Go to www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/news/biofuels.html. This gives a run down of the situation and indicates the way that governments are expecting the numbers of cars likely to be affected by current legislation to fall due to normal wear and tear before introducing even more ethanol.

 

I also am led to believe that Esso super unleaded is free of ethanol in my neck of the woods - North West England!

 

Your link is incorrect and does not work. Here is the correct link

Biofuels | AA

I've seen the article before and assume you're referring to this paragraph:

"E10

In March 2013, reflecting changes to the EN specification, the BS specification for petrol was changed to increase the maximum level of ethanol permitted in petrol from 5% to 10% by volume.
At these higher concentrations there are potential compatibility issues with some fuel system components so the standard additionally requires that any fuel sold to the new specification must be clearly labelled on the pump as ‘unleaded petrol 95 E10’. Where E10 is sold, national legislation will ensure that filling stations continue to supply an E5 ‘protection grade’ petrol for use by vehicles not compatible with E10.
90% or more of the petrol vehicles currently in service in the UK are compatible with E10 but this of course means that a significant number are not. The government is discouraging any early switch to E10 in the UK so that the number of incompatible vehicles can reduce further (through end-of-life), and fuel producers have agreed to give three months notice ahead of the eventual introduction of E10."


and what follows.



This is a prediction of what might happen(doom and gloom sky is falling) and not what has actually transpired, accompanied by some sort of proof.


We saw the same dire predictions here 10-15 years ago and much like the elimination of lead from fuels, all of a sudden without warning, nothing happened.

 

Mikey, I love you my friend, but there hasn't been leaded gas in the states for 30 years?
To all don't fret, Mercedes has unveiled their 10 new product lines.
In under 10 years, the gasoline engine will be an old man hobby and a faint memory to everyone else.
Electric is coming like never before and with a generation under 40 that cant change the station on a remote control, they sure as hell wont be changing your 20/50 Castrol.
The sky wont be falling, but the world will be changing.
Anyone here care to drive my MODEL TT to work 2 days in a row?
All in fun.
GTJOEY1314

 

Mikey, Clicking on the web address I gave took me directly to the same site that you advised -so it may well be that my original address is OK!

 

The article says that cars built prior to 2000 may have problems but not after. This suggests that manufacturers have made changes to ensure that they are compatible. I doubt if they would go to that length of effort if there was not a problem looming. It also gives three potential issues - Corrosion, material compatibility and combustion - all of which you seem to dismiss. Have you done tests or something?

 

Yes- along with hundreds of thousands/millions of other motorists here , many unknowingly being test subjects.

E10 is nothing new. It's been in widespread use for 20-30 years in North America, originally marketed as 'gasahol' in some areas. Until very recently, many areas did not require any notifications at the gas pump advising consumers that the fuel was blended with ethanol. In those areas, the E10 fuel was nothing new, just the pump stickers. Howls of outrage ensued despite there being no evidence that any cars ad bee n damaged.

Contrary to the predictions of your motoring club, there has been no widespread problems with cars- old or new. Unfortunately, some people have adopted the habit of blaming any and all engine difficulties on ethanol even when it's easy to prove that the problem was not at all to do with the fuel.

I also belong to a very large (15K members) antique car association focusing on pre-1970s Corvettes. I've posted a picture up above looking down inside the gas tank of my own car. It's had nothing but E10 for decades. There is no corrosion at all. Bona fide problems associated with ethanol, aside from some rare percolation or vapour lock issues are unheard of.

It is true that E10 contains less energy than pure gas. This results in a ~3% loss of power and fuel economy but most motorists don't notice.

There is truth to problems with garden tools or similar. Until recently not all were built with ethanol resistant materials. If left full of fuel over the winter, many found that they would not start the following spring.

It is possible that some soft components on pre 1990s cars may not be compatible with ethanol. These components would not be at least 26 years old and are well past their service life and overdue for replacement, E10 or not.

I'm not an ethanol supporter- it's one of the biggest political scams of modern times. I just object to the scare mongers that make it out to be Satan Incarnate.

 

I happen to drive a 52 year old car that gets relatively little usage and stays in my garage most of our cold damp winters. This seems to me quite fitting to your lawn mower analogy. There are many older valuable cars that are in a similar situation. NO ONE HAS GIVEN ME POSITIVE PROOF THAT THEY ARE NOT AT RISK. I will continue to use fuel with the least ethanol available. You do as you wish and I hope you come to no harm. I do not consider my old cars to be deposable just because they are past there presumed lifetime.

 

some pics and threads from searching the above,

you can find more using the same search.


1st time for Seafoam - Page 2 - Harley Davidson Forums

Injector Repair LLC: Ethanol can cause fuel injector clogging and fuel injection problems.

Phase Separation - Small Engine Repair

Now, isn't it strange that some people are not satisfied with using
ethanol themselves ... but also loudly proclaim that everyone else
must also use ethanol.

What happened to freedom of choice?

++

 

Given that ...

a) the ethanol is fine crowd seem to universally fall back on arguments to the effect that

"all vehicles since the year XXXX are ethanol compatible because
the manufacturers have incorporated mitigation measures to allow
the use of 10 percent ethanol content fuels"

notice that this argument bars the assertion that ethanol has no ill effect
by virtue of the necessity to implement mitigation measures.

b) vehicle manufacturers are very cost conscious and do not include non-visible
features or mitigations without good cause borne out of necessity.

It follows then that ethanol laced fuel must have properties and behaviours
that has forced notoriously tight fisted manufacturers to spend money to
offset those properties and behaviours.

Now, consider that vehicle manufacturers and their engineers are not
infallible. Why else would safety recalls exist? Including several safety recalls
initiated by NHTSA related to pinholes in fuel lines specifically attributed
to the use of ethanol fuel at concentration levels of 10 percent or less
in vehicles manufactured post 2000 by multiple manufacturers.

The conclusion would have to be that not all ethanol content mitigations
are successful but ethanol content does have an effect on the longevity
of components in the fuel system.

Further consider the case where ethanol free gasoline is available to an
owner in his local market at no premium to ethanol laced fuel.

A rational owner in such a set of circumstances could avoid the uncertainty
of whether or not all needed mitigations in his specific vehicle have been
properly implemented in that vehicle by the manufacturer by simply using
the ethanol free gasoline that is available to him.

For those owners, that would be the safest choice as it completely avoids
any reliance on the quality of the manufacturer ethanol content mitigations.

The above is a choice that is available to me, and I take it thus completely
obviating any ethanol related problems for me.

I also like ACEA A3/B4 rated xW40 viscosity oil and TC-W3 two stroke
marine engine oil as a upper cylinder lubricant.

Finally, the oft bandied about perjorative of "anecdotal evidence" used
to be called "real experience" in more civilized times.

 

I under 10 years? dreaming. Not yet reached 1% of global annual manufacture, meanwhile 94million added to the installed base each year. They are coming and have a place I agree, but just like driverless vehicles may be further off than press releases present. Of course the growth curves and % look impressive starting at zero. Lots of variables, how long will gas prices stay down? will we hit Peak Lithium? will the whole AGW scam crumble?

So harsh on the the under 40's, arent they the tech savvy ones? I mean they can use Twitbook and everything

 

I have a 1977 Ford RV with 460 4bbl. The gas is 2 years old, started occasionally and stabilized. No problems or leaks, fuel lines are new. My boat has been sitting with 1 year old fuel and stabilized, no problems on start up or first use this year, micro filtered and new lines. Both started with 93 Octane.

 

And you will never get proof positive, because they cannot
offer such proof so long as they are not willing to stray too far from
basic truth.

Their statements are based on the premise that vehicles
manufactured after some point in time have measures aimed at
mitigating the effects of ethanol.

They cannot deny the effects of ethanol, they can only
suggest that vehicles manufactured after some point in time
are capable of using ethanol due to the mitigation measures.

Thus, for vehicles manufactured well before that magical
point in time, they either have to remain silent or suggest
that it is not quite so bad as to merit mention.

Of course, those are the subset who at least argue from fact.

Those who are willing to go beyond fact resort to all kinds
of debating trickery to skate around facts and even make
claims out of thin air and proclaim those as fact ....
because they say so.

++

 

I don't believe anyone said anything of the sort. Very few antique Corvettes get much use either, you probably drive yours more than I do mine.

I can only draw on my own personal experience and that of my fellow antique car owners who are now wondering what all the fuss is/was about. There relatively few new posts on the US car discussion boards these day regarding the E10 subject as the 'panic' seems to have passed.

If my point above was missed, about five years ago many motorists in the US went into near hysteria when E10 warning stickers started appearing at fuel pumps, having heard all the predictions of Armageddon or worse. What they didn't realize was the fuel they had been using already was, and had been E10 for at least several years. Only the pump stickers themselves were new.

Canada and much of the Northern US has has E10 for 20-30 years. I would think that 3 decades is more than enough time for bona fide problems to appear, and yet.......

It appears that the UK is only now making E10 usage more mainstream, which I suppose has re-awoken the rumour monster.

 

I agree that ethanol is a menace to old cars. It absolutely ruined my 40 year old rubber fuel lines.
Other than that, I have been running gas with Ethanol since it started coming in the fuel. I have a 1970 car with mechanical fuel injection, and a 1975 car with CIS fuel injection. The ethanol has caused me no problems at all. Fuel injectors are original and look/work like new. I have a 1965 BMW with carbs that gives me no problems running ethanol. I don't even believe the carbs have ever been rebuilt and it still runs great.
I don't deny the data on ethanol. I suspect it may have some negative effect- like a rubber fuel line may only last 15 years instead of 16. What I do know is that there is a of "research" out there that is cooked up to support a particular point of view or product that is being sold. I can't imagine buying non ethanol fuel from tins like it's a lawn mower that only uses 1 gallon a month.
Personally, I wouldn't drive across the street to buy ethanol free gas, let alone pad someone's pockets for the privilege of doing so.

 

Depends on your local market I guess.

I just pull up to the pump.

 

The 40 year old fuel lines were living on borrowed time- ethanol or not. Would anybody trust 40 year old tires?

The Corvette association I belong to cherishes untouched, original cars. We encourage members to bring them out so we can all have a look to learn how they were really built. More than once I've been underneath one of these virgins and noticed heavy cracking in the fuel lines leading from the gas tank to the fuel pump.

One good bump followed by a spark and no more Corvette.

 

yea- that is crazy. Originality is one thing, but that's a quick way to having a piece of charcoal.

 

I am a member of The Jaguar Enthusiasts club. In this months magazine, one Ken Jenkins, one of our technical gurus has passed on some of his experience. He says 'Ethanol in fuel can erode copper fuel pipes, I have seen a photo of cylinders with a copper coating....I use cunifer in the workshop. And a final point for this month. I recommend Shell V Power or similar fuel in any car more than fifteen years old, it has low ethanol and additives to help keep the fuel system clean'. That is good enough for me.

 

That's a bit of an unusual recommendation given that V power fuel in the UK has 5% ethanol, like most other brands. I see also that the author mentions an octane level (V power is 98) and a particular brand (Shell) for it's additive package even though those two attributes having NOTHING to do with ethanol content or (supposed) effects of corrosion.

I also came up short on evidence of copper components failing on cars that have been operated over here where we've had E10 for decades.