Ethanol is not corrosive to anything made of steel, anodized aluminum, and a broad array of other materials. Ethanol will screw up brass and bronze if you let them soak in it, but not in low percentages. /Methanol/ is the broadly corrosive alcohol, assaulting even anodized aluminum. Buna rubbers are compatible with low percentage blends (less than 30% by most sources), the various vitons are not so tolerant, PTFE is impervious and nitrile so-so.
Ethanol also does not cause rust, sorry. Water causes rust. Ethanol, methanol and isopropyl alcohols are used to remove the water from gasoline, have been for ages, specifically because they entrain water and hold it tightly. The "dewatering" solutions sold in bottles at FLAPS and chain stores are pretty much all one alcohol or another. Usually methanol or isopropyl, they do a better job of sucking up moisture into azeotropes. Talking about styrofoam carburetor floats as a reason to avoid the 10% these days is, sorry, an incredibly stodgy reaction. Nothing today uses a styrofoam carburetor float. Very few things are even carbureted, relative to the massive percentage of 90s+ vehicles in usage today. Modern fuel tanks are frequently plastic, again no rust issues. PTFE and PTFE lined fuel lines and hoses are the norm. Fuel injectors have been built with components that are ethanol compatible from almost the very beginning. It happened before, sure. But that kind of thinking (well it sucked once, let's never do that again) is why diesels aren't more common in the US, among other issues. I'm not disregarding truth, because the reasons you list hold little truth today. There is /no reason/ for the claim that ethanol will "destroy" any engine built after the mid-90s, and most on-road engines are compatible back to the early 80s. Perpetuating that claim only disregards the advances that have been made and the modern truths in favor of the archaic truth. This also includes the truth that, as an additive to gasoline, ethanol performs more functions with greater efficacy and lower toxicity than most of the chemicals in the noxious soup that is gasoline. Increased ethanol content can allow the total phase-out of the highly toxic MTBE, for instance, which seems has a horrid habit of getting out of tanks and contaminating ground water supplies. Ethanol can be used to replace portions of benzine in gasoline, another nasty carcinogen (though it can't entirely replace it). Ethanol can replace oxygenating compounds (which add no caloric value and carry their own secondary products that must be catalytically reduced in the exhaust stream) in fuel, and ethanol solvency reduces deposit formation in vehicles with high mileage or infrequent usage and long storage times. Research in the field has also posited, though it's in the process of being repeated and validated, that /unmodified/ modern vehicles will return better mileage on E20 than they will on E0, despite E20 having a significantly lower energy content per gallon. Exhaust streams on such vehicles were similarly improved. There is the unfortunate reaction with much higher blends (70+%) producing a measurable quantity of formaldehyde from their exhaust stream, due to reactions with (gasoline optimised) catalytic converters, but there are technologies already in use that could eliminate this issue while serving the same purpose for ethanol fueled cars that the converters already serve for gasoline cars. If you had a classic from the 40s or 50s (or 60s, I suppose) that the sudden switch to ethanol destroyed some part of, my condolences. There are replacement parts for "classic" carburetors that will withstand the stuff these days, and some absolutely fantastic pourable linings for steel fuel tanks getting on in their years. They're a good idea even if you run "straight gas" (another misnomer, given the 200+ compounds in wildly variable proportions that make up "Gasoline"), as just the age of the tank will have caused some corrosion from natural forces. Politics aside, there's no reason to continue beating that dead horse. I can understand people being torqued off about subsidies and ag companies and all that trap, but there is no /mechanical or scientific evidence for the claims being made by people with respect to their fuel mileage and engine longevity today./ N.O.N.E. And no, I will not have compassion for you if you perpetuate this claim based on experiences now nearly thirty years out of date involving technology that's even older. -Kurt On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:48 AM, stanley/ Randolph <[email protected]> wrote: > well, a lot of carburetors back when this happened the first time had floats > of styrofoam and the ethanol destroyed them, hence the reason for part of > that furor. So it's not a bunch of hogwash. Ethanol is also corrosive, and > that's another issue. Rusting gas tanks led to particles of rust clogging > passages in carbs and poor performance. > The fuel would have to have rust inhibitors added and/or fuel tanks of > stainless, fuel lines of stainless or some other non-corrosive > material, or other alternatives. > It's not hogwash. And if your expensive car performed poorly or broke down, > you would get emotional about it also, and read the other post I wrote to > read the rest of that side of the coin. > Honda never made styrofoam floats and they didn't have that problem; > however, they did and do have the rusty gas tank problem, and the carb > problems because of the rust. And the petcock problems. > The disregard of the truth in your also emotional outburst is disappointing > as your attitude toward those who lived through it. Have some compassion > and understanding. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nighthawk Motorcycle Lovers!" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nighthawk_lovers?hl=en.
