E10 is bad enough but E15 is a killer!

[POZE]

This is a little off topic but we have E-85 (85% Ethanol ) available in NW Ohio and allot of Indiana. Think of some of the issues that can show up from using this fuel. The fuel is cheaper than regular gasoline so people are tempted to try it. Son borrows dads car - dad says bring car back without an empty tank - son pulls up to the pumps and looks at the price and fills up with E-85 and saves some money. Dad leaves home in the morning and car runs bad.
On the flip side there are some guys using it in turbo and supercharged application and getting amazing results.
Web site Pro Dyno Tech

[pmkls1]

I'm just gonna chime in here with a couple of things I'd like to point out.

1. The corn used to make ethanol is "grain corn" or "feed corn" and not the sweet corn that we eat. The only reason for increased food costs is because now that demand is increasing the price is increasing as well. Contrary to popular belief, the supply is plentiful and actually a large portion of the grain corn grown in the U.S. is exported. Since the price of grain corn increases with demand then so do the costs of the ethanol it is used to produce. Since fuel costs are the major part of food costs, the food costs go up because of increasing fuel costs. The culprit for all of these increased costs is simply demand. It is really just another way for the government and corporate america to extort more money from us working folks.

2. In the U.S. the EPA has strict mandates on gasoline in regard to emissions. If you are buying "100% gasoline", then you are most likely buying gasoline that contains extremely toxic and hazardous compounds. The EPA has several different programs regarding gasoline standards and many of them can be met with a similar formulation. Most of the regulations require a substance be added to gasoline that make it burn more efficiently and emit less air pollutants. Ethanol is among one of the most popular additives in recent years because it can help meet many different standards. Some of the standards can only be met with either ethanol or a variety of compounds that are all related and are byproducts of the petroleum refining process. One of the most common of these compounds is MTBE. All of these petroleum-based compounds work well to help gasoline meet certain emissions standards, however, they are extremely toxic and hazardous to the environment. In many states MTBE and other similar compounds have been completely banned after a series of incidents where leaking underground tanks leaked gasoline into the ground water. In those incidents, the entire water table in the vicinity of the leak was contaminated and toxic to any animal that consumed it. It required millions in cleanup costs to detoxify those water supplies. It is because of this fact that I do not support the use of such "100% gasoline". I would rather use gas that contains ethanol (a fuel that powers some of the fastest racecars on the planet I might add) and deal with the effects that it has on certain fuel systems instead of use a fuel that contains even more toxins that can be potentially devastating to the local environment.

3. I have yet to experience any issues relating to fuel system corrosion on any of the vehicles or lawn equipment that I have owned or repaired as a career mechanic. In my write-up on E85, I noted that I have used E85 in 3 personal vehicles that had standard steel lines and (in 2) gas tanks without any issues. I would like to offer up another possible cause of at least some of the issues that people have experienced with their fuel systems. I suspect that contaminated fuel and/or a highly humid environment could explain some of these problems.

4. The introduction of E15 and it's subsequent use in older vehicles without proper modification is going to be quite disastrous on many levels and I am not looking forward to this likely scenario. I would like to point out that you don't see GM saying much about this and it is because most of their vehicles are already flex-fuel capable. And on the more recent models where it was an option to be flex-fuel capable there is little difference outside of the PCM. Many newer GM vehicles could run just fine on E15 without a SES light with some simple programming and a reflash.

[EagleMark]

Thanks for the good info!

One thing on food cost you did not cover. Farmers! Many went to feed or fuel corn because of the demand and goverment regulations. Supply of food corn goes down and price goes up. There's also an issue of rain fall if not irrigated, sweet corn we eat is almost entirly irrigated to produce good eatable food. If the rain does not come then sweet corn is worthless, feed and fuel corn could still have some value if rain did not produce a good crop. from a business farmer with no irrigation it's a total loss gamble if rain is not right...

Your in TN, I'm in North Idaho. We both have humidity, you probably more so? I'm seeing a difference of lawn equiptment here being stored 6 months, sometimes 8 months! But I saw damage in my kids carb in way less so I'm still confused... Jeepsandguns is from south and has same issue, or at least fuel, he never commented on corrosion?

Now none of this comes into play if you buy gas from pumps and keep vehicle running year round! So it has something to do with time and vented gas cans?

[JeepsAndGuns]

99% of what I work on has plastic tanks and all rubber lines. The carbs are aluminum. Very little if any steel parts in the fuel systems. So rust is not really a problem. I have seen corroded aluminum carbs on equipment that has set for a few years though.
Also seen a few mowers I think the people put E85 or something like it in the tanks, as all the fuel lines turned to rubber and leaked. Had to rebuild carbs with new gaskets and replace all rubber fuel lines. Also drained the tanks just the be sure. But otherwise no other harm. Never seen it hurt the plastic tanks.

[pmkls1]

Good point on farmers switching from sweet corn to grain corn, Mark.

I had actually planned on adding to my thread on ethanol as soon as I had the time and a lot of what is being discussed here was included in the next addition. I'll save the lengthy stuff for that thread and try to stay a little more on topic in this one, but I've got plenty of information to share yet so look for an update on that thread.

One thing that I do want to make clear is that even though I am an avid supporter of the use of ethanol as an alternative fuel I do recognize that there are some issues with the current system. E10 does cause issues although I believe some to be greatly exaggerated. And with E15 now entering the equation even more problems are going to arise.
As far as my comment about humidity, I was mainly referring to the conditions where the lawn equipment was being stored i.e. a damp basement or garage. I really couldn't explain any of the other issues experienced by some. I have had issues with contaminated gas on a fairly regular basis, though, and the extent of the damage it caused was pretty bad in some cases.

Plastic fuel tanks are pretty common in automobiles and small equipment these days and plastic is impervious to ethanol. Plastic tanks also do not have a tendency to sweat like steel tanks do. Most rubber components in newer fuel systems are also formulated to be compatible with ethanol blends. This is at least true for automobiles, but I think small equipment uses similar types of rubber too. I haven't seen any problems with steel lines or tanks in vehicles that were driven on a regular basis either, but rust is a real threat when they sit for extended periods of time. Newer vehicles that do have metal components in the fuel systems use stainless steel a lot and it is not affected by ethanol.

A major factor in fuel system corrosion is storage or lack of use. This is an issue regardless of whether 100% gas is used or E10 is used. The use of E10 just amplifies this issue. Ethanol is hygroscopic meaning that it readily absorbs moisture from the environment. This concept also applies to brake fluid and is why vehicles that have sat for a long time always develop major brake system issues. This is also why it is recommended that the brake system be flushed at a minimum of every 2 years. The longer a vehicle or lawnmower sits static the more moisture it will absorb and hold in the fuel tank and lines. This is where separating and excessive corrosion really become a problem. Ventilation and sweating also play a part in how much moisture is absorbed and subsequent corrosion takes place.

[1project2many]

http://www.ornl.itp.govtools.us/docu...l%20Report.pdf
Oak Ridge National Labs study on corrosion of pipelines from Ethanol. Study is oriented toward systems designed to handle 100% gasoline now being used for E added gasoline.

Says ethanol reacts with plastics. Ethanol with water contributes to galvanic corrosion (concentrations of water equal to or greater than .5%). Ethanol with water also increases possibility for electrolytic corrosion. Ethanol combustion byproducts contain higher acid content (also, not relevant to this study, it creates higher levels of formaldahyde which contributes to low level ozone). "Materials Compatibility" section included below.

My own experience parallels Mark's although we are in a high humidity environment. I have large issues with fuel that really appear to be related to E10. My older vehicles which had zinc coating within the tank and on fuel lines now have no zinc coating. There is instead a white powder which has settled in the tanks and in the fuel filters. Since the zinc is gone, areas inside the tanks typically exposed to vapors now show signs of iron oxidation. In one vehicle, where the steel hanger and brass float are in contact, the brass float was found to have multiple holes last summer and the steel hanger is pitted. This is not typical of gasoline behavior and fuel made in the '60s and '70s would store for years without inviting corrosion. In my small engines I typically find white, powdered corrosion which appears to be from the aluminum carb inside the fuel bowl. If I leave fuel in the equipment over any length of time it will pickup enough water that I have to drain the bottom of the tank before using it. I have multiple spare bowl gaskets for all the small engines because removing them can be a multiple occurrence over one season.

I am not against Ethanol and in fact, was once very excited at the idea of using E100 fuel. But there are a number of real concerns which are affecting many people. If the fuel were optional that would be great. I'm not able to buy "Real" gas in this area so I'm stuck with this stuff.
















Note: Partial quote from report linked above:
2.1 Materials Compatibility
Ethanol fuels can react adversely in a number of ways with polymers. Elastomers and thermoplastics are
susceptible to permeation and swelling which can result in leaks and failure (due to brittleness or
stiffening). Swelling of up to 20% can occur, affecting strength by 60%. Materials with alcohol-based
components can experience leaching. Fluoroelastomers are often cited as being more resistant to these
problems, but have also experienced low temperature failures due to stiffness.
Ethanol and metals react in a completely different way. Permeability and swelling are not problems, but
erosion and corrosion are. A variety of corrosion effects can occur in metals in contact with ethanol
solutions; these include dry, wet, galvanic, and electrolytic corrosion, stress corrosion cracking, erosioncorrosion,
and other effects from time, temperature, and contaminants/additives.
Dry corrosion (corrosion with no water present) of metal in ethanol is proposed to occur naturally in the
presence of oxygen and generates water as a by-product; thus dry corrosion and the eventual presence of
water may be unavoidable in ethanol environments.
Water in small amounts (0.1 to 0.2 percent) can have a passivating effect on ethanol systems, but in larger
concentrations it enables other corrosion mechanisms and problems including most of the non-dry
corrosion mechanisms. Also, the effects in the various gasoline/ethanol blends are not well understood.
Electrolytic corrosion is not a problem associated with gasoline because it is not conductive even when
water is present, but it is a problem with ethanol. Increasing absolute amounts of water increases
conductivity and increases the potential for electrolytic corrosion.
Galvanic corrosion (starting when conductivity is as low as 40-70 microsiemens per meter) is a major
concern because a variety of metals are used in typical station designs. These designs were generally
made for gasoline dispensing, and since gasoline is not conductive, galvanic corrosion was not
considered. The presence of water in ethanol makes this type of corrosion a problem.
Above the concentration where water passivates the metal, two adverse reactions occur. Increased
conductivity is the first. The second averse reaction comes in ethanol-gasoline blends, at high enough
concentrations (approximately 0.5% in E10) the water and ethanol bond and can phase separate from the
rest of the gasoline over time. The gasoline phase will be alcohol-poor and the ethanol phase will be
water-rich. This separated aqueous phase causes wet corrosion. This is typically seen at the bottom of
storage vessels. But even before the phase separation point is reached, corrosion in the solution can be
enhanced because of micro-domains of precipitated aqueous ethanol.
Stress corrosion cracking (SCC) depends strongly on tensile stresses in the metal as a result of residual
stresses (from forming or working methods) or active stresses from operation. This is probably the most
studied of corrosion mechanisms related to ethanol. SCC can be a major problem in pipelines due to the
cyclical pressure from pumping, often seen around compression stations. SCC is also seen in other
pipeline sections where tensile stress is present. The presence of oxygen has been found to be the key
factor in ethanol-related SCC. Ethanol purged of oxygen doesn’t exhibit SCC even in the presence of
aggressive species in excess of ethanol standard concentrations.
Erosion-corrosion is a concern because in addition to the corrosive mechanisms above, ethanol is
recognized as a strong scouring agent. It will remove built-up materials in the storage vessels or pipelines.
3
If these vessels were used previously for other fuels, or are not properly maintained, there will be a large
amount of such built-up contaminants. The scouring action, plus corrosion, plus flowing ethanol produces
strong erosion-corrosion potential.
Time is a consideration for ethanol-related materials compatibility, because even though general
corrosion rates in ethanol have been measured to be slow, localized corrosion has been seen to cause
failure in only a short time. Increased temperature accelerates corrosion processes, and the high
temperatures of ethanol combustion produce byproducts (acids, etc.) that are especially reactive.
Combustion-related corrosion is not a problem in transport and storage, but rather when ethanol is in use
as a fuel or fuel mixture.
Finally, the last major factor in ethanol corrosion mechanisms is contaminants. The most important
contaminants for ethanol-related corrosion are water (covered above), oxygen, and ions. Ions include
chloride, sulfide, H+ (affecting pH), and metal ions. These contaminants can leach into the system (for
example, at a failure point in an underground pipe), can contaminant the system at ports or seals where
the ethanol enters or exits, can be scoured from the pipes and storage facilities, or can be the result of
chemical reactions. Additionally, because ethanol is produced from a variety of complex, organic sources,
and because of the complexity of processing, there are a large number of micro-contaminants that can be
found in the ethanol batch straight from the production facility. The number and concentration of
components vary from batch to batch even within the same facility. These components are not specified
or limited by current ethanol standards, but like the other contaminants have the potential to greatly affect
solution chemistry and corrosion potential. While some facilities and researchers have experience with
these micro-contaminants, they have not been recognized or studied as extensively as other ethanolrelated
corrosion factors.

[pmkls1]

That's a pretty interesting study there and a lot of the information there I was already aware of but there are a few things I was unaware of. It is important to point out that the reactions with plastics are certain types of plastics. There are so many types of plastics that I am not particularly fond of using such a broad generic term. Im not that well informed on the various types of plastics, but the plastics that I have encountered in automotive fuel systems, especially flex fuel vehicles, have never exhibited any signs of a reaction to ethanol exposure. I also find it difficult to believe that car manufacturers would build flex fuel vehicles and utilize materials in the fuel systems that would be vulnerable to deterioration caused by ethanol. My remarks on plastics being impervious to ethanol were obviously incorrect as a generalized statement. But I was mainly referring to the plastic tanks and lines on the late model vehicles that I normally encounter.

[1project2many]

I was mainly referring to the plastic tanks and lines on the late model vehicles that I normally encounter.

Understood. I wanted to present something other than anecdotal evidence. If I said the plastic shutoff valve of my 30 yr old lawnmower broke after a year of E10 that might not have meant as much. ;)

I don't know that I've seen complaints on this forum, other than loss of fuel economy, about using E10 in systems designed for it. GM has said since at least the early '90s that E10 is ok in most of their cars. The complaints seem to center around effects of E10 in vehicles not designed for it. I think a part of the plan if switching to E85 should be evaluating and possibly replacing the fuel system components if it's primarily metal or multiple metals. This is no different than what guys running straight vegetable oil or biodiesel go through. There are qualities of the fuel which need to be considered during fuel system design. Ignoring these qualities may not result in short term performance issues but it often does in the long run, in a dramatic way.

I cringe at the thought of E15 in my small engines. The amount of work would be huge.

[pmkls1]

I completely agree with what you are saying and I don't really disagree with much of anything that has been discussed in this thread and others on this site regarding the issues that E10 can and does cause. Pretty much all of the regulars on here educate themselves on matters like this. I just try to point out things that haven't been mentioned and also add my own experiences because I have also used E85 in vehicles that had fuel systems that were vulnerable to corrosion caused by ethanol and it's tendency to absorb moisture. Maybe not so much in this forum, but generally I see a lot of various problems blamed on ethanol that are most likely not related and people lack the understanding to figure out the real cause. It seems like like so many other things that people don't understand in their quest to find the cause of the problem as soon as they can find an explanation that they can believe then that is the cause regardless of whether it is correct or not. Somewhere along the line, most likely in the '70's when gasohol appeared and caused so many problems, ethanol got a bad reputaion. And just like anything or anyone once they have gotten a bad reputation it is very difficult to escape. I also wanted to try to provide a little more information as to the real reason that ethanol is added to the majority of the pump gas available in the U.S.. It seems to me that the general consensus among the public is that it is just a cheap way for the oil companies to "water down" their gas (no pun intended) so that they can make more money and also use lower grades of gas but still be able to achieve the proper octane ratings. While there is some truth there, it is really the epa and the government that have decided to go with the mainstream use of ethanol in gas as well as deciding to increase the content to 15%. Overall, I'm not fond of E10 and definitely not E15 because the amount of ethanol is enough to cause problems but not enough to really give any of the benefits. I am more in favor of E85 or E100 in purpose-built or properly retrofitted vehicles. I'm just worried that the increasingly negative view of ethanol and the new set of problems that E15 is going to create are going to slow down or stall out the progress of ethanol as an alternative fuel. So I try to bring to light the positive benefits of ethanol and explain why it may be a problem in the form of E10, but it is fairly decent when it is the main ingredient in a fuel instead of an additive.

[EagleMark]

Someone clarify this for me. This making fuel from food originally was to rid our dependence on foreign oil, since then we find more then enough oil under our own land to support ourselves, or at least the way to get it out of the ground, I think both?

Now it has nothing to do with ridding ourselves the burden of foreign oil but is an environmental benefit? Pretty sure that has to do with Al Gore and him making the Internet?

Government is doing all they can to stop us from getting and using oil we have underfoot. Then everyone forgets because of more important matters like elections and budget deficit...

I don't believe much I hear from our government anyway, it's just a machine that does what it can to get bigger and have complete control. Keeping the people confused with lies and not doing their jobs till last minute, and doing it poorly!

Super bad year last year for corn growth because of weather so gas prices were expected to rise! 87 E10 here is down to $2.92 a gallon? But I can't afford to drive more because the cost of food has been going up so much in last few years?

So how does food go up and fuel go down? What was original purpose of ethanol in fuel anyway? Since I get better milage without ethenol what does it help?

[1project2many]

States and EPA have tried cleaning up the air by adding oxygenates to fuel. If you put more oxy in, the output must be cleaner, right? Not really. And it doesn't take much to show it. But we're stuck with the thinking that says "add oxygen to fuel and it makes less pollutants." NH flat out banned MTBE and some other additives several years ago due to poison issues. Polluting groundwater is bad, bad, bad for NH economy. But the EPA still says something must be in there.

A few years ago when gasoline was heading for $4 a gallon and we didn't have E10, people were screaming for alternative fuel. Biodiesel got lots of coverage and suddenly home brewers were in the limelight everywhere. Within a couple of months, there was a shortage of methanol that's used in biodiesel production so prices shot up. And they've stayed up. And wouldn't you know, the price per gallon of homebrew biodiesel is much closer to a gallon of purchased diesel now. Hmmm.... Ethanol was also big on the news back then. Hey, we should switch fuels so we can get away from foreign oil. But we didn't switch. Instead, very quickly MTBE and other oxygenates stopped being used in favor of ethanol. And wouldn't you know... everyone involved got to claim they were heroes. Reducing foreign oil, cleaning environment, using renewable fuel, etc. Just add ethanol to gas and all the problems are solved. Well, you know that the fuel companies would have done that on their own if they thought it was a good idea. But concerns about exactly what's happening now were too high. But once the public and then government started backing it, well, any fool can see what's going to happen. "Hey, you asked for it, you got it. Don't blame us if you don't like the results."

US oil production is increasing. Maybe slowly, but it's happening. But something that's rarely heard is that US oil sucks for making gasoline and diesel. Our oil is much higher in sulphur which means more work cleaning it up and less fuel per barrel when the cleaning's done. Once upon a time our oil was shipped to places where they used heavy fuels with more sulfur because the profit was greater for the oil companies. In exchange we brought in oil that was cheaper to refine into light fuels. Sure, that also made easy money for big oil but it also meant less out of pocket from us. FWIW I'm paying $3.32 for 87 at the cheap stations.

A man that claimed to have worked as a chemist for an oil company once told me the highest profit was in plastics, not fuel. Plastics allow for the thickest and heaviest components of oil to be used and sold for the most money. While fracturing (not to be confused with fracking) and refining take out the lightest parts, the garbage that's left over is used for base stock to make much of the stuff we humans will turn into landfill. Fuel is a huge part of the business but it's time and labor intensive for everyone involved. Plastic stock could be shipped by rail car all across the country without worries about spills, contamination, or fire. And it's not a final product so there's less liability in the long run. But the general public is left thinking fuel is the big deal so we don't even catch what's going on. Pretty slick, really.
Ethanol from corn bothers me for several reasons. First, corn's not the best crop. It's simply closest to what we already grow. Ethanol is made from sugar and it makes sense to try and use crops that produce more sugar. Second, come up with a way to use garbage. We throw out huge amounts of old, waste food with much higher sugar content than feed corn. It sits. It rots. It does nothing. Make it useful somehow. We've invested time and money to produce it, we used what we wanted, and then we'll pay to get rid of it. Not a good way to keep a system running imo. Third, it puts oil companies in a position to need to buy farms and farmland. If farmers keep selling off, and ethanol from corn is a part of the fuel supply, you can bet that something will happen to keep the supply of ethanol going. I could see incentives offered to the oil companies to buy and run farms. And you know what, they'll claim the farms run at a loss, and they're doing a big favor for the public, and they really, really need more government help to keep them going. Can you imagine buying Mobil corn or Exxon wheat? Scary.

[pmkls1]

I've got plenty to add regarding big oil, the epa, and the government, but it'll have to wait a couple of days because I'm out of town and my only internet access is my phone. It takes forever for me to type a paragraph. I can quickly comment on the different reasons given for ethanol use. Originally ethanol as an additive to gas as an oxygenate was for emissions purposes. E85 has been proposed as an alternative fuel to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and as a renewable fuel. The environmental benefits are often used as a "selling point". E85 and E100 do produce much less pollution than gas. The major byproducts on ethanol combustion are CO2 and steam. The claimed benefits of adding ethanol to gas in small quantities are not anything that I have ever seen any real proof of. There is a decent amount of information regarding pure ethanol though. The use of ethanol as a fuel source actually pre-dates automobiles and the internal combustion engine. Many early automobiles actually ran on ethanol too. The major switch to gasoline was fueled by advances in oil refining processes that allowed it to be refined in large quantities at a much lower cost. Anyway, my point is that there is plenty of information available regarding what materials are affected by ethanol, the byproducts of the combustion prices, and the advantages and disadvantages of ethanol as a motor fuel. There are a couple of reasons that E85 came about but the main reason is that in colder temperatures engines can be very difficult to start on E100. Drawbacks like that definitely make it difficult to "sell" the concept to the general public. The cold weather problems and the fact that E100 isn't sold at the pump are the only reason that I have embraced E85. Anyway, E10 & E15 are mainly a result of epa and government bureaucracy and E85 is to an extent. But E85 & E100 do have an environmental and economical significance and also some performance enhancing qualities. This is where I feel that it is important not to let government and corporate nonsense overshadow the positive implications of developing viable sources of ethanol and the production and widespread acceptance of vehicles that can run on it. Corn is definitely not the answer to large scale ethanol production and there are plenty of people aware of this and actively testing and developing a viable and sustainable source and process of producing ethanol as we speak. There is a large multi million dollar ethanol plant about 45 min from me that was built solely to produce ethanol from switchgrass and develop reliable production methods.

[pmkls1]

Since I'm laying in bed and can't sleep, I wanted to touch on a couple of things that I missed w while I wa trying to type my last couple of responses and fighting with my stupid phone at the same time. Something mentioned in the posted research findings from ORNL is something that I had read in a few other places but hadn't seen any supporting evidence before was the noted scouring actions of ethanol in lines and tanks of equipment used for storage and transfer that had been previously used for gas. There are a lot of substances added to gas that settle out and leave behind a film or residue. Ethanol is very effective at stripping away these deposits and picking them up as it is pumped out of tanks and carrying it through lines. I believe that the study was referring to tanks and pumps at distribution centers and gas stations. I'm also unaware if they were referring to pure ethanol or higher concentrations on ethanol or if they referring to regular E10. But I had heard the same thing from multiple sources that when switching vehicles over to E85 this stripping action had been observed. Since the substances being striped were not a metal protectant and were also trapped and contained in the fuel filter this wasn't anything of concern other than the replacement of the fuel filter a couple times after the first couple thousand miles of making a switch being recommended. It was also suggested that this would actually work fairly well to clean out the injectors a little. Seeing the findings of this study confirm these statements is actually pretty cool to me. Keep in mind here that I am specifically referring to E85 and E100 being used in older vehicles that were not intended to be run on anything but gas. Something else that I missed was the statement that was made about oxygenates being intended to reduce pollutants. While I won't argue how effective it really is, I did want to clarify the actual thinking behind the theory. The theory as I had always seen it presented was the use of an oxidizer to promote a more complete burn which would reduce pollutants based on the understanding that a significant amount of the pollutants created by cars was due to the amount of unburned fuel that is pumped out of the exhaust because of the inefficient nature of car engines. Again, this is just the theory that was presented as the explanation for the need of an oxygenate. The theory is fairly convincing because the use of an oxidizer is common practice in increasing combustion efficiency. For example, oxy-acetylene torches and even the use of nitrous oxide in engines. As far as the effectiveness of 10% ethanol in gas, I don't have a clue. Like much of the other statements I have made in this thread, im just providing some of the explanations that I have seen and there is some logic in some of this stuff but like lot of scientific theory sometimes thingms don't work out the same way in real world application. The same can also be said about the results of controlled scientific studies and experiments too though. That is why I always try to find as much supporting evidence and any research or studies that actually coincide whenever I am looking into new products or methods etc because a lot of times you survive that what you see and hear about something isn't exactly right or is just plain wrong. Physicists that have studied top fuel dragsters say that what they are doing in terms of how fast they have become say that what these cars are doing on a daily basis is theoretically impossible and that they are basically defying the laws of physics.

[EagleMark]

[EagleMark]

Notice in the second test that has ethenol how the phase seperation turns the fuel left milky? Yuk! 3 months shelf life of E10 then it starts to phase seperate, worse with any moisture...