Problems ethanol causes in vintage cars?
The SAE J30R9 specification ("fuel injection hose") does require the hose to be proof against much more aggressive stuff than a 10% concentration of ethanol. It's proof against high concentrations of methanol, a wide range of hydrocarbons and ethers, etc. Of course, you have to be getting actual 30R9 hose, and Chinese R&D ("Reduplicate & Deceive") has taught them how to stamp whatever might strike their fancy on a part or its packaging. "Gates"? No problem. "FUEL INJECTION SAE J30R9"? Yep, can do. "HI MOM"? Sure. So we're kind of screwed, because we've decided (I guess my ballot got lost in the mail) that nothing else matters except for "free" trade. :roll:
Heet & other brands of fuel anti-freeze for use in winter? Yep, it's alcohol. An 8oz bottle, usually. One per tank. That is nothing at all compared to 10%, which is 12.8oz per gallon.
As for whether d'ethanol is or isn't capable of damaging a fuel system made of good materials and kept in proper repair, here's something to chew on: For years, ethanol was considered a contaminant or an adulterant. Then the 2nd gasoline shortage hit in 1979 and the idea started getting floated that diluting our gasoline with alcohol -- "Gasohol" -- would stretch the motor fuel supply.
But it caused problems. You could buy test kits from major makers to see if the fuel you were buying contained alcohol; the idea was that if the test came up "yes", you had your answer as to why the engine ran like crap and ate fuel system components. You can still get the test kits. For example, Briggs & Stratton part number 10023, alcohol percentage tester; This site has it for less than $5. It's a calibrated test tube: Put gasoline up to the fuel mark, add water to the water mark, cap, shake, let it settle for a few minutes, and directly read the alcohol percentage.
So yeah, there were the test kits. And there were the paragraphs in the owner manuals of cars and trucks and mowers and snowblowers and tillers and such saying either not to use gasohol, or "If driveability and reliability problems are encountered, switch back to gasoline that does not contain alcohol".
Alcohol-in-fuel test kits...advisories that alcohol in gasoline causes fuel system damage and driveability problems...gosh, I donno, seems like a lot of trouble and expense to go to for a problem that "doesn't exist".
Meanwhile, along came Archer Daniels Midland and the rest of the North American ethanol industry and bought a massive lobbying effort to mandate the use of their product in all (or most) gasoline. They bought a lot of propaganda, too: "Many motorists actually experience improved fuel economy" blah blah blah, never mind that's against the laws of physics. And suddenly we weren't supposed to say "ethanol-diluted" or "ethanol-contaminated" or "ethanol-blended" gasoline, we're now supposed to say "ethanol-enhanced" because "enhanced is such a nice, warm fuzzy word.
And then there are those tax subsidies. Big, fat ones -- without them, d'ethanol would not be a cost-effective additive in gasoline; it would raise the price of a gallon (or litre) enough that the public would vote NO with their wallets. Can't have that, so another big ongoing lobbying effort goes into maintaining the tax subsidies. We still pay extra for fuel now, but it's taken out of our taxes so we can't see it. Oh, and we pay again in the reduced fuel economy that necessarily comes from using fuel that contains less energy.
So, okeh, someone c'mon and find fault with any of these facts. I dare ya!
The SAE J30R9 specification ("fuel injection hose") does require the hose to be proof against much more aggressive stuff than a 10% concentration of ethanol. It's proof against high concentrations of methanol, a wide range of hydrocarbons and ethers, etc. Of course, you have to be getting actual 30R9 hose, and Chinese R&D ("Reduplicate & Deceive") has taught them how to stamp whatever might strike their fancy on a part or its packaging. "Gates"? No problem. "FUEL INJECTION SAE J30R9"? Yep, can do. "HI MOM"? Sure. So we're kind of screwed, because we've decided (I guess my ballot got lost in the mail) that nothing else matters except for "free" trade. :roll:
Heet & other brands of fuel anti-freeze for use in winter? Yep, it's alcohol. An 8oz bottle, usually. One per tank. That is nothing at all compared to 10%, which is 12.8oz per gallon.
As for whether d'ethanol is or isn't capable of damaging a fuel system made of good materials and kept in proper repair, here's something to chew on: For years, ethanol was considered a contaminant or an adulterant. Then the 2nd gasoline shortage hit in 1979 and the idea started getting floated that diluting our gasoline with alcohol -- "Gasohol" -- would stretch the motor fuel supply.
But it caused problems. You could buy test kits from major makers to see if the fuel you were buying contained alcohol; the idea was that if the test came up "yes", you had your answer as to why the engine ran like crap and ate fuel system components. You can still get the test kits. For example, Briggs & Stratton part number 10023, alcohol percentage tester; This site has it for less than $5. It's a calibrated test tube: Put gasoline up to the fuel mark, add water to the water mark, cap, shake, let it settle for a few minutes, and directly read the alcohol percentage.
So yeah, there were the test kits. And there were the paragraphs in the owner manuals of cars and trucks and mowers and snowblowers and tillers and such saying either not to use gasohol, or "If driveability and reliability problems are encountered, switch back to gasoline that does not contain alcohol".
Alcohol-in-fuel test kits...advisories that alcohol in gasoline causes fuel system damage and driveability problems...gosh, I donno, seems like a lot of trouble and expense to go to for a problem that "doesn't exist".
Meanwhile, along came Archer Daniels Midland and the rest of the North American ethanol industry and bought a massive lobbying effort to mandate the use of their product in all (or most) gasoline. They bought a lot of propaganda, too: "Many motorists actually experience improved fuel economy" blah blah blah, never mind that's against the laws of physics. And suddenly we weren't supposed to say "ethanol-diluted" or "ethanol-contaminated" or "ethanol-blended" gasoline, we're now supposed to say "ethanol-enhanced" because "enhanced is such a nice, warm fuzzy word.
And then there are those tax subsidies. Big, fat ones -- without them, d'ethanol would not be a cost-effective additive in gasoline; it would raise the price of a gallon (or litre) enough that the public would vote NO with their wallets. Can't have that, so another big ongoing lobbying effort goes into maintaining the tax subsidies. We still pay extra for fuel now, but it's taken out of our taxes so we can't see it. Oh, and we pay again in the reduced fuel economy that necessarily comes from using fuel that contains less energy.
So, okeh, someone c'mon and find fault with any of these facts. I dare ya!
