*Come on Kurt...don't hold back on us here. Tell us how you REALLY feel! ;)* * * *Actually, this terrific information. I appreciate the diatribe.* * * *Paul * On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Kurt Nolte <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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]<nighthawk_lovers%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/nighthawk_lovers?hl=en. > > -- * * * * -- 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.
