first off, I am against forced use of ethonal BUT with that said it was NOT the iowa farm lobby that pushed for any exemption IT WAS CALIFORNIA.
With that said, I have run E10 for the past 16yrs (since I moved to Iowa in 92) and not once have I ever experienced a fuel related issue even in the older trucks I have owned while here like my old 79 F150, i also ran a gas tractor (AC D19) never had any issues with it either.
What is used in aircrafts and any and all data related to them does NOT cross over to cars, they are a completely different set of operating circumstances that do not cross over to cars, like rapid temp and altitude changes. And lets not forget that apperently the air plane lobby is 10,000x stronger then the farm lobby because THEY STILL USE LEADED GAS. so if leaded gas is ok to use in aircraft they why was it outlawed in cars? I mean if it's good or not good for aircraft after all....

Avgas even has it's own and different octane formulas (100LL is not really 100 octane, it's closer to 108 if you use the same methods used for passenger car fuels)

You can NOT compare aircraft to cars EVER.

 

I never said the Iowa farm lobby pushed for an exemption, so please to allude that I did, okay? The only time I even said the word Iowa is when I stated their government E85 fleet showed a decrease in mileage. I'll be happy to provide a list of the groups behind the bill and the exemption. Farmers aren't gonna like it - but then again, they'll don't seem to like admitting any negatives about ethanol because it might impact the taxpayer cash cow.

Second, to say aircraft "any and all" data does not cross over to cars is false. Economy drops in both. Both use steel, rubber and aluminum in fuel systems. Both are subject to the effects of water in fuel.

Third, I never implied the use of lead by aircraft was acceptable and its a non sequitur part of the ethanol issue. I believe it should have been phased outlawed a long time ago. Part of the reasons its still around is because of a few factors, including the small private plane fleet size, but that doesn't justify it to me.

Question for all on the side of ethanol: why is it that I can cite sources of data and studies, yet the majority of the rebuttals seem to be "oh yeah, but I didn't see that happen in my case"...? Where is the independent data (not from any farm or ethanol lobby or company) in response?

 

Ken do you REALLY need me to show you the several hundred thousand hits about what is different about car and aircrafts? to make that comparison is completely silly
You also didn't just allude to you DIRECTLY said farm lobby as if they are all the same and they are NOT all the same just like not all web sites are the same. And I did some searching and can not find one single farm use exemption INCLUDING CA so your going to have to show that also (the only exemption it found it seems is gee aircraft)
You haven't shown one single source that actually shows much of anything except the slight loss of fuel economy and guess what no one denies that. The rest is just the aircraft industry and FAA, well guess what FAA refuses to let epa force low sulfur fuels into aircraft too, so does that mean that we need to stop that little regulation just because the FAA says so (actually we should but that's a different argument)
FAA also says that totally eliminating lead can cause major catastrophic failures that can not be risked, yet autos have had it eliminated for over 30yrs (don't believe I really need to show you references to that do I? )

Sorry but you can't relate what the FAA says to auto at all, like I said they operate under a complete and different set of operating circumstances that no car would ever possibly experience thus the fuel and parts requirments are totally different.

 

If we (the alcohol manufactures) can produce alcohol and sell it for fuel at around $1.60 a gallon, why does it cost so much more in the liquor store? The cost of the charred barrels perhaps? Maybe in the future they'll start cutting liquor with petrolum to reduce the cost. I can't wait,,,,,,,

On topic
Around here when they came out with this alcohol gas, the sellers of small gas powered tools told their customers to avoid using gas with alcohol. I'm sure that has changed, but in the early days, we were told not to use it in chainsaws or lawnmowers.

 

MB, it is rare that I disagree with you, and in this case we may actually be in agreement. The FAA is exempt from alcohol fuels, and the ULSD crap too. Why? My argument is this, if the auto industry was forced to meet these requirements for the safety of our health, why not the FAA? If the auto industry was forced to live within these parameters, why not the FAA?

 

Silly is making a blanket statement about them in either direction, that all or nothing applies.

Internal combustion engines, unless they have a means to change effect compression, will see power loss from a lower BTU fuel. From lawn mowers to air planes. Furthermore, all of them will either run lean or have to increase the amount of fuel per mass of air to maintain a stoichiometric ratio. This is a fundamental of all ICEs. Additionally, they all have piston rings and intake valves, both noted by the Australian government studies to have increased carbon build-up.

When I say "farm lobby", naturally I generalize, just as you tend to see in 99% of articles for the sake of brevity. There are many hands, large and small, who play large and small roles in the bill and it would be impractical to list every single one and the role each played. I already spend too much time doing my homework on this matter.

Read between the lines in both bills (the 2005 and 2006 bills... simply huge). You'll find very specific details about which vehicle types are required to use it. Notice who is missing? Go take a look at the Congressional record about the matter. Look at the supplements and changes to the laws passed by subsequent "add-on" bills since.

You are right, I haven't shown a single source. I provided three. Here are the non-fuel economy items I posted earlier in this thread:

FAA:
- Alcohol present in automobile gasoline is corrosive and not compatible with the rubber seals.
- Alcohol present in automobile gasoline is subject to phase separation
- The addition of alcohol to automobile gasoline adversely affects the volatility of the fuel, which could cause vapor lock.

Do you dispute these 3 things don't apply to autos? I invite you to do some searches in the 79 and older truck sections on the topic of vapor lock.

EPA:
- ...owners are encouraged to monitor their vehicles or engines for hose, seal, or gasket leaks.
- ...E85 is not compatible with soft metals such as aluminum, brass and zinc;
many plastics, such as polyurethane and PVC; and certain resins used in older, lined tanks."
- Ethanol blended fuel can cause system parts to degrade and dissolve over time.
- Ethanol can accelerate an existing corrosion cell or plug in steel tanks.

Australian study:
- ...ethanol can cause early deterioration of components in fuel systems such as fuel tanks, fuel lines/hoses, injector seals, delivery pipes, fuel pump and regulators, particularly in older vehicles.
- Vapour pressure of fuel with ethanol will be greater (if not adjusted by blending changes) and the probability of vapour lock or hot restartability problems will be increased.
- However, hesitation or flat-spots during acceleration can occur due to this lean-out effect....
- The amount of water taken up by ethanol blends can reach a stage where phase separation occurs and a separate (lower) layer of water/ethanol mixture co-exists with petrol. This can lead to metal corrosion problems and also engine mis-fire if the water/ethanol layer is pumped to the engine rather than petrol.
- Ethanol blended fuels (even E5) are not compatible with carburettor vehicles.
- engine deposits could increase in the engine intake/exhausts ports as well as on the piston crown and it was quite possible for a significant amount of carbon to build-up on the piston rings, with evidence of combustion gases escaping past the piston rings.

I consider those more than not "much of anything" (your words). I consider 5, 10 or more percent to be a significant mileage loss, especially since E10 doesn't cost the consumer less and actually costs more due to the back end taxes they are paying.

Low sulfur fuel is not the issue being debated.

Small aircraft tend to have very long service life, much longer than cars. Many cars did have valve and valve seat problems with unleaded fuel. Can we afford to have aircraft run into this issue? Its not like they can just coast to the side of the road and call a tow truck.

I can and I did.

Circumstances which require greater reliability, and thus the FAA's banning of its use. I believe it is entire relevant.

Follow the money trail folks. There's dirty money involved back to George H. Bush's last year in office and Clinton's Inaugural fund contributions leading up to this crappy ethanol policy. Prior to Bush's last year the EPA was in the process of getting ethanol outlawed in fuel because although it has less carbon emissions at the tailpipe its production and burning is a net increaser of pollution (the EPA still makes mention that it increases ground level o-zone which is tied to increases in asthma in children). Those involved in the ethanol energy market either directly or indirectly tend to love this policy and have lied their tails off to the point where they believe the lies themselves. Maybe its because its a massive gravy train sucking money from the taxpayer's?

 

Ken, your last paragraph explains the entire situation. It has nothing to do with burning cleaner, or reducing emissions or ozone. It's all about money, and who the government can get it from with the least amount of a fight, and whose pockets they can line as well. Just my opinion.

 

ok you want to compare apples to oranges obviously here is the search just one way that comes up with over 96,000 hits dealing with the differences, granted not all are much good but no sense trying to pick them out.

fuel requirement differences aviation automobile - Google Search

Next you are not even comparing the same thing Av gas and autotive gas are NOT the same thing at all (av gas has less BTU's just like ethanol thus just ONE of the reasons the FAA is against it, the fuel that is required for airplanes is already lower)

Next thing Av gas and automotive aren't even based on the same components
Avgas is naptha based, automobile gas is paraffin based.

Like I said in my first post I am against forced use of ethanol, just like I am against the ULSD diesel etc but the entire premise of your arguement against it in this thread is based on misleading information and an apples to oranges comparison. Automotive gas and av gas are NOT comparable even though you can physically burn av gas in a car you can NOT burn automobile gas in an airplane even without alcohol.

Your points about what happens to alky in an airplane based on what the FAA says is actually not much different then what would happen if you tried to run regular pump premium in an aircraft it's not compatible with the operating circumstances that an aircraft is flown in. The entire thing about the FAA is they wanted to clear up about the use of it in aircraft and has zero to do with the debate on using it in cars.

Your next one is epa and guess what they are talking about E85, NOT E10

Oh and your "exemption" for not using ethanol is for offroad use, read it again it wasn't the farm lobbies, it was municipalities and the construction industry OOOPS

 

I'm was talking about specific 3 things about ethanol. You're dancing around all sorts of technicalities but never answering whether those three things apply to cars and trucks. Do they or don't they? Yes or not.

It is not misleading as those factors apply in cars as well as planes. Do you deny that?

Again, it not the fuel I am comparing. It is the presence of alcohol in the fuel system.

Wrong. Part of the debate in previous threads which misinformed (or outright lying) people put forth was:

1. Alcohol was corrosive. I have shown in a past thread chemical reasons why it is, and is this thread supporting data from 3 sources.
2. Alcohol doesn't result in less economy because "it doesn't do it with my vehicle" (this is a huge lie they put out, I can get a 30% increase in mileage simply with subconsious changes in driving habits which have nothing to do with fuel type). I have shown in other threads that it does decrease economy. Now, the FAA says the same thing about planes as well.

[quote]Your next one is epa and guess what they are talking about E85, NOT E10[/quoe]

Wrong. Those are sippets from 2 EPA reports. Some of it was about E85, some about any alcohol in fuel. Where E85 was specific, the quotes should be apparent.

Care to give sources? I will list supporting sources this evening... I've got to go change my oil, install a Fumoto drain valve, change out the hole on my air/oil separator and a couple of other truck projects I promised myself I'd do today. By....

 

well, i don't know anything about the FAA, or the farm bureau, or the epa.
all i know is i have a crown vic that dropped 4 mpg when they introduced mandatory E-10 fuel.
and i have a 20 year old lawn mower that started fine until i put E-10 in it. 3 months later i had to rebuild the carb. and 3 months after that, i had to rebuild it again.
the 30 year old gas powered welder that has never not started. until 3 weeks after it got E-10.
then i had to rebuild the carb.
or the same thing with the snow blower.
or the Holley carb on the 79.
everything i put E-10 into, turns to instant problems if it is not used every day, or the fuel is not shut off and the carb run dry.

 

Tj, I have to in a round about way agree with you. I travelled from Denver to my home, buying several tanks through the alcohol deluted states. At that time I was driving a Vic with a 5.8L. By the time I hit the second tank of deluted fuel, I had to stop at a parts store and drop a couple cans of octane booster into the tank. I thought the car was going to blow up from all of the detonation I was hearing. Also, the car ran just chitty. I put just enough fuel in the vehicle to get to Indiana. There I filled the car up with Premium. In Lexinton Kentucky, the car quit. It was acting like there was no fuel. I changed the fuel filter and the car fired right up.

Once I got home, since it was under warranty, to the dealer it went. They had to replace the fuel pump in the tank, two fuel lines at the tank, and one fuel line near the intake.

The mechanic ask me what I had run in the car, then he told me that I was very lucky that Ford covered the problem. He then showed me an interested part in the warranty book. It basically said not to run any type of blended fuel in this car. The fuel system was not designed to run anything over 5% blend. He then told me that I was very lucky that I had not handgrenaded the engine.

The same goes for my truck. I know the shysters has now changed the blend for diesel for low sulphur. My truck was not designed to run on that trash. I know, I have tried it. I have found a supplier that will let me buy my fuel from him. The only problem with it is it is only a summer blend and yes it does wax up in the winter. I have to put additives in it so I can run it but my 7.3 is so much quiter.

 

well Paul, lucky for me the ULLS diesel they sell here in Jersey has all the additives in it already, so we don't have to put anything extra in it.
but even with that low sulfur stuff, the mileage on the diesels took a nasty hit also.
my 88 dropped 4 mpg, and my 02 is only getting 12-13 mpg running this crap.

 

If I put that trash in my '01, it will drop down to 10 or 11 mpg and it sounds like it is going to throw a rod. The fuel I buy when I get a chance is formulated for heavy off road equipment before it is dyed. I pull it straight from the tank, go in and tell him what I got, he figures the taxes and I pay him. Funny thing is that it is about $.35 cheaper on the gallon than the going "Store Rate."

He has also tossed something at me too that I am working on. It is a diesel blend that he is working on and wants me to test. He is running used oils through a 1 micron filter twice and blending it 25% oil and 75% diesel. He has told me that he will pull my fuel tank, clean it and do the mods to it that I wanted done, plus adding a pusher pump and another filter before it hits Ford's System. He wants me to run 10 tanks and then we are going to purge and clean the system to see if any harm was done. I really don't see how it could damage anything. I know the used oil has a higher BTU rating, so the old 7.3 should run better. Best thing is that the fuel is free. What is you idea on this?

 

Paul, you've got access to some good folks. From what I've been told around here is that the only difference in the hwy fuel and the off-road stuff is the red dye. It's all ULSD here where I'm from.

 

I know that you can still find the regular dino in Indiana as I have bought it. The dino that I have access to is a top name. I do not want point a finger or name a name as to not involve the distributor in our test, even though he knows about it. He could get into trouble by allowing it. The Feds don't look to kindly on someone tampering with sulfur in diesel, much less adding more to it from used lubrication oils.