Ethanol Fuel. How Safe ???

csv8 · 23-09-2005, 11:23 AM

There is a lot of talk of ethanol fuel. But how safe is it in Ford vehicles ???
The E10 fuel eats the plastic wiring on Landrover Discoveries. What does it do to other cars. ? Sunday Mail 18/09/2005 page 66.
Despite what Howard says, I won't be using it.
Any Ford people on FF, who can give an honest answer ????

:

csv8 · 23-09-2005, 11:46 AM

Last Update: Friday, September 23, 2005. 6:29am (AEST)

Manufacturers warn ethanol fuel blends will damage cars. (File photograph) (ABC)

Car makers speak out against Govt's ethanol plan
Car manufacturers are unhappy the Federal Government has not accepted their proposed cap on the level of ethanol in petrol.

Prime Minister John Howard yesterday unveiled new measures to promote fuels with up to 10 per cent ethanol, describing a scare campaign about engine damage as unjustified.

But the motor vehicle lobby has issued a new warning claiming ethanol blended fuel has the potential to damage cars.

Mr Howard says his task force is confident all new cars will be able to use this upper limit without problems, with very few exceptions.

But Federated Chamber of Automotive Industries spokesman Peter Sturrock says some new models, and many older ones, could have problems.

"It can effect the operatability [sic] of the vehicle, it can effect the fuel lines and deteriorate the fuel lines," he said.

"In a new vehicle, it may well effect the performance of the vehicle and could effect the vehicle's new car warranty."

Mr Sturrock is disappointed the Government has not accepted the request by car makers for a 5 per cent cap.

He is advising motorists to check with their manufacturer on which blend to use.

He says the 5 per cent cap that manufacturers wanted would have resulted in a smoother process.

"The Government has chosen to go to the higher limit against our suggestion and recommendation, and that will cause confusion," he said.

"It will create er some uncertainty in the marketplace and we feel that will be unnecessary and it's, if you like, a disappointing step."

Print Email

jmc-007 · 23-09-2005, 11:55 AM

Im sure holden sells E85 cars to brazil. Nothing stopping them selling Ethanol Commodores here.

But on the other hand. You have to see the closed door business between oil and car companies.

More Ethanol less profit for the Oil Fellas

TheSneakiness · 23-09-2005, 11:56 AM

I've read the countless debates here about ethanol and it seems that up to 10% ethanol mix into the fuel is quite OK according to members of the site.

I haven't used it myself.

johnydep · 23-09-2005, 12:24 PM

Had a discussion not long ago; Anyone tried the Petrol with Ethanol fuel?

23-09-2005, 12:47 PM

Wats the difference? they'll still charge $1.30 or more with or without the ethanol, they want their profit and that will mean more for govt. if ethanol is used.

FPV329 · 23-09-2005, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by drphil

Wats the difference? they'll still charge $1.30 or more with or without the ethanol, they want their profit and that will mean more for govt. if ethanol is used.

Dear DrPhil and other members,

There is but one reason why the government is going to shove Ethanol down our throats ( and by law soon enough in all petrol ) and that is the completely stuffed sugar cane farming industry.

The hope being it will get them out of the governments wallet.

That is also why it will still cost you just as much, it's not at all about saving us a dollar, it's about saving the government a dollar.

csv8 · 23-09-2005, 07:01 PM

Mon Jul 18, 8:53 AM ET

ALBANY, N.Y. - Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

ADVERTISEMENT

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

It takes 27 percent more energy to turn soybeans into biodiesel fuel and more than double the energy produced is needed to do the same to sunflower plants, the study found.

"Ethanol production in the United States does not benefit the nation's energy security, its agriculture, the economy, or the environment," according to the study by Cornell's David Pimentel and Berkeley's Tad Patzek. They conclude the country would be better off investing in solar, wind and hydrogen energy.

The researchers included such factors as the energy used in producing the crop, costs that were not used in other studies that supported ethanol production, said Pimentel.

The study also omitted $3 billion in state and federal government subsidies that go toward ethanol production in the United States each year, payments that mask the true costs, Pimentel said.

Ethanol is an additive blended with gasoline to reduce auto emissions and increase gas' octane levels. Its use has grown rapidly since 2004, when the federal government banned the use of the additive MTBE to enhance the cleaner burning of fuel. About 3.6 billion gallons of ethanol were produced last year in the United States, according to the Renewable Fuels Association, an ethanol trade group.

The ethanol industry claims that using 8 billion gallons of ethanol a year will allow refiners to use 2 billion fewer barrels of oil. The oil industry disputes that, saying the ethanol mandate would have negligible impact on oil imports.

Ethanol producers dispute Pimentel and Patzek's findings, saying the data is outdated and doesn't take into account profits that offset costs.

Michael Brower, director of community and government relations at SUNY's College of Environmental Science and Forestry, points to reports by the Energy and Agriculture departments that have shown the ethanol produced delivers at least 60 percent more energy the amount used in production. The college has worked extensively on producing ethanol from hardwood trees.

Biodiesel can be used in any diesel engine with few or no modifications. It is often blended with petroleum diesel to reduce the propensity to gel in cold weather.

Lightning Strike GT · 23-09-2005, 08:42 PM

I actually used this when BP had the 96RON + Ethanol in the Falcon and the Probe to no ill effect.
I work for the QLD Govt and they encourage the use of E10 in the fleet cars and I have been using it in the car I use at work and it is fine
Click on the link for the info from the QLD Govt about the use of E10
http://www.qfleet.qld.gov.au/01_abou...ve.htm#ethanol
and they have a list of cars you can not use it on - manufactures reccomendations.
When they bring back the 96RON with the ethanol I will use it again

Alan

Sourbastard · 26-09-2005, 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csv8

Mon Jul 18, 8:53 AM ET

ALBANY, N.Y. - Farmers, businesses and state officials are investing millions of dollars in ethanol and biofuel plants as renewable energy sources, but a new study says the alternative fuels burn more energy than they produce.

ADVERTISEMENT

Supporters of ethanol and other biofuels contend they burn cleaner than fossil fuels, reduce U.S. dependence on oil and give farmers another market to sell their produce.

But researchers at Cornell University and the University of California-Berkeley say it takes 29 percent more fossil energy to turn corn into ethanol than the amount of fuel the process produces. For switch grass, a warm weather perennial grass found in the Great Plains and eastern North America United States, it takes 45 percent more energy and for wood, 57 percent.

What a crock. First of all, Ethanol can be produced from any vegetable matter that contains starch, not just grass and wood. In australia, we dump fruit to keep the price up, we have a dying sugar cane industry (And frankly I dont give a crap if I pay more to support an AUSTRALIAN industry rather then OPEC countries.) If we became one of the worlds largest producers of Ethanol, Opec could go to hell. The fuel industry is serious money and serious power in the world market.

You can make ethanol out of straw even(Gee australia has a fair bit of wheat too doesnt it?), I know of farmers that give it away or just burn it. To create the alcohol component, you need yeast and water mixed with your starch load, then you need to boil the ethanol off and condense it. Ethanol boils at 78C and leaves the water behind. I get temperatures higher then that from my Solar Hot Water service! Where is this massive energy defecit??? Where is this Cost Defecit???

Theres no reason cars cant be built from the Factory E85 compatible, other then an Oil Industry that prefers you running straight Petrol.

Just as when ULP was phased in to replace Leaded Fuel. Those who want to update their cars to new cars get the option for E85, those who want to keep their old car and update any non ethanol friendly parts can. Those who wish to do neither car Walk. Eventually normal ULP and PULP is phased out just as Leaded Fuel was. Life goes on.

If you dont want to run Ethanol, fine, please enjoy your Hybrid car running on a 50 50 mix of lavender oil and Canola Oil, that cant accelerate if a stiff breeze picks up. If you have a large family, dont worry, just buy two hybrids so you can actually fit everyone in for a run down to the shops.

FFS people, try looking past next week.

Hardtopxb · 26-09-2005, 11:57 AM

Sour, ....Sin,ic,cal

4.9 EF Futura · 26-09-2005, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sourbastard

What a crock. First of all, Ethanol can be produced from any vegetable matter that contains starch, not just grass and wood. In australia, we dump fruit to keep the price up, we have a dying sugar cane industry (And frankly I dont give a crap if I pay more to support an AUSTRALIAN industry rather then OPEC countries.) If we became one of the worlds largest producers of Ethanol, Opec could go to hell. The fuel industry is serious money and serious power in the world market.

You can make ethanol out of straw even(Gee australia has a fair bit of wheat too doesnt it?), I know of farmers that give it away or just burn it. To create the alcohol component, you need yeast and water mixed with your starch load, then you need to boil the ethanol off and condense it. Ethanol boils at 78C and leaves the water behind. I get temperatures higher then that from my Solar Hot Water service! Where is this massive energy defecit??? Where is this Cost Defecit???

Well i must have rocks in my head for speaking against the sour one, but here goes.

Your points make absolute sense and suggest that ethanol production is completely viable at the 'cottage industry' level. The fruit that gets dumped, the straw which is burnt off, the queenslanders who need a leg up - that's all fine for producing small amounts of ethanol. Perfect for cutting 5 - 10% into a ULP/PULP blend and can be boiled off using solar power as you note.

But to suggest it as a viable option for replacing our beloved fuels is inappropriate. To suggest that Australia could produce enough to begin exporting it to the point of hurting OPEC even more so. I'm sorry - but I dont subscribe to the "give it a few years, some egghead will figure out a way to make it better/faster/cheaper" philosophy. You just to consider the scale at which you are speaking of. You're certainly going to need more than the offcuts of unuccesful agricultural ventures... to really put biofuels into production you're talking fertilizers, fossil fuel powered machinery and lots n lots n lots n lots of water... something Australia doesnt really have a shyteload of these days.

Then consider the inputs you need to take the biomass and get fuel out of it. Yet more water.. and heat. You note the use of solar power and this is fine for a hot water service - pays itself off rather quickly. But you're talking a lot of solar cells here - gets expensive.... and also need to consider the inputs into solar panels, they're not made in backyard sheds - they're assembled by complex machines and systems, themselves consuming a lot of fossil fuel in their production and operation.

We are certainly not the first to consider the viability of biofuels in the australian context - see UNSW's work on the topic (by god it's a boring read): http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/t...5.Liquids.html

We are putting a lot of faith in the eggheads to save our bacon arent we?

geckoGT · 23-09-2005, 12:58 PM

If the govt want us to swap to a ethanol blend, then why is it not cheaper, especially when we might be risking damage to our pride and joy.
Show me evidence that it will not damage my car, provide same performance and economy and I will think about it. Until then I am sticking to dinosaur blood.
I can't believe they want us to pay same price for something that they admit may give less performance and increased consumption, they need to wake up.

johnydep · 23-09-2005, 02:32 PM

Have a read of the provided link.

The blended fuel is slightly cheaper with a higher octane rating.

The United fuel stations have reported booming business since they started supplying two versions of E10 fuel, and so far no reports of engine or fuel system failures.

Is there any garantees against engine damage with fuel saving products such as Vaporate, etc?

geckoGT · 23-09-2005, 02:47 PM

BP E10 (the only blended I have seen in QLD)is the same price as ULP and states on the sign that there may be an increase in consumption, yeah that is attractive.

As for engine damage from vaporate, yes there is a guarantee, from vaporate.

Kryton · 23-09-2005, 04:36 PM

i also read today that if the E5-E10 goes ahead, petrol retailers do NOT need to display a sign to say that their fuel has ethanol.
my problem with this is that the retailer can charge full price still because they can just say that its normal fuel.

Sourbastard · 23-09-2005, 04:47 PM

They are using E85 in the states safely. Theres no reason it cant be made to work here. Its not like we have a choice if we want to keep muscle cars. Until someone can give me a carbie that works on tap water. Only thing holding us back is FUD. Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Instead of some common sense and decent engineering.

I use E10 here in adelaide from Saff, and no complaints, and gives me similar milage to BP Ultimate in the Ute. Its also 5 cents cheaper a litre.

CruizinEB · 23-09-2005, 05:17 PM

you guys do realise that to use ethanol fuel there needs to be some major motor mods?

Sourbastard · 23-09-2005, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRUIZIN EB

you guys do realise that to use ethanol fuel there needs to be some major motor mods?

Gee no never realized that. Im carving myself a fuel tank out of wood, that should be fine right? :yeees:

Considering how many different cars are out there, and how many different substances are exposed to the fuel, there is no "All cars need major mods to run ethanol" claim. Some cars will require major mods. Some cars will require none.

johnydep · 23-09-2005, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRUIZIN EB

you guys do realise that to use ethanol fuel there needs to be some major motor mods?

Can you tell us the "major mods". Now please!

mcflux · 23-09-2005, 05:43 PM

This will solve the ethanol/oil fuel debate!

edit: I'll use whatever fuel is cheapest. If we get ethanol in the country one day (maybe 2015?) then I'll use that. If it's cheaper :P

CruizinEB · 23-09-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnydep

Can you tell us the "major mods". Now please!

My mechanic said you would need to change all the seats and seals in other words every thing the fuel touches or you motor will be stuffed in 6 months.

**Falcon Coupe** · 23-09-2005, 05:41 PM

Latest Street machine magazine dynos an LS2 with normal 98ron and then with the new boost 98 ethanol, results were 322rwhp on conventional 98 unleaded, and 331 with the ethanol added boost 98.
After some fine tuning to match the respective fuels they got 348hp with unleaded and 365 with boost, so aside from any possible damage from corrosion, there shoud be no power loss.

jabba · 23-09-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falcon Coupe

Latest Street machine magazine dynos an LS2 with normal 98ron and then with the new boost 98 ethanol, results were 322rwhp on conventional 98 unleaded, and 331 with the ethanol added boost 98.
After some fine tuning to match the respective fuels they got 348hp with unleaded and 365 with boost, so aside from any possible damage from corrosion, there shoud be no power loss.

Not bad. I think all the doubting Thomas's should try the stuff then give us a report. Just remember It takes 2 tank to get the benifets. The first tank cleans your fuel system and all the sludge that has built up will end up going through the engine and out the exhaust.

AU-MUSTD · 23-09-2005, 10:39 PM

Just remember It takes 2 tank to get the benifets. The first tank cleans your fuel system and all the sludge that has built up will end up going through the engine and out the exhaust.[/QUOTE]

Must be what happened to me last week. Filled up with e10 on way to bairnsdale with no troubles even towing my tandam trailer but when l filled up the second tank on way home when she was just under half a tank it surged and lost power coughed spluttered and stalled. Restarted and crawled to nearest servo coughed again and real bad smell from exhaust then it was fine. Gave it a tank full of optimax and no dramas. Maybe the tanks now clean and l can use e10 again. Wasnt going too touch it ever again but your theory sounds pretty good.

jabba · 24-09-2005, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AU-MUSTD

Must be what happened to me last week. Filled up with e10 on way to bairnsdale with no troubles even towing my tandam trailer but when l filled up the second tank on way home when she was just under half a tank it surged and lost power coughed spluttered and stalled. Restarted and crawled to nearest servo coughed again and real bad smell from exhaust then it was fine. Gave it a tank full of optimax and no dramas. Maybe the tanks now clean and l can use e10 again. Wasnt going too touch it ever again but your theory sounds pretty good.

Going E10 cold turky does cause problem with the e10 breaking down the crap that has built up in you fuel system over the years. When you try it again, add it to your car instages, ie. fill up 3/4 with standard pulp and fill the rest with e10, then each time your fuel level reaches 1/4 empty top it up with e10. After 4 top ups you should be righ to fill with e10.

AU-MUSTD · 24-09-2005, 07:31 AM

Cheers mate will try it when this tanks half full.

jabba · 23-09-2005, 05:42 PM

All I have used in the last 3 months is E10, and I like it. The first tank full I got the car ran quite ruff but the second tank show a massive improvment to a point that I decided that I was not going to use pulp or 98. My car has responded realy well to E10 and my wife is now using it in her Camry and again the first tank made the car run ruff but after that it was great....

The other reason I like using the E10, It that the oil companys get less of my money. It's cleaner and cheaper..

I would love to see E85 introduced into Australia.

MAD · 23-09-2005, 09:15 PM

Just did a bit of searching and found this list of cars that can run safely on E10...

http://www.abc.net.au/brisbane/stories/s1056358.htm

MrSparkle · 23-09-2005, 09:25 PM

Good link Blanky. Interesting that a few hot models pop up in that list which are not recommended for this new government cash cow fuel. Won't be running it in my turbo buzzbox, thank you Mr Prime Minister.

Also I agree with Davway, if there is no labelling legislation, what is to stop profiteering at service stations whereby they claim it's a non-blended fuel and charge the "full" price, when in reality it IS a blended fuel? Who is going to monitor and stop that sort of thing? And you can't tell me it won't happen!