Alcohol in gasoline (spin-off from pulsing engine)

["Ray Henry" <62dart@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'm always entertained to see the alcohol in fuel debate occur. See, back in
the 80's up here in Manitoba, a little-known gas station started popping up
all over selling "gasohol". Gasoline with 10% ethanol. They told us that it
would give us better fuel mileage, run cleaner, and leave our engines
cleaner. I don't think that I really paid them much attention.

Within a couple of years, things changed. My father picked up a '68 Fiat
that had a rebuilt engine, and the seller informed him that he could only
run the Mohawk premium fuel in it, as the effective octane rating of that
fuel was the only high enough rated fuel for that engine. Any attempt to run
said Fiat on other fuel resulted in horrible pre-ignition, run-on, bad
mileage. He experienced no ill side-effects.

So began this family's love affair with E-10 (10% ethanol). Over the years,
we've run it in everything. Only one vehicle ever gave grief as a result,
that being my '53 Merc. And what happened there was the cleansing of varnish
and crap from the tank, constantly plugging fuel filters and the pump. I did
have an ongoing issue with a '59 Impala wagon that I had as well, but that
car had been parked in '63 with a full tank of gas. By the time I got the
car and got it going, it actually had clumps of tar in the tank. Twice I had
the tank steam cleaned, and it still had stuff working it's way out over the
2 years I had it. But my guess is that with the amount of tar that had
formed in the 40 years it had sat, that would have been an issue regardless
of alcohol being in the fuel or not.

My past polys ('57 Mayfair, '58 Crusader, '58 Regent, '66 Fury, '64 & '65
Polaras, '68 Dodge pick-up, '65 Monaco, and '66 Coronet) all ran E10 with no
ill effects. While the Mayfair actually got noticeably better mileage and
performance with it, the other engines only showed mild or "possible"
benefits from running it. All my other brands of vehicles showed similar
results. The one exception I can think of was a '72 Dodge Polara with a
mileage count that escapes me now, but I believe had taken a couple of trips
past the 0 setting on the odometer. It had one cylinder that had issues with
the rings. And that cylinder was so bad that when you changed the spark
plugs, it would visibly burn oil for about 200 feet, then stop. Because it
would only take that long to completely foul the new plug. That LA 318 had
less performance with E10 than with non-blended fuels. Didn't effect
mileage, though as I still managed to get 21 MPG highway with it.

Now, it's my understanding that the issue with blended fuels is alcohol's
effect on rubber. But it's also my understanding that there is very little
"real rubber" used anywhere anymore, and that started in the '50's. So
unless you have a very low mileage vehicle that came with original rubber
parts, you're not going to have an issue. Because replacements parts have
synthetics.

The other issue is picking up dirt/debris/varnish and causing problems.
While I did experience that myself, I viewed it more as bringing a problem
to light. The real issue was that my '53 Merc was a farm truck. Up here,
visible fuel pumps could still be found in operation in the very remote
areas well into the late '70's and early '80's. Those old pumps used to
slowly eat the feed hoses from the inside out. Meaning that every time you
filled, you got some of that rubber in your tank. Over years, that builds
up. So I'm guessing that my Merc got more than it's fair share of rubber.
That was the real problem. 

As for blended fuel eating away fuel pumps, lines, etc, I think that
probably only applies to the afore mentioned vehicles old enough to be built
with real rubber components.

Getting back around to Mohawk (our first stations providing blended fuels
here), by the mid-90's, Mohawk fuel was legendary amongst the muscle car
crowd. Pretty much everyone that needed octane lined up at Mohawk. And
that's the way it was until blended fuels were legislated, and I can get my
"fix" anywhere I go. Instead of having to search out a Mohawk all the
time..... :)

Now, I'm not saying this to start arguing with anyone. Your mileage may
vary. But with literally millions of miles put on with blended fuels by my
family, I can't see how anyone could ever change my opinion. I'm not trying
to sell anyone on it. Personally, I believe that those who try it, set their
cars up right, and actually keep a record of mileage/performance, will be
converted. But, like I said, your mileage may vary. 

I should also point out that where I am, -40 in winter is a given. So is gas
line anti-freeze. And the brainiacs tell me that 5% methyl is the same as
10% ethyl. Gas line AF is typically the former. Regardless, we've been
adding alcohol to our gasoline (in varying amounts) since the 1800's just to
deal with Old Man Winter....  

Oh, yeah.. Almost forget. When I made the run down to Tulsa from Winnipeg to
see the unveiling of the Belvedere, I tried a couple tanks of E85 to see
what effects it would have. Oddly enough, nothing. Ran that '65 Valiant with
the Leaning Tower of Power hard, too. Made it to Tulsa in 16 hours, cutting
2 hours off the normal driving time. Yet no noticeable drop in mileage or
performance.

:)


-- 
--
Please address private mail -- mail of interest to only one person -- directly to that person. That is, send parts/car transactions and negotiations as well as other personal messages only to the intended recipient, not to the Clubhouse public address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine tune the content signal to Mopar topic.  Thanks!

1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines:
http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html.
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 1962 to 1965 Mopar Mail List Clubhouse" group.
http://groups.google.com/group/1962to1965mopars?hl=en.