Re: [Chrysler300] Resending Gasohol additive article

[Michael Moore <mmoore8425@xxxxxxx>]

Well said Bob.
Mike Moore
300H
Morgan Hill, Ca

On Nov 2, 2011, at 3:29 PM, Bob Jasinski wrote:

> I've seen the clip before. I agree I'd rather be using 100% gasoline in my
> 300G but I must say I haven't run into the extremes of issues shown on that
> video. California has been putting ethanol in gas for close to 20 years
> now, and if it was as bad as that video claims it to be, I think I would
> have seen more problems. I do have to change out my rubber fuel lines from
> time to time, and fuel pump diaphragms last about 10 years, but that's about
> it. 
> 
> There simply is no practical alternative for getting 100% gasoline for me.
> As far as marine or aviation gas, give me a break. That stuff is so
> expensive and so far to drive for, I'd rather sell the car than go through
> that hassle. It's $70+ a tank now to fill up!
> 
> I'm all for getting rid of ethanol, but I just don't see it happening,
> especially in CA where we have these "boutique fuels" forced on us. The
> government doesn't want us driving our old cars, and they could care less
> about the problems we have with gasohol..
> 
> Bob J
> 
> From: Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:Chrysler300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Keith Boonstra
> Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2011 2:46 PM
> To: Tony Rinaldi
> Cc: Chrysler 300 Club
> Subject: Re: [Chrysler300] Resending Gasohol additive article
> 
> 
> And here's the clincher on the havoc that ethanol is visiting upon your 
> vintage fuel system. Watch the video in this link:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtqWT8ZfG5Y
> 
> 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]
> 
> [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/