Never satisfied with my limited knowledge I did a little search,
changed some of my thinking and reinforced allot more.
Seldom do I see much benefit in the urban legends and myths that
circulate the internet.
05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51
72 Shark Black/Black/4spd
What thinking changed, and what was reinforced? I would love to see USA
become less dependant on muslim totalitarian countries for fuel. I am
excited about ethanol and about alternate power sources. Check out this
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
That ethanol is actually an octane boost of 3 points and the rest is
what I already believed. Certainly not the 30% mileage drop of some
thinking nor the filter problems of the 70s. I did have to rebuild the
carburetor in my '65 Mustang to get it to run well.
a.. A 10% ethanol-blended fuel is warranted for use by ALL auto
manufacturers marketing vehicles in the U.S.
b.. Many auto manufacturers, including General Motors and Chrysler,
recommend the use of oxygenated fuels, such as ethanol, in their
c.. Ethanol guards against gas line freeze by absorbing moisture
that may get in the tank during cold weather.
d.. Ethanol is a proven octane enhancer and replacement for lead and
other toxic compounds in gasoline.
e.. The blending of 10% ethanol boosts the octane rating of gasoline
by an average of three points.
f.. Nationally, since 1978, ethanol has provided motorists with more
than 2 trillion road miles of satisfactory performance.
g.. Ethanol-blended fuels are approved for use in small engines
too -- including outboard motors, snowmobiles, lawn mowers,
motorcycles, and chain saws. All small-engine manufacturers that have
tested a 10% ethanol blend have approved its use.
05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51
72 Shark Black/Black/4spd
Good link. Advisable reading to anyone having to run ethanol.
Well, this is really a bit misleading. The ethanol may boost the octane 3
points, but then the gasoline manufacturers simply drop the other additives
that they would put in to boost octane. Thus 87 is still 87, 93 is still
93, and so on, whether it is regular gasoline or the ethanol mix. You are
not getting higher octane gas for your car.
One has to remember this is for new cars at the time of publication. There
is a publication on that site in PDF about older vehicles. It is advisable
reading for anyone running C4s and older. There are possibilities of issues
with injectors, depending on the injector type. Vented systems like on the
older C3s and back can have an issue. Cars not driven much and cars that go
into long-term storage can have issues. Cars that have run continuously
without rebuilds of fuel systems, although this is unlikely for two
reasons - this was written about 1996 and so the 10 years of differences in
gasoline should have cleared most varnish and other deposits by now, even if
not using ethanol due to the higher detergent levels in all gas.
Overall, nothing serious, but not recommended for someone who is bringing an
old classic muscle car out of storage from 1975 or some such thing, and
thinking they will fill up and drive normally.
This is an issue for older cars in long-term storage. Regular driving
prevents this from being a hassle.
The talk about lead here is as an octane booster, not a lubricant/shock
absorber for valves. As such, use of ethanol won't cure the no-lead issues
for wear. However, as I have mentioned several times, the wear issue is
overrated. Unless you are doing lots of high RPM operation, or heavy loads
(towing, mountain climbing, etc.), the wear rate is only a bit above normal.
The reality is you may have to do a valve job 10,000 miles sooner on a
50,000 to 80,000 mile engine, and realistically, who drives their restored
to 196x standards classic that many miles?
Agreed, you read that correctly, but it is not a cause of lost power
as was suggested, the blending is pretty equal. It is also stated in
the sites noted that the older elastomembers, 60s and early 70s, would
fail as I eluded to on my Mustang. It also stated that leaking
injectors were prone to calcify if they leaked and leak more, that
design injector is no longer made.
It is a non issue as far as the driving public is concerned and a
Chicken Little type of attitude by some.
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
I didn't mean any of this as criticism of you, just a commentary on the
website statements. Many reading comments here won't go to the website. As
such, they will draw wrong or incomplete conclusions. Reading the website
and remembering the audience is essential.
Most is for current day cars since about 1995 when this was being written.
There is a section on classic cars and needs to be studied by those owners.
Overall, impact is minimal to most drivers. The classic car guys may need
to swap filters as varnish goes out on beginning usage, and they may have to
do carb work, if it hasn't been done in the last 20 years (doubtful).
People still running the older FI injector design may have problems. People
with Rochester Ramjet mechanical fuel injection may have problems. One place
to check is Jerry Bramlett in Alabama as he is a no-nonsense guy on FI.
Other than that, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.
It is hard to find anything other than 10% ethanol in the Midwest due
to "corporate welfare" providing large tax subsidies. For example, in
Illinois adding 10% ethanol allows the companies to deduct about 55
cents/gallon in taxes. So it is rare to find gas that doesn't have 10%
Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline so expect a decrease
in mileage. It will also do an excellent job of cleaning your fuel
system. If you haven't been using it regularly expect to need to
replace your fuel filter within a hundred miles after your first tank.
But if you use it in the winter you will never have a fuel line freeze
up. And it will remove every drop of condensation in your tank. I
always make sure the tank is full of ethanol when storing for the
Personally I would gladly pay a 10% premium (30 cents/gallon extra)
NOT to have ethanol because my mileage suffers almost that much with
it. When I'm traveling and can get a tank of "real" gas, it seems to
make a noticeable difference in performance also. On the other hand, I
haven't had a fuel line problem in many years because it does keep the
It won't hurt the car if you use it regularly. You'll just get lower
mileage and less performance. Just make sure you have a spare fuel
filter and the tools to change one on the side of the road when you
first start using it.
I'd sure like to read more about that, do you have a site that would
give some more facts about the tax breaks? This is just a guess but
there may be that much tacked onto a gallon for kick back and dictator
Didn't see that happen on my '78 or my '72 when I started using
gasoline with ethanol. I'll sure be on guard when I fire up the '50
this next week.
Quick question, how do you get condensation in a closed loop fuel
system? Isn't the void air still drawn in through a moisture trap they
started using in the late '70s?
Both the C5 and my C6 average 28/32 MPG and how I drive it makes more
difference than the fuel with ethanol. Yet you say they should drop to
20/26 MPG? The only time I've ever seen that was at the track,
although it ran about there before it was broke in.
Oops there Kemosahbee, the fuel filter on the late C5s and the C6 and
a number of GM cars are on the fuel pump and that's inside the gas
tank. Not really a wrench job as they are stab-loc fittings prior to
that and I'll not drop a fuel tank beside the road. You could wrench
one on the early C5s but you need to drop the left exhaust pipe also.
Personally I look forward to the day to arrive that the technology is
in place to allow us to run 100% ethanol. I'd much rather deal with
our farmers than I do the mid-east.
On or about Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:11:17 -0400, "Dad"
Google is your friend. http://zfacts.com/p/35.html is just one
admittedly biased source but I post it because it has lots of other
inconvenient facts. To Google the tax breaks yourself, you might want
to include ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) the largest producer of
ethanol in your search criteria. Both the states and the feds give
large breaks to producers of ethanol (ADM).
I assume your complaint is with the changing fuel filter part and not
the mileage. (Your mileage concerns are addressed below.)
http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/rem/rem-26.htm is a state
sponsored site that is directed at station owners and not users but it
contains the following statement - "The ethanol in an ethanol-blend
gasoline acts as a solvent and may dissolve and/or loosen materials
such as bottom sludge and some wall coatings on petroleum storage
tanks. The loosened materials will be suspended in the gasoline and
may cause pump filters and vehicle fuel lines to clog." Again, Google
it yourself and you will find lots of confirmation that ethanol will
quickly remove deposits from tank walls and suspend it in the fuel.
Yes, when they sealed the fuel system in the 70's it did greatly
reduce the breathing of the system. But it isn't prefect and air still
escapes from the system to be replaced later when the tank cools. I
don't know what you mean by a "moisture trap". Air is drawn in through
a block valve in the gas cap but no moisture is removed.
I said I ALMOST lost 10% in mileage. A 10% loss would turn 28/32 into
25.2/28.8 not 20/26. I totally agree that the way the car is driven
can have a much larger effect. Even with the awesome drag coefficient
of a Corvette, the difference between a strong head wind and a strong
tail wind can be almost this much. But your driving style and other
factors are all based on the same difference in fuel. If you got 28mpg
on real gas on the highway at 65 but only 25 at 90, then you might get
25.2 at 65 and 22.5 at 90. The fact that you get better mileage on
ethanol at 65 than on real gas at 90mph is very misleading.
There are 2 factors than make ethanol give worse mileage. First is the
lower BTU/gallon (77KBTU/gal vs. 110KBTU/Gal). Next, because ethanol
has a higher octane rating (it burns slower), when it is mixed with
gasoline they use a lower quality gas to get back to the same total
I'll grant that the newest Corvettes do not have an easily replaceable
fuel filter. A C6 would also not have had enough time to have formed a
significant amount of corrosion in the tank. So if you have a C6
ethanol would not significantly clean the system so it should be no
problem. A '97 C5 is another story.
BTW, I was being facetious when I discussed changing a filter on the
side of the road. That is what towing insurance is for.
How about them Canadians. We buy more oil from Canada than any other
country. And them evil Mexicans are right there next in line. The
Saudi's come in 3rd. Then there's Venezuela, and Nigeria. If we add up
all our imports down to Chad, then we import less than 25% of our
crude oil from the Mid-East and more than 75% from those "unknown"
countries who charge the same amount for a barrel of oil as the Arabs.
Remember, drinking and driving don't mix. Drink ethanol but don't
drive with it.
I can see by the zfacts that we are at the opposite ends of this issue
so I'll try not to belabor the point.
It is also apparent that you jumped in here from soc.culture.usa
alt.politics.immigration alt.mexico alt.california to push a political
inspired position and not a factual use of ethanol.
First off Google is not my friend and is very much to the left. Every
notice the don't change their logo on Veterans day as they do on most
You need to get used to the fact that large tax breaks are given to
large companies, (money), by your elected officials as you have
instructed them to do by voting for them.
Second the bill that started all of the subsidies you refer to was
signed into effect by Jimmy Carter in 1979. More than enough time for
something to be done about it if you feel strongly against its use.
The site I posted clearly states that the accumulated varnish and
trash will be dislodged by ethanol. It also states that that has not
happened to cars to any extent for many years. The above site is for
the cleaning of bulk tanks and its transfer systems to eliminate the
contamination from being pumped into an automobile. It also states
that if they don't it will cause users to take action for the dirty
fuel. Nothing was said about it moving varnish or trash that could
have already been in the car in question. Maybe you should try to read
the posted material instead of pushing a moot point.
Again, had you read the posted site you would see that the moisture
problem is a thing of the past because of the closed loop fuel system.
Clearly stated that moisture is a rare event in the current fuel
systems. Not so rare if the bulk tanks leak and that was also
addressed in your site recommendation.
My bad, I did read the 30 cents a gallon as a 30% lose in mileage. I
still strongly doubt that you can differentiate between driving
habits, weather, different fuel suppliers, accurate calculations,
formulations, traffic flow, and ethanol to determine a percentage of
significant change in fuel mileage. Now if it were a controlled test
as the fuel companies do, and they do report less mileage but much
less than 10%, then your percentage would be believable.
No, it would be the same story, no filter change required unless
something has contaminated the fuel system like improper or dirty
fuel. Maybe a '77 but not a '97 and then only if it sits for years as
some Corvettes do.
By the way I was poking fun at your suggestion to be prepared to
change a filter by the side of the road unless you just took the car
out of a five year storage.
Oil is bid on, sellers don't charge anybody, it is bid off on the open
market (?) which has become impossible to know where it came from in
some cases after it has traveled through many brokers books. The
figures you cite have many flaws and are dated but probably as close
as they will every get due to all the special interest manipulation.
That's just a little silly, I'm sure you told Patrick that, but then
you can do what you like such as spread slanted information about the
horror stories of ethanol fuel. We have been using it in the Midwest
for years and there are few if any that I've seen suffer for its use
as you suggest. It's here to stay and recommended by the automobile
companies for what every that does for you.
Enjoy your Corvette if you every have one,
For information relative to ethanol as well as other alternative fuels and
fuel types, there is information available at this site, which is a site
called "Who Killed The Electric Car" and is sponsored by SONY:
On or about Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:52:41 -0400, "Dad"
Nope. Never been there. I have read this and a couple of other groups
for the past 12 years. But this one has been a daily read for many
years. Read between the lines. I thought Reagan was far too liberal
when he caved on the tax increase.
Good point. But sometimes we have to read what others write to find
out how wrong they are. I found many years ago that you don't convince
someone by feeding them the facts. They have to discover those facts
on their own. If you don't like Google, choose another tool.
I'd rather everyone paid their own share and a much lower rate. If
ethanol is a viable product, let's see if compete fairly rather than
have the government giving it an unfair advantage in the market.
Yep. Ethanol might have needed a subsidy to get started 20 years ago
but do we have to keep paying forever? Why do I have to pay for your
gas? Why do you have to pay for someone else's food? Why don't we all
just pay for our own stuff and let charities pick up the slack?
If you mean the Iowa Corn site, then we are in agreement. Ethanol is a
very good solvent.
Yes, it does. But why isn't it a problem. It isn't a current problem
because every car in Iowa runs on ethanol and has for many years.
Ethanol is a very good solvent. It only takes one tank to clean the
system. That's the problem if you have an older car that has never
You really think ethanol is smart enough to know the difference
between contamination in a big storage tank and contamination in a
small storage tank?
As in other places, it is talking about a brand new car. So you really
think your tank seals are perfect? Not everyone believes that.
here's your chance to educate me. What year did the Corvette add the
check engine warning for a loose gas cap? It still doesn't solve the
problem since air is drawn into the tank whenever it cools, but it
helps keep the pressure up while driving so there is less air coming
in. Think about this, though. What happens between a full tank and an
empty tank on a humid day in a totally closed perfectly sealed system?
Iowa (trying to sell corn and ethanol) even admits 2% lower mileage. I
base my opinions on a regular 850 mile one day trip in an 85 Corvette.
You can monitor average mileage on each tank very easily. When I would
leave Illinois I was running ethanol which was sometimes not the
freshest. As soon as I would fill up out of state the mileage
increased at least 10%. That could be attributed to bad gas EXCEPT, on
the return trip, if I filled up with ethanol blend, by the end of that
tank the mileage would drop at least 5%. Do that several times a year
in summer and winter and pretty soon you see a pattern.
My numbers came from the Department of Energy April 2006 report.
I haven't spoken to Patrick since he broke the knob off the radio.
Let's see, I said "It won't hurt the car if you use it regularly.
You'll just get lower mileage and less performance." Your Iowa Corn
site said "The most current information derived from controlled
environmental testing is that on fuel injected vehicles, fuel mileage
may decrease by approximately 2%." which would translate into slightly
poorer performance. The BTU values of both fuels would indicate that
it should be more like 3.5% less for a 10% blend. My experience is
that it is between 5% and 10% worse.
I'm from Illinois even though for the past few years I've spent a lot
of time out of state. I drive back at least 6 times a year. I've been
using ethanol for years also because you can't get anything else in
most of the Midwest. It's ok. It's FAR better than an MTBE mix. It
just isn't as good as "real" gas. And that first step can sometimes be
a big one.
You do the same. (By the way, if you want to research my previous
posts, add "85 Silver" to your advanced search criteria.)
Here's wavin' at ya'
My Mom always said not to talk to strangers, needed to try to know you better.
Actually on groups in
Google it shows every post you make and it includes those you cross posted.
Can you relate to the group people you know that have had problems from using
ethanol and what they
On or about Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:30:03 -0400, "Dad"
I thought you didn't like Google. :) Yes, theoretically you can find
every post. Unfortunately I don't always use the 85 Silver sig so it
becomes harder. My "email" is useless without further qualification.
There's some real wackos out there using firstname.lastname@example.org Never thought
about that. Probably need to change to something a little less common.
I have never intentionally cross posted.
Everyone I know who uses ethanol gets worse mileage than they would if
they used real gas. That's just physics already confirmed by the site
you gave in support of your position. Although it is harder to
document, physics also says that if mileage is worse, performance
should also be worse. You can only get so much fuel into an engine at
WOT. If it takes more fuel to get the same energy out (energy to
travel 30 miles) then you are limiting the energy you can get out at
WOT. But I have no data to support this. In fact I have found data to
refute it. http://www.usc.edu/CSSF//Current/Projects/S0210.pdf Using a
dynamometer, ethanol increased the HP output 128%. So if you want a
1200 HP firebreathing dragon, just get an '07 Z06 and fill the tank
with ethanol. :) More scientifically rigorous tests indicate that
ethanol can actually increase HP under proper conditions.
research gave a reasoning that ethanol being an oxygenate needs less
air for proper combustion. Therefore, if the injectors can handle the
larger fuel needs (up to 35% more fuel per revolution), you can get a
larger charge into each cylinder and therefore more power.
So, I'll drop the decreased performance claim but I still know what my
butt feels. Gonna have to teach my butt to Google. :) But there is
no doubt at all as to the reduced fuel economy. The last site shows
that even with increased power output, the cost to operate a lawn
mower engine on E85 was almost twice as much.
As to the ability of ethanol to loosen crud, everyone I know went
through the test many years ago. It is only a problem on the first
tank or so if you continue to use ethanol. But when someone asks about
the first time, it has to be a consideration.
Have we beat this subject to death yet? I'll be glad to give you the
last word if you want it.
You need to pay attention or comprehend better, I said Google is not my friend,
not that I didn't
use it. I don't like taxes but I still use them.
If you read all of the sites I posted there is some proof that there is more
power in the 10% blend
as some would have you to believe. Beside I ask for any problems that people
were having not the
perceived minuscule seat of the pants power drop.
Still a moot point and not as problematic as some would like you to believe.
Now I have a fresh tank of gasoline and I'm going to drive that out and fill up
with 10% and see if
there is any difference, hard to find it here but need to confirm past usage.
Mileage? I have not seen any particular mpg difference in Non-ethanol
vs. 10% ethanol in our vehicles but perhaps in your case you should have
your injectors checked/cleaned as that is likely the cause of the 10% drop.
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.