I think not.
And even those mileage numbers seem skewed somehow. We know pure ethanol is roughly 30% less efficient than pure gas. So in theory if you put10 gallons of e-gas in a tank it will it will have 9 gallons of gas and 1 gallon of ethanol. So basically you would have the equivalence of 9 2/3 gallons of gas. So at 25 mpg for pure gas your at 250 miles and at 9 2/3 your at about 241 miles so theoretically it should be less than 1 mpg difference.
Not saying your son-in-law is wrong but doesn't that computer compute per driving style.

The numbers I was quoting were from a sticker on the side window of a new truck. I was always good with arithmetic but sucked at math. So, 30% of 10% is all the power loss you are talking?

I'm only quoting what the sticker said on a new FORD.

[champ20B]

100% pure ethanol is less efficient BTU wise than gas. but at 113 octane lots of guys use as cheap race gas. But it can support more hp than gas everytime. If you were to actually build a motor for the specific fuel it would be interesting to see how efficient it really could be. Because even the flex/fuel cars don't account for it running E-85 in one is like running race gas in you regular everyday car. A waste!!!

This is why todays four cylinders have those high 11-12:1 compressions. It is so they can run that alcohol gas. When they used to build Alky outboards in the old days from regular engines, they would build it so that the piston would be barely shy of hitting the head for compression. They would then use big fuel lines and large size jets to flow the more viscous alcohol/castor-oil mix. And they used a lot of fuel in one heat!! The alcohol burns cooler and burns cleaner and more completely. That is why they make that amazing Pro class power. The downside is that they guzzle the heck out of it. A pure alcohol engine car would be a dream to the corn industry because drivers would have to use a lot of it. We couldn't afford to go anywhere much then at all except to work and the store. Now lower compression car motors don't run that good off of it. My Mercury Mark 20 outboard actually likes ethanol gas!! But I have a few antique outboards of lesser compression I just collected that don't run well on ethanol as they do pure gas actually.

New souped up cars that look like toasters on four wheels, big Tonka Toy looking trucks with 390-405hp, and ethanol gas!!!! YIKES!!!!! SOMEBODY IS AFTER SOMBODIES MONEY!!!!!!:eek:

[Fastjeff57]

..."This is why todays four cylinders have those high 11-12:1 compressions. It is so they can run that alcohol gas"

Direct fuel injection into the cylinder is why modern engines can run such high compression ratios (like my Focus with its 12:1). The octant rating of 87 octane fuel--with or without ethanol--is the same.

As my late and sorely missed buddy explained, the advantage of direct injection is charge cooling. Port injection wastes the cooling effect of the vaporized gas by cooling the metal parts; direct injection cools the gas/ air charge itself, dramatically lowering pre-ignition tendencies. And the low end torque these motors make is truly impressive!

Jeff

[Powerabout]

direct injection is all about controlled combustion and keeping fuel away from any surface.
HC and NoX emissions
I cant see any relationship to increased CR?
It has only been useful since they have massive injection pressure, did anyone ever use it on unlimited race engines?
( ok dirt track alcohol)

[Fastjeff57]

..."...keeping fuel away from any surface."

That's why it cools the charge so well, reducing pre-ignition, and allowing such high CRs on 87 octane fuel. (By the way, I wisely paid for the full warrantee on my Focus with its 2,000psi injector system!) RACE engines on RACE fuel were limited to about 11:1 ratios a few decades ago.

The dirt track cars (like Outlaws) now use direct injection, possibly to allow even higher CRs.

Jeff

[7500Blizzard]

I agree with Jeff on the extra cooling effects of the charge, but more so the fuel is only injected at the perfect time not allowing the charge to over-compress and pre-ignite, there's a reason these systems run such high PSI ratings. Fuel management has advanced more in the last 10-15 years than it had in the prior 100 years. And yes whether it's reg unld or oxygenated 87octane is 87 octane both fuels will support the same engines.

And to Ron the mileage drop on the sticker would have been going from Reg 87 Octane fuel whether it's oxygenated or not (doesn't matter) to running E-85, as E-85 is about 20% less efficient.

[Master Oil Racing Team]

From my understanding why alky's evolved to methanol in the early days and upped compression ratios and different timing is because a couple of properties allowed increased horsepower with that fuel over gasoline without damaging the engines. The two factors are that methanol itself cools the engine allowing for increased compression without the tendency to stick pistons. The main thing I think though is that methanol burns much slower. Compared to methanol, gasoline is a flash in the pan. Methanol burns much slower than gasoline so methanol is still burning and expanding while the piston is moving forward and continues to do so while driving the piston back on the downstroke. Compared to that, gasoline is "poof" and gone. And because of the cooling effect and slow burn, you run a bigger carbueretor, more fuel, and more air and get lots of cooling fuel into the combustion chamber. Nitro burns even slower than methanol, hence even more power, but it has a corrosive effect on motor parts. You have to do a lot of experimentation with altered heads and timing to run a methanol nitro mix, and even the experts blow a lot of engines while leading a race.

[7500Blizzard]

Yes those are two of the big reasons as to why Alcohol can make more power among other are oxygen is a byproduct of burning alcohol so it get a better burn, and it's also a lot easier to compress an alcohol charge than a gasoline charge, so it robs less hp to keep running.

And even though in a standard motor setup pure Ethanol would be about 30% less efficient, but if burned at it's preferred AFR it creates almost 20% more energy and Methanol more than that.

[7500Blizzard]

What I don't get is that it doesn't matter what form of motorsport it is all these guys that are forever tinkering or working on there stuff, complain so much about having to do a little more maintenance (and I mean a little) to not have problems with fuel. It's kinda like the fuel injection war all over again, all the ols school guys bitched and complained about it non stop knowing damn well it was better than carbs. All the while the new generation of gearheads ended up leaps and bounds ahead. It's the same as computer controlled management systems guys hated it, and again the new generation was leaps and bounds ahead.

I am by no way stating this is the best fuel out there, but it's what we have and soon it will be the only fuel out there. So instead of bitching about so much learn/figure out how to make it work for you.

[Fastjeff57]

Gotta 'fess up and admit that I--repeat I--was one of those stick-in-the-mud geezers who resented EFI and injection. Long as I don't have to mess with it, I think it's grand!

Jeff

PS: If some terrorist (or that fool Putin) detonates an electromagnetic pulse bomb over our country, only engines with (gasp!) breaker points will still run! And I don't have a single one of them!

[Powerabout]

Bmw had 11.5 cr 30 years ago in their engines its not direct inj that has changed that

[Fastjeff57]

Those BWMs had to use premium, high octane fuel. My lowly Focus is designed to run on 87 octane.

Jeff

[Master Oil Racing Team]

Somebody please explain the octane ratings. I believe there is some misconception between octane ratings, additives and fuel. I don't want to have to research all this, but maybe when I was just learning to drive the fuel had lead in it to increase octane. Ron Hill might want to add his say here because he is from the SoCal Motor Pool. He was there when all the cool car stuff and the surfing was going on.

[Fastjeff57]

Simply put, octane rating is the highest compression ratio (CR) a research engine can tolerate without pre-ignition. Believe it or not, these ingenious engines can change their CR while running! When "pinging" begins, the CR is backed off until it stops, and that's the octane rating number for that particulate fuel.

The problem began when fuels were developed (pre-WW II) that allowed CRs way above what was then possible with 100 octane fuel. The solution, as seen on some gas pumps, was a blending of the lab results (from the research engines) with theoretical octane numbers (pure mathematical calculations); the two were combined and averaged.

Finally, octane rating is improved when gas burns slower, with a greater delay before it "lights off". Faster light off causes detonation, so anti-knock additives (like lead) are there to increase the delay period.


Jeff

PS: Military aircraft in WW II ran 115 octane and higher--up to 145 in some cases. The spark plug life was horrid due to massive lead formation, requiring plug changes after every mission. On a Merlin V-12, the inner plugs were a b*tch to get to, so they were often left in place for a few missions, with the "easy" to get to plugs changed.

[zul8tr]

Simply put, octane rating is the highest compression ratio (CR) a research engine can tolerate without pre-ignition. Believe it or not, these ingenious engines can change their CR while running! When "pinging" begins, the CR is backed off until it stops, and that's the octane rating number for that particulate fuel.

The problem began when fuels were developed (pre-WW II) that allowed CRs way above what was then possible with 100 octane fuel. The solution, as seen on some gas pumps, was a blending of the lab results (from the research engines) with theoretical octane numbers (pure mathematical calculations); the two were combined and averaged.

Finally, octane rating is improved when gas burns slower, with a greater delay before it "lights off". Faster light off causes detonation, so anti-knock additives (like lead) are there to increase the delay period.


Jeff

PS: Military aircraft in WW II ran 115 octane and higher--up to 145 in some cases. The spark plug life was horrid due to massive lead formation, requiring plug changes after every mission. On a Merlin V-12, the inner plugs were a b*tch to get to, so they were often left in place for a few missions, with the "easy" to get to plugs changed.

During WW2 my dad was line foreman for the P47 Thunderbolt fighter plane in Farmingdale NJ. The radial engines in these planes used very high octane fuel and all measures were taken to increase life and reliability. As he explained to me one of the most successful to increase engine and plug life was water injection that also increased power output at all altitudes.

[Powerabout]

My father worked on the mustang line in oz doing the pre flights before delivery
We built 200 mustangs

[Powerabout]

Those BWMs had to use premium, high octane fuel. My lowly Focus is designed to run on 87 octane.

Jeff
Efi and knock sensors you could run anything anywhere in the world, same engine spec globally
Prior to that they did build engines for each market

[Powerabout]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_ratingttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_ratingQUOTE=Master Oil Racing Team;139859]Somebody please explain the octane ratings. I believe there is some misconception between octane ratings, additives and fuel. I don't want to have to research all this, but maybe when I was just learning to drive the fuel had lead in it to increase octane. Ron Hill might want to add his say here because he is from the SoCal Motor Pool. He was there when all the cool car stuff and the surfing was going on.[/QUOTE]
http://racefuels.com.au/newsDetail.asp?ID=19
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

[Fastjeff57]

Trivia question: Who developed knock sensors, when and why?

Jeff

[7500Blizzard]

Bmw had 11.5 cr 30 years ago in their engines its not direct inj that has changed that

Maybe in Europe but in the 80's Pretty much all BMW's had compression ratios of about 10:1 and lower. (from what I've seen anyways) But even if they were at 11.5:1 back then the premium fuel of the 80's being 94octane would support that without problems. Even on todays fuels the ignition in those cars can manipulate itself enough to run on it.

[Powerabout]

Trivia question: Who developed knock sensors, when and why?

Jeff
I'd be guessing saying Bosch
piezo crystals have been around a long time

[Fastjeff57]

The Buick Motor Division developed them (and distributor-less ignition) for their turbo V-6 Grand National cars in the mid-70s.

Jeff

[7500Blizzard]

I was gonna say around 80-81 by GM but I didn't know the GNX was the test bed for it. I do know that was right around the time that the RON numbers dropped quite a bit in the fuels available though.

[zul8tr]

My father worked on the mustang line in oz doing the pre flights before delivery
We built 200 mustangs

Per online abbreviations - would 'oz' be Australia?

[Fastjeff57]

Apparently Buick was desperate to keep their turbo motors from detonating (and becoming warrantee nightmares). They found that, with knock sensors, much more boost could be tolerated, which produced a spectacular car for that period.

Jeff

[7500Blizzard]

Yeah they were running pretty decent boost numbers especially for the time. It's crazy that the quickest thing on the road back then averaged about 200hp throughout it's glory years with 245 being the most it ever came with in 1987.