Posted on 05/16/2012 10:42:20 AM PDT by thackney
Automakers and the oil industry released a report today that casts doubt on the safety of gasoline containing 15 percent ethanol and shows that at least some engines running the fuel suffered damage during recent testing.
But ethanol backers and the Obama administration immediately countered that the study was fundamentally flawed, because it used engines with known durability issues” and didn’t include control group testing of the 10 percent ethanol blend that is now the standard at filling stations nationwide.
The dispute is the latest round in a long-running fight over the 15 percent ethanol fuel blend known as E15. A 2007 energy law mandated 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels be used by 2022, and the Environmental Protection Agency in 2010 approved the sale of E15 for model year 2001 and newer cars and light trucks. The agency did not clear E15 for use in older vehicles, boats or other devices, such as lawn and garden equipment.
In the new oil industry and automaker-funded study, the not-for-profit Coordinating Research Council tested eight specific engines (28 in all) from vehicles spanning model years 2001 through 2009. Researchers ran the engines for 500 hours under conditions representing about 100,000 miles of driving while fueling them with ethanol-free gasoline, the E15 blend containing 15 percent ethanol and a variety comprising 20 percent ethanol.
Two of the eight engines showed damage while running on E15, according to the study. Specifically, both of those auto engines showed leaking cylinders. Subsequent analysis by their original manufacturers revealed damage to intake valve seats, possibly causing the leakage.
One of the eight engines running E15 also failed emissions tests.
American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said that the study results reveal millions of cars are at risk of damage from E15.
“Not all vehicles in the CRC tests showed engine damage, but engine types that did are found in millions of cars and light duty trucks now on America’s roads,” Gerard said. “We believe there’s at least as a minimum, 5 million that are subject to damage as a result of this rule, and we believe that is a conservative estimate.”
Automakers said the metallurgy and makeup of the engines that had valve leakage could foreshadow problems with similar vehicle engines, including some just now rolling off the assembly line.
Federal regulators and ethanol boosters panned the study. In a blog post, the Department of Energy, which conducted its own testing before the EPA approved E15 in 2010, provided a laundry list of criticisms:
None of the engines were tested with E10, which would have provided a better baseline for comparison, since it is the “de facto standard” representing more than 90 percent of gasoline available in the U.S. market. Instead, the vehicle engines were run on E20, E15 and an ethanol-free gasoline.
The engine test cycle, which was designed specifically for this study, was specifically designed to stress the engine valve train. Since the test method hasn’t been used in other studies, there’s no clear way to interpret the results, the Energy Department said.
The standard for measuring engine leakdown — and deeming it as having “failed” — is not a standard used by automakers and federal agencies for warranty claims or other uses.
The Energy Department also said the study included “Several engines already known to have durability issues, including one that was subject to a recall involving valve problems” when running on E10 and ethanol-free fuels. “It is no surprise that an engine having problems with traditional fuels might also fail with E15 or E20,” the Energy Department said.
Bob Dinneen, the president of the Renewable Fuels Association, characterized the study as misleading.
“By funding research using questionable testing protocols and illegal fuels, the results of this study are meaningless,” Dinneen said. The study results “only serve to further muddy the waters and shun the overwhelming desire of 75 percent of Americans for greater choice at the pump.”
The problem is that the alcohol has a high octane. It is mixed into the fuel and falls out of suspension when it absorbs 5%(?) water by volume. Then your octane drops significantly and detonation occurs.
And to think.. Tpaw mandated E-20 for those of us in Minnesota..
we can get E0 but it’s only sold as premium for collector cars and small engines.
BTW, my 01 Venture van and 02 Express are “collector cars” in my book.
So far, only one station questioned me. I said “do you want to sell fuel or not?” they turned the pump on.
I keep records of all my fuel purchaces in my 2 vehicles.
Doing so tells me when I need to change spark plugs, etc. I change oil, filters, on a very regular basis.
The 10% Ethanol used to be just a part of the year additive. I could tell exactly when it was in the tank based on my mileage. My mileage drops between 10% and 13% with that fuel added to regular gasoline.
I have had one vehicle since 1991 and one since 1986. I have all those records.
The fuel cap on my Prius C reads “E15-E85” with a circle around it and a bar through it. That’s fairly explicit to me what should NOT be going in the tank.
E10 is bad enough.
Engine skips, sputters, acts like it’s vapor locked when it gets hot.
and gas without the octane boosting ethanol doesn’t?
I made the mistake of putting some E10 in my motorcycle and it took several tanks of pure premium gasoline and some fuel system cleaner to getting it running right again. Ethanol is crap no matter what percentage of it is mixed with gasoline.
Newer motorcycles are built to supposedly tolerate ethanolated fuels. That might not be the case for ones built before the ethanol craze.
It sounds like the onboard computer wasn’t programmed for fuel with that much ethanol. It couldn’t tell it from bad gas and pessimistic parameters were used. You’d sacrifice something in energy content with an extra 5% ethanol, but that much makes no engineering sense.
I hopte that is true. Mine is a 1999 model Honda.
The Silverado has a badge on the tailgate that advertises “flex fuel vehicle”. That is supposed to indicate a seamless transition between fuel types does it not?
There definately is an impact on the food chain costs.
More and more farmers are plowing under their crops, including alfalfa, which has MULTIPLE cuttings every year in favor of corn for Ethanol.
Such alfalfa is fed to dairy cows, hence it impacts all dairy products. Some alfalfa is fed to beef cows & sheep also.
It is just nuts to burn our food scources and use land for other than food production, IMO.
Union built vehicles are an ever-shrinking fraction of the total sold in the US - unless you include Korean based unions in the count.
Only confirming my suspicion of several years!
My bike is a two-stroke, E15 = seizure, and I just had it rebuilt.
None of my cars will run on it, and it will destroy the carbs, including my expensive Weber units.
This is the Eco-Nut plan, force ALL the older cars and bikes off the road by eliminating the availability of suitable fuel.
I wonder how the guys paying BIG bucks for classics will feel about that?
Oh, and running Av-Gas is actually illegal as it avoids the road tax.
It’s also a “Dry” fuel, so may have it’s own issues with some engines.
Yes flex fuel can run from E0 to E85.
My SIL has a flex fuel Chevy, his calculations indicate E10 is the lowest cost alternative per mile.
E85 is too expensive relative to the energy content.
That's interesting. I have a 97 Polaris that's run fine on E10 since the day I bought it new.
I’m not convinced ethanol has anything to do with those fuel lines, I think it’s cheap Chinese sourced polymers. Have had enough of them fail myself I bought a bulk coil of replacement line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.