Ethanol myths clarified per Boat U.S.

C

cruiserlessvinny

New member
Those of you who have received a copy of Boat U.S. magazine already know what this is about. This post is for those of you who don't receive the magazine.

Here is a Cliff note version of the article:
1) Ethanol enhanced gasoline doesn't loose octane faster than regular gasoline.
2) It isn't important to install a water separator to prevent water from reaching the engine (in so much as Ethanol enhanced gasoline is concerned).
3) Additives will not prevent phase separation.
4) Ethanol enhanced gasoline cannot "reach out and grab moisture"
5) E10 Ethanol enhanced gasoline is an acceptable fuel for everyday use.
6) E15 gasoline IS NOT an acceptable fuel.
7) After transitioning from E0 fuel, E10 may actually be a superior marine fuel as it tends to keep low levels of water moving through the fuel system, keeping the system "dry".
8) Don't immediately assume E10 is the problem.
9) To help avoid condensation, do not store the fuel tank empty. Fill the tank leaving a small air space for expansion and contraction.

All I know is what the article stated and have no ability to confirm or repute what is in the article. There are those who will disagree with some, most or all of what I've repeated from the article. Among the sources sited were Mercury Marine, BP Global Fuels Technology and a senior engineering consultan with Chevron Fuels. The article was written by Bob Adriance, editor of "Seaworthy"

Some of you more inqusitive and technical types may want to research what the article says and give us your take on it.
Those of you who have received a copy of Boat U.S. magazine already know what this is about. This post is for those of you who don't receive the magazine.

Here is a Cliff note version of the article:
1) Ethanol enhanced gasoline doesn't loose octane faster than regular gasoline.
2) It isn't important to install a water separator to prevent water from reaching the engine (in so much as Ethanol enhanced gasoline is concerned).
3) Additives will not prevent phase separation.
4) Ethanol enhanced gasoline cannot "reach out and grab moisture"
5) E10 Ethanol enhanced gasoline is an acceptable fuel for everyday use.
6) E15 gasoline IS NOT an acceptable fuel.
7) After transitioning from E0 fuel, E10 may actually be a superior marine fuel as it tends to keep low levels of water moving through the fuel system, keeping the system "dry".
8) Don't immediately assume E10 is the problem.
9) To help avoid condensation, do not store the fuel tank empty. Fill the tank leaving a small air space for expansion and contraction.

All I know is what the article stated and have no ability to confirm or repute what is in the article. There are those who will disagree with some, most or all of what I've repeated from the article. Among the sources sited were Mercury Marine, BP Global Fuels Technology and a senior engineering consultant with Chevron Fuels. The article was written by Bob Adriance, editor of "Seaworthy"

Some of you more inqusitive and technical types may want to research what the article says and give us your take on it.
CV
 
I forwarded that article yesterday to my friend (boat builder/dealer) who I have quoted a time or six regarding his anti-ethanol stand. Haven't heard back from him, yet.
 
I read the article several days ago, and it did not change my opinion. I use 100% gasoline when possible---and in our area it is possible, both at service stations and marine fuel depots.

It is being discussed at "the Hull Truth"--and not many opinions seem to be changed there either.

I still use Stabil and Startron.
 
I thought the ethanol article was interesting and informative, I believe that the more we learn how to deal with E10 the fewer problems we will have with our boats. I use E0 whenever I can and take precautions when I have to put E10 in the tank, I think last year as I used both fuels I probably averaged a mixture of about E3 or 4.

Another article in the same issue of Boat US was on Biobutanol, it's use as a marine fuel and the tests being run on it. To quote the article for those of you that didn't see it. "..discovery of isobutanol as a byproduct of plant fermentation goes back to 1861, its only due to innovations in biology over the past 20 years that it's become a viable and potentially cost-effective fuel source, according to chemical engineer Dave Munz." Also stated, "it's non-hygroscopic, meaning it absorbs little water, and it's use would avoid phase separation problems in boat engines that aren't ran regularly. In addition isobutanol is not as potent a solvent as ethanol, so it might be the panacea for older boats with fiberglass fuel tanks." The article concluded with, "Two years ago we investigated how isobutanol would work in one of our outboards and it's properties seemed much better suited for marine engines" Wasil (of Evinrude Marine Engines) said. "We found no appreciable changes in emissions and because you get more energy without more pollution, and with a fuel that appears to be more compatible with marine engines, isobutanol looks more promising that ever as a replacement for ethanol."

Sorry to run on so long but I wanted to get it accurate. Sounds promising and I hope it works out for us boaters but I won't hold my breath. I continue looking for E0 and using it when its available, and dealing with the E10 when I have to.
Rich
 
It has been said ethanol takes more energy to produce than it saves. If it's so good why do the boat and the car get noticably poorer mileage using ethanol laced gas. I have had to clean out my boats gas tanks because of a pink looking goop that clogged a fuel filter. I have never seen that kind of thing in past years of boating which spans thirty years. So maybe it's a coincidence? :disgust Everyboby is an expert these days I'm not drinking this Koolaid. I have had more issues with small engines I use around the house since ethanol was added. I guess it would be ok if all the large refiners added Blue Marine Stabil to the gas like I do for all of the gas I use for the boat and the small engines, like generators, weed whackers, leaf blowers,rototillers,snowblowers etc. I don't believe everything I read. :roll:
D.D.
 
There are two sides to every story, or, more correctly, the truth is a great big web of interrelated causes and effects that is sometimes hard to totally comprehend, and can take a great deal of study time to arrive at fully.

Those seeking simple (1>>>(causes)>>>2) cause-effect relationships to blame someone or some problem on,are happy to find a partial explanation upon which to prove their already arrived at conclusions.

However, with that said, one can question the conclusions reached in this article simply by looking at the contributing sources of information:

"Among the sources sited were Mercury Marine, BP Global Fuels Technology and a senior engineering consultant with Chevron Fuels. The article was written by Bob Adriance, editor of "Seaworthy".

Thus it was written by two petroleum industry professionals, a outboard engine manufacturer (or their selected data, no specific person cited), and a marine industry journalist.

My hunch is that the motivation behind its writing was to get some heat off the alcohol/corn industry, though without any proof/evidence/research, I'm falling victum to my own second paragraph pitfall above.

However, in times of uncertainty in researching economic, social, and political phenomena, many find that the rule "follow the money" often leads to at least partial conclusions that are nonetheless valid as far as they go.

That's my story (so far, I don't have the article myself), and I'm stickin' to it (for now)! :lol:

Joe. :teeth :thup
 
There are too many instances of problems that have surfaced since the usage of E10 has raised its' ugly head. Earlier on one of the threads, I posted that my chainsaw dealer/repairman told me that the majority of problems with chainsaws, brush whackers etc that come into his shop for repair are the result of E10. He has seen the increase in work load that has entered his shop.
That being said, I will continue to strive to utilize E0 only.
 
Alcohol and truth abuse .
We do service and we see fuel system problems like never before . Less people are boating and more problems are occurring on a regular basis .Miles of fuel lines are changed every year.More and more carbs are cleaned ,filters clog ,both vapor separators and tanks corrode .
The people are the same , the boats [and lawn mowers and weed whackers and chainsaws and generators ]are the same , but the fuel has changed .Industry BS if I were asked .
Glad you asked !
Marc
 
As a chemist, let me clarify something: Alcohol results in "less mileage" not for some nefarious conspiracy plot but simply because of chemistry. What counts in a fuel is the number of carbon atoms per volume or weight of measure. For every two carbons in ethanol there is an oxygen atom and nearly all gasoline hydrocarbons have nothing but carbon and hydrogen atoms; ethanol has less carbon to burn and thus less BTUs or calories. This is the reason diesel has about 13% more "energy" than gasoline: the fuel is more densely packed with carbon atoms.

The oxygen atoms do help in one way: It gets more oxygen into the combustion and thus less likelihood of either unburned carbon (particulates) or partially oxidized carbon (carbon monoxide). That is why MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) used to be added to gasoline--it improved combustion (as well as octane)--it was an oxygenate. Unfortunately, when underground gasoline tanks leaked, the MTBE did a great job of helping the gasoline move into the groundwater and MTBE is not healthy to drink. Thus, it was essentially replaced by ethanol as an oxygenate, not as an improvement in the fuel per se. However, with today's computer controlled fuel injected engines, they can get very good combustion without any oxygenate as part of the fuel.

The debate on how much fuel it takes to produce ethanol will go on forever since it all depends on what you measure and how you measure it. My best guess is that it indeed takes at least as much fuel to bring to market as it replaces and that combined with its corrosive effect on certain metals and hoses, tubes, o-rings, etc. plus its reduced role as a fuel oxygenate ought to at least mean it should stand on its own feet and not be subsidized and if it is made, it shouldn't be made out of a food crop which without any doubt, raises food prices. But my view on getting rid of ethanol in fuel is an opinion and no one is ever wrong with an opinion, just disagreeable.

Steve
 
Oldgrowth is absolutely dead on in his statement. With the prices of gasoline the way they are, why would you want to use anything but the good stuff.Canada still sells real gasoline for now!
 
I'm with Marc- we've seen a tremendous surge in fuel related issues, and the only change has been the ethanol in fuel.

And if ethanol is no problem, as Mercury claims, how come they make three (3!) additives to deal with fuel, one of which is specifically marketed as a solution to Ethanol in fuel.

In closed fuel systems, like automobiles (and soon to be Inboard and I/O applications) ethanol is less of an issue.

Did anyone else notice that there was discussion in the article about how ethanol's ability to carry water through the fuel system with it was a good thing? In other words, your fuel / water seperator filter is worthless with this stuff, and water is running through your engine.

Boat US has it wrong in this case, as tey often do. And it's articles like this one that make me question why I maintain my membersip each year.
 
Back
Top