944Ross

PM Sent

I don't get it, he couldn't (you didn't) sell the diesel to someone at a buck a gallon less?

running_cold924

well, we "legally" disposed of it...he had the choice to take it or us dispose of it, he chose us. I wish i had a diesel to use it and probably my boss does as well. I know it is still usable but we just wanted rid of it. the company is called safety-kleen iirc.

ScottOgle

I think they need to take the ethanol/gas off the market. I don't see a benefit. Now there is talk of increasing it from 10% to 15% for all vehicles (E85 is in a class all of it's own) mainly due to the corn growers that want to dump more on the market. Yes, it's supposed to cost less but I didn't see prices go down here in the Austin area when all the pumps converted last year. I also noticed the mileage in my Subaru go down about 8%. My 944 takes the stuff OK but my poor 912 with dual carbs suffers. The ethanol stuff seems to have a lower boiling point and in hot weather the mix just does not work like 100% gas did.

pjburges

Man - I didn't think about it but yes- ethanol has a lower boiling point and in a non-pressurized injection environment you could boil it in the bowls of the carb. Thats obviously not a problem in a pressurized fuel rail. Try wrapping your carbs in aluminum foil and see if that helps. Are you going lean? Might have to adjust the jetting!

The ethanol is oxygenated which should help the gas burn a little cleaner and certainly reduces our oil dependency. However, the rubber fuel lines went out within a year of the 10% ethanol being added in in my 1990 Chevy truck. The part I bought was NOS from the dealer - so it too will probably fail quickly with the ethanol exposure. It made the rubber spongy and soft - it eventually ruptured. There are many side effects to this - just like there was when lead got taken out of gas. The true stories will start to show sooner or later.

Rogue_Ant

Side effects...? Not unless you mean more power, safer, cleaner, and less foreign oil dependency.

I've been running E85 for years, no problem. Just tune for it.
And anyone who expects rubber lines to last forever are in for a big surprise, regardless of fuel type.

pjburges

I mainly just don't like that E85 is hydroscopic. I agree it burns cleaner and reduces oil dependency. I'm not convinced about the making more power part - you can make some fairly high octane hydrocarbon fuels - I'm not sure you can get there with ethanol. The turbo cars tuned for it are pretty badass too - I rode in a WRX that really ran sweet on E85. There are rubbers that don't do well in ethanol - and mainly american automakers were using them (one example being my work truck).

There has been rumor that 100Lowlead for aircraft will be phased out by an ethanol substitute. I hope that doesnt happen for reasons of water absorption. Just what will happen when the water the ethanol is carrying freezes in the fuel lines at 20K ft? Or - how will I know that my carbed Continental or Lycoming engine won't boil the fuel in the carbs on the ground while doing a takeoff check (much like what may be happening in Scott's 912) , and I will unexpectedly not have full power for takeoff?

Food for thought - not trying to blast E85 - but it's no wonder-fuel.

Rogue_Ant

I understand about aircraft requirements.
However, I dis-agree about it not being a "wonder-fuel".
105 octane, ~$2.30 per gallon, two different pumps within 5miles of my house.
Equivalent octane Gasoline costs me well over $10 per gallon.

And re: Scott's 912, it sounds to me like it needs to be enriched.

944Ross

I'd be fine with anything that distances us from our middle-eastern brothers, as long as it weren't made from food stocks (corn), heavily subsidized by tax dollars (real costs are more than gas), and they maintain Real Gas for older vehicles. Once they get algae producing fuel, we'll all be driving diesels.