As far as i can see, there are drastic consequences for use of substancial ethanol to car mechanics. Yet manufacturers have agreed that with no more than 10% ethanol in fuel, cars should work ongoing fine.
My concerns are that as with 10%+ ethanol cars have problems, with this new fuel under10% will any problems just be seen later rather than sooner, as it is just a diluted evil to the engine?
The only benefits i have found is that it is a renewable energy source and cheaper at the pump.. burning emission differences have been found to be negligible.
My question(s)... can something potentially harmful be good/ok for cars in limited amounts? will it increase the risk of damage to the engine longterm? Is the short term saving of a few cents/week worth longterm cost (if any)?
Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:46 pm, by: Mike Triggs
I used ethanol fortified fuel for years in my Subaru, with no ill effects (and it smells good, too!). At 10% there are no effects at all, the levels which caused some problems were up around 20%, and only at some unscrupulous independants. As far as I'm concerned the "issues" with ethanol are a beat-up.
Many cars & bikes run 100% ethanol in Brazil (suitably manufactured/modified, of course).
An old trick used by many people, for years, was to put a litre of Methylated spirits into a tankful of juice to sop up water (especially useful for carbies, coz water would congregate in the float bowl). What's Metho? Ethanol with a bit of Methanol (which makes it poisonous) and a bittering agent (to supposedly stop people mixing it with orange cordial & drinking...). These days it also has purple die in it so it looks even more inviting to drink
Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 12:48 pm, by: Mike Triggs
It's worthwhile pointing out that one of the major opponents of ethanol is Toyota Au- the same guys who did their darndest to stop "Imports" from coming in....
Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 02:37 am, by: Heath Fox
So is Toyota-Au opposed to it's introduction due to the fact that their cars aren't built to maintain ethanol blended fuel?.
Secondly is the fact that it's government subsidised indicate that there is some bias to the "facts" of it being safe for cars.. Like the government is pushing for it to be used more due to it boosting (or helping, what ever way you see it) the sale of cane to manufacture the ethanol. hence doing it for the sustainability and livelyhood of farmers.
Dont mean to cause a political debate.. just trying to wade through the facts to distinguish if putting a solvent into my petrol tank is worth the few cents a litre saving, especially on a 79L tank you can see the saving.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 07:18 am, by: David Vaughan
The second question is difficult to know Heath. You might say that government is subsidising it to help move to a sustainable fuel over the objections of the dunderhead (or luddite) public, or you might say the government is propping up the vote-vital rural constituency while glossing over the risks. I take no position on that but I doubt that Toyota would be less capable technically than any other car maker to do the work. It is more likely that car makers in general will usually oppose anything which increases their cost structure, as they did with safety improvements until they finally saw the market appeal. Given the cost of engine repair or replacement, my present stance is to be cautious until the manufacturer shows clear support. It is probably worth noting that the manufacturers already imply support for fuels blended at less than ten percent.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005 - 07:26 am, by: David Vaughan
The point of my earlier "government-subsidised" comment was to indicate that availability of the fuel in America is skewed by redistribution of taxpayer funds and does not represent unalloyed operation of a market. It can not be a comment on technical merit.
Since the above takes further risks of political comment, let me add that I am not making any comment here in favour or against a type of market, merely observing that regulated and unregulated markets will operate differently and will distort perspectives on their operation. I am with Heath, in that I do not want to get into politics here.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005 - 08:51 pm, by: Ben Kelly(Ace)
I would put in 50% ethanol if i had the choice. As far as i am concerned ethanol producers have a very limited marketing basis (in fact they are stuggling in australia) versus the petrol industry which controls the worlds economies and has links with government AND car/road manufacturers/miscellaneous transport industry operatives. The bulk of press is against ethanol, do you really think its because they don't want you to shorten your the life of your motor vehicle (remember more vehicles=more sales) or do you think it might be related to profits for the oil industry (!?!) I think the answer is pretty obvious if you think about it.
Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - 12:54 pm, by: Robert Carlyon(Bob)
Whilst this is quite an interesting discussion, I haven't noticed any comments from the dedicated mechanics, who pull apart the engines of our cars every day. I have to admit that I am wary of putting an ethanol blend into my Soarer (probably due to bad press), but I would be interested in whether the mechanics feel that ethanol is damaging to Soarer engines, be they TT or V8 (and the odd SC300).
Previous
).
