Does a blend of 10% alcohol cause problems? 2002 Ranger V6 4.0L

A few days ago, I noticed the new local gas station, "Crystal Flash," has small stickers on all of it's pumps that say "Blended with 10%..," so all they sell is E90% and E85% on some pumps.

The prices are about the same as other gas stations selling 100% petrol in their pumps. But E85% is usually $.20-$.30 less than pure petrol gas.

Is it OK for them to be blending th gas this way? I thought engines need to be modified to burn E85%, will E90% hurt an unmodified 2002 engine?.

What's up here? Shouldn't E90% be lower priced than normal gas?

Can I be harming my old tired Ranger?

Thanks

Reply to
Bill Jenkins
Loading thread data ...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 23:15:32 -0400, Bill Jenkins rearranged some electrons to say:

10% ethanol is not E90. It's E10. It won't hurt.
Reply to
david

Ethanols highly corrosive. Its debatable if damage is occuring.

Reply to
None4U

Methanol and ethanol contain soluble and insoluble contaminants [3]. Halide ions, which are soluble contaminants, such as chloride ions, have a large effect on the corrosivity of alcohol fuels. Halide ions increase corrosion in two ways: they chemically attack passivating oxide films on several metals causing pitting corrosion, and they increase the conductivity of the fuel. Increased electrical conductivity promotes electrical, galvanic and ordinary corrosion in the fuel system. Soluble contaminants such as aluminum hydroxide, itself a product of corrosion by halide ions, clogs the fuel system over time. To prevent corrosion the fuel system must be made of suitable materials, electrical wires must be properly insulated and the fuel level sensor must be of pulse and hold type (or similar). In addition, high quality alcohol should have a low concentration of contaminants and have a suitable corrosion inhibitor added.

Methanol and ethanol are also incompatible with some polymers. The alcohol is solved by the polymers causing swelling, and over time the oxygen breaks down the carbon-carbon bonds in the polymer causing a reduction in tensile strength. For the past few decades though, most cars have been designed to tolerate up to 10% ethanol (E10) without problem. This include both fuel system compatibility and lambda compensation[clarification needed] of fuel delivery with fuel injection engines featuring closed loop lambda control. In some engines ethanol may degrade some compositions of plastic or rubber fuel delivery components designed for conventional petrol, and also be unable to lambda compensate the fuel properly.[citation needed]

"FlexFuel" vehicles have upgraded fuel system and engine components which are designed for long life using E85 or M85, and the ECU can adapt to any fuel blend between gasoline and E85 or M85. Typical upgrades include modifications to: fuel tanks, fuel tank electrical wiring, fuel pumps, fuel filters, fuel lines, filler tubes, fuel level sensors, fuel injectors, seals, fuel rails, fuel pressure regulators, valve seats and inlet valves. The cost of this E85 upgrade to a modern engine is inexpensive and is less than $100[citation needed]. "Total Flex" Autos destined for the Brazilian market can use E100 (100% Ethanol).

Reply to
None4U

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:11:09 -0400, None4U rearranged some electrons to say:

For the past few decades though, most cars have been designed to tolerate up to 10% ethanol (E10) without problem.

Of course. Wikipedia. Then it must be true. *** sigh ***

Reply to
david

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 03:08:01 -0400, None4U rearranged some electrons to say:

It's all about the concentration. 10% is not very likely to cause any damage.

Reply to
david

Thank you againg for the responses. I was making an error, thinking "Blended with 10% Ethanol" meant E90, and that E85 meant 85% petrol blended with 15% Ethanol.

Now I understand that E85 is 85% ethanol, and the sign announcing 10% ethanol means E10.

Bill

Reply to
Bill Jenkins

Generally you have no choice, the blending is mandated by law in many states, and all stations have the blend. Check other station's pumps and you will see it.

Keep in mind that at the distribution depot, there is one tank for regular, and one for premium gas. The difference between brands is additives that are put in at the time the fuel is dispensed into the tanker to deliver, other than additives all gasoline is equal, so to speak.

Reply to
PeterD

Most "big cities" only have E10 during "pollution season", it's called

-oxygenated fuel-. It's nothing but a scam to funnel money to the farm lobby. It's been know for decades that in any modern car with a properly functioning emissions system the use of oxygenated fuels does NOT reduce emissions. Decades ago, before modern systems, it would help. But those days are long gone. Unfortunately, the farm lobby is so strong we are still wasting FOOD products to make alcohol for a net LOSS of energy.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:52:25 -0400, PeterD rearranged some electrons to say:

True. Even by pipeline delivery, all the gasoline is bascially the same. In some cases, the buyer doesn't even get the gasoline that the seller injected into the pipeline...

formatting link

Reply to
david

The only problem that you may notice is that the ethanol has not the same energy, so the higher concentrations of ethanol in your fuel will lead to poorer gas mileage than if you burned pure gasoline.

If the concentration of ethanol is mandated by local legislation, there is some comfort in the knowledge that everyone else is suffering the same financial burden.

If not you may want to get back to the pure gasoline and pay a little les to get where you are going.

H.

Reply to
Henry Rowbottom

The 10% ethanol most likely won't harm your Ranger, but if it's like my '02 Escape, you'll see a decrease in mileage and a small performance hit. I never understood why I get 12-15% less mileage with E10 than I do with "normal" gas, but I do. Since the price of E10 is the same as gas around here, I'm losing by running E10. I also don't see how it's helping on lesser emissions if it takes 12% more fuel to get to the same destination. Let's see, 10% less gas used, but 12% more E10 used. Hmmm. . . . If the station with 100% gas wasn't 45 miles away, I'd be using it all the time. I don't find that conservative at all ;-)

SC Tom

Reply to
SC Tom

The whole ethanol thing is nothing but a subsidy to the high powered farm lobby. You pay twice, once to subsidize the farmers and a second time when you get crappy gas mileage.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

ethanol isn't highly corrosive but methanol is.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

Ashton Crusher wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

I really wish you would get your shit together Ashton!!!!!!! There is "no" sub. to grow corn, and the milage hit is in the 1 to 2 persent range unless you have a shit car. Granted there is a tax reduction to the ethanol refiners. And you don`t understand the difference between a tax reuction and a subsidy, but you haven`t got a clue in the last couple of years why start now. KB

Reply to
Kevin

learn to use google. Between 1995 and 2003, federal corn subsidies totaled $37.3 billion. The tax credit is another form of subsidy....Beginning January 1, 2009, the federal tax credit for ethanol blends is reduced from 51 cents for every gallon of ethanol mixed with gasoline to 45 cents

The mileage "hit" varies a lot between cars, shit or otherwise. Some suffer much more then 2%.

Reply to
Ashton Crusher

Ashton Crusher wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Here we go again. A tax reduction is NOT a subsidy. Letting one keep their own money is NOT a subsidy. only in the minds of Gov. idiots is that a subsidy. you may say the other side is over taxed if you like but it is not a subsidy. So to begin with the numbers attributied to the corn subsidy are crap accounting to begin with. the only direct subsidies that are real are the direct and counter programs which are a fraction of the figures quoted. Right now the price of corn is close to

25 persent below cost of production. It might have been high last year but is very low now. (where is that giant ethano bonus we are supposted to be getting?) the cost of production roughly went up 40 persent this year. the subsidies are supposted to help tide the farmer over when times are like this to protect the cheap food policy the Gov is scared to quit doing to the US. If they want to assure cheap and plentyfull food (which equals cheap corn, bns, wheat) they have to have something in place to assure plenty will be planted next year regardless of the current conditions. And to the milage hit, there is no scientific reason that anything other than a poorly designed or tuned car gets less than 1 to 2 persent less milage. We have had 10 persent ethanol here for years and the only thing I have seen get a big drop is the carbed motorcycles and it even varies by bike there depending on how good the design is to begin with. the only other variable is the quality of the gas ethanol mix itself and there is no way for the layman to tell that. KB
Reply to
Kevin

snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

The production of a gallon of ethanol in the US absorbs rather more than the energy-equivalent of a gallon of normal fuel. So substituting ethanol increases, rather than reduces, CO2 emissions. Nationally and internationally it has all sorts of other undesirable consequences. Vodka (ethanol) has, and continues to, rot the brains of Russians. But the US ethanol industry must be one of the worst self-inflicted curses any country has imposed upon itself.

Reply to
Ken

But this is the American way: implement a solution without invistigating the entire solution, hide the down side of the solution, and appeal to emotion, not science and facts.

Reply to
PeterD

Ken wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@2g2000prl.googlegroups.com:

That has not been true for at least two years now. the net yield of ethanol has risen a bunch while the nessary energy used has dropped.

So substituting

so other than using a fuel you don`t like your arguments are bougus eh?? KB

Reply to
Kevin

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.