E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st

Sorry no joke all grades of gas will be E-10 the MTBE additive is gonzo. Coasty

Kate, check the pump next time you fill up you should see an E-10 on it or ask them.

Coasty

The mandates are wrong Maryland where I live will be April 1st along with many other states since the Feds no longer allow the use of MTBEs in fuel. Coasty

You bet I will. Wow, that's really a bum deal. Thanks for the heads up Coasty! Kate

: > WOW - that's really bad mike. : > I just wonder...... : >

: > My Liberty has gotten worse and worse mileage over the last month. Maybe : > the : > station switched while I wasn't looking. : >

: >

: >

: :

Our Cherokee 4.0 doesn't seem to mind any old crap for gas.

I run a 195 T-stat in the 4.2 and it normally runs about 210 or so. It is set up manually for carb and timing with no pollution computer running. Basically a pre 82 setup on a pre 82 engine. (think the engine is a 78, should check

I have lots of heat. A bit too much in the summer because my winch and lights block some of the rad flow. Not hot enough to ever boil over, but I have 'failed' a fail safe t-stat open while off road running.

I tried messing with the mix via the carb's metering pins to make it run a bit richer, but all that did was give me a mid range bog and lowered my mileage.

Mike

Earle Hort>

***

It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.

Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the subject:

Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives, it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state, has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.

In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves ethanol as the most likely replacement.

I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.

Further reading: EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:

Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:

And an amusing one: "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"

Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.

Coasty wrote:

E-5, not E-10. See:

Mike Roma> No joke unfortunately. They are talking about mandating alcohol in fuel

I also live in CT, and haven't seen a pump without a "Contains 10% Ethanol" sticker for some time. Are you sure the RFG is only 5%?

That means I guess one next project will to put an engine in that can burn the crap so I can keep my power level up.

A V8 that burns the crap might give me as much power as I have now with my 258 on 'real' gas eh. Maybe the same 'gas' mileage too seeing as my old Chevy 350 got 18 mpg or so and that crap mix drops my 258's mileage 'way' down.

Mike

Lee Ayrt>

In the Midwest US we have had 10% ethanol most brands of gasoline for ...

15-20 years. Marathon based in Findley Ohio was that last one that used to advertise they sold "100% gasoline" but I do not recall seeing those signs for a long time so I will assume that it is gasohol also.

Back when it first was being introduced there was controversy just like we are having here about drivability and deterioration of rubber parts.

The aftermarket auto parts companies were quick to jump in with 'new and improved' components that were gasohol safe and I'm assuming that all 'modernly' produced fuel system parts are fully compatible.

There was a time when all the vehicle engines ran poorly... well... longer than a time as it was 10-15 years but I think most of that can be attributed to the manufacturers adopting the least expensive way to meet environmental regulations rather than using a more efficient but also more expensive option.

What are the emissions laws like where you live? Where I live you could get away with any type of engine transplant, but where Bill lives probably not. Maybe, a 4.0 would be less trouble all around than a V8.

Earle

*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com *** *** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from ***

I am in Canada and am now exempt from emissions because of age. I think I would have had to pass either the year of the engine or the vehicle year's test, but we have a 'hot rod' class that covers that. The new rules might say the engine has to be an 86 or newer, but....

Like my CJ7 as a utility vehicle, did not come with a cat converter so I didn't need it. I also dumped the computer out, but left the important things like the air filter flapper, egr and pcv systems working.

My last emissions test was using 91 octane esso gas, and the above setup with no emissions computer or cat converter and I got on the ASM 2525 test, 589 NOx, 16 ppm HC, and 0.11% CO. Not too shabby....

I do like 350's.....

Mike

Earle Hort>

***

Until you asked, yes I was. I'll be tanking up today, I'll check the pump sticker then.

I agree. Seals in newer fuel systems are designed for ethanol, but anything 10 years or older will have major problems. And people need to be informed about it, because problems WILL happen.

Mixing alcohol does lower emissions, IMO, primarily because it lowers combustion temps. It's like throwing a wet blanket on a roaring fire. Sadly, it also lowers fuel mileage, saturates the fuel and exhaust system in excess moisture and it costs more.

I'm glad to see MTBE go away, but something else could have been developed. Corn farmers and new car sellers will be smiling broadly. We've been using this stuff for a year or two out here in CA, and you're right: the engine doens' t run very well on it. Used to be 5% was the max, now it's 10%. I'm sure it will eventually go even higher, to the point where golf carts will be passing is on the freeway.

I wish there was some way to address the real problem instead: too damn many cars.

-JD

Not exactly correct... To many drivers... Think about it carefully... There's a difference... I have 3 cars, an airplane, a boat, an ATV, and a motorcycle... All for only 2 drivers... For the most part, only one of those ever gets used at a time... Reducing my cars would not reduce the air polution that I generate, I would just drive one of the other vehicles more often... Reducing the number of drivers would have a direct effect on the air polution generated... Of course arguments could be made on whether the reductions are worthwhile considering the amount of air polution that is generated from other sources (some "natural" like the recent fires in the Oklahoma and Texas panhandles)...

Here in MI if they sell 10% ethanol they are required to put a notice sticker on the pump. Speedway & Clark come to mind. I normally gas up at national-chain stations, or at the local Meijer station; they usually have the best price on gas. Believe it or not, Mobil in Livonia has the best prices on diesel down here; when traveling, we buy fuel at Flying J stations, they seem to have the best prices within a couple hour's drive.

Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as you have. I see it from the ass-end of the logic chain: cut the number of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right; we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.

I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.

Bah. My solution? Move to the suburbs - to hell with big-city-revenue mentality. It's worked pretty well so far. I'm long-since tired of the smog, crime and noise anyway. The rats won the race a long time ago. We just shuffle shit around every 4 years is all; this country was bought and paid for a LONG time ago, and ain't nothin' gonna change!

Okay, time to take my meds...

Far too many trucks on the road. That's why I haul'em aboard a train!

Ed

As I understand it, Oxygenates do little for emissions in most modern cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are usually described in the FSM.

Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or >