|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: E15 back in the spotlight (actually, it never went away) [message #192214 is a reply to message #192189] |
Tue, 04 December 2012 14:15   |
GeorgeRud
Messages: 1380
Registered: February 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Karma: 0
|
Senior Member |
|
|
As a farm owner in the Midwest, it certainly is in my interest to encourage the use of corn based ethanol fuel.
However, as an automotive enthusiast, I'd rather see us using corn to feed animals and people rather than have politicians let the ethanol ruin engines and deceive the public on the supposed benefits of ethanol. I just spent over $1000 having some carburetors rebuilt that had been gummed up by the ethanol based fuel turning to jelly after only a few months storage.
Wish we or the automotive engineers had a say in the EPA's decisions! Scientifically tested theories sure beat political rhetoric in my book!
George Rudawsky
Chicago, IL
75 Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: E15 back in the spotlight (actually, it never went away) [message #192215 is a reply to message #192214] |
Tue, 04 December 2012 14:25 |
rcjordan
Messages: 1913
Registered: October 2012
Location: Elizabeth City, North Car...
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
>turning to jelly
E10 is already known to absorb water and precipitate it in the tank. There was an episode of it happening along I-85 in NC a couple of years ago. The Shell rep told me that there were calls pulled off in the emergency lane for miles after the on-ramp. Same thing happened locally, but that only got 10-15 cars.
Which reminds me, I'm going to need a water separator on the Royale, I guess.
SOLD 77 Royale Coachmen Side Dry Bath
76 Birchaven Coachmen Side Wet Bath
76 Eleganza
Elizabeth City, NC
[Updated on: Tue, 04 December 2012 14:30] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] E15 back in the spotlight (actually, it never went away) [message #192217 is a reply to message #192215] |
Tue, 04 December 2012 14:54 |
 |
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
G'day,
I reckon E15 will have more of an effect on vapor lock than on water precipitation. I also think that if water precipitation
occurred it would be when the weather is cool. It is unlikely to happen during the summer months.
The reason I say that is because I have noted on our summer tours of the USA whenever I remove the gas filler cap I can hear the gas
boiling down in the tanks. I would think that the boiling would keep the water from accumulating in the bottom of the tank in large
enough "bubbles" to be ingested into the fuel intake and arrive at the carb in "slugs."
What do you guys reckon?
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: RC Jordan
E90 is already known to absorb water and precipitate it in the tank. There was an episode of it happening along I-85 in NC a couple
of years ago. The Shell rep told me that there were calls pulled off in the emergency lane for miles after the on-ramp. Same thing
happened locally, but that only got 10-15 cars.
Which reminds me, I'm going to need a water separator on the Royale, I guess.
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: E15 back in the spotlight (actually, it never went away) [message #192233 is a reply to message #192214] |
Tue, 04 December 2012 18:15 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| GeorgeRud wrote on Tue, 04 December 2012 15:15 |
<snip>
Wish we or the automotive engineers had a say in the EPA's decisions! Scientifically tested theories sure beat political rhetoric in my book!
|
We tried.
More than a few of us tried.
The original excuse was that it made engines run more efficiently.
We proved that wrong.
The next try was that it made engines emission numbers look better. The numbers did look better until you corrected the data to account for the extra fuel that had to be burned during a standard test cycle.
The next effort was pushed by the "energy independence" people and also looked good until you found that it took more energy to product a gallon of ethanol than you get from a gallon of ethanol. (I'm told current technology has made this a break-even.)
This last try is all about antropogenic climate change. The fact that this has been proven bogus six ways from Sunday does not convince the believers.
I wrote several very long and complete papers that outlined all the problems, deficiencies and mayhem that could be expected back when Carter started pushing for E-hol mixes. I was told to sit down and shut up and it ended up costing me my job.
The manufactures don't actually care. If it is not certified for, and you put E-15 in it, you are toast. The repairs can cost thousands. If it is certified for it, it will probably just make the 3/36 before something not covered by the emissions warranty shoots craps, or the emission systems components that are covered by federal mandate to go 100k quit on you. This won't matter unless the vehicle has to pass a "smog test" and then it won't. You only hope to to take it to Mexico and sell it cheap. (Oh, I forgot that it is illegal for an American to do that and they enforce laws down there.)
<Rant Off>
Thank you for listening...... .
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
| Re: E15 back in the spotlight (actually, it never went away) [message #192239 is a reply to message #192214] |
Tue, 04 December 2012 18:59 |
midlf
Messages: 2212
Registered: July 2007
Location: SE Wisc. (Palmyra)
Karma: 1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
| GeorgeRud wrote on Tue, 04 December 2012 14:15 |
I just spent over $1000 having some carburetors rebuilt that had been gummed up by the ethanol based fuel turning to jelly after only a few months storage.
|
With my redone electric pump fuel system I plan to add a switch to cut off the fuel to the carb and will let the carb run dry when I'm not going to be using the GMC for a week or so. I've been running the carbs empty on my small engines and the Vette for some time now and so far so good.
Steve Southworth
1974 Glacier TZE064V100150 (for workin on)
1975 Transmode TZE365V100394 (parts & spares)
Palmyra WI
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] E15 back in the spotlight (actually, it never went away) [message #192259 is a reply to message #192233] |
Wed, 05 December 2012 01:40 |
|
USAussie
Messages: 15912
Registered: July 2007
Location: Sydney, Australia
Karma: 6
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Matt,
C'mon, you've got to be kidding; do you actually think that logical technical reasons not to put ethanol in the fuel was even taken
into consideration?
Simply put we have ethanol in our gas now because the pro ethanol lobbyist was better (spread more graft) than the anti ethanol
lobbyist! ;-)
Regards,
Rob M.
-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Colie
We tried.
More than a few of us tried.
The original excuse was that it made engines run more efficiently.
We proved that wrong.
The next try was that it made engines emission numbers look better. The numbers did look better until you corrected the data to
account for the extra fuel that had to be burned during a standard test cycle.
The next effort was pushed by the "energy independence" people and also looked good until you found that it took more energy to
product a gallon of ethanol than you get from a gallon of ethanol. (I'm told current technology has made this a break-even.)
This last try is all about antropogenic climate change. The fact that this has been proven bogus six ways from Sunday does not
convince the believers.
I wrote several very long and complete papers that outlined all the problems, deficiencies and mayhem that could be expected back
when Carter started pushing for E-hol mixes. I was told to sit down and shut up and it ended up costing me my job.
The manufactures don't actually care. If it is not certified for, and you put E-15 in it, you are toast. The repairs can cost
thousands. If it is certified for it, it will probably just make the 3/36 before something not covered by the emissions warranty
shoots craps, or the emission systems components that are covered by federal mandate to go 100k quit on you. This won't matter
unless the vehicle has to pass a "smog test" and then it won't. You only hope to to take it to Mexico and sell it cheap. (Oh, I
forgot that it is illegal for an American to do that and they enforce laws down there.)
<Rant Off>
Thank you for listening...... .
Matt
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
Regards,
Rob M. (USAussie)
The Pedantic Mechanic
Sydney, Australia
'75 Avion - AUS - The Blue Streak TZE365V100428
'75 Avion - USA - Double Trouble TZE365V100426
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
