I jumped from pump gas to that no ethanol Tru-Fuel premix sold by the quart for my two stroke stuff as soon as I saw it on the shelf and never looked back. My little Echo wacker runs like a top at 7k ft above sea level and the chain saw just rips. At $5 a quart it seems pricy but it's not in the long run.

I was concerned regarding the Kawasaki twin in my JD so I looked up a couple old buddies @ Kawasaki and they told me that they are not experiencing problems with E10 in their L&G or OPE engines. They don't like the idea of E15. If E15 is all I can get it'll be time to look at additives and there's always AVgas.

I use Stabil red and haven't seen any problems with E10 and I keep an eye on fuel lines and keep the engine in tune. It is properly set up for my altitude, which is rarely the case, and burns clean.

At marinas in N Ga, you can buy non ethanol,93 octane for about $4.50 a gallon. You don't have to go by boat, drive down to the gas dock and take your cans.

I think the writer hits the nail on the head about users falling into the E15 trap just from force of old habits. I'm one of those that takes his fuel can up to the pump when fueling up my vehicle - and have been doing that for many years.
Will be tuff to remember to watch for that little pump label - or to track down a local ethanol free fuel source. OTOH, a lot easier to do the stabilizer routine, particularly towards winter storage time.

Yeah, I actually have been unable to find a place to buy non ethanol blended fuel near enough to me to make it worthwhile to drive for. I do have a couple of marinas close by and I might explore their prices.
I guess I might begin buying my OPE fuel there, just to save on some drive time versus going way out in the sticks to find non-E at an auto gas station. I'm pretty much consigned to paying a higher price because I too have switched to Tru Fuel for my 2 stroke fleet. Anything that lets my wife crank up a weed eater or leaf blower by herself is worth whatever they are asking (in my opinion) :^)

This post was edited by mownie on Sun, Nov 3, 13 at 19:02

When I was forced to change from 100% to 90% E-10, I saw a decrease in my mileage. (mile/gal.).

Are we going to be forced to take another hit in mileage to save our oil?

Lower fuel mileage per gallon is a given as the percentage of ethanol increases. It has lower BTU per gallon than does gasoline. Simple physics rules.
Diesel has more BTU per gallon than does gasoline. But do not add it to your gasoline- it has very low octane rating.

One source shows Diesel fuel to have octane rating of 15-25.

This post was edited by bus_driver on Wed, Nov 6, 13 at 16:53

Well, don't leaves us hanging, tell us what the octane number is for diesel fuel.

I live in the southwest Arkansas/Northeast Texas area. One of the major gasoline retailers in this region is EZ Mart. In a store near me they just installed a new fuel island with pumps for No Ethanol gas in regular and premium and also diesel. I love it.

Here in the middle of corn country, we've always been able to get some non-ethanol gas at every station. Now they are forcing more ethanol on us and it is getting harder to find ethanol-free gas. Station owners say there is one pipe coming through the area and it carries the E-10, and all stations get their gas from that pipeline - makes me question the gasoline commercials where one brand says there gas is better than the others (when they are all drawing from the same source?!?).

Use to be you could get 87 regular, or 89 E-10. Now I see a few stations still have 87 regular, but also 87 E-10 (they mix it with 85-octane to stretch their dollar further). The 87 E-10 is about 20cents cheaper than the 87 regular, but I still buy the regular for everything. Much cheaper in the long run.

***"gasoline commercials where one brand says there gas is better than the others (when they are all drawing from the same source"***
Yes, that is how it works. Of course the brand name companies claim that the "precious" components that make their particular gasoline different and better are added at the local receiving pipeline terminal tank farm.
And I believe every word they utter too. :^)

I was told that the ethanol is added as the.delivery tanker trucks are filled The huge tank farm on the pipeline is about 40 miles from my place. True or not, I have no way of knowing but it seemed believable.

"I was told that the ethanol is added as the.delivery tanker trucks are filled"

Actually, it's added on top.
I worked at a gas station 10+ years ago and "conversed" with the truck driver.
They would add the gasoline, pull forward and dump in the ethanol on top.

which raises the question of just how well/fast the two mix.... mebbe a 40 mile haul will do it, dunno.

Even though it may sound like the ethanol is "gently laid on top of the gasoline" already dumped into the tanker, there is actually a fair amount of turbulence/agitation when the ethanol is added.
There is also a LOT of turbulence/agitation later as the fuel load is DROPPED into underground storage tanks......or PUMPED into above ground storage tanks (as the case may be) at the destination. Plus, of course, the trip to get there produces some mixing action.

I really don't know just how they manage/control that mixing process.. or even what the specs for such might be. But, I would be concerned with getting a container of largely ethanol fuel for my tractor just by happenstance... wish the EPA would be more concerned with such than coming up with impossible-to-use fuel cans....

OK, gotta ask, what do you folks use as an "anti ethanol" gas treatment. I've used regular StaBil for years and been happy with it. Now I've noticed they have an "ethanol treatment." Lots of other folks have jumped on the band wagon, Lucas, Startron, to name a few. The Stabil website says "all products are effective when used with E-10, E-15, and E-85.

My question is, is this "fear marketing" to get more of our $$ or are the traditional treatments which, I believe offset moisture adequate?

I don't have access to NonE fuel, so have to go the additive route.

Thanks,

Ev

This post was edited by exmar on Thu, Nov 7, 13 at 15:41

Keeping tanks full and or sealed from the atmosphere helps.
A near empty tank has a lot of "dead air space" that expands/contracts with the temperature fluctuations during the day.
As the temperature drops, the air in the tank contracts, pulling in a fresh "gulp" of moisture laden air.
The smaller the dead air space, the smaller the "gulp".

Automobiles have a sealed system and can handle the slight pressure variations.

Some more wonderful news about ethanol. The slide show says it all.

Here is a link that might be useful: The secret, dirty cost of green power push

It use to be that many gas treatments especially anti icing additives were Isopropyl alcohol. This explains the disappearance of these products as Ethanol works the same way. The alcohol in the gasoline increases the solubility of water.

Increasing the alcohol content will increase the amount of water that will dissolve in the gasoline. With the forced introduction of E15 you will see more starting problems as water will not burn.

Because of the higher water levels there will be increased corrosion on the internal parts as in a non aqueous median, Alcohol gasoline, the water takes on the properties of an acid.

Hi Folks,

Just out "erranding" and NPR (National Public Radio) is my usual listening choice. Today's "discussion" was on Ethanol in Gasoline. Interesting discussion, pretty evenly split between the "save the environment, renewable fuels, etc. folks and the "leave gas alone, stop subsidizing farmers (even more than they already are!!!) and leave a food crop for food. Couple of interesting facts were offered, one in seven folks in the US are hungry and when you use gas-ethanol fuel in your vehicle your MPG decreases 10-20%, plus the damage to the vehicle engine.

When corn became the "bidegradable of choice," farmers could sell it for ethanol at a higher price than the traditional food for animals or food for people. Government subsidy? As a result, prices of most of the things at the Grocery have increased.

When using gas-ethanol in a vehicle you end up burning more fuel to travel the same distance, presumably that generates more "bad stuff" for the environment?

Something I wasn't aware of is that boat owners are the most rabid of the "anti ethanol" group. We've all seen various posts here and in other forums about ethanol in small engine use. Evidently, it impacts marine engines much more.

Another statistic that was being kicked around was that for the first time the current administration has introduced a bill or something to decrease the amount of ethanol to be used in fuel. They propose decreasing the total from 13.8 to 13 million or billion gallons. Sorry, ears don't work as well as they used to.

Overall consensus seemed to be that it's here, live with it. The Feds aren't going to back off from saving the environment, energy security as a part of natioinal security, and the most sacred of sacred cows, farm subsidies. Pun intended.

I actually have a question with all this rambling. The new "EPA" non adjustable carbs on small engines. If we went back to the old adjustable, rebuildable, take apart and cleanable carbs would that help the gas-ethanol impact to small engines? My limited experience says yes, but I defer to those who do this all day, every day.

Ev

When the high water content promotes corrosion, and the ethanol itself attacks certain rubber components........it will not make much difference in how much damage is done to fuel system components, based on whether or not the components are rebuildable or throw away.
Maybe a $1,000 stainless steel carb with ethanol proof rubber and plastic might be the answer.
Who wants a $1,000 carb on a lawn mower? Anybody? Raise your hand.

About boaters and ethanol - many more boats have built in fuel tanks now instead of the smaller 6 gallon portable tanks that used to be so common. Much harder to drain if they have water in them.

And if we just had to have ethanol, why not make it out of sugar cane instead of corn? Simple answer - politics.

Ethanol is NOT good for the environment, at least not the fish and wildlife that live in it. Was good is the environment if there are no critters to live in it, besides cockroaches and rats? Corn farmers around here are raping the environment left and right, farming steep erodible hillsides, bulldozing forests for more cropland, busting virgin sod to plant more corn, taking land out of CRP to farm more corn, etc. The environment is taking a REAL hit in corn country. Oh yeah, the farmers also use atrazine and lots of other pesticides that aren't so good for the environment.

I won't even get into how much water is needed to produce ethanol from corn...

So, using the argument that ethanol is good for the environment is one of the biggest hoaxes out there. Anybody that believes that needs to go back to school or find a different source for their information.

I suggest that subsidies be eliminated for anyone (or corporation) farming more than 640 acres. The big farmers around here are raking in the profits, buying new quarter-million dollar combines every five years, etc. to keep up with corn profits and tax write-offs. The farmers that are farming just a couple hundred acres are the real ones that could use some help, as they can't compete against the big farmers.

I question whether the farmers are " raping the environment" unless you consider opening the soil for cultivation rape.

However in addition to the pesticides another big joke in the use of alcohol is the production of Carbon Dioxide. When fossil fuels are burned for each atom of carbon in the fossil fuel, a molecule of carbon dioxide is produced. However for each atom carbon in alcohol, two molecules of Carbon dioxide are produced, one during the fermentation process and one when burned.

The lack of education in the liberal element of our country quickly becomes evident when on one hand they want to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and the other they are promoting things the increase carbon dioxide.

Personally I am not to fond of the idea of removing carbon dioxide from waste streams and storing it. They get up-set about nuclear energy, but can you image the destruction if a hundred ton container (earth storage, or what ever) olf carbon dioxide rupturing. There would be 1000's dead. (Remember the lake in Africa that turned over releasing carbon dioxide about 20 or 30 years ago. That was caused by a natural storage of Carbon Dioxide.)

My comment of "raping the environment" may have been a little harsh, but it referred to some individuals getting all that they could from the soil with little or no concern for the longevity of that soil. Farming steep hillsides where a couple good rains would wash much of the topsoil away (I've heard it takes about 100 years to create an inch of good topsoil), planting genetically-modified corn year after year instead of properly rotating crops and keeping the soil building up, breaking virgin prairie sod (recent research indicates that it takes 30 years for a prairie grass community to (re-)establish a mycorrhizal community beneath the soil, a component of good healthy soil), etc., etc. There used to be sodbuster laws all over the country, but I think they got repealed under pressure from corn lobbyists. They are planting genetically-modified corn that is drought-resistant in wheat country instead of planting wheat, so the price of wheat has skyrocketed.

There are still some good farmers out there. Farmers that care about their environment and want to pass it on to their kids. But there are more and more farmers (corporate and otherwise) that just want to get "their share" and sell the land as it starts to become worthless, as their kids don't want any part of the business.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have two brothers who farm (they raise corn, beans, alfalfa, wheat, etc and feed it all to their cattle --> high feed prices = high beef prices), and a brother-in-law who is a corn farmer.