Ethanol IS bad for your engines

vetch · Dec 14, 2011

Here in the great Pacific Northwest all Conoco Phillips gas is corn free. It is all I buy especially for my boat and small gas motors. Ethonol is low powered to begin with. And it breaks down quickly. If your not going to use it in a few weeks you need something like sta-nil.

Tom Metzger · Dec 14, 2011

Best idea I've heard all week.

Congressmen should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we could identify their corporate sponsors.

vetch · Dec 15, 2011

That's funny

But they should have to show their union/gang colors too

txjim · Dec 15, 2011

Gunni said:
I think the useful comparison is E10 v. E0. That would be 112,000 BTU/gal. v. 114,000 BTU/gal.. Plus we get a cleaner burning fuel and less engine maintenance. I like seeing the San Gabriels when I'm in town!

Gunni, we're all for cleaner air but this is not the approach just like MTBE was not the approach 10 years ago.

Suggest you take a look at additional information, including:
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/dec2010/bw20101221_927461.htm

Stu Jackson · Dec 15, 2011

BoatUS has some very good discussions of ethanol fuel. For those who are discussing engines only, please be aware that the original ethanol introduction ended up costing a lot of boaters their fiberglass fuel tanks. Ethanol is a wrong solution to an real issue.

jibes138 · Dec 17, 2011

We should have listened

In 1978 or so Jimmy Carter said we would run out of fuel in 10 years. We should have listened to him. What is he doing these days? Perhaps he is consulting for the Department of Energy?

Maine Sail · Dec 17, 2011

jibes138 said:
In 1978 or so Jimmy Carter said we would run out of fuel in 10 years. We should have listened to him. What is he doing these days? Perhaps he is consulting for the Department of Energy?

Yeah and when I was in high school we were getting brain washed that by the year 2000 the AIDS epidemic would infect 9 out of 10 so we had to dump BILLIONS into R&D to cure it... No cure, billions spent and a prevalence rate if about 0.35% of the US population...

A far cry from the predicted 90% by the year 2000..

vetch · Dec 17, 2011

They have been trying to tell is we are about to hit "peak oil" for over a hundred years bit we just keep finding more

justsomeguy · Dec 17, 2011

vetch said:
They have been trying to tell is we are about to hit "peak oil" for over a hundred years bit we just keep finding more

It keeps the price up...

Steve Dion · Dec 17, 2011

Maine Sail said:
Yeah and when I was in high school we were getting brain washed that by the year 2000 the AIDS epidemic would infect 9 out of 10 so we had to dump BILLIONS into R&D to cure it... No cure, billions spent and a prevalence rate if about 0.35% of the US population...

A far cry from the predicted 90% by the year 2000..

MS:

I work in the HIV unit for the State of Nevada. Since they started keeping track of the disease we only have about 9,000 recorded cases in the entire state of a population of 2.5 mil. Some states have much higher incidence rates but it is a disease that can now be controlled. We now have clients that are well into their 70's that have had it since the late 80's & 90's.

If we took out the IDU (intravenous drug users) from this mix would be cut by probably 60% and they are probably the ones that infected the other 40%!

The government loves to create SWAG about anything and everything.

HIV, Oil Reserves, Traffic death causes, you name it and they can find a way to control our lives.

thinwater · Dec 18, 2011

I kept a 1990s National Geographic on which the cover predicted a coming ice age, due to CO2 emissions. A collectors item. At least they were honest, the article shownig that the error bar was huge and that it could go either way.

Maine Sail · Dec 18, 2011

Steve Dion said:
HIV, Oil Reserves, Traffic death causes, you name it and they can find a way to control our lives.

And don't even get me going on the fact that in 1984 you could buy a NON-HYBRID Honda that got over 55 MPG!!! Bruce Schwab, the solo round the world racer, drives one to this day and regularly exceeds 60 MPG with it! A 1984 car with NO BATTERIES getting 60+ MPG!!!!!

The government added MANDATES such as ABS, air bags, side impact this, etc. etc. have ensured that the best mileage Honda can attain today, without batteries, is about 36 MPG. All these safety mandates have added WEIGHT which in-turn drives gas mileage down. Yet our moronic govt points the fingers at the auto makers, not themselves, for the lack of good gas mileage.. Kind of hypocritical and ridiculous...

25yearslater · Dec 18, 2011

Oh phooey who gives a rip about the chunk of cast iron in the bilge. With a little modification you can burn whatever will burn. The tank that holds the juice is the real problem. Permeation with poly or leaks with galvanized steel is a more immediate problem. Galvanizing is nothing more than zinc coating. Zinc acts as a sacrificial barrier to water and the resulting electrolysis. Once that zinc is gone all that is left for the water to eat is steel. The resulting KABOOM from a leaking tank solves the fuel economy/good or bad for the engine problem once and for all. Check your tanks. Don't squeeze your first nickel so hard the indian is riding the buffalo. Like it or not ethanol is probably here to stay.

RichH · Dec 18, 2011

Maine Sail said:
And don't even get me going on the fact that in 1984 you could buy a NON-HYBRID Honda that got over 55 MPG!!! Bruce Schwab, the solo round the world racer, drives one to this day and regularly exceeds 60 MPG with it! A 1984 car with NO BATTERIES getting 60+ MPG!!!!!

The government added MANDATES such as ABS, air bags, side impact this, etc. etc. have ensured that the best mileage Honda can attain today, without batteries, is about 36 MPG. All these safety mandates have added WEIGHT which in-turn drives gas mileage down. Yet our moronic govt points the fingers at the auto makers, not themselves, for the lack of good gas mileage.. Kind of hypocritical and ridiculous...

ABS, air bags, side impact barriers etc etc. etc. have saved a LOT of lives .... back in the 80s and early 90s many 'lightweight & flimsy' autos sometimes upon impact would 'spllt' across the 'floor pan' ejecting the passengers 'down' through 'the bottom' .... was absolutely 'gruesome'.

.... just wait until our enlightened 'government' (ever committed to entirely CONTROL every human action and thought) mandates the usage of oxygen + tanks (LOX) to reduce NOx, etc. emissions.

RichH · Dec 18, 2011

sorry for the thread drift ....
As a 35+ year service paramedic ... Ive almost hardly ever witnessed a highway fatality 'after dark' that did not involve someone who was either 'stoned' or 'drunk'. Midnight to 3AM is the 'absolute worst' time to drive.

25yearslater · Dec 18, 2011

Your first paragraph kd is exactly why we have the collective will of the people (government) seemingly becoming more involved. Because people don't always behave in ways conducive to their own well being or that of society.
This is all more appropriate for the war room. The point is check your tanks for signs of ethanol compatability or degradation. Rust in the filters or a heavy smell of gasoline are prime indicators of a serious situation. Don't let reality compel more regulation.

Maine Sail · Dec 18, 2011

RichH said:
ABS, air bags, side impact barriers etc etc. etc. have saved a LOT of lives .... back in the 80s and early 90s many 'lightweight & flimsy' autos sometimes upon impact would 'spllt' across the 'floor pan' ejecting the passengers 'down' through 'the bottom' .... was absolutely 'gruesome'.

.... just wait until our enlightened 'government' (ever committed to entirely CONTROL every human action and thought) mandates the usage of oxygen + tanks (LOX) to reduce NOx, etc. emissions.

Yeah we've made a huge dent..

In 1983 traffic fatalities (including all cases) was 0.00018 % of the population. This was the year Honda introduced the Civic HF that got 55 MPG.

In 2006, the year Honda got back to 36 MPG without batteries, traffic fatalities (including all cases) was 0.00014% of population...

So we made a 0.00004 % difference, or 4 hundred thousandths % difference in traffic deaths, when looked at based on % of population reduction..

How many gallons of fuel and energy would we have saved by allowing SOME cars to not have all the MANDATORY added junk??? All I am saying is folks should be allowed to CHOOSE what options they want on a car and not be mandated to have all the mandated 0.00004% improvement "safety features".

After all we still allow motorcycles to be driven why not allows SOME cars to delete some of the government added weight?

I'll take my 1984 Civic over a battery powered Prius any day of the week.

During this time, when we made these 0.00004% improvements, seat belts were made mandtory in nearly every state.. Perhaps the seat belt changes alone lead to the 0.00004% increase in saved lives..?

Sorry but I believe in personal choice and I don't like the government telling me I need to spend thousands more $$$$$$$$ in safety features, and carry around all that extra weight I don't want. This especially when they apparently don't really do much of anything as a % of the population in changing traffic deaths.

If motorcycles are legal than I feel I should be allowed to buy a car without all the added junk...

I have well over 1,000,000 miles under my belt with no accidents, I'll take my chances, if only my government would let me..

Another way to look at the "improvements" would be to compare against individuals getting hit by lightning. The odds that I would be in that 0.00004% "improvement sub group", which was over 22 years, are likely worse than my odds of being struck by lightning..

NOAA estimates that 550 people per year are hit by lightning. The US population is roughly 310,000,000 this means that on a given year 0.00017% of the population is hit by lightning. Interestingly enough it took us 22 years to see a 0.00004% improvement in traffic fatalities as a percentage of the population, not one year..... Seems like a lot of money spent by car buyers and a lot of potentially wasted energy..

Remember the data can be made to show anything, our government is FAMOUS for these kinds of bogus tactics.. I prefer my so called freedoms in this country, which we loose every day, because people are baffled by the BS....

Of course if I had my old Civic I'd probably be dealing with ethanol issues (back on topic) because I'd use so little of it and it would go bad. With my current government mandated "HEAVY car" I go through the fuel at about 3X the rate I did back in 1984...

RichH · Dec 18, 2011

Maine - what you arguing about is the 'cost of diminishing returns' .... wasting and spending untold BILLIONS to affect statistically insignificant improvement of 'benefit'.

25yearslater · Dec 18, 2011

I'm with you on this one mainesail. It would be wonderful if we all drove the type of vehicle you describe with the utmost care and concern. Ethanol probably wouldn't be an issue. My concern is it's deleterious effects on the fuel system. I have evidence of rust in the carburator bowl of my Atomic 4. That's a good sign the tank is degraded. A busted engine is inconvenient. A leaking tank is disasterous. While we strive for the ideal we need to confront the real.