Ethanol Effect on Older Engines

I would say yes. Especially the 2 strokes.

http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/68036

Thank you kremarat

Thank you PWSlack for the chemistry slant

10% ethanol is generally considered "safe" for older vehicles/engines, but there are exceptions (Tygon tubing, etc.)

Hi Gene,

You may need a lead additive for the 1960's JD. These were designed and built to run on leaded fuel. If you Google "lead additive for gasoline" there is some info out there for you. As far as newer engines say mid 80's, you should be OK with the ethanol.

I have several pieces of equipment with newer engines ranging from mid 80's to recent. I have made it a point for several years now to close the fuel supply valve when I am done using a piece of equipment and run the fuel out of the carburetor (with engine running).

I have had great success doing this in that beyond normal spring/fall maintenance, I have not had any problems with carburetors, fuel lines, ect.

My local small engine guru told me that most small engine replacement fuel lines, filters, tanks, carbs that we buy today are designed for ethanol.

Thank you KJK

if the engine is a two stoke the lead additive is not necessary. The lead was a upper cylinder lubricant. The two stroke oil will suffice.

Nice catch ozzb - thanks.

I should have clarified!

Some argue that lead replacement additive on older engines is only really necessary where continuous high-speed driving (ie on the highway) is involved. I haven't tested this myself (additive for one car, converted heads for the other), but it could be even less necessary on a garden tractor.

PWSlack makes a good point on the elastomers. Older formulations were designed for petrol and diesel fuel, not for alcohols.

Lead was never an "upper cylinder lubricant." Lead was put in gasoline as lead tetraethyl [ Pb(C2H5)4 ]. The purpose of the additive was to suppress detonation of the fuel (anti-knock agent). The oxidation of hydrocarbons proceeds via a free radical chain reaction, which can proceed too fast, resulting in detonation rather than propulsion. To prevent this, the lead tetraethyl releases free radicals at the high temperatures of combustion and these "terminate" the free radicals produced by the fuel, preventing runaway oxidation. Lead was an unfortunate choice, but the PbTE just happens to have the right physical/chemical properties to do the job. So what happens to the lead? That's where another additive was necessary - ethylene dibromide was also added to the fuel, thus forming the relatively volatile lead dibromide (PbBr2) which was then belched into the atmosphere with the exhaust and onto our fields and hedgerows.

Lead tetraethyl was eventually replaced by methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) - another free radical scavenger - but that got into the water supply and proved to be toxic also.

Here's a question for you: Could the decline of the West be attributed to arrested brain development caused by decades of lead inhalation? It's a sobering thought. Strangely, it seems to have affected politicians more than most.

Not entirely true. lead was an anti-knock element but it also served a lubrication function as well, particularly on valves. Older engines designed for leaded gasoline exhibit accelerated valve wear burning non-leaded gasoline.

Forgive me, but that sounds more like an "unintended consequence" of lead tetra-ethyl - in this case a positive one. I may be wrong, but I have never heard it said that lead was added to help the valves in any way.

I just purchased this product about 30 minutes ago, so I know nothing about it. We use lots of 2 stroke (Echo) gas tools where I work. (kramarat, no wise cracks about me and work) and I just bought 6 new trimmers/blowers/saws so I'm going to look into this. It's called Ethanol Sheild

Ethanol Shield | B3C Fuel Solutions

(not an endorsement). Claims to be "ideal for 2 & 4 cycle engines".

Here's what the web site says:

Benefits of Ethanol Shield

• Envelopes water molecules as they are introduced into the fuel system, preventing them from bonding with the Ethanol. By enveloping the water it now pass harmless through the fuel system, including all filters and screens, to be vaporized in the combustion chamber. This process is what puts an end to the majority of problems we see with phase separation that leads to the corrosive effects we see with ethanol.
  
• Dual lubricants that condition the rubber and plastic components, they also rejuvenate and protect the rubber gaskets and seals that may have been dried our form ethanol. After the lubricants are burned in the combustion chamber a synthetic lubricant is left lubricating the entire upper combustion chamber such as piston rings and valves.
  
• Acts as a Fuel Preservative by adding antioxidants into the fuel because ethanol blended fuel (E-10) it is rich in oxygen. It also acts as a fuel catalysis by keeping the hydrocarbon chains short, preventing the fuel from decomposing prematurely.
  
• Creates a better bond between ethanol blended fuel (E-10) and 2 cycle oil. All 2 cycle oils do not bond well with ethanol, hence the reasoning most manufactures recommend not to go over 10% ethanol content and to shake your 2 cycle oil gas mixture before running.

Admin may delete this, I don't know. I also don't know if it will really help, but maybe...............

http://cr4.globalspec.com/comment/723432/Re-Bad-Gasoline

I just added some to 5 gallons of gas yesterday..........the small bottle.

Now I just have to completely take apart my two Stihl string trimmers that haven't been run in two years and clean them up.

My neighbor's wife is also mad at me because I was able to get their two tillers up and running, but not keep them running. One 4 stroke, one 2 stroke.

They worked fine for an entire weekend after I worked on them, and now are quitting again. Of course his wife thinks that I should be locked into some kind of maintenance obligation on their old crappy equipment. The husband is completely inept on anything mechanical, and tends to make things worse if he touches them. I'm not convinced that he didn't mess with something after I got them going. He won't look me in the eye when I ask him.

This just confirms the fact that I ignore most of your posts.

Let us know what you think. I think that, for the cost, it would be worth trying.

I don't have enough time or control over the tools to run any meaningful tests here. At any given time it could be any one of the three guys who work for me, or some probationer who is performing community service who is ruining the equipment.

The main thing, (I think), with the ethanol tainted gas, is that it goes bad pretty quickly and shouldn't be left in cans or equipment for any extended length of time.

Yeah...........the price. Gas is so cheap, what's another .20 a gallon to keep lawn equipment running.

I'm also in the process of expanding my vegetable garden and mulching large areas around trees, shrubs, etc. Every year, keeping useless grass cut is making less and less sense.

I'll let you know how it works out.

I almost forgot to address your first sentence.

You don't have to read any posts.............you already know everything.

That's true. I am a legend in my own mind.

When, in reading the quoted website passages, I saw more than half a dozen grammatical errors, I immediately suspected knew that the people who wrote it are incredibly careless. Why would I believe that they've done the testing, research, or indeed, ANY other necessary step prior to putting this on the market, correctly? And I double-checked; the errors are indeed theirs, and not due to re-typing or other issues. It all smells like "lovely gas" ["beau-gas", pronounced bogus].

Tygon© is one of the leading brand names of PVC fuel lines that is used on small engines or other PVC tubing. PVC is recommend plastic for gasoline on small engines. It don't hold up well to ethanol. In concentrations of ethanol greater then 5% it's not recommended. Ethanol will cause PVC to lose it's flexibility and become brittle. Have already experienced this with some of the small equipment I've worked on. Hoses that stayed serviceable for years with gasoline have short life with gasoline mixed with ethanol. Under the Tygon© brand name they have manufactured another tubing that will do well with both gasoline and ethanol.

This maybe a problem with fuel tanks and any seals that were made from PVC.

I recommend avoiding ethenol if at all possible.

http://pure-gas.org/

I recommend avoiding Gasoline if at all possible. Pure-gas.org appeals to the same crowd who made the removal of lead from gasoline take ten years to become a law. You may need to adjust your property or lifestyle to conform to a partial solution to the problem of combustion engines, which is that the by-products are undesirable pollutants and greenhouse gas. Ethanol is a tiny improvement.

If you must use Gasoline, at least reduce your consumption by using some ethanol mixed with it. Most of the civilized world can see the logic in reducing the turf wars that erupt about every five minutes around owning petroleum. You do this by offering to buy less oil.

If you are using it in pre 1980 engines, shut down engine by closing a fuel supply valve. (You may have to install one.) You may need to replace some older fuel lines.

I have done this on many engines (two and four stroke, large and small) over the years, and had no issues.

The ethanol in the fuel washes the lubricating oil from surfaces that need it. For years after each use I ran the gas out of my 150HP 2 cycle outboard boat motor without any trouble. When I began using 10% ethanol fuel within one season three of the six cylinders were severely scored and the crank bearings failed. The repair bill was $5,200.00

I believe that the practice is safe for 4 stroke engines and single cylinder 2 cycles, however multi carberator 2 cycles will be damaged by this practice due to the washing effect of the ethenol because the engine countinues to run on one carb after the other banks have gone dry.

If I must run a small 2 stroke on 10% ethanol gas I double the oil in the mix, it smokes a little but is better than buring it up.

If I had to operate my small engines for the extra time to run them out of fuel after each use the extra run time would more than offset any benefit from the 10% ethanol.

Check this out:

• Gas

Good find!

I guess I'm back to my original anger, frustration, and question from my bad gasoline thread.

WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE BEING FORCED TO BURN ETHANOL??????????

I've yet to see any benefit. It's certainly not lessening our dependence on foreign oil.

One of these days when the government puts their boot on our throats, and forces something on us that makes no sense whatsoever, I'm gonna be one of the people that's making money by selling some magic elixir that fixes bad decisions that come out of Washington, instead of just another screwed end user.

We're "BEING FORCED TO BURN ETHANOL" for the same reason there are tobacco subsidies.

Money.

It's our fault. After all, we elect them.

I've speculated it's to boost gasoline octane so the refineries don't need to work so hard, thus boosting supplier profit margins.

I find it interesting how the US government somehow "asked" to absorb the monetary loss ethanol production creates. Interesting when your president at the time is privately invested in oil. It's especially interesting how the public who elected this government is powerless to do anything about it.

Here's a corn growing senator to help explain. Absolutely amazing stuff. He votes for subsidies................and receives them as a farmer. Those have shrunk though. He's now making more money selling corn for ethanol production, which he also voted to mandate.

I did a google search on how does ethanol benefit the US.............most of it points out job creation...........government subsidized.

One article points out that it takes less than a gallon of petroleum based fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol. They go on to sing the praises of ethanol, because in the actual production phase, natural gas and coal are burned, therefore reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It's madness................and it's all about money. The proof that it's all about money, is that they would rather poison us, than have us not pay taxes on alcohol that we plan to drink.

http://southwestfarmpress.com/grains/american-agriculture-answering-call-energy-independence

It also occurred to me, that since the ethanol absorbs water, part of my problem might be my geographical location. During summer in the southeast, humidity can reach 80-90%. This is also when these tools are most at use. I suspect that in the desert, ethanol stays much less, "wet".

As it works out it takes between 1-1/2 to 2 gallons of oil to make a gallon of ethanol which has only 80% of the energy of a gallon of gasoline after you take into account the fertilizer, the irrigation pumps, the farm machinery, and the fuel to transport it by rail/truck, etc.

Someone will have to explain how this helps anybody but the farmers and politicians and oil companies.

Except I can't see how it helps the oil companies all that much because they have to pay the inflated costs for it.

How about the millions/billions they get in subsidies? You know how they are struggling to make ends meet.

Well i can tell you that last year, Exxon-Mobil made 10 Billion dollars in profits and paid 11 billion in taxes, which worked out to $.05/gallon of gasoline they sold. The Federal Government made $.49 on each gallon in gas taxes.

actually it is a "replacement" for MTBE which helped to prevent the creation of nitrous oxide as a combustion product, but when it leaked from underground fuel storage tanks it seriously contaminated groundwater supplies. Places like LA and Houston and elsewhere with a lot of ground level ozone were required to sell gasoline with an oxygenator like MTBE, the refiners wanted to use methanol as a replacement which could be made using a modified process that makes MTBE and would have allowed them to use a byproduct of refining without making wholesale changes, but the corn states insisted that they use Ethanol because then they could collect the government subsidies, sell the ethanol, AND sell the leftover corn mash as cattle feed, and it would increase corn prices. Methanol was also not hydroscopic the way Ethanol was, and could be shipped by pipeline and did not have a limited shelf life as a result. Ethanol can only be shipped by tanker car because it would absorb too much water if shipped by pipeline. Ethanol is also corrosive to aluminum and carbon steel (because it gloms onto water.) and attacks many of the rubbers and plastics used in fuel systems, Methanol does not. so fuel systems have to be made from stainless steels and fluropolymers

Politics and money (as if the two aren't one in the same) overrode good engineering.

"it's not lessening our dependence on foreign oil."

It has actually reduced the amount of gasoline we consume in oxygenate states by about 5%, in addition to reducing some types of toxic emissions, but increasing others. All in all, a less hazardous mix of contaminants is present when burning oxygenated fuel. Let me guess your reply.

"It takes more oil to produce ethanol than the oil it replaces."

This statement, which I have read a hundred times, is devoid of facts and has got to be one of the most elegant examples of suggestive logic (most often used in political polling or for opinion surveys) that I have ever seen.

The cost to transport oil, refine oil, consume oil is the same no matter what you use it for. An equal argument would be that to produce ethanol, more ethanol is used in the making of it than is produced. Does producing ethanol make anything besides ethanol? As a matter of fact, it does, but let's not even discuss that. I believe that you are implying that giving an ethanol subsidy in the form of a per gallon cash award is foolish because the cash would buy more oil (gasoline) than the energy in the gallon of ethanol. This is false. The energy content is about 7 times greater than the energy in an equal amount of gasoline. This means the market is paying the other 6 parts.

The value of corn therefore embodies all of the capital costs, labor and material it takes to create it, does it not? A farmer then sells it to the highest bidder. Sometimes cows eat it, sometimes it's burned in pellet stoves, sometimes it's part of whiskey or ethanol as a fuel additive. (Farmer subsidies, oil co subsidies etc, I don't understand them) You make ethanol from corn, and sell the ethanol for an amount of money greater than the cost of production. A subsidy is part of that equation. I don't hear anyone saying that the cost to drill a new oil well in IRAQ is greater than the value of the oil that we'll get out of it, or that oil subsidies are what allowed Exxon to make $4 billion last Q. Subsidies must have been at the root of it. What is the negative impact of that enterprise.

Fix your vehicles so they perform well and run efficiently. Drive all you want, if you can afford it. Pay your taxes, and vote your conscience. I wish the EPA would mandate that all gasoline sold in the US was 50% ethanol. That all diesel was 50% bio. That all cars that got over 50MPG got a Gas tax exemption at the filling station. These all reduce demand for oil, much of it purchased from people who want to kill us for being in their country.

Killing the domestic renewable fuel industry by forcing them to compete head to head with entrenched, subsidized traditional fuel producers is unwise. Mark my words, we will need them very badly.

so you readily admit you don't understand the economics of the situation, but yet you call BS on the FACT that ethanol costs more in both fuel and money to produce. You are emoting, not debating on the facts.

I understand the economics. I don't understand the political subsidy game. I'm simply pointing out that the ethanol subsidy is not unprecedented when it comes to fuel.

but the subsidies play a huge role in theeconomics.

http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/05/how-ethanol-is-affecting-our-grocery-bill/

I'm talking about the motivation for awarding subsidies. That article is pathetic, but you are making it pretty easy. The increase in the price of gasoline, which is up about 60% in the last two years, versus food, up 30% in the pork example he sites, is due to what. ethanol? corn? food? oil subsidies? government taxes? OPEC?

Someone has evidently convinced you that ethanol subsidies are intolerable scams, but ranchers and farmers, oil companies, defense contractors, churchs, mortgage companies, banks, the thousands of subsidies offered and taken (most by tax breaks) by these entities are not intolerable scams. That issues impacting the security, environment and economy of the US (and the world) are not intertwined with these awards.

None are scams. They are all finely crafted to allow governments to influence development. That often includes allowing a few people to make a lot of profit. I support enhancing ethanol production (my best guess as to a viable alternative to petroleum for a combustion engine fuel) through the award of some incentive subsidies. Do you support the premise, or am I barking up the wrong tree when I say we are subsidizing oil too much, and renewable energy not enough.

Do you actually believe what you typed?

It is well proven that ethanol is a total loser - except to the groups like farmers, distillers and on.

Read through this and let me know what you think. I do know that there is less energy in ethanol than gasoline. Make sure to read the highlighted links too.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/ethanol/overview/index.htm

another link:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050329132436.htm

There are a lot of good links on the bad gasoline? thread too.

I think the government got sold a bill of goods on ethanol. I'm convinced that it's bad for some of our engines. I've found no advantages to using it.

To me it's the equivalent to the government pushing HHO gas, but worse. Unfortunately, they never admit that they were wrong, they just keep shoveling good money after bad.

Personally, I think the money and research should have been put into biodiesel. That can be refined into products that are indistinguishable from petroleum products and can be made from algae. Unlike corn, algae can be grown almost anywhere, including in tubes in the middle of the harshest deserts.

I agree. Biodiesel (also heavily subsidized, but not demonized) is not something most people use every day in the US. Why don't we build more diesel vehicles in the US. Maybe it's more profitable for oil companies to refine gasoline. What do you think? I have diesel installation trucks in my business, we burn b10. It's excellent. Absolutely no difference.

All I'd like to get to is the truth on why ethanol. The beauty of biodiesel, is that it can be further refined into gasoline....................gasoline that is identical to our current petroleum based gasoline as far as our machines go.

Do you remember the Beta vs VHS battle? This reminds me a lot of it, and in many people's minds, the inferior product won out.

There is algae out there that release as waste, a product that is ready to burn in diesel engines, no processing necessary. To grow it, the only ingredients needed are water, (non-potable, this could be waste water), CO2 and sunlight. Oh yeah, the other waste product is oxygen.

Unfortunately, biodiesel research and production are falling by the wayside. Why? Because our government has mandated ethanol, therefore, quite simply, that's where the real money is. Even big oil, that was investing heavily in biodiesel, is dropping out in favor of ethanol. The .45 per gallon tax credit for blenders proved far to lucrative to pass up.

Corporate farmers, (that were already on the dole anyway), were able to send powerful lobbyists into Washington to massage the idiot politicians into believing that ethanol was the way to go. So here we are, the battle for large scale production is all but over, and we are left with the inferior product. Even the environmentalists hate ethanol.

Another interesting link:

http://www.foe.org/biofuelssubsidies

Thanks Kramarat, excellent series. You may note that they did not test gas against E10, but against E85, for MPG. Technically, the information conveyed in the test is the same, but the difference in energy content is well known, and not really relevant. It simply made Ethanol look like a clear loser, implying that power density is the end game. It is not. Ethanol does not deliver the same mpg in most vehicles, although debate about the viability of improving IC's to burn it more effectively is ongoing, and promising. Current IC's are designed to burn gasoline. Anyway, I thank you for a really informative (factual) read.

Your link to Consumer Reports is a favorite of mine. I enjoy reading Robert Rapier's posts - good experience and background.

" The energy content is about 7 times greater than the energy in an equal amount of gasoline."

This statement is absolutely not true. There is more energy available in gasoline when compared to an identical volume of ethanol. If you are finding a different answer then you are being lead a stray from where you got that info.

Dick Cheney invested in corn and ethanol refineries.

I'm sure he did. Did you realize that Washington politicians are exempt from insider trading laws? It's true.................they're making millions.

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11014777/1/insider-trading-laws-dont-apply-to-congress.html

Finally, a little justice. Anyone who invested in ethanol refineries got killed, over the last five years. Many are bankrupt. Why? Gas has been cheaper per energy unit than ethanol, including subsidies. They will probably recover this year, if oil stays above 100. Subsidy may even be reduced.

An alternate is, in spring, buy a lamb, or a kid (as in goat), a length of chain a collar and a peg.

Then you don't need buy fuel to mow the 'useless' grass. You get fertilizer for the veggie patch, or flower beds (or lawn). Come autumn you eat it and sell the hide, or tan it and make leather goods, or carpet the house. You can even recycle the blood and bone.

Then in spring, repeat.

Spend money, or make money - it's a choice.

Like using corn for making ethanol.

Or using up the last of a non renewable, before subsidizing the development of a renewable replacement.

Here is a link to places in NY that have alcohol free gasoline. from this link you can pick just about any state or province on North America.

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=NY

What did the equipment manufacturer say over the phone?