I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem? I've been running my Stihl for years with basically no maintenance.
(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit all winter with gas in it.)
If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol free fuel at a gas station.
(there are a several in my area.)

Wondering what y'all do?

Thanks
George H.

On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem? I've been running my Stihl for years with basically no maintenance.
(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit all winter with gas in it.)
If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol free fuel at a gas station.
(there are a several in my area.)

Wondering what y'all do?

Thanks
George H.

I have been told that the ethanol is bad for the carbs on small
engines. All my modern small engine powered devices came with warnings
to not use fuel with more than 10% ethanol. The Honda powered stuff
have stickers with this warning. I was talking to the woman at the
local tool rental place and she told me that they were having all
sorts of small engine powered equipment problems until they switched
to ethanol free fuel. They tried Sta-Bil first and it helped a bit but
since they changed to ethanol free fuel and require customers to also
use this fuel their fuel companent related problems have drastically
decreased. Ethanol free fuel is available here on South Whidbey Island
for about 25 cents more per gallon. Since I started using the stuff
about a year ago I am also having way fewer fuel related problems. One
weed whacker that I have would experience clogging of the main fuel
passage in the carb. It would only idle. Pulling on the throttle would
cause it to lean out and die. Pulling the carb apart I could see, with
a magnifier, brownish crud in the fuel passage. Since changing fuels
the carb has been working properly.
Eric

wrote in message
...
I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop
getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump
on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10
ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free
fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem? I've been
running my Stihl for years with basically no
maintenance.
(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end
of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit
all winter with gas in it.)
If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol
free fuel at a gas station.
(there are a several in my area.)

Wondering what y'all do?

Thanks
George H.


Use Premium gas. No ethanol in it around here... I
use it in all
small engines and my old snow plow truck. UP of
Michigan, btw.

On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem? I've been running my Stihl for years with basically no maintenance.
(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit all winter with gas in it.)
If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol free fuel at a gas station.
(there are a several in my area.)

Wondering what y'all do?

Thanks
George H.


My circa 1987 Stihl doesn't care. I don't drain it, run it dry, or use
Stabil, and it always starts with a couple pulls. It's not unusual for
it to sit idle for 6 months.

On the other hand, my little Yamaha inverter generator won't tolerate
sitting with fuel in the carb for more than a few months. But it's a
tiny 4-stroke.

--
Ned Simmons

wrote:
I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem?

Your Stihl will work fine on ethanol blends. Mine does.
And I've been using ethanol blends in my Husquavarna
since the late 70's and the only issue was replacing
the rubber fuel line going into the carburetor.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:50:45 -0700, wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem? I've been running my Stihl for years with basically no maintenance.
(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit all winter with gas in it.)
If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol free fuel at a gas station.
(there are a several in my area.)

Wondering what y'all do?

Thanks
George H.

I have been told that the ethanol is bad for the carbs on small
engines. All my modern small engine powered devices came with warnings
to not use fuel with more than 10% ethanol. The Honda powered stuff
have stickers with this warning. I was talking to the woman at the
local tool rental place and she told me that they were having all
sorts of small engine powered equipment problems until they switched
to ethanol free fuel. They tried Sta-Bil first and it helped a bit but
since they changed to ethanol free fuel and require customers to also
use this fuel their fuel companent related problems have drastically
decreased. Ethanol free fuel is available here on South Whidbey Island
for about 25 cents more per gallon. Since I started using the stuff
about a year ago I am also having way fewer fuel related problems. One
weed whacker that I have would experience clogging of the main fuel
passage in the carb. It would only idle. Pulling on the throttle would
cause it to lean out and die. Pulling the carb apart I could see, with
a magnifier, brownish crud in the fuel passage. Since changing fuels
the carb has been working properly.
Eric

Ive found the same problem with a early 60s outboard motor on one of
my sailboats as well as a chainsaw and a weed wacker.

Unfortunately there are few places to get ethanol free gas here in
this part of California without being bent over and butt raped.

Gunner

--

"
I was once told by a “gun safety” advocate back in the Nineties
that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.
Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I think about that?

I began to give him a reasoned answer and he
cut me off with an abrupt, “Give me the short answer.”

I thought for a moment and said, “If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.”"

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 12:50:45 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

snip


I have been told that the ethanol is bad for the carbs on small
engines. All my modern small engine powered devices came with warnings
to not use fuel with more than 10% ethanol. The Honda powered stuff
have stickers with this warning. I was talking to the woman at the
local tool rental place and she told me that they were having all
sorts of small engine powered equipment problems until they switched

Hmm, well how about stickers for engines that can burn it?

to ethanol free fuel. They tried Sta-Bil first and it helped a bit but
since they changed to ethanol free fuel and require customers to also
use this fuel their fuel companent related problems have drastically
decreased. Ethanol free fuel is available here on South Whidbey Island
Woah, Whidbey island looks nice.
(There's a certain sense of security on an island.)
for about 25 cents more per gallon. Since I started using the stuff
about $0.50 here, (I think), but no matter,
an ounce of prevention and all that.

Thanks,
George H.
about a year ago I am also having way fewer fuel related problems. One
weed whacker that I have would experience clogging of the main fuel
passage in the carb. It would only idle. Pulling on the throttle would
cause it to lean out and die. Pulling the carb apart I could see, with
a magnifier, brownish crud in the fuel passage. Since changing fuels
the carb has been working properly.

Eric

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:42:40 PM UTC-4, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:



I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.

(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)

They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.

They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.

First is this really a problem? I've been running my Stihl for years with basically no maintenance.

(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit all winter with gas in it.)

If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol free fuel at a gas station.

(there are a several in my area.)



Wondering what y'all do?



Thanks

George H.





My circa 1987 Stihl doesn't care. I don't drain it, run it dry, or use
Stabil, and it always starts with a couple pulls. It's not unusual for
it to sit idle for 6 months.

Grin, I love my Stihl, inherited from previous owner of my house,
so I can only say it's at least 15 yr's old.

On the other hand, my little Yamaha inverter generator won't tolerate
sitting with fuel in the carb for more than a few months. But it's a
tiny 4-stroke.
Oh, even little 4-stokes.

George H.



--

Ned Simmons

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:43:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
wrote:
snip

Your Stihl will work fine on ethanol blends. Mine does.
And I've been using ethanol blends in my Husquavarna
since the late 70's and the only issue was replacing
the rubber fuel line going into the carburetor.

Good to know, Thanks.
It might be good for those engines that can burn "most anything"
to advertise that fact.

George H.






---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:12:15 PM UTC-4, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:50:45 -0700, wrote:
snip

cause it to lean out and die. Pulling the carb apart I could see, with
a magnifier, brownish crud in the fuel passage. Since changing fuels
the carb has been working properly.

Eric



Ive found the same problem with a early 60s outboard motor on one of
my sailboats as well as a chainsaw and a weed wacker.

Unfortunately there are few places to get ethanol free gas here in
this part of California without being bent over and butt rape

There are several places here in Western NY.
I see a lot on marina's listed.

George H.


Gunner



--



"

I was once told by a �gun safety� advocate back in the Nineties

that he favored total civilian firearms confiscation.

Only the military and police should have weapons he averred and what did I think about that?



I began to give him a reasoned answer and he

cut me off with an abrupt, �Give me the short answer.�



I thought for a moment and said, �If you try to take our firearms we will kill you.�"

On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem? I've been running my Stihl for years with basically no maintenance.
(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit all winter with gas in it.)
If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol free fuel at a gas station.
(there are a several in my area.)

Wondering what y'all do?

Thanks
George H.

I can't speak for chainsaws but outboards have been running on the
"new" gasoline ever since it became available generally with few
problems so you are not going to experience any mechanical problems.

On the other hand some outboard manuals warn against the use of
alcohol containing fuels as the "rubber" seals and hoses may not be
alcohol resistant, but a manual for your saw should tell you whether
this particular problem is applicable to your saw.

I would comment that I ran a Mercury 3 HP outboard for several years
on alcohol mix gasoline with no problems although the Owner's Manual
contained a warning about alcohol.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Thu, 29 May 2014 13:42:40 -0400, Ned Simmons
wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem? I've been running my Stihl for years with basically no maintenance.
(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit all winter with gas in it.)
If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol free fuel at a gas station.
(there are a several in my area.)

Wondering what y'all do?

Thanks
George H.


My circa 1987 Stihl doesn't care. I don't drain it, run it dry, or use
Stabil, and it always starts with a couple pulls. It's not unusual for
it to sit idle for 6 months.

On the other hand, my little Yamaha inverter generator won't tolerate
sitting with fuel in the carb for more than a few months. But it's a
tiny 4-stroke.

A friend is "the outboard guy" at a large marina in Phuket (Thailand)
and he tells me that when you bring him an outboard that "don't run
good" the first thing he does is hook up a tank of fresh gas and try
it. He tells me that in a fair percent of the cases that fixes it :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

John B. fired this volley in
:

I would comment that I ran a Mercury 3 HP outboard for several years
on alcohol mix gasoline with no problems although the Owner's Manual
contained a warning about alcohol.


Was this during WWII?

Merc makes a THREE HP outboard? After 1962?

Lloyd

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com fired this volley in
. 3.70:

Merc makes a THREE HP outboard? After 1962?

Ahh... Thailand. Yep... you can probably get pole motors, too.

Lloyd

on Thu, 29 May 2014 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT) typed in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem? I've been running my Stihl for years with basically no maintenance.
(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit all winter with gas in it.)
If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol free fuel at a gas station.
(there are a several in my area.)

Wondering what y'all do?

For me, I am fortunate to have an alcohol free gas station
"nearby".

My lawnmower's tank will dry out, so I run it dry, or near dry
before I put it away. But, first thing in the spring, filled from the
jug of pure gas (which had set in the shed over the winter) it fired
up with not a whole lot of difficulty.
I could not say the same with the prior jugs of "whatever is in
the pump" at Safeway.

The ethanol free gas web site is a big help.
http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp Otherwise, you are into "boutique"
gas in quart cans at the hardware store.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Thu, 29 May 2014 09:25:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem? I've been running my Stihl for years with basically no maintenance.
(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit all winter with gas in it.)

That's generally the key to maintenance-free 2-strokes. But I haven't
had any problem with year-old 2-stroke or regular gas here or back in
LoCal EVER. Everything fires right up, and I don't run the weed eater
(currently a Ryobi) dry. I do use it briefly every few months, even
in the winter, though. Maybe that makes a difference. I just fired up
my old Murray walk-behind mower on 2 year old gas and it took some
extra priming but fired right up. Nary a problem here in So. Oregon.


If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol free fuel at a gas station.
(there are a several in my area.)

Wondering what y'all do?

I run standard E10 in everything I own and have never had a problem.

The guys at Lewis Power Equipment say they have to repair chainsaws
all the time from E10 use. Unleaded ethanol-free premium is $4.99/gal
here in town, $1.20 more than regular unleaded. Lewis also states that
any gas which is more than a month old is considered bad, and tossable
at 3 months. I -totally- disagree with that sentiment. They're a
Stihl repair depot, too.

If you're not having problems, why change methods? At worst, you
might have to boil out a carb at some time in the future. But it's
good to know how to repair your engines, so get a repair book for it
and do the job yourself. It'll take you a couple hours the first time
and an hour the second. No worries.

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

On 5/29/2014 11:25 AM, wrote:
I was down at my local hardware / lawnmower shop getting a new chain for my Stihl.
(It was a cold winter, I thought I'd get a jump on the wood pile.)
They had these signs warning of the damage E10 ethanol fuels do to 2-cycle engines.
They wanted to sell me "special" ethanol free fuel at a huge markup.
First is this really a problem? I've been running my Stihl for years with basically no maintenance.
(The only thing I do is to run it dry at the end of my wood cutting season, so it doesn't sit all winter with gas in it.)
If it is a problem then why not just get ethanol free fuel at a gas station.
(there are a several in my area.)

Wondering what y'all do?

Thanks
George H.


I have switched to a metal can with a twist off top - has real gas and
oil mix to 50:1. Loews and HD sell them. Commercial guys use it on
saws and such since they don't want to mix up every day or they have
trouble of their tank sucking in air at night and depositing water.....

Parts in side corrode and rust. Had to re-build mine.

It is like white gas in the old days - gasoline (by number grade) and no
extras. Used in lamps and stoves.

This is that stuff and 50"1. cheap by any charge to me replacing carbs
and such. Flots just 'rust' away.
The water and chemicals create an acid bath.

Martin

On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:19:05 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
:

I would comment that I ran a Mercury 3 HP outboard for several years
on alcohol mix gasoline with no problems although the Owner's Manual
contained a warning about alcohol.


Was this during WWII?

Merc makes a THREE HP outboard? After 1962?

Lloyd

Ayup. They even make a 1.5hp


"Libertarianism IS fascism... Fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian’s wet dream"
Tala Brandeis
Owner at Tala Brandeis Associates"

wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:43:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
wrote:
snip

Your Stihl will work fine on ethanol blends. Mine does.
And I've been using ethanol blends in my Husquavarna
since the late 70's and the only issue was replacing
the rubber fuel line going into the carburetor.

Good to know, Thanks.
It might be good for those engines that can burn "most anything"
to advertise that fact.

George H.






---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

================================================== ========================
Hi George,

I just stopped in to see if my cross-posted reply to rangersucks ever got
through, and here I run into one of my favorite subjects... Sorry for the
messy posting but I don't have a newsreader anymore and I have no reason to
get one. This is a one-shot.

I can't stick around to get into this, but you seem to be genuinely
interested, so here are some facts that may help or confuse you, depending
on which way you tilt:

Ethanol will not gum up a carb or an engine. But they often mix it with
low-grade gasoline (under 91 octane, among other, bigger issues) and that
gas *can* crap your engine. It does seem more prone to varnishing the carb
jets, but that isn't because of the ethanol.

Ethanol will not do damage to a carburetor, large or small. *Methanol* will
do damage to aluminum or zinc (or brass, I think) if it's left in the
carburetor bowl too long. Race cars that burn methanol generally drain the
carbs, and often the tank, between races. The ethanol-damage myth probably
is a carryover from admonitions about methanol, dating back to the 1930s.

Ethanol *will* eat some kinds of gaskets. I got little bits of damaged
O-rings in my lawnmower carb soon after they started with the ethanol in
pump gas. I had to change gaskets and blast the carb with carb cleaner every
season for a couple of years, until I learned what was happening and sought
come ethanol-resistant gaskets. Newer ones seem to have solved this.
Obviously, the material in automobile gaskets is immune now.

The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the posts
here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20% or so
ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to increase
efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above 60 mph and
peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo engine with a much
larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is not used in EPA
city/highway cycle comparisons. In normal driving, the MIT report says,
there is almost no difference -- and required boost can be achieved with
spark retardation that is so low it has almost no effect on performance. At
some point, the lines of volume efficiency cross, where the lower caloric
content of ethanol is compensated by the very high turbo boost that ethanol
allows. The report is worth reading.

FWIW, I read SAE engine-research reports at least once or twice a month.
That's where most of my info comes from.

Happy motoring...

Ed Huntress

You can take the un-gasoline, pour it into a transparent container,
and add water. Let it sit. The water & alcohol will bond, and sink
to the bottom. Carefully suck off the gas on top.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

"David Lesher" wrote in message ...

You can take the un-gasoline, pour it into a transparent container,
and add water. Let it sit. The water & alcohol will bond, and sink
to the bottom. Carefully suck off the gas on top.


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

================================================== ===========

If you do that, your gasoline will already be water-saturated (gasoline will
hold around 0.15 teaspoon of water per gallon at 70 deg F; E10 will hold
about 3 - 4 teaspoons, but you will lose the alcohol with your trick).

So what you will have is gasoline that is ready to drop its water with the
slightest drop in temperature. Other compounds will precipitate out with the
water, and those are highly corrosive.

If you expose dry gasoline to air, it takes at least three months for it to
become water-saturated; E10 takes much longer. So you won't encounter this
problem unless you intentionally mix water with your gas or E10. Neither one
is going to produce a happy result.

Ed Huntress

On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:47:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:43:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
wrote:
snip

Your Stihl will work fine on ethanol blends. Mine does.
And I've been using ethanol blends in my Husquavarna
since the late 70's and the only issue was replacing
the rubber fuel line going into the carburetor.

Good to know, Thanks.
It might be good for those engines that can burn "most anything"
to advertise that fact.

George H.






---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

================================================= =========================
Hi George,

I just stopped in to see if my cross-posted reply to rangersucks ever got
through, and here I run into one of my favorite subjects... Sorry for the
messy posting but I don't have a newsreader anymore and I have no reason to
get one. This is a one-shot.

I can't stick around to get into this, but you seem to be genuinely
interested, so here are some facts that may help or confuse you, depending
on which way you tilt:

Ethanol will not gum up a carb or an engine. But they often mix it with
low-grade gasoline (under 91 octane, among other, bigger issues) and that
gas *can* crap your engine. It does seem more prone to varnishing the carb
jets, but that isn't because of the ethanol.

Ethanol will not do damage to a carburetor, large or small. *Methanol* will
do damage to aluminum or zinc (or brass, I think) if it's left in the
carburetor bowl too long. Race cars that burn methanol generally drain the
carbs, and often the tank, between races. The ethanol-damage myth probably
is a carryover from admonitions about methanol, dating back to the 1930s.

Ethanol *will* eat some kinds of gaskets. I got little bits of damaged
O-rings in my lawnmower carb soon after they started with the ethanol in
pump gas. I had to change gaskets and blast the carb with carb cleaner every
season for a couple of years, until I learned what was happening and sought
come ethanol-resistant gaskets. Newer ones seem to have solved this.
Obviously, the material in automobile gaskets is immune now.

The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the posts
here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20% or so
ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to increase
efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above 60 mph and
peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo engine with a much
larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is not used in EPA
city/highway cycle comparisons. In normal driving, the MIT report says,
there is almost no difference -- and required boost can be achieved with
spark retardation that is so low it has almost no effect on performance. At
some point, the lines of volume efficiency cross, where the lower caloric
content of ethanol is compensated by the very high turbo boost that ethanol
allows. The report is worth reading.

FWIW, I read SAE engine-research reports at least once or twice a month.
That's where most of my info comes from.

Happy motoring...

Ed Huntress

I have been told in the past that ethanol was added to low grade
gasoline in order to make it suitable to burn in cars. And maybe
that's the difference. Lower grade gas that has added ethanol is
actually the culprit. When I use the ethanol free gas it is a higher
grade and so does not "gum up the works".
Eric

wrote in message ...

On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:47:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:43:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
wrote:
snip

Your Stihl will work fine on ethanol blends. Mine does.
And I've been using ethanol blends in my Husquavarna
since the late 70's and the only issue was replacing
the rubber fuel line going into the carburetor.

Good to know, Thanks.
It might be good for those engines that can burn "most anything"
to advertise that fact.

George H.






---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

================================================= =========================
Hi George,

I just stopped in to see if my cross-posted reply to rangersucks ever got
through, and here I run into one of my favorite subjects... Sorry for the
messy posting but I don't have a newsreader anymore and I have no reason to
get one. This is a one-shot.

I can't stick around to get into this, but you seem to be genuinely
interested, so here are some facts that may help or confuse you, depending
on which way you tilt:

Ethanol will not gum up a carb or an engine. But they often mix it with
low-grade gasoline (under 91 octane, among other, bigger issues) and that
gas *can* crap your engine. It does seem more prone to varnishing the carb
jets, but that isn't because of the ethanol.

Ethanol will not do damage to a carburetor, large or small. *Methanol* will
do damage to aluminum or zinc (or brass, I think) if it's left in the
carburetor bowl too long. Race cars that burn methanol generally drain the
carbs, and often the tank, between races. The ethanol-damage myth probably
is a carryover from admonitions about methanol, dating back to the 1930s.

Ethanol *will* eat some kinds of gaskets. I got little bits of damaged
O-rings in my lawnmower carb soon after they started with the ethanol in
pump gas. I had to change gaskets and blast the carb with carb cleaner
every
season for a couple of years, until I learned what was happening and sought
come ethanol-resistant gaskets. Newer ones seem to have solved this.
Obviously, the material in automobile gaskets is immune now.

The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the posts
here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20% or so
ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to increase
efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above 60 mph and
peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo engine with a
much
larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is not used in EPA
city/highway cycle comparisons. In normal driving, the MIT report says,
there is almost no difference -- and required boost can be achieved with
spark retardation that is so low it has almost no effect on performance. At
some point, the lines of volume efficiency cross, where the lower caloric
content of ethanol is compensated by the very high turbo boost that ethanol
allows. The report is worth reading.

FWIW, I read SAE engine-research reports at least once or twice a month.
That's where most of my info comes from.

Happy motoring...

Ed Huntress

I have been told in the past that ethanol was added to low grade
gasoline in order to make it suitable to burn in cars. And maybe
that's the difference. Lower grade gas that has added ethanol is
actually the culprit. When I use the ethanol free gas it is a higher
grade and so does not "gum up the works".
Eric

================================================== ===================

I don't know which came first, but my (unresearched) understanding is that
they can use a lower-grade gasoline to mix with ethanol because the ethanol
boosts the effective octane rating. It also is conventional wisdom (again,
unresearched on my part) that low-octane gasoline may be low on detergents
and other additives.

Before it was required, there was some use of ethanol in gasoline to replace
the octane-boosting effect of tetraethyl lead, which was outlawed in 1995.

All gasoline sold as motor fuel in the US also has been required to contain
detergents since 1995 -- a result of previous maintenance problems with fuel
injectors. Whether they short-change the additive quality of gas they mix
with ethanol now or not, I can't confirm with any authoritative data.

Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:


Ethanol will not gum up a carb or an engine. But they often mix it with
low-grade gasoline (under 91 octane, among other, bigger issues) and
that gas *can* crap your engine. It does seem more prone to varnishing
the carb jets, but that isn't because of the ethanol.

ethanol is *almost always blended* with 84 octane fuel.
Your engine will run like **** without the ethanol.




Ethanol will not do damage to a carburetor, large or small. *Methanol*
will do damage to aluminum or zinc (or brass, I think) if it's left in
the carburetor bowl too long. Race cars that burn methanol generally
drain the carbs, and often the tank, between races. The ethanol-damage
myth probably is a carryover from admonitions about methanol, dating
back to the 1930s.

I don't think race cars that use methanol use carburetors.



The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

MIT has published dozens of articles on ethanol
efficiency. The only MIT article I saw posted was intended
as a reference to counter a particular false claim that
was made.



In normal driving, the
MIT report says, there is almost no difference -- and required boost can
be achieved with spark retardation that is so low it has almost no
effect on performance.

retarding spark is a compromise that
decreases efficiency. Fuel that burns
late in the power stroke produces mostly
heat out the exhaust.


At some point, the lines of volume efficiency
cross, where the lower caloric content of ethanol is compensated by the
very high turbo boost that ethanol allows. The report is worth reading.

And the other potential efficiency gain from ethanol blends is
that you can get the same power from a much lighter engine
Removing a large amount of dead weight allows for lighter
suspension and chassis.

But there is no incentive for automakers to
design cars that perform better on ethanol blends
as long as the EPA requires fuel economy testing
to done with straight gasoline without ethanol.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Ed Huntress wrote:


I have been told in the past that ethanol was added to low grade
gasoline in order to make it suitable to burn in cars. And maybe
that's the difference. Lower grade gas that has added ethanol is
actually the culprit. When I use the ethanol free gas it is a higher
grade and so does not "gum up the works".
Eric

================================================== ===================

I don't know which came first, but my (unresearched) understanding is
that they can use a lower-grade gasoline to mix with ethanol because the
ethanol boosts the effective octane rating. It also is conventional
wisdom (again, unresearched on my part) that low-octane gasoline may be
low on detergents and other additives.


It costs money (and energy) to increase octane.
In the refinery business, selling a fuel that has higher
octane than the minimum required is called an "octane giveaway"

It is difficult to determine the actual value of ethanol in
motor fuel. The large quantity used means higher octane
components of gasoline are less valuable than they would be
if there was no ethanol used. That means the gasoline without
ethanol (usually premium grade) is cheaper than it would be
if there were no ethanol used. And if there were no ethanol
the price difference between regular and premium would be
higher because refiners would be required to reform a lot more
of the hydrocarbons into higher octane components.

I've seen estimates on what it would cost to produce
all the octane necessary without ethanol that
range from 5 to 50 cents a gallon.

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

"jim" wrote in message ...

Ed Huntress wrote:


Ethanol will not gum up a carb or an engine. But they often mix it with
low-grade gasoline (under 91 octane, among other, bigger issues) and
that gas *can* crap your engine. It does seem more prone to varnishing
the carb jets, but that isn't because of the ethanol.

ethanol is *almost always blended* with 84 octane fuel.
Your engine will run like **** without the ethanol.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Yeah, the old SAE sources I had just said "under 91 octane," and I assume
it's well under.

================================================== ===========


Ethanol will not do damage to a carburetor, large or small. *Methanol*
will do damage to aluminum or zinc (or brass, I think) if it's left in
the carburetor bowl too long. Race cars that burn methanol generally
drain the carbs, and often the tank, between races. The ethanol-damage
myth probably is a carryover from admonitions about methanol, dating
back to the 1930s.

I don't think race cars that use methanol use carburetors.

================================================== ==========
[Ed]

But they did, for decades. It wasn't just Hilborn injectors at Indy. It was
even some carbureted sports-car classes, back in the '50s, and even go-carts
in the '60s.

The old story about methanol damaging carbs has been legend in racing for a
very long time, and I suspect that someone just assumed that ethanol caused
the same problems.

================================================== =========

The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

================================================== =========
[Ed]

This was the statement: "This MIT study found that maximum thermal
efficiency can
be achieved with 20%-35% ethanol blends."

This is the MIT report:

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/hand.../858869910.pdf

It requires careful reading. This is the "on the one hand, but on the other
hand" kind of conclusions it reaches:



MIT has published dozens of articles on ethanol
efficiency. The only MIT article I saw posted was intended
as a reference to counter a particular false claim that
was made.



In normal driving, the
MIT report says, there is almost no difference -- and required boost can
be achieved with spark retardation that is so low it has almost no
effect on performance.

retarding spark is a compromise that
decreases efficiency. Fuel that burns
late in the power stroke produces mostly
heat out the exhaust.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Sure, but look at the first paragraph on page 58 of the report. The result
is not what you might expect.

And look at the bottom graph on page 57. Surprise!

Also, look at table 9 on page 56. Five degrees of retard results in only
1.55% loss of efficiency in the highly-turbocharged engine. And 5 deg. buys
you a lot of allowed boost with gasoline. As I said, the curves cross in
normal driving, but the upshot is that you actually can get HIGHER
efficiency (in terms of fuel volume/mi.) with the higher-caloric-content
gasoline in normal driving conditions.

Overall, it's a very close call -- unless you go for a pipsqueek engine
running at near hand-grenade-level peak effective pressures at nearly full
throttle. Hmmm...

================================================== ===========


At some point, the lines of volume efficiency
cross, where the lower caloric content of ethanol is compensated by the
very high turbo boost that ethanol allows. The report is worth reading.

And the other potential efficiency gain from ethanol blends is
that you can get the same power from a much lighter engine
Removing a large amount of dead weight allows for lighter
suspension and chassis.

================================================== ====
{Ed}

It's like most engineering jobs: "On one hand, this improves results. On the
other, it makes them worse..."

Running tiny engines at over 13 bar of turbo boost is not a recipe for a
long and happy life. And building a tiny engine that will handle it means
the engine has to be built stronger -- and heavier -- than a less-stressed
engine.

And note that ethanol injection or blending is not the only way to prevent
detonation in a supercharged engine of any type. For example, they didn't
compare this test engine with a water-injected one.

What they were evaluating was potential fuel-volume/mile capabilities of a
few engine types. It's a good report, and it shows that you don't have to
give up (volume-based) efficiency when you use a lower-caloric-content fuel,
like ethanol, when you can compensate with lots of turbocharging and the
higher effective RON (octane) of ethanol.

But the net result is that you only get an improvement with ethanol at
conditions of very high loading of the engine -- a high-speed cycle that
isn't even measured in the EPA city/highway calculations, and which doesn't
represent *anyone's* long-term average driving conditions.

I'd say it's about a wash. Now, let's see what they can do with a
homogeneous-charge, compression-ignition (HCCI) engine g

================================================== ============

But there is no incentive for automakers to
design cars that perform better on ethanol blends
as long as the EPA requires fuel economy testing
to done with straight gasoline without ethanol.

================================================== ============
[Ed]

Or perhaps there's little incentive to build expensive and complicated tiny
turbos when the advantages, if any, are small.

--
Ed Huntress



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

Ed Huntress wrote:


The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

================================================== =========
[Ed]

This was the statement: "This MIT study found that maximum thermal
efficiency can
be achieved with 20%-35% ethanol blends."

That 20%-30% was stated in conclusion of the study.
They concluded that knock was the limiting factor in
thermal efficiency (Henry Ford could have told them
that 100 years ago) and that somewhere between 20% and
30% ethanol would keep a turbo boosted engine from knocking
at a timing that achieved maximum brake torque under all
driving conditions.

The point of citing the study was to counter the
false claim that the energy content of the fuel is the
solely what determines work output. The study demolishes
that claim.




In normal driving, the
MIT report says, there is almost no difference -- and required boost can
be achieved with spark retardation that is so low it has almost no
effect on performance.


What you call "Normal driving" is the EPA fuel economy test
driving cycles which do not push the engine very hard.


The report also showed that the break even point
for fuel economy showed that for all driving cycles
a small engine (1.2L) would require 16% ethanol and
a large engine (2.0L) needed only 6%.



retarding spark is a compromise that
decreases efficiency. Fuel that burns
late in the power stroke produces mostly
heat out the exhaust.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Sure, but look at the first paragraph on page 58 of the report. The
result is not what you might expect.

And look at the bottom graph on page 57. Surprise!


That isn't surprising. To get maximum miles per
gallon you need just a little less timing and a
little less ethanol than the point where maximum
thermal efficiency occurs.

BTW the compression ratio and boost used in this study
are not particularly high. I've seen studies using
higher compression and boost where ethanol performed
even better.


Also, look at table 9 on page 56. Five degrees of retard results in only
1.55% loss of efficiency in the highly-turbocharged engine. And 5 deg.
buys you a lot of allowed boost with gasoline. As I said, the curves
cross in normal driving, but the upshot is that you actually can get
HIGHER efficiency (in terms of fuel volume/mi.) with the
higher-caloric-content gasoline in normal driving conditions.

Overall, it's a very close call -- unless you go for a pipsqueek engine
running at near hand-grenade-level peak effective pressures at nearly
full throttle. Hmmm...

================================================== ===========


At some point, the lines of volume efficiency
cross, where the lower caloric content of ethanol is compensated by the
very high turbo boost that ethanol allows. The report is worth reading.

None of this has much real world significance.

In the real world ethanol doesn't increase octane
and therefore doesn't raise the knock limit.
In the real world ethanol allows the oil refiners to
cut costs and put a much lower grade fuel in the
pipeline.

If you find regular grade gas without ethanol it
has the same octane as regular with ethanol. It
will cost more because it costs more to produce.
If the entire fuel supply had to be bumped up
by the 3-4 octane points that ethanol provides,
the cost increase would be even greater.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:20:25 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" lloydspinsidemindspring.com fired this volley in
.3.70:

Merc makes a THREE HP outboard? After 1962?

Ahh... Thailand. Yep... you can probably get pole motors, too.

Lloyd


What's a "pole motor"?
Maybe a "Long Tail" motor?
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:19:05 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
:

I would comment that I ran a Mercury 3 HP outboard for several years
on alcohol mix gasoline with no problems although the Owner's Manual
contained a warning about alcohol.


Was this during WWII?

Merc makes a THREE HP outboard? After 1962?

Lloyd

Yup, Mercury made and sold a 3 H.P., 2 stroke, well into the late
1990's and perhaps into the 2000's. Sold in Singapore and Malaysia, to
my knowledge.

And they currently sell a 4 stroke 3 H.P.
http://www.westmarine.com/mercury-ma...ds--P007754849
In fact they still sell a 2.5 H.P motor :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

John B. fired this volley in
:

What's a "pole motor"?
Maybe a "Long Tail" motor?

We just called 'em "pole motors" in 'Nam. All the fishermen used them.
Just a small motor on the end of a LONG pipe with a prop at the other end.

LLoyd

On Fri, 30 May 2014 10:50:08 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



"David Lesher" wrote in message ...

You can take the un-gasoline, pour it into a transparent container,
and add water. Let it sit. The water & alcohol will bond, and sink
to the bottom. Carefully suck off the gas on top.
Actually due to it's affinity for water, E10 will saturate faster
than pure gas if the air is humid.

On Fri, 30 May 2014 08:54:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:47:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:43:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
wrote:
snip

Your Stihl will work fine on ethanol blends. Mine does.
And I've been using ethanol blends in my Husquavarna
since the late 70's and the only issue was replacing
the rubber fuel line going into the carburetor.

Good to know, Thanks.
It might be good for those engines that can burn "most anything"
to advertise that fact.

George H.






---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

================================================ ==========================
Hi George,

I just stopped in to see if my cross-posted reply to rangersucks ever got
through, and here I run into one of my favorite subjects... Sorry for the
messy posting but I don't have a newsreader anymore and I have no reason to
get one. This is a one-shot.

I can't stick around to get into this, but you seem to be genuinely
interested, so here are some facts that may help or confuse you, depending
on which way you tilt:

Ethanol will not gum up a carb or an engine. But they often mix it with
low-grade gasoline (under 91 octane, among other, bigger issues) and that
gas *can* crap your engine. It does seem more prone to varnishing the carb
jets, but that isn't because of the ethanol.

Ethanol will not do damage to a carburetor, large or small. *Methanol* will
do damage to aluminum or zinc (or brass, I think) if it's left in the
carburetor bowl too long. Race cars that burn methanol generally drain the
carbs, and often the tank, between races. The ethanol-damage myth probably
is a carryover from admonitions about methanol, dating back to the 1930s.

Ethanol *will* eat some kinds of gaskets. I got little bits of damaged
O-rings in my lawnmower carb soon after they started with the ethanol in
pump gas. I had to change gaskets and blast the carb with carb cleaner every
season for a couple of years, until I learned what was happening and sought
come ethanol-resistant gaskets. Newer ones seem to have solved this.
Obviously, the material in automobile gaskets is immune now.

The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the posts
here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20% or so
ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to increase
efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above 60 mph and
peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo engine with a much
larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is not used in EPA
city/highway cycle comparisons. In normal driving, the MIT report says,
there is almost no difference -- and required boost can be achieved with
spark retardation that is so low it has almost no effect on performance. At
some point, the lines of volume efficiency cross, where the lower caloric
content of ethanol is compensated by the very high turbo boost that ethanol
allows. The report is worth reading.

FWIW, I read SAE engine-research reports at least once or twice a month.
That's where most of my info comes from.

Happy motoring...

Ed Huntress

I have been told in the past that ethanol was added to low grade
gasoline in order to make it suitable to burn in cars. And maybe
that's the difference. Lower grade gas that has added ethanol is
actually the culprit. When I use the ethanol free gas it is a higher
grade and so does not "gum up the works".
Eric
Around here it's the same grade of gas that gets ethanol or not. The
same gas, out of the same tanks, into the same tanker trucks - some
gets ethanol added, some does not. Depends what brand station is
getting it.
Or so I've been told by local fuel distributors.

On Fri, 30 May 2014 13:14:50 -0500, jim "
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


I have been told in the past that ethanol was added to low grade
gasoline in order to make it suitable to burn in cars. And maybe
that's the difference. Lower grade gas that has added ethanol is
actually the culprit. When I use the ethanol free gas it is a higher
grade and so does not "gum up the works".
Eric

================================================== ===================

I don't know which came first, but my (unresearched) understanding is
that they can use a lower-grade gasoline to mix with ethanol because the
ethanol boosts the effective octane rating. It also is conventional
wisdom (again, unresearched on my part) that low-octane gasoline may be
low on detergents and other additives.


It costs money (and energy) to increase octane.
In the refinery business, selling a fuel that has higher
octane than the minimum required is called an "octane giveaway"

It is difficult to determine the actual value of ethanol in
motor fuel. The large quantity used means higher octane
components of gasoline are less valuable than they would be
if there was no ethanol used. That means the gasoline without
ethanol (usually premium grade) is cheaper than it would be
if there were no ethanol used. And if there were no ethanol
the price difference between regular and premium would be
higher because refiners would be required to reform a lot more
of the hydrocarbons into higher octane components.

I've seen estimates on what it would cost to produce
all the octane necessary without ethanol that
range from 5 to 50 cents a gallon.


And what does the ethanol cost?? Amd how much more would it cost
without the multiple subsidies???

I think reforming would be just as "cheap"
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 30 May 2014 03:01:51 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Thu, 29 May 2014 20:19:05 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
m:

I would comment that I ran a Mercury 3 HP outboard for several years
on alcohol mix gasoline with no problems although the Owner's Manual
contained a warning about alcohol.


Was this during WWII?

Merc makes a THREE HP outboard? After 1962?

Lloyd

Ayup. They even make a 1.5hp


"Libertarianism IS fascism... Fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian’s wet dream"
Tala Brandeis
Owner at Tala Brandeis Associates"

What's with your quote, mon?

Huh? They're spectral opposites. No Libertarian I know has ever, or
would ever, stand for totalitarianism, nor for the tenets which
support Fascism. (OK, mebbe a bit of nationalism, as patriotism, but
that's it.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Tala, ya gotcher HUYA.

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

On Fri, 30 May 2014 11:57:36 -0500, jim "
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


Ethanol will not gum up a carb or an engine. But they often mix it with
low-grade gasoline (under 91 octane, among other, bigger issues) and
that gas *can* crap your engine. It does seem more prone to varnishing
the carb jets, but that isn't because of the ethanol.

ethanol is *almost always blended* with 84 octane fuel.
Your engine will run like **** without the ethanol.


Don't know about in the USA, but in Canada the ethanol is generally
not added at the refinery, and the same refinery effluent is sold with
and without ethanol - and generally speaking, engines run better
without the added hooch.



Ethanol will not do damage to a carburetor, large or small. *Methanol*
will do damage to aluminum or zinc (or brass, I think) if it's left in
the carburetor bowl too long. Race cars that burn methanol generally
drain the carbs, and often the tank, between races. The ethanol-damage
myth probably is a carryover from admonitions about methanol, dating
back to the 1930s.

I don't think race cars that use methanol use carburetors.
Think again. MANY fuel engines run carbs. Great big "toilet bowl" or
"sewer pipe" carbs.



The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

MIT has published dozens of articles on ethanol
efficiency. The only MIT article I saw posted was intended
as a reference to counter a particular false claim that
was made.



In normal driving, the
MIT report says, there is almost no difference -- and required boost can
be achieved with spark retardation that is so low it has almost no
effect on performance.

retarding spark is a compromise that
decreases efficiency. Fuel that burns
late in the power stroke produces mostly
heat out the exhaust.


At some point, the lines of volume efficiency
cross, where the lower caloric content of ethanol is compensated by the
very high turbo boost that ethanol allows. The report is worth reading.

And the other potential efficiency gain from ethanol blends is
that you can get the same power from a much lighter engine
Removing a large amount of dead weight allows for lighter
suspension and chassis.

But there is no incentive for automakers to
design cars that perform better on ethanol blends
as long as the EPA requires fuel economy testing
to done with straight gasoline without ethanol.

And running high octane non ethanol fuel has the same (or better)
results on a boosted engine, using less fuel



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 30 May 2014 14:30:00 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



"jim" wrote in message ...

Ed Huntress wrote:


Ethanol will not gum up a carb or an engine. But they often mix it with
low-grade gasoline (under 91 octane, among other, bigger issues) and
that gas *can* crap your engine. It does seem more prone to varnishing
the carb jets, but that isn't because of the ethanol.

ethanol is *almost always blended* with 84 octane fuel.
Your engine will run like **** without the ethanol.

================================================= ============
[Ed]

Yeah, the old SAE sources I had just said "under 91 octane," and I assume
it's well under.

================================================= ============


Ethanol will not do damage to a carburetor, large or small. *Methanol*
will do damage to aluminum or zinc (or brass, I think) if it's left in
the carburetor bowl too long. Race cars that burn methanol generally
drain the carbs, and often the tank, between races. The ethanol-damage
myth probably is a carryover from admonitions about methanol, dating
back to the 1930s.

I don't think race cars that use methanol use carburetors.

================================================= ===========
[Ed]

But they did, for decades. It wasn't just Hilborn injectors at Indy. It was
even some carbureted sports-car classes, back in the '50s, and even go-carts
in the '60s.

The old story about methanol damaging carbs has been legend in racing for a
very long time, and I suspect that someone just assumed that ethanol caused
the same problems.


Methanol corroded the metal of the carbs - as well as bearings,
camshafts, crankshafts, and cyl heads. Common practice was to flush
EVERYTHING after a run - including changing the oil, to preserve the
"hard parts".
Ethanol, on the other hand, has a low corrosiveness to metal but is
very hard on many "soft parts" like gaskets and seals due to it's
solvency. Corrosion with ethanol is mostly due to the hygroscopic
nature of ethanol, and phase separation which allows the saturated
ethanol to drop out of suspension, so the water trapped in it can
cause corrosion.
================================================= ==========

The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

================================================= ==========
[Ed]

This was the statement: "This MIT study found that maximum thermal
efficiency can
be achieved with 20%-35% ethanol blends."

This is the MIT report:

http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/hand.../858869910.pdf

It requires careful reading. This is the "on the one hand, but on the other
hand" kind of conclusions it reaches:



MIT has published dozens of articles on ethanol
efficiency. The only MIT article I saw posted was intended
as a reference to counter a particular false claim that
was made.



In normal driving, the
MIT report says, there is almost no difference -- and required boost can
be achieved with spark retardation that is so low it has almost no
effect on performance.

retarding spark is a compromise that
decreases efficiency. Fuel that burns
late in the power stroke produces mostly
heat out the exhaust.

================================================= ============
[Ed]

Sure, but look at the first paragraph on page 58 of the report. The result
is not what you might expect.

And look at the bottom graph on page 57. Surprise!

Also, look at table 9 on page 56. Five degrees of retard results in only
1.55% loss of efficiency in the highly-turbocharged engine. And 5 deg. buys
you a lot of allowed boost with gasoline. As I said, the curves cross in
normal driving, but the upshot is that you actually can get HIGHER
efficiency (in terms of fuel volume/mi.) with the higher-caloric-content
gasoline in normal driving conditions.

Overall, it's a very close call -- unless you go for a pipsqueek engine
running at near hand-grenade-level peak effective pressures at nearly full
throttle. Hmmm...

================================================= ============


At some point, the lines of volume efficiency
cross, where the lower caloric content of ethanol is compensated by the
very high turbo boost that ethanol allows. The report is worth reading.

And the other potential efficiency gain from ethanol blends is
that you can get the same power from a much lighter engine
Removing a large amount of dead weight allows for lighter
suspension and chassis.

================================================= =====
{Ed}

It's like most engineering jobs: "On one hand, this improves results. On the
other, it makes them worse..."

Running tiny engines at over 13 bar of turbo boost is not a recipe for a
long and happy life. And building a tiny engine that will handle it means
the engine has to be built stronger -- and heavier -- than a less-stressed
engine.

And note that ethanol injection or blending is not the only way to prevent
detonation in a supercharged engine of any type. For example, they didn't
compare this test engine with a water-injected one.

What they were evaluating was potential fuel-volume/mile capabilities of a
few engine types. It's a good report, and it shows that you don't have to
give up (volume-based) efficiency when you use a lower-caloric-content fuel,
like ethanol, when you can compensate with lots of turbocharging and the
higher effective RON (octane) of ethanol.

But the net result is that you only get an improvement with ethanol at
conditions of very high loading of the engine -- a high-speed cycle that
isn't even measured in the EPA city/highway calculations, and which doesn't
represent *anyone's* long-term average driving conditions.

I'd say it's about a wash. Now, let's see what they can do with a
homogeneous-charge, compression-ignition (HCCI) engine g

================================================= =============

But there is no incentive for automakers to
design cars that perform better on ethanol blends
as long as the EPA requires fuel economy testing
to done with straight gasoline without ethanol.

================================================= =============
[Ed]

Or perhaps there's little incentive to build expensive and complicated tiny
turbos when the advantages, if any, are small.

On Fri, 30 May 2014 08:54:36 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2014 09:47:12 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:



wrote in message
...

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:43:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
wrote:
snip

Your Stihl will work fine on ethanol blends. Mine does.
And I've been using ethanol blends in my Husquavarna
since the late 70's and the only issue was replacing
the rubber fuel line going into the carburetor.

Good to know, Thanks.
It might be good for those engines that can burn "most anything"
to advertise that fact.

George H.






---

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus
protection is active.

http://www.avast.com

================================================ ==========================
Hi George,

I just stopped in to see if my cross-posted reply to rangersucks ever got
through, and here I run into one of my favorite subjects... Sorry for the
messy posting but I don't have a newsreader anymore and I have no reason to
get one. This is a one-shot.

I can't stick around to get into this, but you seem to be genuinely
interested, so here are some facts that may help or confuse you, depending
on which way you tilt:

Ethanol will not gum up a carb or an engine. But they often mix it with
low-grade gasoline (under 91 octane, among other, bigger issues) and that
gas *can* crap your engine. It does seem more prone to varnishing the carb
jets, but that isn't because of the ethanol.

Ethanol will not do damage to a carburetor, large or small. *Methanol* will
do damage to aluminum or zinc (or brass, I think) if it's left in the
carburetor bowl too long. Race cars that burn methanol generally drain the
carbs, and often the tank, between races. The ethanol-damage myth probably
is a carryover from admonitions about methanol, dating back to the 1930s.

Ethanol *will* eat some kinds of gaskets. I got little bits of damaged
O-rings in my lawnmower carb soon after they started with the ethanol in
pump gas. I had to change gaskets and blast the carb with carb cleaner every
season for a couple of years, until I learned what was happening and sought
come ethanol-resistant gaskets. Newer ones seem to have solved this.
Obviously, the material in automobile gaskets is immune now.

The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the posts
here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20% or so
ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to increase
efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above 60 mph and
peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo engine with a much
larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is not used in EPA
city/highway cycle comparisons. In normal driving, the MIT report says,
there is almost no difference -- and required boost can be achieved with
spark retardation that is so low it has almost no effect on performance. At
some point, the lines of volume efficiency cross, where the lower caloric
content of ethanol is compensated by the very high turbo boost that ethanol
allows. The report is worth reading.

FWIW, I read SAE engine-research reports at least once or twice a month.
That's where most of my info comes from.

Happy motoring...

Ed Huntress

I have been told in the past that ethanol was added to low grade
gasoline in order to make it suitable to burn in cars. And maybe
that's the difference. Lower grade gas that has added ethanol is
actually the culprit. When I use the ethanol free gas it is a higher
grade and so does not "gum up the works".
Eric

Back in the day (when gasoline was gasoline) they used to market some
stuff called "Dry Gas" that you dumped in your gas tank to keep the
water from freezing in the fuel system. Dry-Gas was nothing but
alcohol.

Did water actually freeze in fuel systems? Yup, it was fairly common
up north where your car might spend the night in a garage that was 10
degrees, or more, below zero.
--
Cheers,

John B.
(invalid to gmail)

On Fri, 30 May 2014 17:30:50 -0500, jim "
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


The MIT report on efficiency with ethanol was misrepresented in the
posts here. I read all 61 pages of it, and the story is that up to 20%
or so ethanol will allow enough BMEP from boosted compression to
increase efficiency in a high-speed highway cycle, with long runs above
60 mph and peak over 80 mph, if you are comparing a very small turbo
engine with a much larger normally-aspirated one. That engine cycle is
not used in EPA city/highway cycle comparisons.

Which MIT report and what was misrepresented?

================================================== =========
[Ed]

This was the statement: "This MIT study found that maximum thermal
efficiency can
be achieved with 20%-35% ethanol blends."

That 20%-30% was stated in conclusion of the study.
They concluded that knock was the limiting factor in
thermal efficiency (Henry Ford could have told them
that 100 years ago) and that somewhere between 20% and
30% ethanol would keep a turbo boosted engine from knocking
at a timing that achieved maximum brake torque under all
driving conditions.

The point of citing the study was to counter the
false claim that the energy content of the fuel is the
solely what determines work output. The study demolishes
that claim.


If you can cram in enough air, or supply enough oxygen by other means
(NOX or NitroMethane comes to mind) you can cram enough low callory
fuel into the engine to make insane horsepower, if the engine only
needs to run for 6 seconds or so.. On a fuel dragster you could cut
the ignition at half track and see very little power loss as the
engine is running almost totally on detonation.. The limit to how much
power they can produce is almost totally the amount of fuel and liquid
oxidizer they can cram into the cyl without hydrolocking the cyls.. An
average top fuel dragster engine turns only 712 revs over the quarter
mile!!!! (and burns over 20 gallons of 90% nitro/10% methanol in 3
seconds. That's 4620 cu inches of fuel.
On an 8 cyl engine that is 2848 power strokes - over 1.6 cu inches of
liquid fuel per cyl per power stroke. On a 640 cu inch engine, or 80
cu inches per cyl, with a compression ratio of 6:1 the compression
volume of the cyl is 11 cubic inches. With 45.5 psi of boost and the
space taken by the liquid fuel, the compression ratio equivalent is
roughly 28:1.



If you are building for only 3000 or so revs of engine life you can do
LOTS of stupid (and expensive) things to make power!!!

In normal driving, the
MIT report says, there is almost no difference -- and required boost can
be achieved with spark retardation that is so low it has almost no
effect on performance.


What you call "Normal driving" is the EPA fuel economy test
driving cycles which do not push the engine very hard.


The report also showed that the break even point
for fuel economy showed that for all driving cycles
a small engine (1.2L) would require 16% ethanol and
a large engine (2.0L) needed only 6%.



retarding spark is a compromise that
decreases efficiency. Fuel that burns
late in the power stroke produces mostly
heat out the exhaust.

================================================== ===========
[Ed]

Sure, but look at the first paragraph on page 58 of the report. The
result is not what you might expect.

And look at the bottom graph on page 57. Surprise!


That isn't surprising. To get maximum miles per
gallon you need just a little less timing and a
little less ethanol than the point where maximum
thermal efficiency occurs.

BTW the compression ratio and boost used in this study
are not particularly high. I've seen studies using
higher compression and boost where ethanol performed
even better.


Also, look at table 9 on page 56. Five degrees of retard results in only
1.55% loss of efficiency in the highly-turbocharged engine. And 5 deg.
buys you a lot of allowed boost with gasoline. As I said, the curves
cross in normal driving, but the upshot is that you actually can get
HIGHER efficiency (in terms of fuel volume/mi.) with the
higher-caloric-content gasoline in normal driving conditions.

Overall, it's a very close call -- unless you go for a pipsqueek engine
running at near hand-grenade-level peak effective pressures at nearly
full throttle. Hmmm...

================================================== ===========


At some point, the lines of volume efficiency
cross, where the lower caloric content of ethanol is compensated by the
very high turbo boost that ethanol allows. The report is worth reading.

None of this has much real world significance.

In the real world ethanol doesn't increase octane
and therefore doesn't raise the knock limit.
In the real world ethanol allows the oil refiners to
cut costs and put a much lower grade fuel in the
pipeline.

If you find regular grade gas without ethanol it
has the same octane as regular with ethanol. It
will cost more because it costs more to produce.
If the entire fuel supply had to be bumped up
by the 3-4 octane points that ethanol provides,
the cost increase would be even greater.





---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On Fri, 30 May 2014 19:32:02 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

John B. fired this volley in
:

What's a "pole motor"?
Maybe a "Long Tail" motor?

We just called 'em "pole motors" in 'Nam. All the fishermen used them.
Just a small motor on the end of a LONG pipe with a prop at the other end.

LLoyd
And some "not so small" too!!!

wrote:
On Fri, 30 May 2014 13:14:50 -0500, jim "
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:


I have been told in the past that ethanol was added to low grade
gasoline in order to make it suitable to burn in cars. And maybe
that's the difference. Lower grade gas that has added ethanol is
actually the culprit. When I use the ethanol free gas it is a higher
grade and so does not "gum up the works".
Eric

================================================== ===================

I don't know which came first, but my (unresearched) understanding is
that they can use a lower-grade gasoline to mix with ethanol because the
ethanol boosts the effective octane rating. It also is conventional
wisdom (again, unresearched on my part) that low-octane gasoline may be
low on detergents and other additives.


It costs money (and energy) to increase octane.
In the refinery business, selling a fuel that has higher
octane than the minimum required is called an "octane giveaway"

It is difficult to determine the actual value of ethanol in
motor fuel. The large quantity used means higher octane
components of gasoline are less valuable than they would be
if there was no ethanol used. That means the gasoline without
ethanol (usually premium grade) is cheaper than it would be
if there were no ethanol used. And if there were no ethanol
the price difference between regular and premium would be
higher because refiners would be required to reform a lot more
of the hydrocarbons into higher octane components.

I've seen estimates on what it would cost to produce
all the octane necessary without ethanol that
range from 5 to 50 cents a gallon.


And what does the ethanol cost?? Amd how much more would it cost
without the multiple subsidies???

Ethanol is about 50 cents less than the CBOB blend stock
last time I looked.


I think reforming would be just as "cheap"
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com