Using ethanol fuel
#21
03-24-2015, 02:19 PM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 24,920
Received 10,979 Likes
on
7,211 Posts
I think those who have not had fuel system issues in old cars using ethanol have been lucky. Maybe in their market the blend had a lower percentage of ethanol.
Here in the Seattle area I recall having to change a carburetor on the side of the road wearing a suit holding a flashlight in my teeth, and three fuel pumps in less than six months.
Here in the Seattle area I recall having to change a carburetor on the side of the road wearing a suit holding a flashlight in my teeth, and three fuel pumps in less than six months.
In my neck o' the woods.....I'm a couple hours south of you....I can't remember when something other than E10 was available. I wanna say at least 20 years that the family has been here.
In that 20 years I've serviced all of the cars in my immediate family....at least 500,000 + miles of driving, probably much more. I've replaced one fuel pump. It was on a Chevy van and was roughly 20 years old. I have a hard time concluding that the failure was E10 related versus simply expired from old age.
So, yes, there must be something that explains the vast disparity in experiences and I doubt that it comes down to just luck!
The politics of ethanol are far more of a reason for it being forced on us in the U.S. than any supposed pollution benefits.
No argument that the issue is highly politicized. When the cable TV and radio opinionators start making political hay about E10.....well.....you know !
Cheers
DD
#22
03-24-2015, 02:36 PM
Veteran Member
Ah- no offence, but this is an example of old, old myths and misconceptions that are still clung to despite the 50ish years of evidence that demonstrates that such practices are not required.
There is no connection between E10 and valve wear nor does an engine need to be converted to be E10 compatible. Gaskets, fuel lines and other soft components have been ethanol compatible for 20+ years. If your BiL's car has hoses older than that, they're way overdue for replacement ethanol or not.
The fear when lead was removed from gasoline in the 70s was insufficient octane levels that would forestall detonation, and accelerated wear on engine components, primarily exhaust valve seats.
It turns out that neither is or was a real world issue as applied to older Corvettes and actually almost any other US muscle car.
WRT octane levels, there was change over in the pump rating system in North America in the 70s, almost concurrent with the introduction of unleaded fuels. What used to be labelled as 98 octane (premium or super) became 93. The old 93 (regular) became 87. Same gas, different rating system.
That means that your BIL's 327/340 can operate on today's 91 or 93 without fear of detonation. Octane boosters, which are ineffective to start with, are just not needed.
Regarding the fears of valve seat recession, experience has taught us that it's basically a non-issue as mentioned before. Accelerated wear only happens under conditions of high component temperature for extended periods of time. While this might be a factor for a heavy vehicle pulling a load up a long grade, the conditions don't exist on vehicles that only load the engines for very brief periods, such as a Corvette accelerating through the gears to reach cruising speed.
While it is true that GM introduced hardened valve seats in 1971ish, this measure was done with the knowledge that only a small part of their production would be affected by the upcoming unleaded fuels.
Suffice to say that there's no real evidence that any Corvette or similar car that has ever had valve problems due to lack of lead. Again, the commercial additives at car part stores don't actually contain lead but a substitute that has a very dubious track record.
Your BiL might feel better by spending money on his '63 but it's pretty much wasted.
I would also suggest that he NOT have hardened seats installed if an when he gets around to overhauling the engine. It's not rare to see a set of heads ruined by machining out the old seat and accidentally cutting through into a coolant passage. There is no known repair when this happens and with the mania of 'matching numbers' a very costly mistake.
If he's not already a member, I'd suggest he join the NCRS http://www.ncrs.org/ | NCRS | Nation...torers Society to learn first handed from fellow owners about the care and feeding of these great cars.
There is no connection between E10 and valve wear nor does an engine need to be converted to be E10 compatible. Gaskets, fuel lines and other soft components have been ethanol compatible for 20+ years. If your BiL's car has hoses older than that, they're way overdue for replacement ethanol or not.
The fear when lead was removed from gasoline in the 70s was insufficient octane levels that would forestall detonation, and accelerated wear on engine components, primarily exhaust valve seats.
It turns out that neither is or was a real world issue as applied to older Corvettes and actually almost any other US muscle car.
WRT octane levels, there was change over in the pump rating system in North America in the 70s, almost concurrent with the introduction of unleaded fuels. What used to be labelled as 98 octane (premium or super) became 93. The old 93 (regular) became 87. Same gas, different rating system.
That means that your BIL's 327/340 can operate on today's 91 or 93 without fear of detonation. Octane boosters, which are ineffective to start with, are just not needed.
Regarding the fears of valve seat recession, experience has taught us that it's basically a non-issue as mentioned before. Accelerated wear only happens under conditions of high component temperature for extended periods of time. While this might be a factor for a heavy vehicle pulling a load up a long grade, the conditions don't exist on vehicles that only load the engines for very brief periods, such as a Corvette accelerating through the gears to reach cruising speed.
While it is true that GM introduced hardened valve seats in 1971ish, this measure was done with the knowledge that only a small part of their production would be affected by the upcoming unleaded fuels.
Suffice to say that there's no real evidence that any Corvette or similar car that has ever had valve problems due to lack of lead. Again, the commercial additives at car part stores don't actually contain lead but a substitute that has a very dubious track record.
Your BiL might feel better by spending money on his '63 but it's pretty much wasted.
I would also suggest that he NOT have hardened seats installed if an when he gets around to overhauling the engine. It's not rare to see a set of heads ruined by machining out the old seat and accidentally cutting through into a coolant passage. There is no known repair when this happens and with the mania of 'matching numbers' a very costly mistake.
If he's not already a member, I'd suggest he join the NCRS http://www.ncrs.org/ | NCRS | Nation...torers Society to learn first handed from fellow owners about the care and feeding of these great cars.
#23
03-24-2015, 03:23 PM
Veteran Member
I've never had any trouble with E-10 in cars, and we have owned a 1995 Lexus SC300 for 20 years, BUT the lawn equip like mowers, leaf blowers, string trimmers, chain saws and my 1985 Honda 700SC Nighthawk have suffered problems because of it. I've had manufacturers void warranties on the yard equipment because of damage (including destroying the bore in a leaf blower) from damage they claim was caused by ethanol (E-10). I've been driving 10 miles to get pure gas for those items.
Lexus is one of the manufacturers who has recalled vehicles because of Ethanol related
problems under NHTSA auspices.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/...75PB1Z4TA8QZPS
SUMMARY:
TOYOTA IS RECALLING 214,570 MY 2006-2008 LEXUS IS, MY 2006-2007 GS AND MY 2007-2008 LS PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ALUMINUM FUEL DELIVERY PIPES (FUEL RAILS). ETHANOL FUELS WITH A LOW MOISTURE CONTENT WILL CORRODE THE INTERNAL SURFACE OF THE FUEL RAILS. AS THIS CONDITION PROGRESSES, THE ENGINE MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LIGHT MAY ILLUMINATE.
CONSEQUENCE:
OVER TIME, THE CORROSION MAY CREATE A PINHOLE RESULTING IN FUEL LEAKAGE. FUEL LEAKAGE, IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE, COULD RESULT IN A FIRE.
TOYOTA IS RECALLING 214,570 MY 2006-2008 LEXUS IS, MY 2006-2007 GS AND MY 2007-2008 LS PASSENGER VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH ALUMINUM FUEL DELIVERY PIPES (FUEL RAILS). ETHANOL FUELS WITH A LOW MOISTURE CONTENT WILL CORRODE THE INTERNAL SURFACE OF THE FUEL RAILS. AS THIS CONDITION PROGRESSES, THE ENGINE MALFUNCTION INDICATOR LIGHT MAY ILLUMINATE.
CONSEQUENCE:
OVER TIME, THE CORROSION MAY CREATE A PINHOLE RESULTING IN FUEL LEAKAGE. FUEL LEAKAGE, IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE, COULD RESULT IN A FIRE.
Or at most only "affects older vehicles not designed for E10"
such as vehicles made in 2008. Anyways, Toyota and NHTSA
know nothing compared to random people on the internet.
Besides, Toyota likes spending money to recall 214,570 vehicles just so
the dealers have something to do.
Unfortunately, while there are reports on JF of fuel rail leaks with
some similarity to the Lexus situation, there are no reports of
JNA compensating anyone.
BTW, according to an acquaintance who is a longtime OMC dealer,
they are instructed to look for ethanol related problems on warranty
claims arising out of spring time no starts. If there is evidence that
the ethanol removal instructions for storage have not been followed,
the warranty claim is denied.
++
Last edited by plums; 03-24-2015 at 03:38 PM.
The following users liked this post:
SteveJacks (03-24-2015)
#24
03-24-2015, 03:25 PM
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,266 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
He's an old schooler and uses the 63 as his weekend cruiser. He has a 67 BB 425HP convert match number car but only takes that to shows. I don't know where he gets his lead from but it is special order and not sold in auto parts stores. Got turned into it from some guys in one of his Corvette groups. He is impressed with my XKR but won't get out of those plastic cars.
#25
03-24-2015, 04:16 PM
Veteran Member
film at eleven
Here's a cute one from Hyundai:
Defect Investigations Results | Safercar.gov | NHTSA
This involved pumps not meeting spec, but ...
The salient point is that the use of E10 compliant fuel has the physical effect
of causing a high resistance film build-up between the brush and commutator.
The wording identifies E10 as a necessary factor. Thus, it would not happen
with the same pump without the subject film caused by E10 usage.
Perhaps pumps needing to operate in E10 environments have higher brush
to commutator pressures to scrape off the film buildup. Higher pressures
with the same materials of course leads to increased wear.
Too bad all the owners of X300/X308/X150 suffering fuel pump failures
hadn't known that it was at least partially avoidable.
++
Defect Investigations Results | Safercar.gov | NHTSA
ACCORDING TO HYUNDAI, THE NEW SUPPLIER'S UPPER BODY COMPONENTS HAD INCORRECT DIMENSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS RESULTING IN MISALIGNMENT OF THE ARMATURE SHAFT, WHICH CAUSED SOME OF THE FUEL PUMPS TO EXPERIENCE POOR BRUSH-TO-COMMENTATOR CONTACT CONDITIONS THAT COULD RESULT IN ENGINE STALL. THE USE OF ETHANOL BLEND FUEL, CONTAINING UP TO 10 PERCENT ETHANOL, CAUSES A FILM BUILD-UP THAT CREATES HIGH RESISTANCE BETWEEN THE BRUSH AND COMMUTATOR.
The salient point is that the use of E10 compliant fuel has the physical effect
of causing a high resistance film build-up between the brush and commutator.
The wording identifies E10 as a necessary factor. Thus, it would not happen
with the same pump without the subject film caused by E10 usage.
Perhaps pumps needing to operate in E10 environments have higher brush
to commutator pressures to scrape off the film buildup. Higher pressures
with the same materials of course leads to increased wear.
Too bad all the owners of X300/X308/X150 suffering fuel pump failures
hadn't known that it was at least partially avoidable.
++
Last edited by plums; 03-24-2015 at 04:20 PM.
The following users liked this post:
SteveJacks (03-24-2015)
#26
03-24-2015, 08:50 PM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 24,920
Received 10,979 Likes
on
7,211 Posts
Plums,
On these later model cars (let's say 25 years old or newer) with the problems you're describing I'd personally be more upset with the manufacturer....or more specifically whoever makes the fuel rails, fuel pumps, etc. If they're so sure E10 is a problem why-o-why don't they design their products for it? There's nothing new about E10. It's never been a secret. It's usage has been steadily expanding all along. They've had decades to prepare.
The owners manuals of both my 1985 and 1988 Jags say, outright, that E10 is OK to use.....as did my the manual for previous 1987, 1988, and 1995 Jags. No fuel rail failures and, at least during my years of ownership, no pump failures.
Go figure!
Cheers
DD
On these later model cars (let's say 25 years old or newer) with the problems you're describing I'd personally be more upset with the manufacturer....or more specifically whoever makes the fuel rails, fuel pumps, etc. If they're so sure E10 is a problem why-o-why don't they design their products for it? There's nothing new about E10. It's never been a secret. It's usage has been steadily expanding all along. They've had decades to prepare.
The owners manuals of both my 1985 and 1988 Jags say, outright, that E10 is OK to use.....as did my the manual for previous 1987, 1988, and 1995 Jags. No fuel rail failures and, at least during my years of ownership, no pump failures.
Go figure!
Cheers
DD
#27
03-25-2015, 12:12 AM
Oh, a Lexus
Lexus is one of the manufacturers who has recalled vehicles because of Ethanol related
problems under NHTSA auspices.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/...75PB1Z4TA8QZPS
So yes, ethanol damage is a myth, a myth, a myth a myth.
Or at most only "affects older vehicles not designed for E10"
such as vehicles made in 2008. Anyways, Toyota and NHTSA
know nothing compared to random people on the internet.
Besides, Toyota likes spending money to recall 214,570 vehicles just so
the dealers have something to do.
Unfortunately, while there are reports on JF of fuel rail leaks with
some similarity to the Lexus situation, there are no reports of
JNA compensating anyone.
BTW, according to an acquaintance who is a longtime OMC dealer,
they are instructed to look for ethanol related problems on warranty
claims arising out of spring time no starts. If there is evidence that
the ethanol removal instructions for storage have not been followed,
the warranty claim is denied.
++
Lexus is one of the manufacturers who has recalled vehicles because of Ethanol related
problems under NHTSA auspices.
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/owners/...75PB1Z4TA8QZPS
So yes, ethanol damage is a myth, a myth, a myth a myth.
Or at most only "affects older vehicles not designed for E10"
such as vehicles made in 2008. Anyways, Toyota and NHTSA
know nothing compared to random people on the internet.
Besides, Toyota likes spending money to recall 214,570 vehicles just so
the dealers have something to do.
Unfortunately, while there are reports on JF of fuel rail leaks with
some similarity to the Lexus situation, there are no reports of
JNA compensating anyone.
BTW, according to an acquaintance who is a longtime OMC dealer,
they are instructed to look for ethanol related problems on warranty
claims arising out of spring time no starts. If there is evidence that
the ethanol removal instructions for storage have not been followed,
the warranty claim is denied.
++
Most marinas sell real gas - I learned the hard way why.
#28
03-25-2015, 04:17 AM
Veteran Member
Plums,
On these later model cars (let's say 25 years old or newer) with the problems you're describing I'd personally be more upset with the manufacturer....or more specifically whoever makes the fuel rails, fuel pumps, etc. If they're so sure E10 is a problem why-o-why don't they design their products for it? There's nothing new about E10. It's never been a secret. It's usage has been steadily expanding all along. They've had decades to prepare.
The owners manuals of both my 1985 and 1988 Jags say, outright, that E10 is OK to use.....as did my the manual for previous 1987, 1988, and 1995 Jags. No fuel rail failures and, at least during my years of ownership, no pump failures.
Go figure!
Cheers
DD
On these later model cars (let's say 25 years old or newer) with the problems you're describing I'd personally be more upset with the manufacturer....or more specifically whoever makes the fuel rails, fuel pumps, etc. If they're so sure E10 is a problem why-o-why don't they design their products for it? There's nothing new about E10. It's never been a secret. It's usage has been steadily expanding all along. They've had decades to prepare.
The owners manuals of both my 1985 and 1988 Jags say, outright, that E10 is OK to use.....as did my the manual for previous 1987, 1988, and 1995 Jags. No fuel rail failures and, at least during my years of ownership, no pump failures.
Go figure!
Cheers
DD
I've never argued that manufacturers were or were not prepared for E10.
What I have argued is that there are physical phenomena that are undeniable.
You are also saying that they phenomena exist when you argue that they
shoud be able to design around the effects.
What I disagree with are blanket statements that any physical phenomona
are "myths".
As for the Jaguar manuals, in the 2001 XJ manual, they say they "support the
use of oxygenated fuels". That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. More
like a shotgun marriage. And then, on the same page, I refer you to my earlier
quote:
Generally, difficulty should not be experienced while operating
the vehicle on fuels containing oxygenates. If problems are
experienced switch to a fuel with a different type of oxygenate,
or switch to a fuel that does not contain oxygenates, if available.
the vehicle on fuels containing oxygenates. If problems are
experienced switch to a fuel with a different type of oxygenate,
or switch to a fuel that does not contain oxygenates, if available.
in using it.
Now, haven't you seen similar incongruities in manufacturer documentation
in a past life where they were basically trying to cover every angle with
platitudes, mom and apple pie?
++
#29
03-25-2015, 08:38 AM
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest USA
Posts: 24,920
Received 10,979 Likes
on
7,211 Posts
Yes, I know. I was merely broadening the subject
If we're talking about "The causes and cures of E10 problems" then I see no reason to let parts manufacturers off the hook!
What I have argued is that there are physical phenomena that are undeniable.
You are also saying that they phenomena exist when you argue that they
shoud be able to design around the effects.
You are also saying that they phenomena exist when you argue that they
shoud be able to design around the effects.
Well, actually, I said that if *they* were so sure E10 was the problem, they should design around it. I didn't say that * I * was sure it was a problem.
But, in any case, I've not denied that E10 might cause a problem. But I *have* argued against the notion the E10 *will* cause a problem, and that I think it is probably incorrectly blamed for many problems.
What I disagree with are blanket statements that any physical phenomona
are "myths".
are "myths".
When you see that the vast majority of motorists have no problems with E10 the ballyhooing about how horrible it is does seem to take on mythical proportions, it seems.
As for the Jaguar manuals, in the 2001 XJ manual, they say they "support the
use of oxygenated fuels". That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. More
like a shotgun marriage.
use of oxygenated fuels". That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement. More
like a shotgun marriage.
Nor is it a warning that E10 shouldn't be used!
I've never known a car manufacturer to endorse any product unless it had their name on it or the name of a collaborating company.
Now, haven't you seen similar incongruities in manufacturer documentation
in a past life where they were basically trying to cover every angle with
platitudes, mom and apple pie?
++
in a past life where they were basically trying to cover every angle with
platitudes, mom and apple pie?
++
Yes, of course.
If the owner has no problems with E10 then they'll think the manufacturer gave good information. In the (much less likely) event that they have a problem they'll think it was bad information. And, given the wide spread E10 grist mill, it's a fair bet that any fuel system problem will be summarily attributed to E10.
Cheers
DD
Last edited by Doug; 03-25-2015 at 09:22 AM. Reason: construction error
#30
03-25-2015, 08:59 AM
Veteran Member
#31
03-25-2015, 09:43 AM
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,266 Likes
on
1,845 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
WTB[SouthEast]: 2000 XJR door seal
moff1959
PRIVATE For Sale / Trade or Buy Classifieds
0
09-26-2015 05:35 PM
XKE73EIconverter
New Member Area - Intro a MUST
8
09-26-2015 10:21 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)