Ethanol IS bad for your engines

[KD3PC]

Best is simply to run diesels and give up on gasoline altogether.

I have a duramax diesel pickup, 2003 model that has gone through 2 injector pumps (~$1500 each, both out of warranty) in under 100K miles, as well as two sets of injectors (almost $1000 each installed) in less than 250K miles...all attributed to "poor fuel quality" even though ALL fuel was bought at tier one stations... The injectors and pumps are poorly designed for the fuel they intend to burn.

so the crap they sell as diesel with all the additives and 20-30% surcharge over gasoline is no better deal.

And the duramax injectors is a widely publicized issue, so if you are thinking of buying a diesel, please ask when the injectors were changed...else you may be in for a big surprise - $$$.

 

[kloudie1]

KD3PC.. The diesel "surcharge" is your government adding extra taxes to diesel.. It costs about the same or a bit less to actually make and distribute.. but the added cost is stuff that your elected representatives have decided to impress onto folks who use diesels..

 

[Gunni]

KD3PC.. The diesel "surcharge" is your government adding extra taxes to diesel.. It costs about the same or a bit less to actually make and distribute.. but the added cost is stuff that your elected representatives have decided to impress onto folks who use diesels..

Huh. There is like half as much diesel in a barrel of crude than there is gasoline! Depending on season and type of crude you can crack slightly more diesel range fuel, but you get more energy / gal. in any case.

And there is no diesel surcharge, there is a road fuel tax that pays for upkeep of OUR highways. No free rides.

 

[kloudie1]

The diesel "surcharge" is additional tax above the amount of tax on gasoline. No free rides indeed but why should a diesel car driver pay more tax than a gasoline car driver? More tax on a slightly different fuel that is used for the same purpose is not called a surcharge, but it really smells like one..
More gasoline than diesel is processed out of a barrel of oil but that is because a lot of gasoline is made by cracking molecules that are too big naturally to be gasoline (and some other chemical feedstocks) and by forming smaller molecules into heavier ones that are in the gasoline mix range.. Diesel, some jet fuel, kerosene, and heating oil are all pretty close relatives and more volume of one can be made at the expense of the others.. but there are almost no volume gains in what is naturally available in the amount of diesel. Gasoline volume is considerably greater than what is naturally available. .. There are known processes to make more diesel, but at current market demand and price, and balance, it is not economically justified to do that..

 

[JVB]

Ignoring overwhelming evidence

No, it was a maintenance failure. An outboard shouldn't have any fuel lines +10 years old.

Never heard that from a manufacturer. Nope, non-moving parts are designed to outlast piston rings, bearings, sparkplugs, impellers, and other wearing parts. The fuel lines on my Sea Doo were fine from 1990 until ethanol ruined them in 2007. That's 17 years. In 1999 Nissan outboard fuel lines were not designed for ethanol. And neither were many others. The evidence is the widespread problem with ethanol damage. Just ask any full time marine mechanic how many fuel lines he has seen damaged by ethanol. And ask why he replaces the damaged fuel lines with lines labeled "ethanol resistant" .

 

[MrUnix]

And ask why he replaces the damaged fuel lines with lines labeled "ethanol resistant"

Marketing Same reason some people think you need a 'special' HDTV antenna to get over the air broadcasts instead of using a regular TV antenna.

Cheers,
Brad

 

[Gunni]

In the mid 1980’s new standards (SAE J1527) for fuel hoses were developed for “gasohol,” which was known to deteriorate rubber and plastics. Since then, problems with hoses have largely gone away, but that doesn’t mean they are maintenance free. Tech Tip: Any hose older than 10 years should be replaced. Here’s another way to test rubber fuel hose condition: wipe a clean rag along the hose. If you smell gas on the rag, replace the hose immediately.


http://www.boatus.com/pressroom/release.asp?id=769

 

[bffatcat]

running on a gas/ethanol mixture

When I bought my new tohatsu 8hp outboard about 2 years ago the dealer told me do not use gas that is over 30 days old. I do not use much gas. I sail mostly Every 30 days I take whats left in the tank dump it in my car and start fresh. Its a pain but the motor has not given trouble yet. You cannot buy ethanol free gas in Massachussetts
There is an Airport near by where they sell it. Its for airplanes only they refused to sell it to me. My old 88 Mercury 8hp 2 cycle ran ok on the gas/ethanol mixture. Old gas was not an issue. The new one wont I dont understand why

 

[RECESS]

And ask why he replaces the damaged fuel lines with lines labeled "ethanol resistant"

Marketing Same reason some people think you need a 'special' HDTV antenna to get over the air broadcasts instead of using a regular TV antenna.

Cheers,
Brad

Note to self: Get busy already bending a 39" bar into a loop and attach a 75ohm coaxle connector to run up the mast!

 

[robertsapp]

Did you see what our overlords at the EPA have in store for us next? They have approved E15, and are directing stations to prepare to sell it. The problem is that most service stations have long since switched to mixer pumps, which use a single hose and nozzle for all grades of gas. There are very few stations anymore that have separate nozzles for regular and premium, for example. The problem is if you follow an E15 customer, the first gallon or two that you pump will be residual E15 instead of the E10 you think you’re buying, which can damage your engine if it’s not designed for it. What’s the EPA’s response to this? A regulation requiring everyone to purchase no less than four gallons of fuel! They reason that the residual E15 will be sufficiently diluted by the E10 you’re buying to make it, oh, E11 or E12, which is no big deal, right? When asked what people on motorcycles or filling small gas cans for their lawn mowers (or outboards) were supposed to do who couldn’t buy four gallons without letting half of it spill on the ground (which is illegal) they had no answer. Let them eat cake.

On a related note, did you see recently where the UN (the UN!) has asked the US to please stop turning food into motor vehicle fuel? People are starving all over the world, and we’re turning 40% of our corn crop into unneeded fuel. There is no shortage of oil to make gas, only artificial restrictions on drilling for it. Of course, as a conservative, I’m generally against whatever the UN is for. So does this mean that I have to support ethanol now? I’m so confused…

 

[kloudie1]

Robert, the good part is that the EPA recognizes that most cars can't use E15 so they've given the stations an "opt out" clause .. they don't have to sell it if they don't want to .. It was specified that the E15 be dispensed from a stand alone pump, which keeps the confusion and mixing down.. Those were in the original rules..I assume they are still there..?? My bet is that it will become a non-issue because many stations will opt to not sell the stuff.. Our Gov-Mint will twist the arms of the majors (who have govmint contracts) to sell it and we'll see it at those stations, but it should be easy to avoid..

 

[robertsapp]

Here's a quote: But the group also admits that without widespread use of ethanol blends greater than E10, refiners may be unable to meet increasing renewable fuel standard (RFS) volume requirements, which will subject them to fines of up to $37,500 per day per violation. Therefore, API supports proposed legislation that would relieve regulatory requirements for retailers seeking to offer E15 using existing infrastructure.

It comes from this article: http://ethanolproducer.com/articles...of-e15-stations-will-cause-rfs-non-compliance

Technically, you're right. There's no mandate to sell E15. There is, however, an EPA regulation requiring refineries to make it, or they will be fined. Which path do you think refiners will choose - buck Uncle Sam and pony up the fine every month and put up with the tax audits and harrassement that follows, or roll-over and do what the government wants, which is to make their retailers sell more ethanol?

Then which way do you think the majority of service stations will go? Pay big bucks to put in separate storage tanks and dedicated pumps for E15, or just run it though their existing mixer pumps and put up a sticker notifying us of the requirement to purchase no less than four gallons?

And if you think that surely the grownups will prevail, then consider the fact that refiners are currently having to pay fines for failing to meet EPA requirements for blending sufficient quantities of cellulosic ethanol into gas - a substance THAT DOESN'T EXIST OUTSIDE THE LABORATORY!

From the Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204012004577072470158115782.html

Quote: Congress subsidized a product that didn't exist, mandated its purchase though it still didn't exist, is punishing oil companies for not buying the product that doesn't exist, and is now doubling down on the subsidies in the hope that someday it might exist. We'd call this the march of folly, but that's unfair to fools.Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 16

The EPA is on a crusade, is blinded by ideology, and WILL have their way.

 

[MrUnix]

For those attempting to point blame where none exists, it should be noted that this was the result of "Growth Energy" and 54 other ethanol producers who petitioned the EPA to allow the introduction of E15. The first paragraph of the executive summery (Federal Register Volume 75-68095 November 4, 2010):

Quote:
I. Executive Summary
In March 2009, Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``The Agency'') to allow the introduction into commerce of up to 15 volume percent (vol%) ethanol in gasoline. In April 2009, EPA sought public comment on the Growth Energy petition and subsequently received about 78,000 comments. Prior to today's action, ethanol was limited to 10 vol% in motor vehicle gasoline (E10).

​

Cheers,
Brad

 

[kenn]

For those attempting to point blame where none exists, it should be noted that this was the result of "Growth Energy" and 54 other ethanol producers who petitioned the EPA to allow the introduction of E15. The first paragraph of the executive summery (Federal Register Volume 75-68095 November 4, 2010):

Quote:
I. Executive Summary
In March 2009, Growth Energy and 54 ethanol manufacturers petitioned the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'' or ``The Agency'') to allow the introduction into commerce of up to 15 volume percent (vol%) ethanol in gasoline. In April 2009, EPA sought public comment on the Growth Energy petition and subsequently received about 78,000 comments. Prior to today's action, ethanol was limited to 10 vol% in motor vehicle gasoline (E10).
​

Good point. I recall that the big "promise" of plant-based ethanol was that it would be made from waste and other low/no cost plant matter. Actually growing corn for gas and not food is a bad precedent.

 

[tkanzler]

Switch grass was supposed to be the non-food base stock (for lack of a better term).

 

[anchorclanker]

What do ya bet if you asked the EPA to see those 78,000 comments, they would tell you to pound sand.

And in other NEWS, Dairy farmers in California are sending their milk cows to slaughter and many are throwing in the towel and selling off their farms. Feed costs which consist primarily of corn, now exceeded the money they take in from Govt mandated milk prices. The vicious circle has become a vice.

We are going to have to decide very soon whether we want to eat, or drive. Personally I think its immoral on so many levels to be taking food out of starving peoples mouths so we can pour it in our tank. We will pay dearly for this someday, and we all know it. Ethanol production should be curtailed immediately, or stopped altogether.

And really, disregarding all the hidden costs to produce it, subsidized with with taxpayer dollars, and disregarding all the hidden energy losses consumed to produce it, the drop in fuel economy that comes with using it, completely nullifies any impact it has on consumption of fossil fuels. In fact, if all the hidden energy that is used to produce it were put on the table, ceasing its production would likely cause a drop in fossil fuel consumption. There is no free lunch.

 

[Steve Dion]

That sweet corn that "we" eat is only 1% of the corn that is produced. Feed corn is what they end up using for ethanol, feeding animals etc.

While we are talking about worrying about people starving because of ethanol production I do not think that is really the fact. There may be a larger correlation of feed prices for animal being driven up because these crops are being diverted for other commercial uses. The ethanol production is subsidized by our government and then they charge us GAS Tax on the ethanol (10%) that they have paid for with our gas taxes.

Needless to say, the system sucks.

 

[MrUnix]

What do ya bet if you asked the EPA to see those 78,000 comments, they would tell you to pound sand.

Hmmm.. how much you wanna lose on that bet?!? With the advent of this new fangled internet thingie, you can view them online.. or if you are old school, you can request a printed copy. Head on over to http://www.regulations.gov and search for EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211 to get started.

Cheers,
Brad

 

[anchorclanker]

Hmmm.. Head on over to http://www.regulations.gov and search for EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0211 to get started.

Cheers,
Brad

I see 14,786 articles on proposed regulations, 14,261 of which are non rule making. Really, they have that much money and time on thier hands to think about 14,786 regulations??? However, few have anything to do with the EPA. Paging through it though, I can find no public comments of any kind, but perhaps I am missing it somewhere.

 

[MrUnix]

Sorry you couldn't figure it out.. of the thousands of results returned, only a handful are things such as the original cover letter for the request and some internal documents.. the vast majority are public comments, both named and anonymous, and many are really pretty interesting.. some kind of funny.

Cheers,
Brad