Runs fine in my '64, but you need to have a vehicle that is made to
burn 85% to go much over the 15% blend in most combustion engines.
The only problem I've seen so far is that with the old vented systems
you do get some evaporation loss in this hot weather, that's not an
ethanol problem though.
Not sure I understand your question, is it safe, not if you hit
something while driving it with any type fuel. Will the Corvette run
on blended fuel with ethanol, yes, and I look for the percentage to go
With close to 100k miles on C5s and this C6 and having bought fuel in
more than 2 dozen states, of which blended is all some sell, they
haven't missed a lick so far.
I don't see your issue???
Not so fast Red Rider.
You're OK in C5s and C6s with the blends.
C4s with Multec injectors can't go above 10%.
Destroys the insulation in the injector
coils. Then, the performance takes a hit.
Some of the plastic parts, floats and gaskets
in older carbs don't play well with Ethanol
but a 'kit' job will repair the damage.
On or about Sat, 16 Jun 2007 17:22:53 -0500, RT wrote or did cause to
WHOA!!! Dad didn't say that. He would have if that is what you asked
because he LOVES ethanol but you just asked if it was safe and it IS
safe to use in a modern car. But you do take a big performance hit.
Ethanol has about 33% less energy per gallon. That is offset somewhat
by its octane rating of 100+. In a C6 you should expect about 10 RWHP
less running a 10% ethanol mix. You also get 0.5-1 mpg less mileage.
And before the usual crowd chimes in "Well I never saw any difference"
this is physics. The fact you didn't observe the physics doesn't
change the physical properties of ethanol. Look it up. Even the
ethanol producers acknowledge it doesn't provide the performance or
economy of gasoline.
Ethanol isn't necessarily my love in life but Corvettes and travel
are. I started a 10,000 mile trip in a new 2004 C5, less than 400
miles when I left. My travel took me from Auburn, Cord, Duesenberg
Museum in Auburn Indiana to Portland Oregon, then to Greenville South
Many of the western states were running 10/15% ethanol and mileage
varied as much by driving at night as it did with different
brands/blends of gas. Average for the trip was 28.8, high was 32 mpg
with Shell w/ethanol. Both the tank before and after were better than
the low of 27.2 and major versus unheard of brands seemed to be little
different. Driving to show its difference is just not accurate enough
to prove anything much.
I will not try to address the performance change if any, my seat of
the pants dynamometer is not any more accurate than anyone else's on
It's strange that a new performance gadget can be added and "it sure
feels stronger", but seldom does it feel less. The difference just
isn't enough to worry about for the new gadget or using ethanol. You
just can't measure the difference without it being done in a lab, and
I haven't seen a good test yet, most are trying to prove their point
rather than fact.
By this all I can say is Dale is right, plus ethanol is here to stay,
the greenies said so.
On or about Sun, 17 Jun 2007 09:05:02 -0400, "Dad"
10% ethanol is hard to notice. That's 0.1 * 0.3 = 3% less performance
and economy. Again, because of the increase in octane rating, it might
only be 2.5%. With a 400HP engine that's 10 hp. Hard to notice. With
the current 28mpg highway rating it's 0.7mpg less. You're right that
driving habits make a far larger impact. E85 will be more than 100hp
and 7mpg less. THAT will be noticeable.
But the environmentalists have lost very few battles in the past. Who
can argue against baby seal eyes. Facts don't matter. Say ethanol is
good for the environment. Doesn't matter that we will erode farm land
that took thousands of years to develop. Doesn't matter that it takes
a lot more energy to grow it than to refine oil. Doesn't matter that
it puts more CO2 into the atmosphere than oil. JUst say it's good for
the environment and that should be enough. Ethanol is here to stay.
And the news on the TV this moment is how oil companies are
rethinking increasing gasoline production since the President has said
he wants to decrease usage by 20% and replace it with ethanol. No
matter that this would take all the farm land currently used to grow
corn for food resulting in skyrocketing meat prices. The oil companies
are listening and shelving plans to increase production meaning gas
prices will increase drastically in the future when we don't see that
20% decrease in demand. Sometimes you just want to scream "WAKE UP
</rant off> 10% Ethanol is safe to use but I will gladly pay 30 cents
more / gallon for real gas.
In my '96 Toyota truck (10% ethanol mandatory in my area of Oregon), the
mileage dropped about 30%. Thought something else may be wrong and had a
complete tune-up to the tune of $600 -- helped a wee bit but still down
Thankfully I work only 4 blocks from home and only drive about 250 miles
a month in my truck -- but still it seems pretty self-defeating to claim
environmental responsibility but go far less on a gallon.
We need to invest in research that will completely replace
transportation using combustibles.
Here's waving to ya - \||||
'67BB & '72BB
-- not affiliated with JLA forum in any way -- alt.autos.corvette is
original posting --
"To know the world intimately is the beginning of caring."
-- Ann Hayman Zwinger
Ethanol is NO solution. Just the government kissing the asses of the
midwest corn farmers. The rest of us (including the environment and our car
engines) are being screwed.
wrote or did cause to be written:
Let's hope industry and the government
accurately understand the economics of
cel-ethanol before they shove us taxpayers into
another bottomless pit of subsidies & tax breaks.
Good read on who's going broke on corn-ethanol:
Last night, I enjoyed my ethanol in a glass of
Cabernet to accompany a NY strip steak (fattened
on California sugar beets). Corn makes for a
better steak but it's hard to find corn-fed
Somehow I think the 'greenies' are going to
complicate my life with an extra recycling bin.
A bin for 'non-cellulose green' and another for
'cellulose rich green.' (I wonder how much
extra diesel will be spent to run the extra
truck to collect this stuff.)
Understand? I think we'd be fooling ourselves if we believed the hairy
legged tree huggers actually thought out the consequences and side
effects of their demands. Heck take a look at the messes California gets
themselves into with "their" insistence on requiring "over the top"
regulations. Electricity(prices), water(shortages), fuel((MTBE), the
list just keeps getting longer.
...Water -- you have it right -- just like
Atlanta. We're protecting a fish few people
have ever seen. I'm being paid a buck a
square-foot to tear out my lawn.
...Electricity -- Nah, We suckered into a 'free
market system.' Then Cheney's FPC turned that
into a nightmare, ruling that Enron was honest.
The current Calif. ISO is light years ahead of
what other regions have. Calif's anti-nukes are
coming around. We've got six reactors to
replace and more to build. We'll be OK.
...MTBE -- Yup, you got it right. We shot
ourselves in the foot on that one. Should have
shutdown the gas stations with leaky tanks. The
sob-sisters & hand-wringers failed to get tough
and kick-butt when it was needed.
...Air Quality -- Federal EPA Regulations,
policing and fines drive most of our decisions.
Our county can *fail* on a beautiful clear
day if a single monitor is bad (that's usually
in Alpine, CA.)
Bob I wrote:
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.