Ethanol in gas

[Hootbro]

Originally Posted By: Kestas
I'm amazed with all the people who say that E10 is no problem with stored equipment, in spite of all the empirical data we have.


Empirical data is not absolute and does not always tell the whole truth or paint the whole picture.

People are more prone to publicly complain than those that are just content and satisfied with a product. So a vocal minority can skew perception that things are worse when if fact the vast majority are content have no reason to publicly state as such.

 

[SteveSRT8]

It would seem that the marine industry has been hard hit by ethanol.

Nothing that a bit of stabilizer won't fix, but marina mechs are busy all the time with carb rebuilds.

 

[Quest]

main difference between marine industry and others is that one operates close to moisture (water) where moisture and water is a common problem.

With this in mind: it's of no surprise that marine related engines, etc. typically suffers more with gasoline-related issues, and bet ya phase-separation is more prevalent as a result.

I have been (on and off, until about 3yrs ago) helping with a friend of ours with a fishing boot moored @ the marinas. Fuel station @ the marinas come with a lot of water within due to submerged fuel tanks and poor handling of refuelling (drop nozzles into the water, refuel-tank handler dropped their hose into the water before attaching to the tank, etc.)

We have a lot of water in the tank as a result. I'd typically add heet into it to help absorb the water as much as possible, and whenever possible: we get six 5gal cans from land gas stations to top up the fuel tank and dope it with sta-bil (double-dosage, red) before we leave it behind @ the moorage.

Engine and carb good for a few years in between scheduled dry-docking and engine servicing, no corrosions perceivable (stored @ moorage typically 6 mnths of every year, salt water bay).

Q.

 

[Bluestream]

Keep in mind that a 200cc OPE engine that puts out 5 horsepower is not going to be affected much by E10. Nor is some 9.9 HP 2 stroke outboard motor. But my 600cc Rotax snowmobile engine puts out 120hp in stock form. Some 800cc engines are putting out 160HP in stock form. These engines run fine when everything is just right. When one thing going wrong, they burn down. The other (snowmobile) forms are full of burn down stories. As the E10 absorbs moisture, it eventually freezes and the ice crystals can clog up main jets and cause lean burn down. Drag the machine into the shop to try and find the reason for the failure and the ice crystals have melted and the reason for failure is never found or blamed on some other cause had had nothing to do with it.


Another piston failure issue that is raising its ugly head is pre detonation due to poor fuel quality (read Ethanol blends). With E10, Octane is lost over time and poor quality fuel stop fill ups leading to minor engine detonation. Severity not enough to be heard or damage piston crown or combustion chamber but takes a toll on piston rings and anti-rotation pins. Once failure has occurred, operator/owner/technician second guesses to understand the root cause for failure. Replacement piston purchase will have little effect on rebuild durability if same fuel purchase practices aren't modified. The sale of Ethanol based slop should be controlled because the only folks profiting from this is: big oil having to refine less crude, Corn lobby with the EPA's help having to directly influence government mandated Ethanol percentage. Fuel selection should be limited to purchasing as much fuel as needed per excursion, not storing fuel longer than 3 weeks, adding ethanol treatments to fuel regularly, and adding octane enhancers (read racing fuel) to fuel on high compression ratio racing/high performance engines. This scenario will get worse as Ethanol ratios increase.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
It would seem that the marine industry has been hard hit by ethanol.


That's why I deliberately excused the marine industry from my rant. With the moisture boats face, well, it can't be easy.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Bluestream
The sale of Ethanol based slop should be controlled because the only folks profiting from this is: big oil having to refine less crude, Corn lobby with the EPA's help having to directly influence government mandated Ethanol percentage.


We're in Canada, though. E10 has been here for decades, and the bulk of ethanol, out here at least, is from feed grain wheat that is still used for silage after ethanol production.

Political considerations aside (and off topic here), ethanol has been around for a long time and isn't going away soon. The American companies Ford, GM, and Chrysler have marketed ethanol compliant (and ethanol trouble free) vehicles for a long time. Why can the American company Polaris and the Canadian company Bombardier not do the same thing?

The automotive sector relegated the carb to the trash bin of history for a variety of reasons. Fuel line quality has also dramatically improved, with no small part due to the higher pressure needed in fuel injection. Like I said, if the small engine builders would spend more than 75 cents on a carb and fuel line, some of these problems might actually disappear.

I'd rather spend twice as much money on a snowblower that's not going to need a carb rebuild every two seasons.

 

[Bluestream]

Canada is a net exporter of energy and has no need to use ethanol. (In my area, we have only had it for a few years.) The only reason they use it is so Canadian Farmers are put on an equal footing with US farmers. Ethanol from sugar care produces 4X the output as from corn. That may make sense if you can grow the cane. There is more energy used to grow the corn and produce the ethanol than what the ethanol gives.

To me it has no redeeming values, and I am glad I have the choice not to use it.

BTW, Bombardier is no longer a Canadian company. BRP Recreations products as it is now known is 51% owned by Bain Capital of Boston MA

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/arti...gets-as-planned

 

[Donald]

Originally Posted By: Bluestream
Ethanol from sugar care produces 4X the output as from corn. That may make sense if you can grow the cane. There is more energy used to grow the corn and produce the ethanol than what the ethanol gives.


As stated that comment is not true. Ethanol at a certain %, has the same power output whether its from corn or sugar cane or jelly beans. (Maybe we should make ethanol from the black jelly beans I hate). Now maybe its true that cost wise or producing wise its easier/cheaper to make it from sugar cane than corn. There are many plants it could be made from. Corn is not a good choice. Another dumb thing done by this country pushed by corn producer lobbyists.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Bluestream
The only reason they use it is so Canadian Farmers are put on an equal footing with US farmers. Ethanol from sugar care produces 4X the output as from corn. That may make sense if you can grow the cane. There is more energy used to grow the corn and produce the ethanol than what the ethanol gives.

To me it has no redeeming values, and I am glad I have the choice not to use it.

BTW, Bombardier is no longer a Canadian company. BRP Recreations products as it is now known is 51% owned by Bain Capital of Boston MA


Either way, Bombardier is a North American company and has some work to do to ensure ethanol compliant engines. I don't know what they use in Ontario to create ethanol, but here, it's feed grade wheat. There is no corn to speak of here. What's left after ethanol production is still used as cattle feed. No subsidies, no politics, no nothing.

Regardless of whether cane sugar, corn, or wheat produces the most ethanol is irrelevant here. We don't grow sugar cane in Saskatchewan, nor a lot of corn. You purchase feed grade (not human food grade) wheat, you process it, and sell the remnants as cattle feed. There is more than enough feed grain to go around each year - nature ensures that.

A farmer plants wheat, and the grain purchasing company decides what grade it is by examining and testing it. The farmer doesn't "choose" to grow feed grade, since that choice is simply out of his hands, and the purchasing companies don't have any incentive to arbitrarily lower a sample's grade, since they prefer to sell the better stuff in high volume sales.

In any case, the politics of the matter is irrelevant and off-topic and varies widely by region within a country, and between countries. It is here, and automakers have dealt with it. It's time for small engine manufacturers to do the same.

 

[MNgopher]

I have to ask since Bluestream mentioned the issues with high output snowmobile engines and the like, but why do we see the same issues with engines run on non-oxy (non ethanol) fuel that is readily available and sold for those applications in this market? Could it be that the manufacturers have simply made choices for higher output at the expense of durability and longetivity?

It is just amusing to me see the same lines and stories put out there about how its always the fault of the ethanol when the folks I know who have rotten luck with that type of equipment always run non-ethanol fuels here, and still have the same issues. Food for thought...

 

[tommygunn]

Originally Posted By: Garak
The automotive sector relegated the carb to the trash bin of history for a variety of reasons.


Thanks to Garak all I can hear is the faint whispers in the back of my memory of my father ranting about how fuel injection is manufacturers over complicating cars and how nothing will ever be easy to fix ever again and how we shouldn't fix a "good thing".

I think ethanol is great. You wanna complain about it only being affordable when its subsidized...

GASOLINE is subsidized to the moon and back and nobody seems keen on mentioning that alongside ethanol.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher
It is just amusing to me see the same lines and stories put out there about how its always the fault of the ethanol when the folks I know who have rotten luck with that type of equipment always run non-ethanol fuels here, and still have the same issues. Food for thought...


I agree 100%. Most snowmobiles recommend, if not outright require, premium fuel. Up here, Shell, Esso, Petro-Canada, Coop, and even Husky/Mohawk (who introduced E10 here in the first place, long before any laws on the matter existed) market pure gasoline premium. Yet, these "ethanol related" problems still exist for people not using E10 in the first place. The other day, I was talking to one of the top small engine mechanics in this city. He was unaware that pure gas was still available if one buys premium.

I've run pure gas in my snowblower for as long as I can remember. I've also battled with that carb for as long as I can remember.

Originally Posted By: tommygunn
Thanks to Garak all I can hear is the faint whispers in the back of my memory of my father ranting about how fuel injection is manufacturers over complicating cars and how nothing will ever be easy to fix ever again and how we shouldn't fix a "good thing".


My dad was pretty old school when it came to mechanics, but he knew when something was going the way of the dodo. He was the first to cheer when points disappeared (and he could bury his timing light in a corner of the garage for much less frequent usage) and when fuel injection became standard.

Again, compare the automotive sector to the OPE sector. Despite subsidies and environmental cheerleading, the electric (i.e. rechargeable) car is still in its infancy. That's in no small part due to continual, incremental advances in the gasoline engine. They work better, work more reliably, require less maintenance, and generally consume less fuel than they did in the past, with a few hiccups here and there.

Look at the OPE sector. Rechargeable OPE is all over the place, and doing quite well. With respect to gas OPE, many things have remained unchanged in fifty years. Sure, they might put an electric start on a lawnmower or snowblower, but the engine and carb are the same as they were decades ago, if not worse.

Back in the late 1980s, my dad and I were bored on the farm one day after harvest. There was an old grain auger sitting in our scrap heap. It hadn't been run since around 1970. It was just dragged into the scrap heap and left there. We decided to get it running. We put in fresh oil, cleaned the spark plug, rinsed out the gas tank with fresh gas and refilled it, and poured a bit of gas down the carb. We started it with no problems, and it ran very well.

Try that with a "modern" piece of OPE with a 75 cent carb and fuel lines. Leave it outside, uncovered, with no Stabil, without draining gas, without fogging, and walk away for 25 years. See how easy it is to start.

But no, it's all ethanol's fault.

 

[Cujet]

I own a considerable number of small engines and equipment. Each and every one has had a significant failure due to ethanol in the fuel. From my lowly Echo trimmer to my mighty John Deere garden tractor. New equipment does not seem to be immune either.

I'm really starting to feel like somebody owes me. I've spent many, many days and money repairing items that should not have needed it.

My JD tractor had to have the entire body removed to pull the fuel tank and replace the entire run of fuel line. It made it 5 years! Yet, my 13 year old car is fine.

I'm sending an invoice to the EPA.

 

[Blaze]

I dont use that junk fuel in anything. Small town (Colville) near me sells ethanol free fuel.

 

[MNgopher]

So is it the EPA's fault the manufacturer used junk hose/fittings/etc... on its equipment that lasted long enough to get the unit past its warranty using a legal fuel?

OPE, like just about everything else in life anymore is all about building to a price point, and cutting corners so that it lasts just long enough to satisfy an emmissions requirement or a warranty requirement.

One of the more interesting studies I read dealt with OPE and the effect of E10 fuels on their operation. Interestingly, many of the pieces of equipment used failed before making it to their EPA emissions compliance period. (As an example, most push lawnmower engines are designed to meet a requirement it will meet the EPA emissions targets for 125 hours. For my push lawnmower use, thats 5 years of use). That was irrespective of whether the fuel was E10 or "pure" gas. (Yes, I am aware of studies showing problems with higher blends of ethanol, particularly in marine applications).

Is it the chicken or the egg? The fuel or the manufacturers who have to cut corners to compete on price based on the desirs of us as consumers?

 

[Bluestream]

Originally Posted By: Donald
As stated that comment is not true. Ethanol at a certain %, has the same power output whether its from corn or sugar cane or jelly beans. (Maybe we should make ethanol from the black jelly beans I hate). Now maybe its true that cost wise or producing wise its easier/cheaper to make it from sugar cane than corn. There are many plants it could be made from. Corn is not a good choice. Another dumb thing done by this country pushed by corn producer lobbyists.


Yes, what I meant to say is you can make 4X as much ethanol from cane as you can from corn, not that the ethanol is any better.

Garek, 95% of the ethanol in NA is made from corn. Your Sask wheat ethanol must be the other 5%. In Ontario, we have to import corn from the US to make the 5% ethanol used the government mandates. Another crazy policy.. We are literally burning our own food supply and history will show what a mistake that was. Just like the lost race on Easter Island. This is getting off topic.

As far as the sled Mfgrs building an engine t run on E10, they can do that do problem. The issue is that a high performance engine needs a high performance fuel to go with it. It won't perform on [censored] fuel, you cant make it do that.

Ethanol is a great octane booster, but because it loses that octane over time and it phase separates, it is not a good fuel for high performance 2-strokes. And those who say this is not a new problem with 2-stokes are correct, however it is far more common that it ever was with pure gas. I guess only someone who is deeply involved with this sport can see that.

 

[clarklawnscape]

Originally Posted By: MNgopher


OPE, like just about everything else in life anymore is all about building to a price point, and cutting corners so that it lasts just long enough to satisfy an emmissions requirement or a warranty requirement.

One of the more interesting studies I read dealt with OPE and the effect of E10 fuels on their operation. Interestingly, many of the pieces of equipment used failed before making it to their EPA emissions compliance period. (As an example, most push lawnmower engines are designed to meet a requirement it will meet the EPA emissions targets for 125 hours. For my push lawnmower use, thats 5 years of use). That was irrespective of whether the fuel was E10 or "pure" gas.
Is it the chicken or the egg? The fuel or the manufacturers who have to cut corners to compete on price based on the desirs of us as consumers?

Amen!!! This has been my point all along, on other issues as well! MANY people, including ppl on this form, should read that, re-read it, and then read it again! And it holds true to many things, not just fuel and OPE! But it seems as if commonsence has long been thrown out the window these days. So many people are buying things designed to fail/be out of spec (in a realitvely short amount of time), and when it fails they are scratching their heads. You want a cheap thing, and cheap is just what you get! Why you ask? because it is exactly what you asked for. This isnt rocket science folks! When you give $12k for a new car, that price isnt because that co has some cutting edge technology, its corner cutting technology that gets you that price.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Bluestream
Garek, 95% of the ethanol in NA is made from corn. Your Sask wheat ethanol must be the other 5%.


To the best of my knowledge, no corn is used here in ethanol plants. I even lived next to one wheat ethanol setup. It was even set up to allow the farmers to come and feed cattle onsite, if one lived close enough.

Originally Posted By: Bluestream
As far as the sled Mfgrs building an engine t run on E10, they can do that do problem. The issue is that a high performance engine needs a high performance fuel to go with it. It won't perform on [censored] fuel, you cant make it do that.


I agree that 2 strokes are another bit of an issue, like marine engines. However, perhaps it's time to get together with the API and petroleum companies to come up with a solution in 2 stroke oil chemistry.

As for performance engines requiring performance fuel, that's a loaded statement. Lots of cars out there have high performance engines and run just fine on E10 and even E85, where applicable. Some performance engines, lo and behold, run on "straight ethanol." Then again, if their performance goals are overreaching the capabilities of the fuel available, whose fault is that? An F-16 doesn't specify 87 octane E10 (or premium pure gas, for that matter). A sled that specified racing fuel only would sell extremely low numbers. A sled with no power would also sell extremely low numbers. That's a problem for manufacturers to solve. If huge automakers can't dictate what fuel is available and have to build vehicles keeping in mind what's available, then small potatoes like Polaris and B&S have to face the same constraints.

If they can't do the job, others will take their place. Why buy a name brand mower with a B&S engine, for example, at top dollar that's going to have fuel system failure in two years when I can buy a Chinese knock off for less than half the price that will fail just as reliably? For outdoor power equipment, they've changed little in the fuel system for decades, except using cheaper, lower quality components. They've gone the wrong direction.

As for snowmobiles and being deeply involved in this sport, I am. My old Polaris had carb issues, despite being run on pure gas all along and all the shop recommended precautions being followed. It is nice to see the look on a mechanic's face when he tells you it's the ethanol fuel, and I respond that it's never seen any.

As you said, the OPE manufacturers certainly can build engines that run on E10. They seem to have an issue getting fuel systems to last, regardless of the fuel being used.

As for ethanol in general, I might "wish" there were only pure gas. Some might wish that leaded fuel were still widely available. Unfortunately, neither is going to happen anytime soon.