Re: [Chrysler300] Resending Gasohol additive article

[Keith Boonstra <kboonstra@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ever wonder why there is no alcohol in aviation gas such as LL100?  It 
is well documented that besides the phase separation issues, the alcohol 
content decimates both rubber and metal parts throughout the fuel 
delivery system from tank to carburetor.  The FAA really cares about 
planes dropping out of the sky.  But the EPA and your collector car 
sitting in its stable unable to run well?  Not so much.

Didn't somebody on the forum give us link to a video on the alcohol 
damage a couple of weeks ago?  I saw it and it was very convincing.

Best bet - especially for long bouts of storage - is to find some 
alcohol-free marine gas, racing fuel, or aviation fuel for just a couple 
bucks more a gallon.

Keith Boonstra

-


On 11/1/2011 7:27 PM, Tony Rinaldi wrote:
>
>
> Hope this comes thru:
>
> COMPARATIVE EVAULATION OF PREVENTION OF GASOHOL PHASE SEPARATION BY FUEL
> ADDITIVES
> by Benjamin Kellogg
>
> October 31, 2011
>
> The Lundt Brothers gas station in Blair, Nebraska, in 1934. Their sign
> emblazoned with ³Buy Corn Alcohol Gas Here² proves that gasohol is an idea
> that has been around for quite some time, at least in Nebraska!
>
>
> Do ethanol fuel additives really deliver what they promise and help save
> your engine from the ravages of E10? In this article, some popular fuel
> additives are put to the test.
>
> Did you know that certain fuel additives can increase the stability of 
> fuels
> containing ethanol?  Author and chemist Benjamin Kellogg discusses several
> readily available additives and how they can make modern fuels less 
> harmful
> to your historic vehicles.  This article, which first appeared in the Fall
> 2011 issue of Army Motors, presents the results of an objective experiment
> designed to prove or refute the benefits of ³fuel stabilizers.²  --The
> Editors
>
>
> Introduction:
>
> To design a simple, yet reproducible experiment to test the ³storage
> enhancing² properties of fuel stabilizers, I decided to test the 
> ability of
> these additives to alter phase separation points. Two additives were
> compared by a simple titration experiment.
>
> Background:
>
> E10 gasohol is an inherently hygroscopic (absorbing and retaining water)
> solution due to the chemical nature of the ethanol (ethyl alcohol) 
> added to
> the petroleum gasoline. The hygroscopic character of the ethanol means 
> that
> gasohol will contain water. The actual amount of water that can be held in
> solution in E10 varies directly with temperature. At 20° C, E10 can 
> contain
> as much as 0.5 ml of water per 100 ml of E10. At -10° C, E10 can only hold
> 0.3 ml of water per 100 ml of E10.
>
> Once the water content exceeds these limits, the phenomenon of ³phase
> separation² will occur. Gasohol phase separation happens when the ethanol
> and water components separate from the petroleum gasoline; i.e., the
> ³phases² of the E10 gasohol solution ³separate.²
>
> During phase separation, the more dense ethanol and water components 
> settle
> to the bottom of the container (i.e., the fuel tank), while the less dense
> gasoline components rise to the top. The process is essentially
> irreversible. If phase separation happens in a fuel tank, corrosion can
> occur in the lower aspects of the tank exposed to the ethanol and water
> component. Fuel stabilizers purportedly allow a greater amount of water to
> remain in solution in the gasohol before phase separation occurs. This 
> claim
> could be tested.
>
> Methods:
>
> Two Eastwood ³Fuel Guard² products were obtained for these tests: Fuel 
> Guard
> Protection formula to be used for every fill-up and Fuel Stabilizer 
> formula
> for fuel stored up to 12 months. These fuel additives were mixed 
> separately
> and in combination into 50 ml of E10 gasohol according to manufacturer¹s
> instructions. The amounts of each that were added to 50 ml of E10 are 
> given
> in the following table:
> CONTROL
> No additive
> Fuel Protection Formula
> 0.15625 ml
> Fuel Stabilization Formula
> 0.15625 ml
> Fuel Protection Formula
> and
> Fuel Stabilization Formula
> 0.15625 ml and
> 0.15625 ml
> Additive total = 0.3125
>
> These solutions were placed in flasks and cooled to 10° C in an ice bath.
> The solution in each flask was stirred with a magnetic stirrer while
> distilled water was titrated in. The end point of each titration was
> visually determined upon noting the occurrence of phase separation.
>
>
> Results:
>
> E10 with no additives underwent phase separation with the addition of 0.30
> ml water. In contrast, addition of either the Fuel Protection or Fuel
> Stabilization formulas delayed phase separation until the addition of 0.50
> and 0.49 ml of water, respectively. Finally, the addition of both the Fuel
> Protection and Fuel Stabilization formulas to 50 ml E10 delayed phase
> separation until 0.69 ml water was added.
>
> Discussion:
>
> When used separately, either the Eastwood Fuel Protection Formula or Fuel
> Stabilization Formula increases the amount of water that can be 
> retained in
> solution by E10 gasohol by 66% before phase separation occurs. 
> Furthermore,
> the combination of both additives in E10 increases resistance to phase
> separation by 133 percent; a significantly better result than when either
> product was used alone.
>
> These results demonstrate that the risk of phase separation is reduced 
> when
> these products are used in E10 gasohol. The reason for the increased
> effectiveness of the combination of the two formulas is unclear. Product
> information available to the consumer states that both additives contain
> exactly the same chemical ingredients: napthenic oil, hydroethylated
> aminoethylamide, and petroleum naptha. The proportions of these 
> ingredients
> in the different products are not given (nor were they provided to me
> despite a direct request to Eastwood). It is possible that the advantage
> derived from combining the Fuel Protection and Fuel Stabilization formulas
> represented a mere doubling of the ingredients rather than some other
> enhancement derived from combining the two products.
>
> Conclusions:
>
> Eastwood Ethanol Fuel Protection and Fuel Stabilization formulas
> significantly increase E10 gasohol resistance to phase separation and
> decrease the probability that phase separation will occur in the fuel tank
> of stored vehicles.
>
> Epilogue:
>
> Given the results of the foregoing experiment, I will incorporate the fuel
> additives into the gasohol that goes into my HMVs. The additive¹s cost 
> will
> be insignificant compared to the cost of repairs that could result 
> from the
> use of E10. In addition, tanks of fuel last a long time in my historic
> military vehicles and thus increases the risk of gasohol related problems,
> so I have decided to keep a minimal amount of fuel in their tanks so that
> the fuel is replenished frequently with new fuel and the
> now-proven-effective anti-alcohol additives. The fuel additives worked in
> the lab, so they should work in the tank.
> Results:
>
> E10 with no additives underwent phase separation with the addition of 0.30
> ml water. In contrast, addition of either the Fuel Protection or Fuel
> Stabilization formulas delayed phase separation until the addition of 0.50
> and 0.49 ml of water, respectively. Finally, the addition of both the Fuel
> Protection and Fuel Stabilization formulas to 50 ml E10 delayed phase
> separation until 0.69 ml water was added.
>
> Comments
> . Steve Beurkens
> Grand Rapids, Michigan
>
> Great news. I have been using Stabil in my 1973 Triumph TR6 for the 
> past 15
> winters. The car is stored from mid-October until the snow/salt is
> gone...usually the first week of April. I have NEVER had a starting 
> problem
> in the spring...1 turn of the key and away we go! I have great faith 
> in fuel
> stabilizers, so it's nice to know that faith is scientifically founded!
>
> . Paul Aruda
> Cedar Hill TX.
>
> I use a product called Sea Foam and it has worked very will in my cars. I
> put it in every 3-4000 miles. Ethanol is not a good product for any of our
> cars. It may help the farmer but not our cars. Paul Aruda
>
> . landis aden
> mesa, az
>
> How about high temps like here in AZ? any studies done on that? Also, 
> folks
> have claimed that marvel mystery oil can do much the same any research on
> that thx
>
> . Brian R Adams
> Reno, NV
>
> It seems likely the two products are largely the same, and all you did was
> double up the dosage. Presumably this will do no harm. Why didn't you run
> the same experiment using only a double-dose of either one of the products
> to prove they are equivalent? Why couldn't someone set up a sort of 
> settling
> still, where on could add water to E10 until phase separation occurs, then
> drain the ethanol/water out the bottom, leaving 99+% gasoline behind?
>
> . Alex
> Seattle, WA
>
> Better than additives, why not get ethanol free gasoline? pure-gas.org 
> is a
> website that list stations selling ethanol free gas
>
> . Rocky Faulconer
> Yakima, WA 98902
>
> There are so many fuel stabilization additives out on the market from
> sta-bil Eastwood, and many more. Eastwood is a mail order thing for us and
> freight is costly - and just remembering to order it is hard. Does 
> Benjamin
> have a suggestion for a fuel stabilizer that is more common and easyer to
> get at the local part store? like sta-bil Rocky
>
> . Todd
> VA
>
> Good article!
>
> . Ron Maurer
> Iowa
>
> I run an auto repair shop and occasionally I see older cars that have been
> stored for years and won¹t run. I will end up with the carburetor apart &
> cleaning & the fuel tank off and cleaning. I have found all the ones I 
> have
> seen with bad problems had Sta-Bil fuel preservative and E-10 fuel (90% of
> the fuel sold in Iowa) and have been stored for several years. The tanks
> look like they have a growth in them. I have seen Microbial growth in 
> Diesel
> fuel tanks and it may be somewhat similar but different. I had to 
> throw some
> tanks away. I had a Dodge with a plastic fuel tank that the brass float on
> the gas gauge sender was ate away. Draw your own conclusions. I have been
> storing my Grand Prix for the winter for 25 years and put it away with 
> very
> little fuel and NO additive and have never had a problem. When I drive 
> it in
> the summer I add only enough fuel that I think I will use for the day in
> order to keep the fuel fresh. Ron Maurer ASE Master Tech
>
> . bluen0te
> Ct.
>
> I'm wondering if the writer has any connection to Eastwood. I'd feel a lot
> stronger about these results if a few more products such as Startron and
> Staybil had been mentioned in the test.
>
> . Roger Sitterly
> Des Moines, Iowa
>
> It would have been nice if he'd tested the combination of "fuel 
> protection"
> and "fuel stabilization" formulas against 10% gasohol with .3125 ml of 
> "fuel
> protection" in it and against 10% gasohol with .3125 ml of "fuel
> stabilization" in it. If he found that doubling the quantity of just one
> product in the gasohol delayed phase separation until 0.69 ml of water
> content, that would be useful knowledge for those of us concerned 
> about the
> deleterious effects of using E10 fuel in our older vehicles. Has 
> anyone done
> any similar tests with other fuel stabilization products on the market 
> (ie,
> Stabil, which I use in my lawn mower over the winter and my snow blower
> during the summer)?
>
> . J.L. Hamilton
> TEXAS
>
> Wish the test had used some of the more readily available products like
> Sta-Bil or Phazer. Eastwood products have to be ordered from the 
> catalog or
> internet to get them in most of the country.
>
> . D Yaros
> United States
>
> For more info on the effects of E10 in collector cars, see the Nov 2011
> issue of Car Collector Chronicles, found online at
> http://www.scribd.com/people/view/7936333-dave
>
> . Brian tremblay
> British Columbia, Canada
>
> I've seen the effects of ehanol gasolines on related fuel parts ie; rubber
> lines, aluminium components but what about aluminium gas tanks that 
> alot of
> car builders are getting for their hobby these days?
>
> . JR.
> Greenwich NY.
>
> How about testing "Sta-Bil" fuel additive? It is much more readily 
> available
> to the consumer as they can pick it up at any auto parts and hardware
> stores. I also have a big jug on my shelf, have had no bad effects in the
> past, and was wondering if it was due to this product. Thanks, JR.
>
> . Bob Foster
> Bishop, GA
>
> All good information. There should have been a cost per tank or cost per
> gallon for the use of the additives included in the report. I guess I 
> could
> go to Eastwood and do the cost analysis myself.
>
> . Rudy Pyrek
> Warren, Michigan
>
> While I find this report most helpful, I can't stop thinking that a better
> solution to would be to offer classic vehicle owners "real" 100% 
> gasoline. I
> know that in every state there are several stations that still have access
> to this product. Ref. web-site (pure-gas.org). Not only would it eliminate
> this problem, it would also increase mileage by nearly 50%. I know this is
> true through my own records on my 2004 Buick Le Sabre with a 3800 v-6 
> engine
> (Auto-trans.) My milage has dropped from: 31mpg hwy. to 25mpg. And 25mpg
> city to 18mpg. Who's fooling who! Ethenol isn't making less dependant on
> foreign oil, it's just made us increase our use. In the long run, foreign
> oil and subsidized corn growing farmers get rich and we ,the consumers 
> take
> a bath again! I am sure that new technologies would increase milage in
> gasoline engines to a point where foreign oil dependency would not be an
> issue. Thank you for letting me vent.
>
> . C J Davis
> Central Michigan
>
> After reading this article I would surmise that a good way to help 
> save your
> fuel tank would be to litterally run your vehicle out of fuel, prior to
> putting it away for any extended period of time. [winter in the northern
> areas].
>
> . John Engfehr
> Wyandotte
>
> I'm a retired engineer who tested fuels and oils for many years. I could
> write a book on the adverse effects of ethanol on engines. The real 
> problem
> is during combustion where it forms acid in the combustion chamber and
> etches the bore and rings. It degrades oil as it gets wiped into the
> crankcase and can lead to extreme wear throughout the engine. It was only
> approved by automakers because it gave them fuel economy "credits" (CAFE
> credits) with the EPA that allowed them to sell more high end vehicles
> (profit). It is not safe to use in any engine in amounts over 15%. Oil
> change intervals must be shortened from 5000 miles to 3000 or less with
> ethanol use. There is big money pushing to hide the facts and ignore the
> long term implications.
>
> . David Allison
> St Simons Island
>
> There is a simpler way for those of us near marinas and ports.Marine 
> gas is
> offered at the marinas and in the last year or two several local gas
> stations have installed "Marine pumps" I have used this gas in my historic
> vehicles and can sleep soundly with no worries of H2o sneaking into my 
> tanks
> as this fuel is alchohol free. Check with the major fuel distributors in
> your area to find this friendlier fuel in your area.
>
> . S Mcnutt
> indiana
>
> Nice to see a correctly done scientific evaluation.
>
> . Arlene Walker
> Pasadena, Maryland
>
> I have a 1982 Corvette which I rarely drive. I usually keep a full tank of
> gas in it and occasionally use a fuel additive, so if I understand the
> article correctly should I only leave a small amount of gas in the 
> tank over
> the winter? I was always told to fill the tank so condensation does not
> form. Any advice?
>
> . Eric White
> Lapeer, MI
>
> Very informative test. My question to Mr. Kellogg is, if the two additives
> are chemically identical, why didn't he continue with his testing to
> determine if doubling the dose of each additive on its own resulted in the
> same increase of water retention as the combined effect revealed? Also, if
> doubling the dose resulted in increased retention of water in E10, would
> increasing the dosage continue to increase the effect? At what point would
> increased dosage become ineffective?
>
> . Ernie
> Atl. Ga
>
> An increase in the water content of fuel also decreases the effective 
> octane
> in the fuel, so, care should be taken on higher compression engines 
> that are
> close to the verge of octane requirements.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

To send a message to this group, send an email to:
Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to bob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx or
go to http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join and select the "Leave Group" button

For list server instructions, go to http://www.chrysler300club.com/yahoolist/inst.htm

For archives go to http://www.forwardlook.net/300-archive/search.htm#querylangYahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Chrysler300/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    Chrysler300-digest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
    Chrysler300-fullfeatured@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Chrysler300-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/