What damage can be expected from gasohol in cars made before 2000?
Damage From Gasohol
- Thread starter borgward
- Start date
- Status
"The Ricardo, Inc. engineering analysis reviewed fuel-system hardware changes from 1994 to 2000 resulting from stricter emission controls and looked at E15's impacts. The engineers at the private firm also disassembled some old fuel systems to examine them for the effects of prolonged E10 exposure. They didn't see any. The report concluded that the increase in ethanol content from 10 percent to 15 percent would have "no significant effect" on vehicle drivability, catalytic-converter durability, or on-board diagnostic systems of car models from 1994-2000. The study did not include testing of the fuel blend on older cars.
Pure ethanol can damage cars that aren't designed to handle it. On its own, the grain alcohol can cause galvanic corrosion, swelling of rubber components and rust or corrosion on certain metals, because of its ability to hold water. Flexible-fuel vehicles incorporate materials that can handle the 85 percent ethanol—E85—mixture sold at some gas stations. The E10 mixture is now standard at over 90 percent of gas stations in the U.S., and some states even mandate its use by law.
Ethanol at lower concentrations can still affect the air-fuel ratio of your car. Most modern engine-management systems (EMS) can compensate for small changes in the fuel mixture, but the EMS on older cars can get confused and trigger the Check Engine light.
While it's straightforward to compare how high concentrations of ethanol in gasoline affect cars versus low concentrations, the move from 10 percent to 15 percent is much more subtle. To be sure that the transition is safe for cars not specifically designed for E15—but work okay today with E10—the EPA is testing them."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alt...-older-vehicles
Pure ethanol can damage cars that aren't designed to handle it. On its own, the grain alcohol can cause galvanic corrosion, swelling of rubber components and rust or corrosion on certain metals, because of its ability to hold water. Flexible-fuel vehicles incorporate materials that can handle the 85 percent ethanol—E85—mixture sold at some gas stations. The E10 mixture is now standard at over 90 percent of gas stations in the U.S., and some states even mandate its use by law.
Ethanol at lower concentrations can still affect the air-fuel ratio of your car. Most modern engine-management systems (EMS) can compensate for small changes in the fuel mixture, but the EMS on older cars can get confused and trigger the Check Engine light.
While it's straightforward to compare how high concentrations of ethanol in gasoline affect cars versus low concentrations, the move from 10 percent to 15 percent is much more subtle. To be sure that the transition is safe for cars not specifically designed for E15—but work okay today with E10—the EPA is testing them."
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/alt...-older-vehicles
The thread title made me think of this:
If the gov. is going to continue to force E10 on us, the least they could do is to force it to be made from something other than corn which it can be.
My company truck is E85 rated and I seen it in Gainesville. So I filled the tank. The truck ran absolutely terrible on the stuff. It was about .15 a gallon cheaper. My fuel mileage went way down, so I doubt it evened out. Just a bunch of tree hugging Hippie [censored]. But, I had to try it, before I could complain about it.
The only real benifit of e 85 is to the hot rod community. Its 100 octane is good up to 12-1 cr. In a high compression engine with a more advanced timing curve it will run good. The problem with alky is its hard to burn and doesn't have as many btu as gas. So in a gas engine its gonna suck! Even in a race engine it sux compared to gas. Its cheap but you have to use twice as much. Now when 112 Sunoco is $12 a gallon and alky is $2 its still cheaper. But when your paying $3 for 85% alky and running it in a low compression gas engine you are going to be disappointed unless you throw some boost to it.
Originally Posted By: borgward
What damage can be expected from gasohol in cars made before 2000?
Dryed up seals. But running an ucl will help
What damage can be expected from gasohol in cars made before 2000?
Dryed up seals. But running an ucl will help
Kestas
Staff member
Originally Posted By: Donald
If the gov. is going to continue to force E10 on us, the least they could do is to force it to be made from something other than corn which it can be.
Good point!
If the gov. is going to continue to force E10 on us, the least they could do is to force it to be made from something other than corn which it can be.
Good point!
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Originally Posted By: Donald
If the gov. is going to continue to force E10 on us, the least they could do is to force it to be made from something other than corn which it can be.
Good point!
Absolutely. The corn farmers LOVE the E10 mandate, but making food into fuel never sounds like a smart idea...
Originally Posted By: Donald
If the gov. is going to continue to force E10 on us, the least they could do is to force it to be made from something other than corn which it can be.
Good point!
Absolutely. The corn farmers LOVE the E10 mandate, but making food into fuel never sounds like a smart idea...
I use E-free whenever possible. I travel a lot and I am always hunting stations and planning my stops according to pure-gas.org
Quote:
What damage can be expected from gasohol in cars made before 2000?
E10 has been a normal and expected fuel at any and all ordinary gas stations in America since at least 1988 and therefore 100% of domestic market automobiles have been manufactured with that in mind. They would not sell a car which could fail as a result of a naive motorist just filling up a a normal gas station with gasoline as its sold. Zero damage can be expected.
Originally Posted By: volk06
E85 can be pretty hard on the rubber and seals. Also of your engine is not designed for it, it could run rough and not burn efficiently.
There is no minimum concentration for solvency, if ethanol would dissolve or damage a type of rubber at 85% concentration then it would also dissolve or damage that same rubber at 10% concentration (albeit more slowly). Since we know that all cars since at least 1988 were manufactured with the understanding that they would almost definitely burn E10 for the majority of their lives, the rubbers used were necessarily ethanol compatible.
Ethanol's ability to mix with water, and the electrical conductivity of the resulting mixture can result in some galvanic corrosion in vehicles which use ungrounded, multi-metal fuel systems - for example I have read that fuel rails in older Ford Ranger and Explorers have been damaged by what the owners report as long term E85 fuel use in humid areas (where large amounts of water can be absorbed into the fuel from the atmosphere) .
Originally Posted By: Donald
If the gov. is going to continue to force E10 on us, the least they could do is to force it to be made from something other than corn which it can be.
Quote:
The corn farmers LOVE the E10 mandate, but making food into fuel never sounds like a smart idea...
The corn that is used for E10 is chiefly SH-variety, which isn't the kind you eat. It is named "corn" and it looks a lot like the corn you eat, but it's not edible corn. So they're not "MAKING FUEL OUT OF FOOD OMG!!" . On top of that, the byproduct of ethanol production from grain corn is DDG, an important feed stock for animals which we then use for food. Even if they flushed all of the ethanol down the toilet, it would still be necessary to grow and harvest non-edible SH- corn and produce DDG feed because it is ideally suited, nutritious livestock food that stores, dispenses and distributes more easily than whole corn and is more healthful for the animals than eating whole, full-sugar corn meal all the time.
The making-food-into-fuel argument is bunk, guys... I'm sure someone with an oil well on their property had a hand in spreading it around.
Oxygenated fuel was mandated by the EPA through 2006 because it reduces emissions, one only needs to google photos of pollution in China to see why that's a good thing. Prior to inclusion of ethanol, the most common oxygenator was MTBE which turned out to be highly toxic - I think I prefer ethanol thanks.
For what it's worth, I have zero financial stake in this topic - I just feel that it's important to have complete data when discussing something so that valid decisions can be made. Thanks for reading.
What damage can be expected from gasohol in cars made before 2000?
E10 has been a normal and expected fuel at any and all ordinary gas stations in America since at least 1988 and therefore 100% of domestic market automobiles have been manufactured with that in mind. They would not sell a car which could fail as a result of a naive motorist just filling up a a normal gas station with gasoline as its sold. Zero damage can be expected.
Originally Posted By: volk06
E85 can be pretty hard on the rubber and seals. Also of your engine is not designed for it, it could run rough and not burn efficiently.
There is no minimum concentration for solvency, if ethanol would dissolve or damage a type of rubber at 85% concentration then it would also dissolve or damage that same rubber at 10% concentration (albeit more slowly). Since we know that all cars since at least 1988 were manufactured with the understanding that they would almost definitely burn E10 for the majority of their lives, the rubbers used were necessarily ethanol compatible.
Ethanol's ability to mix with water, and the electrical conductivity of the resulting mixture can result in some galvanic corrosion in vehicles which use ungrounded, multi-metal fuel systems - for example I have read that fuel rails in older Ford Ranger and Explorers have been damaged by what the owners report as long term E85 fuel use in humid areas (where large amounts of water can be absorbed into the fuel from the atmosphere) .
Originally Posted By: Donald
If the gov. is going to continue to force E10 on us, the least they could do is to force it to be made from something other than corn which it can be.
Quote:
The corn farmers LOVE the E10 mandate, but making food into fuel never sounds like a smart idea...
The corn that is used for E10 is chiefly SH-variety, which isn't the kind you eat. It is named "corn" and it looks a lot like the corn you eat, but it's not edible corn. So they're not "MAKING FUEL OUT OF FOOD OMG!!" . On top of that, the byproduct of ethanol production from grain corn is DDG, an important feed stock for animals which we then use for food. Even if they flushed all of the ethanol down the toilet, it would still be necessary to grow and harvest non-edible SH- corn and produce DDG feed because it is ideally suited, nutritious livestock food that stores, dispenses and distributes more easily than whole corn and is more healthful for the animals than eating whole, full-sugar corn meal all the time.
The making-food-into-fuel argument is bunk, guys... I'm sure someone with an oil well on their property had a hand in spreading it around.
Oxygenated fuel was mandated by the EPA through 2006 because it reduces emissions, one only needs to google photos of pollution in China to see why that's a good thing. Prior to inclusion of ethanol, the most common oxygenator was MTBE which turned out to be highly toxic - I think I prefer ethanol thanks.
For what it's worth, I have zero financial stake in this topic - I just feel that it's important to have complete data when discussing something so that valid decisions can be made. Thanks for reading.
Last edited:
It does, on a gram-per-mile basis? Do you have any links to studies that show it? How about total emissions that include the production, storage and transport of the ethanol, including disposal of the by-products?
Why do we need oxygenates in gasoline at all?
Oh and China's air pollution isn't primarily due to gasoline. Good red herring but try again.
Originally Posted By: shovel
Oxygenated fuel was mandated by the EPA through 2006 because it reduces emissions, one only needs to google photos of pollution in China to see why that's a good thing. Prior to inclusion of ethanol, the most common oxygenator was MTBE which turned out to be highly toxic - I think I prefer ethanol thanks.
Why do we need oxygenates in gasoline at all?
Oh and China's air pollution isn't primarily due to gasoline. Good red herring but try again.
Originally Posted By: shovel
Oxygenated fuel was mandated by the EPA through 2006 because it reduces emissions, one only needs to google photos of pollution in China to see why that's a good thing. Prior to inclusion of ethanol, the most common oxygenator was MTBE which turned out to be highly toxic - I think I prefer ethanol thanks.
Bunk? Haha, explain to me how the rise in food corn prices isn't a result of crop displacement to the non-food kind you mention. Both compete for the same, limited farm land.
Other commodities besides corn have also risen in price due to displacement.
Originally Posted By: shovel
The corn that is used for E10 is chiefly SH-variety, which isn't the kind you eat. It is named "corn" and it looks a lot like the corn you eat, but it's not edible corn. So they're not "MAKING FUEL OUT OF FOOD OMG!!" . On top of that, the byproduct of ethanol production from grain corn is DDG, an important feed stock for animals which we then use for food. Even if they flushed all of the ethanol down the toilet, it would still be necessary to grow and harvest non-edible SH- corn and produce DDG feed because it is ideally suited, nutritious livestock food that stores, dispenses and distributes more easily than whole corn and is more healthful for the animals than eating whole, full-sugar corn meal all the time.
The making-food-into-fuel argument is bunk, guys... I'm sure someone with an oil well on their property had a hand in spreading it around.
Other commodities besides corn have also risen in price due to displacement.
Originally Posted By: shovel
The corn that is used for E10 is chiefly SH-variety, which isn't the kind you eat. It is named "corn" and it looks a lot like the corn you eat, but it's not edible corn. So they're not "MAKING FUEL OUT OF FOOD OMG!!" . On top of that, the byproduct of ethanol production from grain corn is DDG, an important feed stock for animals which we then use for food. Even if they flushed all of the ethanol down the toilet, it would still be necessary to grow and harvest non-edible SH- corn and produce DDG feed because it is ideally suited, nutritious livestock food that stores, dispenses and distributes more easily than whole corn and is more healthful for the animals than eating whole, full-sugar corn meal all the time.
The making-food-into-fuel argument is bunk, guys... I'm sure someone with an oil well on their property had a hand in spreading it around.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
It does, on a gram-per-mile basis? Do you have any links to studies that show it? How about total emissions that include the production, storage and transport of the ethanol, including disposal of the by-products?
Why do we need oxygenates in gasoline at all?
Oh and China's air pollution isn't primarily due to gasoline. Good red herring but try again.
Originally Posted By: shovel
Oxygenated fuel was mandated by the EPA through 2006 because it reduces emissions, one only needs to google photos of pollution in China to see why that's a good thing. Prior to inclusion of ethanol, the most common oxygenator was MTBE which turned out to be highly toxic - I think I prefer ethanol thanks.
I think it can be considered self-evident that the reason the EPA exists is to author policy based on the protection of the environment. You might say they're something of an Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00102200290021353#.UuLRZbTn_Dd
This is what the EPA has to say about oxygenated fuel http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/winterprograms/index.htm - They seem to think it matters, it's their job to think it matters, and it would be awfully cynical to think that everyone who works at the EPA just shows up at work thinking, "HEY LET'S COME UP WITH SOME NONSENSE SO WE CAN SCREW PEOPLE TODAY!"
I never suggested that 100% of China's pollution problem is motor fuel, I did suggest that EPA measures are what reduce and prevent that level of pollution and that fuel programs such as adding oxygenators is one such program. Please don't allow pedantism to cloud conversation.
It does, on a gram-per-mile basis? Do you have any links to studies that show it? How about total emissions that include the production, storage and transport of the ethanol, including disposal of the by-products?
Why do we need oxygenates in gasoline at all?
Oh and China's air pollution isn't primarily due to gasoline. Good red herring but try again.
Originally Posted By: shovel
Oxygenated fuel was mandated by the EPA through 2006 because it reduces emissions, one only needs to google photos of pollution in China to see why that's a good thing. Prior to inclusion of ethanol, the most common oxygenator was MTBE which turned out to be highly toxic - I think I prefer ethanol thanks.
I think it can be considered self-evident that the reason the EPA exists is to author policy based on the protection of the environment. You might say they're something of an Environmental Protection Agency.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00102200290021353#.UuLRZbTn_Dd
This is what the EPA has to say about oxygenated fuel http://www.epa.gov/otaq/fuels/gasolinefuels/winterprograms/index.htm - They seem to think it matters, it's their job to think it matters, and it would be awfully cynical to think that everyone who works at the EPA just shows up at work thinking, "HEY LET'S COME UP WITH SOME NONSENSE SO WE CAN SCREW PEOPLE TODAY!"
I never suggested that 100% of China's pollution problem is motor fuel, I did suggest that EPA measures are what reduce and prevent that level of pollution and that fuel programs such as adding oxygenators is one such program. Please don't allow pedantism to cloud conversation.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Bunk? Haha, explain to me how the rise in food corn prices isn't a result of crop displacement to the non-food kind you mention. Both compete for the same, limited farm land.
Other commodities besides corn have also risen in price due to displacement.
According to the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture, in this memo: http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmg...tter_61208.pdf
"During the first 4 months of 2008, the all food CPI increased by
4.8 percent, with increased ethanol and biodiesel consumption accounting for only about 4-5 percent of the total increase while other factors accounted for 95-96 percent of the Increase. " ... so what's the other 95+% increase? Looks like food demand, weather, and speculators. Yeah, speculators.
The same agencies claim "We estimate that, if we had not been blending ethanol into gasoline, gasoline prices would be between 20 cents per gallon to 35 cents per gallon higher." - well, what would a 10% increase in fuel cost do to the price of food that has to be shipped to you? Not to mention, how much less would your customers (whatever industry you're in) buy from you if they had to spend 10% more on their fuel?
It's not taking food off your plate. Speculators are raising prices and a growing population is raising demand.
Yes, all agricultural products inflate each's other' price by displacement. I'm not entirely sure I understand what part of that makes fuel ethanol not OK while floor wax and product packaging and non-bentonite kitty litter (also derived from crops) are OK.
Of those things, if corn based floor wax makes your grocer's building maintenance costs lower vs. another impossible-to-eat alternative source, then the also-corn-based products in that store will cost slightly less.
Likewise if the cost of fuel for the farmer, for the grocer, for the butcher, for the employees of those folks, etc is cheaper, then the prices of everything they sell can also be cheaper.. meanwhile all of the consumers can take the >5% less they're spending on fuel and buy more stuff while they're at it.
So as illustrated above, we spent an estimated 11 billion on fuel corn to save an estimated 34 billion in fuel costs. If you're going to talk about the "inflated cost of corn products" then you need to see the other side of that, the deflated cost of literally every product that relies in any way on internal combustion engines. Including corn itself, which is harvested by internal combustion powered machines and delivered to market similarly. Using figures previously noted above, if the food price index rose ~4% and just 5% of that increase could be blamed on fuel ethanol's impact on the price of corn, then 5% of 4% is 0.2%. You're seeing about a 0.2% increase in food price index based on corn ethanol.
Likewise from the same memo, if gasoline is $3.80/gallon but *would* be $4.00-$4.15/gallon without ethanol's presence in the fuel market, that's more like a 5+% decrease in fuel price.
Going with simple, front-end dollar amounts, according to Bundle.com we spent around $2200 per household on gasoline in 2009 and we spent around $6500 per household on food.
5% of $2200 is $110 and 0.2% of $6500 is $13.
Based on this quick estimate, we save about 97 net dollars per year per household because of corn derived fuel ethanol at face value.
Bunk? Haha, explain to me how the rise in food corn prices isn't a result of crop displacement to the non-food kind you mention. Both compete for the same, limited farm land.
Other commodities besides corn have also risen in price due to displacement.
According to the Department of Energy and the Department of Agriculture, in this memo: http://www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmg...tter_61208.pdf
"During the first 4 months of 2008, the all food CPI increased by
4.8 percent, with increased ethanol and biodiesel consumption accounting for only about 4-5 percent of the total increase while other factors accounted for 95-96 percent of the Increase. " ... so what's the other 95+% increase? Looks like food demand, weather, and speculators. Yeah, speculators.
The same agencies claim "We estimate that, if we had not been blending ethanol into gasoline, gasoline prices would be between 20 cents per gallon to 35 cents per gallon higher." - well, what would a 10% increase in fuel cost do to the price of food that has to be shipped to you? Not to mention, how much less would your customers (whatever industry you're in) buy from you if they had to spend 10% more on their fuel?
It's not taking food off your plate. Speculators are raising prices and a growing population is raising demand.
Yes, all agricultural products inflate each's other' price by displacement. I'm not entirely sure I understand what part of that makes fuel ethanol not OK while floor wax and product packaging and non-bentonite kitty litter (also derived from crops) are OK.
Of those things, if corn based floor wax makes your grocer's building maintenance costs lower vs. another impossible-to-eat alternative source, then the also-corn-based products in that store will cost slightly less.
Likewise if the cost of fuel for the farmer, for the grocer, for the butcher, for the employees of those folks, etc is cheaper, then the prices of everything they sell can also be cheaper.. meanwhile all of the consumers can take the >5% less they're spending on fuel and buy more stuff while they're at it.
So as illustrated above, we spent an estimated 11 billion on fuel corn to save an estimated 34 billion in fuel costs. If you're going to talk about the "inflated cost of corn products" then you need to see the other side of that, the deflated cost of literally every product that relies in any way on internal combustion engines. Including corn itself, which is harvested by internal combustion powered machines and delivered to market similarly. Using figures previously noted above, if the food price index rose ~4% and just 5% of that increase could be blamed on fuel ethanol's impact on the price of corn, then 5% of 4% is 0.2%. You're seeing about a 0.2% increase in food price index based on corn ethanol.
Likewise from the same memo, if gasoline is $3.80/gallon but *would* be $4.00-$4.15/gallon without ethanol's presence in the fuel market, that's more like a 5+% decrease in fuel price.
Going with simple, front-end dollar amounts, according to Bundle.com we spent around $2200 per household on gasoline in 2009 and we spent around $6500 per household on food.
5% of $2200 is $110 and 0.2% of $6500 is $13.
Based on this quick estimate, we save about 97 net dollars per year per household because of corn derived fuel ethanol at face value.
I'll add a person experience to this just in case the OP is interested. I have a 1994 Mazda Protege with the BP DOHC engine with a manual transmission. I bought it new and take care of it really well. I currently have about 205,000 miles on it. I changed the oil yesterday. For a small amount of time, ethanol was all that could be found here. I had no choice but to try it. After a lot of repairs, my car started running again. It literally wouldn't run on the stuff at the end. Trying ethanol was a disaster. At about the same time, stations around here started offering non-ethanol fuel again. When I asked some of these station owners as to why they were either switching back to non-ethanol or offering both, customer complaints about the ethanol fuel was the answer I got back.
A friend of mine has a boyfriend that works at a dealership as a mechanic. They had a influx if repair jobs because of ethanol. Her ex husband also works at a regular car repair place and they had the same. Filters and damaged fuel pumps seemed to be the biggest issues.
Personally, I don't give a hoot what the EPA or any other government agency says. Based on personal experience and reports of folks that have to deal with the aftermath, I have no plans to put ethanol of any kind in my car again. Period. I wouldn't recommend anyone else to try it unless they are prepared for the repairs either.
A friend of mine has a boyfriend that works at a dealership as a mechanic. They had a influx if repair jobs because of ethanol. Her ex husband also works at a regular car repair place and they had the same. Filters and damaged fuel pumps seemed to be the biggest issues.
Personally, I don't give a hoot what the EPA or any other government agency says. Based on personal experience and reports of folks that have to deal with the aftermath, I have no plans to put ethanol of any kind in my car again. Period. I wouldn't recommend anyone else to try it unless they are prepared for the repairs either.
Originally Posted By: kschachn
Why do we need oxygenates in gasoline at all?
Why do we need octane-enhancements in gasoline?
Why do we need oxygenates in gasoline at all?
Why do we need octane-enhancements in gasoline?
Originally Posted By: shovel
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00102200290021353#.UuLRZbTn_Dd div>
Do you understand the nature of the testing in laminar flames, n-heptane and the production of PAH and how it allies to a modern catalyst equipped engine ?
Probably not, or you wouldn't have provided the "evidence"
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00102200290021353#.UuLRZbTn_Dd div>
Do you understand the nature of the testing in laminar flames, n-heptane and the production of PAH and how it allies to a modern catalyst equipped engine ?
Probably not, or you wouldn't have provided the "evidence"
- Status
