E10 Woes
 

Well in Florida nearly all pumps now a days have at least a 10% Ethanol blend in them. Yes its better for the enviroment, but it sucks for FE, as my car is struggling to reach 44mpg again.

Anyhow, I keep noticing that the gas station I go to often has slow pumps, so one day I walked in to ask why. The gas attendant told me it was because the fuel filters are clogged. He claims that the e-10 blend clogs the filters faster than regular gas and the owner does not want to pay for the additional maintenance.

So my question is; If this is happening at gas stations, what is E-10 doing to our cars? I know by volume we are consuming much less fuel, but in the time I have seen e-10 my mileage is begining to slide.

I am sure my car is due for a tune anyhow, but will this fuel shorten the lifespan of fuel filters?

Back in the 70s, the product now called E10 was called gasohol. People came to loathe the stuff.

Your MPG is down because gasohol has a lower heating value than straight gasoline. Heat is what turns the wheels, Lower heating value means you need more fuel to go the same distance.

The alcohol in gasohol is hygroscopic. It readily combines with water (ask your bartender) and when it does it comes out of solution in the gasoline. It is so hygroscopic it will suck water vapor out of the air. When some of the vodka (water/denatured alcohol mix) hits the filter it clogs it.

Apparently, we are doomed to make the same blunders (in this case gasohol) every thirty years or so.

The way I understand it; the reason Ethanol plugs Fuel filters is much like the reason that BioDiesel Clogs fuel filters; It's a great cleaner.


I never can get it; boaters complain the most about ethanol in fuel due to it absorbing water; but when they have water in their fuel they add Methanol . . . .


True less BTU's/ gallon . . .

But on most modern gasoline engines, the fuel filter is in tank and its the first thing that your fuel sees. Fuel goes through the filter than the pump, lines, out the injectors. If its a great cleaner how does it then clog the filter? Gas tanks are made out of plastic so its not the tank degrading. Sure gasoline has junk in it, but not that much far as I know

My experience with modern(ish) fuel systems is as follows


1) Tank yes crap accumulates here, not much, but some. Mostly Varnish, and oils which alcohol is good at cleaning out . . .
2) Pump Inlet screen I've never seen one plugged, I'm sure it happens . . . .
3) Fuel pump
4) Hose
5) Filter (mostly rearmount, or under the vehicle)
6) Tube to front
7) Fuel rail
8) Injectors tapped off fuel rail
***** Some cars such as new neons end here they use pwm controllers on the fuel pump to eliminate the FPR + Return hose**********
9) Fuel pressure Regulator
10) Return line to pump.

And the fuel keeps flowing. . . . Rund and Round like a record

Are you implying that absorbed water in the ethanol mucks up paper filters?

"Winter Gas" used to be 10% Ethanol, but I see the same sticker on pumps in the Summer now. I assume they won't be dumping-in any more this winter :confused: I can't keep track anymore...

Speaking of fuel filters, what's the replacement interval these days? I'm at ~80K since the last change...

RH77

Yes I've heard all the horror stories but my experience with running not only E10 but E85 in various NON flex-fuel Fords is:

at concentrations of up to 50% ethanol, economy is basically unaffected

all these years I've never changed a single fuel filter or injector, or any other component for that matter

only issues I came across were hard starting in sub-zero weather when ethanol blend was over 50%, and poor WOT performance with 100% E85 (don't care though because I almost never go WOT).

Both the Insight and the Jeep claim life time. I'd say 100k for no other reason than a peace of mind

Hats off to BigDave, he hit the nail right on the head. Ethanol in gas causes more problems than it's worth. It says in many owner's manuals of small engine power tools that you should avoid gas with ethanol in it, as it causes the tool to be under-powered and has a tendency to stall. I just want to buy straight gasoline, but in the Socialist State of Massachusetts we have no choice, everything is E10 or greater. Just give me a choice, PLEASE!

And as an aside, Methanol is MORE hydroscopic than Ethanol and also mixes with ethanol. That is why it is used in 'dry-gas', because it goes out and finds more water and the crappy ethanol (it's not much better itself) and it allows the water to pass through the fuel filter (usually a synthetic filter with silicone in it to stop water from going into the pump, because water is bad for them), and eventually pass through the exhaust. Alcohol in gas is not good for fuel economy, it reduces the overall BTU value of the Gas, so you get less power from the same amount. BigDave said all I wanted to say, :thumbup: to you Bigdave.

Has anyone done any real testing on the differences they have had with E10 vs. straight gas?

You know, I have been seeing things on Discovery for years about our shrinking farm land and our expanding population. It seems very shortsighted to me to start placing the demands of the fuel supply onto the food supply.

It does not seem to be the answer to me. People can get 25mpg, burn E85 and feel good about it. They can feel that they are "doing their part". I have to call BS!

Honda had an answer to this with the Insight. Suzuki had a lesser answer with the Swift/Metro. Toyota has small answer with the Prius.

GM had THE answer with the EV1! Of course the EV1 only worked for 90% of people. Well, boo-hoo.

We need to change WHAT we drive as much as HOW we drive. Trucks and SUVs are work vehicles, not commuter cars.

My experience with E10 is that it drops mileage on the Matrix roughly 2 mpg. IMO this is an acceptable loss considering it burns cleaner.

I do not agree with the current method of ethanol production. However, cellulotic ethanol prodution is much more efficient and I believe should be used to supplement gasoline. This will inevitably be the way we go in the future.

My biggest beef with the whole ethanol thing is these flex fuel vehicles. Engines are (or should be) designed to work with ONE kind of fuel. This enables the designers to optimize the engine for that fuel type. Designing for more than one fuel type makes the designers make compromises that decrease the efficiency of the engine. For example, an engine that runs E85 can run over 17:1 compression ratio! You can't tell me a flex fuel engine that has a 10:1 compression ratio is anywhere near efficient when running E85, even if ignition timing is retimed. :mad:

You are probably right, but I don't think it's enough, and I hate the stress on the food supply.


Ok, here comes the thunderstorm...

I still think that electric cars and nuclear power are the best we have. I know, people are going to shutter at the mere mention of nuclear power. I will stress that we need better disposal and possible neutralization methods for spent nuclear fuel. They we working on neutralization of radiation when I was in the army (not a secret). That was 15 years ago. (Boy, I am starting to feel the passage of time).

I still have high hopes for nuclear fusion as a much better alternative to our current fission.

I definitely agree with Will, it doesn't seem right to place that demand on the food supply.

Another gripe I have with ethanol is that they claim that ~40% more energy (ethanol product) is made than consumed in the plant, growth, and harvest of the corn to produce it (I believe that University of Michigan was the publisher of this information). As an engineer I have to throw the flag on that one. This is essentially perpetual motion. I believe that the extra 40% is coming from nutrients in the ground and if we keep packing more and more corn on the ground and don't rotate it with beans and whatever else farmers do they are going to deplete the ground of the nutrients needed to grow the corn then all of a sudden we're only harvesting 1/2 the ethanol product that we use during it's creation (read taking more energy to plant, grow and harvest the corn than we get back out of it).

If we're trying to use ethanol to reduce cost problems that's a bs answer, the price of corn changes drastically if you don't get rain for a few days when you really need it, or if it hails in the middle of may.

As far as the "burning cleaner" statement, I've heard that this is actually contrary to the truth. I haven't done any research on this, but I'd advise anyone that thinks this to check on it (read university studies or some scientific evidence not forums/blogs) before you use this as a justification.

In eastern South Dakota we have 3 choices; 87 octane (no ethanol), 89 octane (with 10% E), or premium (91-93 depending on the station; no ethanol). I use 87 in my cars and premium in my motorcycle, I avoid ethanol products, and I would really hate to see ethanol forced into all of our fuel options.

my .02
cory

France has 59 nuclear power plants that produce 87% of the electricity generated nationwide, 18% of which is exported to other EU nations. They have the lowest electricity rates in Europe. Cities are actually COMPETING to be chosen for the site of the next plant, to be announced in 2009.

In 1973, when the first oil crisis hit, France generated 90% of it's electricity with oil. They built 56 nuclear plants in the next 15 years! The French reprocess most of their spent fuel, and accept spent fuel from other countries, including the US and Japan. They are the #1 reprocessor of spent nuclear fuel in the world.

How do they reprocess it and what state is it in afterwords? I've heard that France was leading the world in Nuclear production, but I haven't looked into it much. I am interested in the possibilities of nuclear as it seems a very clean and viable option if we can just work out what do do with the waste.

I don't think its perpetual motion were talking about here .... but rather Photosynthesis. Photosynthesis - Wikipedia

As far as air pollution is concerned, I think you may be right ... Ethanol fuel -Air Pollution - Wikipedia

Maybe perpetual motion wasn't quite the right term, but I think one can understand what I'm getting at.

As you point out, photosynthesis is probably the major component contributing to the fact that we see 140% return, but it depends on the Calvin cycle which requires Nitrogens and Phosphates. Once the surplus Nitrogen and Phosphorus has been removed from the soil and burned in our cars we are going to have to start fertilizing the fields heavily, and this is where I see production of ethanol relative to the fuel input falling below the 1:1 ratio.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I believe the 140% figure right now, but known sciences applying on Earth lead us to suspect that this figure cannot be sustained for a long period and for all practical purposes we should be looking for more efficient processes as this is a bandaid and we will need a more permanent fix in place some day.

I should go look up their infastructure, so I am not typing BS but it sounds like France has their **** together, a lot more than the United States. Their culture is ecofriendly whether they are trying to be or not. It started with the economy. They took advantage of what was available, and apparently their governmnt didnt deadlock, voted to build what was needed. Only vested interest was fixing their own country. In US you cant tell a corporation to "change careers" because something new is going to do its job.

The French nationalized the electric generation and distribution industries long ago, so changing the direction of power generation was simple.

If anything, the US gov't has impeded the change of power generation here by yielding too much influence to the treehuggers and NIMBYs.

Essentially, we send the waste to a "permenant" holding site in Nevada. The half-life of the nuclear waste is decades, if not on the Century-scale.

...And the term "send" involves an elaborate transportation system that is far from vulnerable.
It's just something to consider... Like diamonds, "Nuclear is Forever" (at least for 2+ generations).

RH77

A lot of the problem is that the American public in general has grouped nuclear power with nuclear weapons. That has created a stigma on nuclear power that is does not deserve.

Necessity has dictated that the French got their act together over the last 60 years. If you think about it their country was demolished during WWII, and nearly collapsed during the 50s. It is true that the US and England liberated them in WWII, and the US bailed them out in the 50s, but during that time we should have been paying attention to what they were doing. They have employed a lot of great "realistic" answers to a lot of their problems. Their use of nuclear power is only one example.

I will also say that we have found out that the US Dept of Energy is the last one who needs to be running our nuclear power plants. It may sound odd, but if you look at their track record the best ones to run our power plants is most likely the US Navy. Our Navy has more reactors than the rest of the world combined. Some of our ships have more than one aboard.

When the French decided to massively embrace nuclear power, they looked around to see who had the best nuclear program. They swallowed their pride and decided the US Navy's program was far and away the best. They in fact asked Jerry Ford to send Admiral Rickover to France to tell them how to do it. I'd like to have seen the collision between the imperious Rickover and the French, but long term they implemented the US Navy system lock, stock, and barrel.

The USS Enterprise has eight reactors.

I agree, but on ethanol I think it has been operated in a BONEHEAD fashion.

There are quite literally tons of potatoes right near the ethanol plant that go to waste every year. But because the ideot corn lobby owns the corn ethanol plant they won't digest potatoes into ethanol even though

1. Potatoes are much easier to make into alchol than corn
2. Potatoes make much more ethanol per pound than corn

Too bad we can't enforce a law that only waste/excess food and byproducts are used to make ethanol.

Its redicolous to use one viable food for fuel when unviable food stores could be put to a usefull purpose.

There is also the fact ethanol can be made
1. Without additional heat in the summer using different enzymes (aka no more blasted fossill fuels to make ethanol)
2. Ethanol can be made the old fashioned way by malting, so purchased and chemical additives would be more or less unnecessary.

It would take longer this way but be much cheaper to produce. Too bad common sense takes a back seat to vested interests.

I wish I still had the article (or where I even read it) but all of the US nuclear waste produced to date would only fill up a HS Gym.:thumbup:

Even still, we're talking about some seriously toxic waste. You're research probably shows the volume it also takes to safety store the liquid. It's larger than a gymnasium -- it requires a holding system that can withstand at least 100-years of storage and a site with few natural disasters. In addition, the problem of transportation safety has not been fully assured.

Maybeh we can just store it and let future generations worry about it when it starts leaking :thumbup:

RH77

Hey, why don't you just store the waste here, underground where you can't see it, in Massachusettes? We don't get the kind of natural disasters that could effect an underground chamber very often. I mean, Teddy Kennedy won't allow anyone to build windmills off Nantucket sound because they are six miles off the coast, and on a good day you might see them.
Check it out, Here, because he helped kill the Nations first offshore Wind Farm. But we sure should be able to store waste!

Interesting readings on nuclear reactors, fission waste products and nature:

Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors - Fact Sheet

The Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor

Just brief comment on the above and then onward,

The volume of nuclear waste is a non-issue its the volume of the shielding and systems that take the space. If we had the foresite to design a system to bulk store we would be set but then the issue of a possible nuclear meltdown within our waste storage system comes into play.

One thing though, Nuclear waste may become a very valuable commodity in the near future. There are cells very similar to photovoltaic that produce electricity when exposed to nuclear radiation (which also blocks and shields radiactive content) and in no small order either, they make much more juice than a standard solar cell with sunlight.

They are still in the experimentation phase but this gives me hope, perhaps each one of us someday might have a refridgerator sized device sitting in our backyard running passive nuclear electric energy into our homes.

Not to mention the shielding from nuclear plants could be used for electric also increasing the plants efficiency.

There is already a 10yr paint that produces light off H30 nuclear isotopes relatively safely, I am waiting for that to start showing up on the radar (its already for sale in places) Imaging the paint in your house lighting it.

Now if we could get fusion to work safely then all this would be moot!

I thought it was every 30,000 miles, thats what I think my Jeep's Rebuild Service Manual says, could be every 60,000 miles, or every 15,000. Its one of those three though.

The 95' Jeep grand cherokee has a serviceable fuel filter, thats located outside of the fuel tank. Its about a foot from the fuel tank, in front of the rear axel, although some are located near the engine (easier access if its in the engine bay).

When I replaced mine... it was soo clogged with gunk that when you put in clean fuel on one side, black fuel came out the other side...

On a 98' Teggy, I wouldn't know, but it was more common back in the 90's to have serviceable fuel filters. Now most of them are in the tanks, and when it gets clogged get ready to pull out your wallet, cause it's gonna be expensive.

Red- Did you say most fuel tanks are plastic? Mines definitely metal, as well as the one on my moms Caliber. I've never seen a plastic one before...

This is my point exactly. I used to be a huge fan of Nuclear Power -- it does make a lot of sense, and operation has a good safety record. After some reading, I realized that the spent waste transport and containment was revealed to be a weak spot. My statement was meant to be more thought-provoking than a jab to the topic. If we can bolster the weak links, I could see myself signing on to it again.

This is an interesting proposal. Since we have to store it, why not find a way to safely use it? It still has the potential for some energy, or it wouldn't be a concern.

Back to the fuel filter. On Teggy, it's located on the firewall and is pretty simple to replace -- just a bracket, hose, and a banjo bolt -- right out in the open. But at ~70K miles, there was a thick brown/yellow gunk that oozed from it while draining, so it was doing its job. I'm pushing 140K miles now, so I'm just curious as to what's going on in there.

I worked on a '95 Mercury Mystique with an inline can-style near the fuel tank. The brackets were rusted and the pressure release conveniently squirted into the eyeball (even with safety glasses). :eek: Ouch! That was 105K miles and pretty clear fuel discharged from the upstream side -- so like people, vehicles can be different I suppose.

RH77