www.iFourWinns.com

Dedicated to Current and Future Owners
It is currently Sun May 11, 2025 7:22 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 3:33 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:23 am
Posts: 258
Location: Atlanta GA
Regardless of the technical issues with Ethanol (wrecked havoc on my old boat with a 2 stroke outboard) I am against it from a purley economic/political reason. Without subsidy it would not exist because it is not economically viable as a fuel. With the subsidy it has done nothing more than cost us billions in taxes, and raised the price of food because of the new "artificial" market for corn that is out pricing the normal food market. This has affected the cost of many food items including beef. The real funny part is that it takes a lot of electricity to make Ethanol so it is virtually a no gain fuel (takes as much energy to make as you get out of it).... I bet that electricity is made by burning oil or coal too....

_________________
2003 Horizon 240 With 5.7 Volvo Penta
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 5:24 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:21 am
Posts: 5667
Location: Austin, TX
Well, I'll take ethanol over MTBE anyday (what it replaced).

_________________
1981 Columbia 8.7
2015 Yamaha FZR - 87mph - sold
2006 Yamaha GP1300R - sold
2003 Chaparral 215 SSI - sold
2009 Stingray 195CS - sold
2000 Four Winns H180 - sold
1976 O'day Daysailer II - sold

Rick's Four Winns H180 Mods/Upgrade Thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 6:17 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:14 pm
Posts: 645
Location: Lower Trent Ontario, Canada
In my opinion, E-10 was just a political platform to reduce our dependancy on foreign oil by 10%. Nothing more and this garbage is giving us all grief if you know it or not. Gasoline is a solvent as well as a fuel and E-10 is an even better solvent, thus doing harm to components, especially carbureted engines. Fuel injected engines still have trouble with it. I've seen in my customers cars (who use high ethanol content gas) have had this stuff disolve the insulation off the windings in the injectors. As for MTBE, it's an oxygenate required in gasoline under the clean air act and oxygenates are still in there. I dunno about the states but here in Canada, Shell V-power is ethanol free and I use it religiously even though my engines are injected. As a licenced technician, I've seen the problems first hand. My marina pumps V-power, so I'm good there but I do keep Starton aboard when I'm away from home port.

That's my 50th of a dollar.

John

_________________
07 Azure AZ200,
Previous boat,
95 278 Vista,
And a lot of others.

Ontario, Canada


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:39 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:13 pm
Posts: 1303
Location: Allatoona Lake, Georgia
With the introduction of E-15 this fall, you might just see more stations with non-alcohol pumps due to the damage E-15 will cause.

Increase of ethanol in gas will cause damage to certain vehicles

Published: Sunday, September 04, 2011, 8:15 AM Updated: Sunday, September 04, 2011, 8:31 AM
By Bob Marshall, The Times-Picayune The Times-Picayune

I was trying to summarize the nightmare Pete Landry was describing, and suggested this: Come fall, Louisiana's 320,000 boaters will begin unwittingly filling their tanks with the new 15 percent ethanol fuel blends (E-15), resulting in millions of dollars in unnecessary damage, not to mention broken dreams.

"Oh no," Landry said, "It's much worse than that."

Worse?

"This won't just impact sportsmen. The E-15 also can't be used in motorcycles, jet skies and any lawn equipment or anything else that that uses these small, oil-cooled engines.

"We're talking probably millions of people impacted. We're facing a real crisis."

Landry is no Chicken Little. He's a retired oil- and petrochemical-industry chemist who has spent the past few years as a pro-bono researcher investigating the impacts of ethanol blends on sportsmen and others. When you check out the results on his website, PeteLandrysRealGas.com, you realize the sky really could fall.

Some history.

In 2007, President George Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, which, among other things, required a 20-percent reduction in gasoline consumption by 2017. Much of that was to be achieved by the use of renewable fuels, a goal encouraged by a 45-cent per gallon tax credit to refiners for producing ethanol blends -- the Volumetric Ethanol Tax Credit.

This was a hugely popular event across political lines, but the euphoria didn't last long. Turned out corn-based ethanol actually costs more energy to produce than it saves. The rapid expansion of corn acres resulted in an increase in fertilizers that harm waterways, a loss of wildlife habitat, and soaring food prices worldwide.

While those impacts were generating headlines, what had been thought would be a small list of costs to a whole range of internal combustion engines began climbing. Ethanol, which is basically grain alcohol, collects moisture in fuel tanks, and is corrosive to hoses and engine parts not specifically engineered to handle it. That list would only climb as the refiners moved to meet the government's gradually increasing percent of ethanol.

This fall, we'll be hitting the E-15 mark, a level considered unsuitable even for new outboards, almost all small engines, and any car built before 2001.

The Environmental Protection Agency will require retailers to post a label on pumps stating the fuel should not and, in fact, cannot legally be used in anything other than passenger vehicles produced after 2001 and Flue-fuel vehicles.

But Landry says chaos is bound to ensue for two reasons: That label is much too small and not specific enough, and neither state nor federal governments are requiring refiners and retailers to produce enough ethanol-free fuel.

In fact, the alternative fuel subsidies give refiners a market incentive to produce most, if not all, of their fuel with ethanol, a far higher volume than the government currently requires. In June, the Marathon refinery in Garyville, which had been the state's largest ethanol-free producer, went all-ethanol. Since then, Landry said, the list of gas stations selling ethanol-free fuel dropped by 54 to just 977 -- this out of an estimated 3,650 stations.

"Availability is a huge problem for retailers," he said. "And that's going to get worse. Louisiana now has four refineries producing ethanol-free fuel, and that number could drop because a federal exemption for small refineries is about to expire."

"Ethanol-free gas is already more expensive, and when we start losing in-state refineries, it will just go higher," Landry said. "My fear is that when this E-15 goes into effect, people who don't know the danger will pull up to a gas station and miss that label, or just look at the price and go to the cheaper fuel and do real damage to their engines."

So what can be done?

Some help may be coming soon as Congress considers repealing what has become a $5 billion annual subsidy of ethanol. That could lead some refiners into becoming producers of ethanol-free fuels.

But what really needs to happen is for governments -- state and federal -- to require retailers to offer at least one pump of non-ethanol fuel. That would provide the market for refiners to offer that product.

I'm not suggesting the nation should leave the alternative fuel race. If anything, we should invest more in supporting technologies that help get us off carbon fuels. If we don't, there isn't much of a future for southeast Louisiana. But neither should millions of Americans be needlessly caught in Pete Landry's nightmare.

In the meantime, keep checking PeteLandrysRealGas.com for safe fuel near you.

_________________
Image
Current Boat: 2000 Four Winns 298 Vista
Previous Boat: 2000 Carver 406MY


Last edited by 298VISTA2000 on Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 8:22 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank

Joined: Mon May 16, 2011 7:14 pm
Posts: 645
Location: Lower Trent Ontario, Canada
Amen :wink:

_________________
07 Azure AZ200,
Previous boat,
95 278 Vista,
And a lot of others.

Ontario, Canada


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:00 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:13 pm
Posts: 1303
Location: Allatoona Lake, Georgia
Good info about this poison found here: http://petelandrysrealgas.com/index.html

_________________
Image
Current Boat: 2000 Four Winns 298 Vista
Previous Boat: 2000 Carver 406MY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 07, 2011 11:19 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:21 am
Posts: 5667
Location: Austin, TX
The first mass produced car ran ethanol. It's a great fuel, better then gasoline honestly. The oil tycoons have you thinking otherwise.

_________________
1981 Columbia 8.7
2015 Yamaha FZR - 87mph - sold
2006 Yamaha GP1300R - sold
2003 Chaparral 215 SSI - sold
2009 Stingray 195CS - sold
2000 Four Winns H180 - sold
1976 O'day Daysailer II - sold

Rick's Four Winns H180 Mods/Upgrade Thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:18 am 
Offline
email admin your custom rank

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:23 am
Posts: 258
Location: Atlanta GA
and what is the cost per gallon without subsidies?
http://autos.aol.com/article/ethanol-su ... nder-fire/
Seems to me the only persons who support Ethanol subsidies are farmers in Iowa and ADM and their lobbyists.....

Why don't we eliminate all of the subsidies and then see if Ethanol will continue to be produced and consumed (ROFL)

FWIW I also believe Tobacco subsidies should be eliminated, etc.

_________________
2003 Horizon 240 With 5.7 Volvo Penta
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 12:39 am 
Offline
Sting Ray

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:48 pm
Posts: 73
Location: Indianapolis, IN
ric wrote:
The first mass produced car ran ethanol. It's a great fuel, better then gasoline honestly. The oil tycoons have you thinking otherwise.


Don't understand how you can say that when by it's chemical make-up, it naturally absorbs water and thus creates water in your fuel that can destroy an engine, fuel injected or not. I hate our oil dependence as much as the next guy, but ethanol is not the answer. I'm sure with the adjustments you've made on your boat it runs fine. But let that fuel sit for a few weeks and you'll think otherwise.

_________________
2008 H210
Volvo 5.0 GXi
"Summer Sled"
Indianapolis
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:15 am 
Offline
email admin your custom rank
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 7:13 pm
Posts: 1303
Location: Allatoona Lake, Georgia
Has anyone done the math on E-15? The average person drives 15,000 miles per year. Your car gets 25 miles per gallon with non-ethanol gas, therefore, you need to purchase 600 gallons of gas per year.

On the other hand, with E-15 (85% gas/15% ethanol) there comes a 25% to 30% reduction in fuel economy or 6 to 8 less miles per gallon (let's use 6 mpg reduction or 19 mpg in this example).

Non-ethanol: 15,000 / 25mpg = 600 gallons (100% gas)
E-15 ethanol: 15,000 / 19mpg = 789 gallons (671 gas/118 ethanol)

Am I missing something here or does E-15 actually increase our dependency on foreign oil? More importantly, does the use of E-15 eventually cost us more at the pump because we have to buy more gas due to the poor fuel economy? And, we all know that ethanol has significantly increased our food cost as well as anything else that is made with gas (not to mention engine maintenance cost). This just doesn't make any sense. I must have made a mistake somewhere. Can E-15 really reduce our mpg by this much and even if not, is the use of ethanol really beneficial to the consumer?

_________________
Image
Current Boat: 2000 Four Winns 298 Vista
Previous Boat: 2000 Carver 406MY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:07 am 
Offline
email admin your custom rank

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:23 am
Posts: 258
Location: Atlanta GA
It's all smoke and mirrors. For example if everyone in our country suddenly switched to electric vehicles, we would have to take all the oil currently refined into gasoline diverted to electricty production to meet the demand. The amount of BTU energy consumed would be the SAME.

_________________
2003 Horizon 240 With 5.7 Volvo Penta
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:16 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 3:23 pm
Posts: 715
Location: Michigan
298VISTA2000 wrote:
Has anyone done the math on E-15? The average person drives 15,000 miles per year. Your car gets 25 miles per gallon with non-ethanol gas, therefore, you need to purchase 600 gallons of gas per year.

On the other hand, with E-15 (85% gas/15% ethanol) there comes a 25% to 30% reduction in fuel economy or 6 to 8 less miles per gallon (let's use 6 mpg reduction or 19 mpg in this example).

Non-ethanol: 15,000 / 25mpg = 600 gallons (100% gas)
E-15 ethanol: 15,000 / 19mpg = 789 gallons (671 gas/118 ethanol)

Am I missing something here or does E-15 actually increase our dependency on foreign oil? More importantly, does the use of E-15 eventually cost us more at the pump because we have to buy more gas due to the poor fuel economy? And, we all know that ethanol has significantly increased our food cost as well as anything else that is made with gas (not to mention engine maintenance cost). This just doesn't make any sense. I must have made a mistake somewhere. Can E-15 really reduce our mpg by this much and even if not, is the use of ethanol really beneficial to the consumer?



Not sure where you got your mpg numbers, but they are a little off.

My last three vehicles have been flexfuel vehicles and I have done the comparisons with regular gas and E85 (85% ethonal and 15%gas) . They have all gotten 3 to 4 mpg less burning e85. My current Silverado gets 3 mpg less on E85.

I think you would not even notice a difference in mpg with E15.

_________________
2004 248 Vista "Amante"
MC 5.0MPI/B3


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 1:32 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank

Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:21 am
Posts: 5667
Location: Austin, TX
20-30% reduction in fuel economy for E15 over E0?? Stop reading wikipedia. That's 100% wrong.

E100 would have a 20-30% reduction in MPG compared to E0 if you're doing it straight by math, otherwise in real world? Straight ethanol really sees less then 20%. Sometimes far less. Why? Because when you drive your car you're not flooring it using it's rated max hp/torque to move the car everywhere. On average a car cruising on the highway @ 75mph needs less then 100hp to sustain that speed with full accessories turned on. The extra fuel needed to create 100hp over gasoline isn't 20% in modern engines, heck.. it could be as little as 5% in these new direct injected turbocharged gas engines.

E10/15 sees on average 1-3% lower MPG compared to E0. So if your car got 25mpg on E0, running E10/15 can potentially reduce it's MPG down to around 24mpg.

Non-ethanol: 15,000 / 25mpg = 600 gallons (100% gas)
E-15 ethanol: 15,000 / 24mpg = 625 gallons (531 gas/94 ethanol)

_________________
1981 Columbia 8.7
2015 Yamaha FZR - 87mph - sold
2006 Yamaha GP1300R - sold
2003 Chaparral 215 SSI - sold
2009 Stingray 195CS - sold
2000 Four Winns H180 - sold
1976 O'day Daysailer II - sold

Rick's Four Winns H180 Mods/Upgrade Thread


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:35 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 16, 2009 4:17 pm
Posts: 521
Location: Metro Detroit/Holland MI
Yes the ethanol will absorb water but....
There are some differences in boat fuel tank systems vs. modern road vehicle fuel systems. Boat fuel tanks are vented to the atmosphere. When the fuel tank breathes it can let in outside air that is moist which will be absorbed into the alcohol. Car fuel systems are sealed much more tightly and have a charcoal canister that controls any breathing (to absorb any fuel vapors). So in general you are much less likely to get a lot of water into your car fuel tank with ethanol. Also most cars are driven more than boats so the fuel gets turned over more often so also less likely to absorb water.

Recent car fuel systems are designed to handle the ethanol with appropriate materials (stainless steel lines, o-rings of appropriate materials). E10 (which many of us are getting without even knowing) vs E15 isn't going to make any difference in a car of the last 5 or 8 years. Of course any flex fuel vehicles are designed to handle the E85, but many other cars that aren't flex fuel but use the same engine and the fuel system has all the same material to handle E85. They just don't have sensor to detect fuel type and change the engine calibration to run well on E85.

Ethanol isn't a completely horrible fuel. It does have less energy per volume than gasoline but does have higher octane so you can run more advanced spark timing. It also evaporates more easily than gasoline so the cylinder air charge is slightly cooler.

Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that current ethanol sources are better environmentaly than gasoline. Brazil has converted to a mostly ethanol transportation system with most cars running E100, but they are using sugarcane, which is easier to grow than corn, grows all year long, plus they can burn the stalks to make the energy required to convert it into ethanol. That won't work for us in North America but shows it can be done if the conditions are right and the government wants to put the money into the system so that it can get to the level that it has taken 100 years for gasoline.

Lastly, my marina sells no ethanol gas that I gladly pay more for. I just don't want to take the chances in my 14 year old boat that the fuel system wan't designed to handle ethanol. My wife had a flex fuel vehicle that we didn't use E85 in becasue it didn't make economic sense with the relative price of regular and E85. But if the price were right I wouldn't worry about running E85 at all.

_________________
Terry
Current: 07 Crownline 255 CCR cuddy - 350 Mag MPI/B3 "Casi Cielo"

Previous:97 245 Sundowner 5.7GI/SX

Tow vehicle: 1986 GMC 2500 Camper Special 454/TH400
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 3:41 pm 
Offline
email admin your custom rank

Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 10:26 pm
Posts: 5689
Location: Long Island NY
Unfortunately we can't say no to ethanol, because it's mandated in areas that have higher than average pollution, for an oxygenate to be blended in. They used to use MTBE, but then they found it was a carcinogen and when it gets in the water supply, its very difficult to get out.
Ethanol has some problems as a motor fuel. One is that it has less energy than gasoline, as noted above. The other is that it is hydroscopic, it pulls in moisture from the air. This does not cause a problem in vehicles because the gas tanks are not directly vented to the atmosphere, but in boats, aircraft, motorcycles, power equipment they are. So when the gas is consumed air gets in. Boats sit in areas that have moist air. The gas+ethanol can absorb a certain amount of water before it's a problem. However once that limit is reached, the water and ethanol will drop out of suspension from the fuel and go to the bottom of the tank. The pick up sucks up the water and the engine will not run. The ethanol does 2 other things, one, it cleans out the gunk in old tanks which clogs filters. Two, if you are unlucky enough to have an old Bertram or other classic sport fish boat with fiberglass gas tanks, it dissolves the resins in the glass. Then this dissolved gunk, gets sucked into the engine and gets deposited all over the intake valves. And makes the fiberglass tank leak, fire hazard. It's also a corrosion hazard to aluminum tanks.

The FAA does not allow ethanol in Avgas, because of the moisture and possible corrosion issues.

Modern vehicles can tolerate ethanol, older boats, it's questionable. I have been able to deal with it but had to do 2 carb rebuilds on the Quadrajet in 8 years. We had a car years back with a Q-jet ran on straight gas, no rebuilds needed in 15 years.

I wish I could say no to ethanol. I have no desire to get a newer boat with fuel injection. But FI won't run with water in the tank either. And the bill for replacing fuel injectors ruined by water, will be a lot more than a carb rebuild.

The problem we have is that gov't regulators, are not engineers. They don't have an engineering background, and don't listen to those that do. A good example of this was the first gen airbags. The safety establishment thought it was fine for them to come out at high speed, in case people didn't wear belts. The Detroit engineers warned them, but they did not listen. Smaller people started getting injured and killed, and a few years later, finally we got 2nd gen air bags. See they are not educated in the area they regulate, and don't listen to those who are. Safety advocates Joan Claybrook and Ralph Nader, were not engineers. But they were able to force regulation and policy. Only engineers, should be able to regulate such technical areas that impact on safety.

_________________
88 Four Winns 200 Horizon
4.3 OMC Cobra-4bbl
2002 Walker Bay 10/2012 Suzuki 2.5
2008 Walker Bay 8

1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.0/Selectrac
2007 Jeep Grand Cherokee 5.7 Hemi/Quadradrive II


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group