Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Article: Mechanics see ethanol damaging small engines
- Thread starter SmittysRV
- Start date
Fuel economy claims
Interesting article. A lot of the gas stations down here in SE Florida are including 5% to 10% ethanol. The claims are that E10 will reduce fuel economy by about 3%. However, the few times I've fueled with E10 (I avoid it like the plague) my car's fuel economy has dropped by 10% to 11%, considerably more than claimed.
Charlie Kuss
Interesting article. A lot of the gas stations down here in SE Florida are including 5% to 10% ethanol. The claims are that E10 will reduce fuel economy by about 3%. However, the few times I've fueled with E10 (I avoid it like the plague) my car's fuel economy has dropped by 10% to 11%, considerably more than claimed.
Charlie Kuss
G-force
Well Known Member
My company builds high performance engines for the marine industry and we have seen bad things the last few years from the ethanol as well, particulary California's blends. Engines that were built and dyno tuned 5 or more years ago are all of a sudden leaning down and melting holes in the pistons. Rebuilt and put back on the dyno the carb jets are having to be richened up 5 to 10 steps as a result of the new ethanol laced fuels. The new fuels also don't store as long before deterioating, gumming up, and loosing octane. It used to be standard winter storage practice to store the tanks of a boat full of fuel with a stabilizer, now days we recommend as empty as possable, deal with any water collected from condensation, and if possable, top your tanks off on the first fill of they year with as high as octane fuel as you can get, preferably 100+ octane.
Everybody, send the link to the story to your lawmakers, along with a nastygram about how you dislike E10. Also follow the links in the story to other articles about ethanol.
The ethanol lobby has lawmakers in their pockets. The only way to change things is to raise a really big stink.
In Russia, the citizens think they are at the mercy of the bigwigs and they can't do anything about it. We aren't Russians. But you have to stand up.
The ethanol lobby has lawmakers in their pockets. The only way to change things is to raise a really big stink.
In Russia, the citizens think they are at the mercy of the bigwigs and they can't do anything about it. We aren't Russians. But you have to stand up.
N941WR
Legacy Member
A friend and I are about to start testing with auto fuel and I mentioned that my truck's mileage dropped about 10% and he thought I was nuts. Good to hear I am not the only one who has seen this major drop in mileage.
The good news is, we can still find ethanol free gas here in Charlotte, at least for now.
rv9av8tr
Well Known Member
Ethanol is bad juju
The E10 that came into effect in Ore this summer has just about killed my lawn mower.... can hardly get is started anymore. Ran PERFECTLY until E10 showed up.
Dick Scott is absolutely right.... we have to get this scurge changed. Ethanol is NOT an energy policy, it's an agriculture policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The E10 that came into effect in Ore this summer has just about killed my lawn mower.... can hardly get is started anymore. Ran PERFECTLY until E10 showed up.
Dick Scott is absolutely right.... we have to get this scurge changed. Ethanol is NOT an energy policy, it's an agriculture policy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I believe it can be dictated by the State if they have an option. In Oklahoma they do have the option and the pump has to say if ethanol is present. Conoco is one of the majors around here where a lot of the stations provide ethanol free gas. And they sure do advertise it.
They also get about .10 to .20 more a gallon for it.Sorry, this morning I filled up Regular, Ethanol free for $1.99 a gallon
Now if I could just find 100LL for a price anywhere close to that.
I certainly agree that with fixed carb jetting, the addition of alcohol is a bad thing. It has to run lean. The regulators probably never considered all the other engines that use auto gasoline which could be affected. Not so much of an issue with car engines using closed loop or targeted wideband fuel injection.
I have been working with Richard in Oregon to get our mandatory ethanol law repealed. From that work I have created a new web site for a national movement to get states to prohibit ethanol blending in premium unleaded gasoline, http://www.e0pc.com. Everyone needs to understand that ethanol blending in the U.S. is now controlled by a federal RFS mandate, EISA 2007. There is information at the web site on the unintended consequences of this law. EISA 2007 is primarily a corporate welfare act for E85 and flex fuel vehicles but it is having the unintended consequence of taking all of the states E10. Any state can pass a law to prohibit the blending of ethanol in premium unleaded and it will not be in conflict with EISA 2007. I urge everyone who is concerned about this problem, especially as to how it effects aviation to join us. If a few states can get the ban passed next year it may snowball into a national movement.
Last edited:
There is a class action lawsuit in California brought by a boat owner whose boat was destroyed by the stealth ethanol program in CA, which is an agreement between CARB and EPA to put 5.7% ethanol in all of the gas. Here is an article about it, hope you join the class: http://www.marinebusinessnews.com/index.cfm?nid=43885
Webb,
Allegedly, the oil companies are supposed to post stickers on the pumps indicating that the fuel is blended. I wouldn't trust that, myself. I purchased an ethanol test kit from the EAA for $15 (including shipping). I now use it more for testing gas for my car, than for aircraft.
Locally, I now know which stations have ethanol and which don't. I wise man once said, "test, don't guess".
FYI, the oil companies are only paying about $1 per gallon for ethanol. Adding it makes them look like concerned corporate citizens AND it adds to their bottom line.
Charlie Kuss
Pump labels are a state matter. There is no requirement under EISA 2007 to label pumps with ethanol content. All six of the mandatory E10 states, except Missouri, require pumps to be accurately labeled. Some other states also require accurate ethanol pump labeling, like Utah, even though they have never passed a mandatory E10 law.
I hope folks will support our legislative movement to ban the blending of ethanol in premium unleaded gasoline and label pumps accurately. Pump labeling is a matter of public safety. There are a number of piston engine applications that should never use ethanol blended gasoline, aircraft being one of them. The ethanol test kit is the only way to be sure.
frankh
Well Known Member
So how is that going?
I was out of town when you guys were showing up in the state capitol...But I never heard what happened??
Frank
I was out of town when you guys were showing up in the state capitol...But I never heard what happened??
Frank
Frank,
I'm not sure what time you were talking about. We were there in February when they had the hearings on SB1079, the measure that "allowed" ethanol free gas to be sold for exempted uses, but I haven't been back since & haven't heard that anyone else has either. If that's the time you were referring to, it was a sham, half the legislators walked out of the hearing once the lobbyists for the ethanol industry finished their testimony.
On the good side, Vicki Walker, senator from Eugene noticed the gas mileage in her Prius dropped about 25% when E10 came along and a handful of other legislators have indicated dissatisfaction with the mandate. On the bad side, Alan Bates, the majority leader published a letter that might have been industry written, saying ethanol was wonderful and there was nothing wrong with it.
FWIW, I recently sent the following missive to all the state senators--I hope you enjoy it:
To all you legislators who think you want to save the environment, which would you rather see, the air fouled by lead or would you rather continue to mandate that everyone use your crappy, beloved ethanol?
30% of the lead emissions into the atmosphere come from leaded gas used in piston powered aircraft.
70% of the piston powered aircraft don't NEED leaded gas. We only use leaded gas because you made us use it.
Many of us used to use car gas. I did. There was no lead in car gas.
Now you have made it virtually impossible for us to do so. Ethanol.
How does it protect the environment or reduce foreign oil usage if I have to make every second flight a flight for fuel?
How does it protect the environment if that fuel contains lead?
Oh, sure you passed your feel good measure, SB 1079 to make gas uncontaminated with ethanol available, but hardly anyone carries it. I have to drive 30 miles each way to get it. Special trip; I otherwise never go that direction. Well, I could get it closer, in a 5 gallon can from Wilco for about $45, but no one does. How does that help the environment? How does that help keep us off foreign oil?
We all know your ethanol requirement is highly questionable. We know it impacts gas mileage, food prices, and the environment, for a saving not of 10% (we all know that's bogus, because the energy balance is marginal), but of substantially less and may even be costing us more energy that it provides. We all know that the main energy from ethanol is for your campaign funds, that energy coming from Pacific Ethanol and other beneficiaries of your stupid mandate.
Now it is time to get your heads out of your collective asses and do something half right--I know it is almost impossible for legislators to really do something right.
And what's the right thing? At the very least, mandate that all premium gas sold in the state contain zero ethanol. That's right, zero, none, nada. If all you do is exempt ethanol, the refineries will still use it. You need to outlaw, ban, get rid of, ethanol from premium. And allow midgrade to go to 5%, because midgrade is made at the pump by mixing premium and regular. Oh, no! We can't do that! We love ethanol! Sure you can. And you know how much you will impact ethanol usage? 15%. That's right, just 15%. The market for premium and midgrade was only 10% each in 2007, according to DOE figures. And for you legislators who didn't pass math, the midgrade would have 5% ethanol so a 10% hit on the premium and a 5% hit on the midgrade gives you a 15% difference.
So your beloved ethanol takes a 15% hit and we no longer need to put lead in the air from aircraft engines. Use your brain for once and think about it. We know for sure about the lead. The ethanol benefits are questionable. There is no way you can justify keeping ethanol in premium.
It's time for you to stand up and do the right thing. Ban ethanol from premium. First day of the next session. Do it.
I'm not sure what time you were talking about. We were there in February when they had the hearings on SB1079, the measure that "allowed" ethanol free gas to be sold for exempted uses, but I haven't been back since & haven't heard that anyone else has either. If that's the time you were referring to, it was a sham, half the legislators walked out of the hearing once the lobbyists for the ethanol industry finished their testimony.
On the good side, Vicki Walker, senator from Eugene noticed the gas mileage in her Prius dropped about 25% when E10 came along and a handful of other legislators have indicated dissatisfaction with the mandate. On the bad side, Alan Bates, the majority leader published a letter that might have been industry written, saying ethanol was wonderful and there was nothing wrong with it.
FWIW, I recently sent the following missive to all the state senators--I hope you enjoy it:
To all you legislators who think you want to save the environment, which would you rather see, the air fouled by lead or would you rather continue to mandate that everyone use your crappy, beloved ethanol?
30% of the lead emissions into the atmosphere come from leaded gas used in piston powered aircraft.
70% of the piston powered aircraft don't NEED leaded gas. We only use leaded gas because you made us use it.
Many of us used to use car gas. I did. There was no lead in car gas.
Now you have made it virtually impossible for us to do so. Ethanol.
How does it protect the environment or reduce foreign oil usage if I have to make every second flight a flight for fuel?
How does it protect the environment if that fuel contains lead?
Oh, sure you passed your feel good measure, SB 1079 to make gas uncontaminated with ethanol available, but hardly anyone carries it. I have to drive 30 miles each way to get it. Special trip; I otherwise never go that direction. Well, I could get it closer, in a 5 gallon can from Wilco for about $45, but no one does. How does that help the environment? How does that help keep us off foreign oil?
We all know your ethanol requirement is highly questionable. We know it impacts gas mileage, food prices, and the environment, for a saving not of 10% (we all know that's bogus, because the energy balance is marginal), but of substantially less and may even be costing us more energy that it provides. We all know that the main energy from ethanol is for your campaign funds, that energy coming from Pacific Ethanol and other beneficiaries of your stupid mandate.
Now it is time to get your heads out of your collective asses and do something half right--I know it is almost impossible for legislators to really do something right.
And what's the right thing? At the very least, mandate that all premium gas sold in the state contain zero ethanol. That's right, zero, none, nada. If all you do is exempt ethanol, the refineries will still use it. You need to outlaw, ban, get rid of, ethanol from premium. And allow midgrade to go to 5%, because midgrade is made at the pump by mixing premium and regular. Oh, no! We can't do that! We love ethanol! Sure you can. And you know how much you will impact ethanol usage? 15%. That's right, just 15%. The market for premium and midgrade was only 10% each in 2007, according to DOE figures. And for you legislators who didn't pass math, the midgrade would have 5% ethanol so a 10% hit on the premium and a 5% hit on the midgrade gives you a 15% difference.
So your beloved ethanol takes a 15% hit and we no longer need to put lead in the air from aircraft engines. Use your brain for once and think about it. We know for sure about the lead. The ethanol benefits are questionable. There is no way you can justify keeping ethanol in premium.
It's time for you to stand up and do the right thing. Ban ethanol from premium. First day of the next session. Do it.
Yup, if it was February, we were able to get SB-1079 passed but we were stabbed in the back by the permanently interim director of the Oregon Department of Aviation, Dan Clem. Dennis Douglas of Bend, the founder of EAA Chapter 1345, gave an excellent presentation on how just exempting premium unleaded from ethanol blending, like Missouri does, would be the best thing to do and Richard backed that up. The hearings ran long, the next day Clem testified and said that some airplanes couldn't run on unblended premium, only unblended regular, so it didn't make sense to just exempt premium. He isn't a pilot, knows nothing about airplanes and nobody to this day knows if he lied or he is just that stupid, although I heard from his commanding officer in the Air Guard that he "is dumber than a post." Unfortunately he is the governor's toady and SB-1079 passed without the premium exemption. So now we have to go back and do it right. Hope you will help us during the upcoming legislative session.
SnowbeltRV4
I'm New Here
Fuel additive for E10
I have been reading comments about the effects of E10 in cars and also the concerns about the use of the fuel in aircraft down the road.
I am a petroleum Equipment distributor and we have to deal with alcohol in the station fuel tanks. Abig problem is phase separation which occurs when water is present in the fuel tank at a station.This degrades the gasoline to where it doesn't meet spec anymore and it leaves a water-alcohol mix at the bottom of the tank that will not burn.
We have an additive that will mix with water and at a 1:1 ratio will let the water burn. If there is no water in the tank there will be no phase separation. The product also has a fuel stabilizer in it. It is called K100 and is sold at some auto parts stores, but not everywhere. I know that it is being sold in Florida. If anyone is interested in more information, contact me and I can get you the information or arrange to get you some K100 to try.
I have an RV4 and am presently testing it with pro-seal and the sloshing compound used in the tanks. So far there has been no indication of it affecting the them.
The company has not endorsed it for aviation use for the usual reasons.
E-mail me at [email protected]
I have been reading comments about the effects of E10 in cars and also the concerns about the use of the fuel in aircraft down the road.
I am a petroleum Equipment distributor and we have to deal with alcohol in the station fuel tanks. Abig problem is phase separation which occurs when water is present in the fuel tank at a station.This degrades the gasoline to where it doesn't meet spec anymore and it leaves a water-alcohol mix at the bottom of the tank that will not burn.
We have an additive that will mix with water and at a 1:1 ratio will let the water burn. If there is no water in the tank there will be no phase separation. The product also has a fuel stabilizer in it. It is called K100 and is sold at some auto parts stores, but not everywhere. I know that it is being sold in Florida. If anyone is interested in more information, contact me and I can get you the information or arrange to get you some K100 to try.
I have an RV4 and am presently testing it with pro-seal and the sloshing compound used in the tanks. So far there has been no indication of it affecting the them.
The company has not endorsed it for aviation use for the usual reasons.
E-mail me at [email protected]
Explain "targeted wideband fuel injection." please. It has been my contention all along that the reason that we are seeing mileage decreases in excess of what the energy content of ethanol would indicate is because the computerized fuel injection systems are not handling E10 correctly. Do you know of any reports that have studied what is happening in these computerized systems. I have googled until my fingers hurt and I have been unable to find any studies about what the computers are doing. I also don't know why nobody has done a large, statistically significant, independent test for fuel mileage between clear auto gas and E10. The claim is that ethanol is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil but we have no way to measure that statement at all, and if you listen to the anecdotal evidence it isn't happening and we may even be using more gasoline than before the mandatory E10 programs. You would have thought somebody would have actually developed a way of measuring this before selling the whole country on mandatory E10.
