I use this Product in my 440 's, Not Snake Oil ! Along with Non Ethanol. gas.
OctaneSupreme130.com
OctaneSupreme130.com
Opinions on ethanol treatments
- Thread starter Zaggart
- Start date
Sixpactogo
Well-Known Member
IMO, the best treatment for ethanol with anything with a carburetor is to stay away from it.
Cbody67, Wow that makes a lot of sense and it explains the mystery - at least to me - of why ethanol has remained in the gasoline for so long even in the oil-producing/refining states. Thank you for explaining that. Always follow the money. Thankfully, where I live 93 octane ethanol free is widely available, but at a fairly high cost premium of course.
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2010
- Messages
- 28,155
- Reaction score
- 27,319
I don’t have non ethanol that is conveniently available to me and honestly I don’t have issues at all with the 10% stuff since I started running the TC-W3 oil.
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
Drive or use the engine frequently and problems will be minor. Sitting kills everything. Even you proponents of non ethanol gas, do you realize how much crap is added to gasoline just to make it viable as a fuel? Tetraethyl lead was added to gasoline starting in the 1930s to raise the octane/knock resistance, it also stabilized the gasoline for longer storage periods. A side benefit was the lubrication of the valves and seats, it got everywhere, plugs, valves, exhaust pipes, not the primary reason for it's addition. One thing they don't add now that all new cars are closed fuel systems with relatively high pressure fuel systems don't need, is a surface tensioners that prevent evaporation. So letting your car sit a lot allowing the fuel to evaporate leaving behind all the additives. Just drive the damn things. Gasoline is a garbage fuel, ethanol makes it worse, best just to move it through as quick as possible.
I will add that while I agree with @CBODY67 that the states will use that argument. 10% ethanol addition has very little effect on mileage. Ethanol has approximately 40,000 less BTUs per gallon than gasoline (and that's being generous with fresh gasoline) so at 10% it's 4000 less BTUs. In new really fuel efficient cars at maybe 40% efficient power trains that's about 1600 less usable BTUs. Not really terribly noticable, but you can make the argument that it would reduce the gallons sold on a large scale. I don't think any politicians are that smart, but good ones will listen to people smarter than them and their talking head mode will kick in and they repeat it to others.
In reality ethanol is a cheap and effective octane booster that is required in most states anyway. E85 added to your pump 93 should eliminate any knocking you may have and will make it run cooler, don't add too much though. You will go dangerously lean and that's bad.
I will add that while I agree with @CBODY67 that the states will use that argument. 10% ethanol addition has very little effect on mileage. Ethanol has approximately 40,000 less BTUs per gallon than gasoline (and that's being generous with fresh gasoline) so at 10% it's 4000 less BTUs. In new really fuel efficient cars at maybe 40% efficient power trains that's about 1600 less usable BTUs. Not really terribly noticable, but you can make the argument that it would reduce the gallons sold on a large scale. I don't think any politicians are that smart, but good ones will listen to people smarter than them and their talking head mode will kick in and they repeat it to others.
In reality ethanol is a cheap and effective octane booster that is required in most states anyway. E85 added to your pump 93 should eliminate any knocking you may have and will make it run cooler, don't add too much though. You will go dangerously lean and that's bad.
Last edited:
Back in the 1990s, the Chevron website had a whole section on the "back area" just on oxygenated fuels and how they "ran different" than what we had at that time. No holds barred, it seemed, as they had been researching and collecting data for years, it seemed. They mentioned all of the "bad things" related to vehicle performance, including "extended crank time to start" (although they made not distinction as to just what that meant, in "time to start" between the existing stuff and the oxygenated stuff).
The other side of things is that oxygenated fuels were first needed in some sections of Colorado in the 1980s to combat poor oxygen levels in the atmosphere. An already thin atmosphere due to the altitude. It helped and then got expanded nationwide. But as automotive historian Ed Wallace noted later, by the time that OEM carburetors had been replaced with more efficient fuel injection on new vehicles, the real need of those oxygenated fuels was diminished a good bit. But by that time, the legal battles had already been done so oxygenated fuels were what we all got. With ethanol and MTBE (a known carcinogen) being split almost 50-50 to make a 10% oxygenate addition to existing gasolines. Then, when some municipal water supplies started to show minute concentrations of MTBE in them (from atmospheric sources, i.e., rain), then ethanol became the only oxygenate in the fuels, to the approx 10% level.
With the original RFEs, I did document a 3.2% decrease in fuel economy in the 1970s car I was driving at that time. Not a big decrease, but one anyway. Full E10 is supposed to be 6%, from data. Stillo not much, but at the volumes of fuel consumed, that loss in gallonage and related fuel taxes can be substantial, especially in a large, mobile strate as TX or even CA. I did see that report the TX Legislature research arm did and it was a huge chunk of change. Certainly large enough that NO legislature would want to do away with it.
Agreed, modern fuel systems are designed to deal with ethanol'd blends. Which have been much greater in many South American countries, so our North American and European OEMs are not stranger to what it takes to build a good ethanol-tolerant fuel system.
Just my observations from over the years,
CBODY67
The other side of things is that oxygenated fuels were first needed in some sections of Colorado in the 1980s to combat poor oxygen levels in the atmosphere. An already thin atmosphere due to the altitude. It helped and then got expanded nationwide. But as automotive historian Ed Wallace noted later, by the time that OEM carburetors had been replaced with more efficient fuel injection on new vehicles, the real need of those oxygenated fuels was diminished a good bit. But by that time, the legal battles had already been done so oxygenated fuels were what we all got. With ethanol and MTBE (a known carcinogen) being split almost 50-50 to make a 10% oxygenate addition to existing gasolines. Then, when some municipal water supplies started to show minute concentrations of MTBE in them (from atmospheric sources, i.e., rain), then ethanol became the only oxygenate in the fuels, to the approx 10% level.
With the original RFEs, I did document a 3.2% decrease in fuel economy in the 1970s car I was driving at that time. Not a big decrease, but one anyway. Full E10 is supposed to be 6%, from data. Stillo not much, but at the volumes of fuel consumed, that loss in gallonage and related fuel taxes can be substantial, especially in a large, mobile strate as TX or even CA. I did see that report the TX Legislature research arm did and it was a huge chunk of change. Certainly large enough that NO legislature would want to do away with it.
Agreed, modern fuel systems are designed to deal with ethanol'd blends. Which have been much greater in many South American countries, so our North American and European OEMs are not stranger to what it takes to build a good ethanol-tolerant fuel system.
Just my observations from over the years,
CBODY67
70bigblockdodge
Old Man with a Hat
Yep, always follow the money.
I knew about the MTBE in water. At least ethanol burns from a organic substance. DEF I'm not convinced will not cause ecological problems long term along highway steams and creeks.
FrankieD
New Member
I've used Starton (blue also) for years. Not sure if it works. Cheap enough insurance. Cant get ethanol free by me. I buy it at H-Depot.
Detroit_Lives
Member
Ethanol fuel will glaze your cylinder walls.
I too use Walmart TC-W3 2 stroke oil in every tank. I fill a empty Stabil bottle to make it easy to measure. I didn't start this as an ethanol treatment but I'll take it. . Despite the many positive stories I was skeptical until I got 2 different older guys (than me) with 6-packs telling me it was key to smooth running. To be fair one also used Marvel Mystery Oil but said he was going to move to 2 cycle regularly. I know how it all sounds when something is said to fix bunch of things. I haven't had any problems and it does seem to smooth out the idle and acceleration. I do use Marine Stabil 360 in all my small engines and the Fury over the winter. Rarely get problems until I go over a year of non use (talking to you snowblower). I used to drain my small engine fuel but haven't in 10 years .
I generally use e-free gas but it's a non branded product although it's sold at a Sunoco
station the pump itself is not labeled as such, so how do you know what your really getting
from a quality standpoint? Most generic gas sold in eastern PA comes from the Sunoco refinery in
Philly but it's not the same gas you would get from one of their stations.
Struck up a conversation with a guy was who repairing a pump and he said you'll get better mileage from name brand gas. With the prices off the charts now the big guys are staying competitive with the quicky marts so I've run several tankfuls in my '18 F150 and the computer says I've increased my mileage by 2 mpg...
station the pump itself is not labeled as such, so how do you know what your really getting
from a quality standpoint? Most generic gas sold in eastern PA comes from the Sunoco refinery in
Philly but it's not the same gas you would get from one of their stations.
Struck up a conversation with a guy was who repairing a pump and he said you'll get better mileage from name brand gas. With the prices off the charts now the big guys are staying competitive with the quicky marts so I've run several tankfuls in my '18 F150 and the computer says I've increased my mileage by 2 mpg...
> With the prices off the charts now the big guys are staying competitive with the quicky marts so I've run several tankfuls in my '18 F150 and the computer says I've increased my mileage by 2 mpg...
So the high gas prices are actually good in some tiny, minuscule, microscopic way, ha ha!
So the high gas prices are actually good in some tiny, minuscule, microscopic way, ha ha!
You have run several tankfuls of What, that improved your mileage?
HA HA? Not, Shell oil first quarter profits are up 3X over last year. So no this is not competitive. Think of people who are living paycheck to paycheck and need to get to work, school, grocery store, doc appointments. Not funny at all.
HA HA? Not, Shell oil first quarter profits are up 3X over last year. So no this is not competitive. Think of people who are living paycheck to paycheck and need to get to work, school, grocery store, doc appointments. Not funny at all.
413, I agree it's absolutely not funny from that perspective. I drive a big old diesel truck to get things done at the farm, and no, it hasn't been funny at all lately, nor has filling up the tractor. And by the way, Shell is not alone taking advantage of the situation - I'm at a loss coming up with a single oil company from drilling to pump that hasn't made a killing this year.
But what I found funny (or maybe the right word is ironic) is that we who drive some of the most gas guzzling cars ever conceived are discussing a couple of percent better mileage in one direction or the other. Come on man, isn't that a little bit funny? (Mine is a New Yorker with a 440...)
But what I found funny (or maybe the right word is ironic) is that we who drive some of the most gas guzzling cars ever conceived are discussing a couple of percent better mileage in one direction or the other. Come on man, isn't that a little bit funny? (Mine is a New Yorker with a 440...)
Similar threads
- Locked
