Re: [Chrysler300] Resending Gasohol additive article

[Edward Mills Antique Tractors <millserat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Wish I could say I have had no problems - as to CA having used it for 20 
years - try again - when I moved out of San Jose in 2005, they were 
still using MTBE in most of the gas - no methanol til after 2005 - still 
if you have been lucky for 5 years I envy you.

best, Ed

On 11/2/2011 9:50 PM, Michael Moore wrote:
> 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 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/