How will ethanol affect our 911's on Apr. 1?
 

Heads up. Everyone know about this yet?

http://www.dorkiphus.com/porsche/showthread.php?t=9102

Bad for P-cars built throught the mid and later 80's....the rubber in the fuel lines was not built for this ( will be attacked) and CIS cars will have water migration / rust issues in steel fuel lines....

not good......later P-cars are built with more of this in mind....

- Wil

I'm not sure it's a real problem. We've had 10% ethanol in our fuel for years in this region and I've never had any fuel-related fuel system problems. That includes use in 4 older CIS Saabs (one '84 Turbo, two '88s and a '91), the current '88 Benz, our current new-generation Saabs, several American work trucks from '88 on, a Chrysler minivan and a Chevy Lumina. I've been using it for 4 years in the '88 Carrera with zero problems. Might be a problem in theory but I sure haven't seen it in practice.

Is this all over the US or just VA?

To be clear....ALL American cars had ethanol-compatible rubber and elastomers from the git-go.... not so the German cars....

simply a matter of time.....

Wil

I can tell you to change your fuel filter a couple of times when you start using the new fuel.
It will draw all the junk out of the metal in the tank and lines and clog the filter.
After that, your system will be nice and clean!
Bob

Like decades?

The '84 Saab had 215K when I sold it, the '88 Benz now has 259K, and the 911 has used it for 20K over 4 years, and probably used it for several years before that. Not trying to argue with you Wil, just haven't seen any real-world problems.

Wavey:
Simply stating the facts, Wavey...check the materials of construction....some stuff is made to handle this..some is not...

I was trying to address the list of American cars you cite to bolster your case. My point was to say that American cars of that vintage had the "right" materials.

Of course...nothing beats empirical data...no harm/no foul, yet I would feel remiss in saying all is OK when the owners manual ( directly) says to avoid this stuff ( take a look , all you mid-80's owners), and knowing that the rubber lines, seals, etc, that were used by this German company did not take into account fuel formulations used in an "export" country ( USA).

-Wil

Fair enough Wil. It will be interesting to see what other's experience with ethanol has been.

Wil is absolutely correct that some of the fuel system components in our cars are not compatible with ethanol, but he also said that nothing beats empirical data. Several areas of the country have been running gas/ethanol blends during the winter for decades without reports of massive P-car death. P-cars that have lived in the midwest all of their lives have been getting gasohol 3-4 months of the year since the late 1970's or early 1980's. This would give them a cumulative exposure of at least a couple of years. Has there been a problem there?

One thing to remember is that we are talking about 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline, not E85, which is 85/15 ethanol/gasoline. A fuel system component,whether it be fuel line or whatever, that is incompatible with direct exposure to ethanol, will probably degrade much more slowly in a 10% solution. You may end up replacing the suspect parts from old age before they have any significant damage.

In the Denver area, where my car has lived its entire 20-year life, 8% MTBE-blended or 10% ethanol-blended fuel was mandated in 1988. Between 1988 and 1996, there was a gradual shift to 10% ethanol so that for the last 10 years almost all the gas has been 10% ethanol. My owner's manual says that anything up to 10% ethanol is okay to use, and like I said my car has been running on it for almost 20 years with no issues at all (at least none that have shown up yet).

I've used Sunoco 94, w/ 10% ethanol, in my car since 1990, which is about 75,000 mi w/ no fuel related problems I know of.

Because of another recent thread about this, I contacted Sunoco to get their take. They sent me quite a bit of info, including summaries of tests conducted by various groups, incl Texaco, that show no depreciation of fuel systems in cars going back to the mid 70s.

Now the cynic in all of us will say that they are not telling the truth, or their research is flawed. Or maybe they are laying the groundwork for later legal defenses. I certainly don't know for sure. I would hope that, considering the relative tiny segment of the total car population these pre mid 80s cars represent, they would announce if their product were unfit for use by them, and continue to service the huge remaining majority of vehicles on the road today.

Ethanol fuels, (gasoline + grain alcohol, usually 10%) has no long term effects on fuel lines/hoses. We used to run alky drag cars back in the day using standard rubber hoses with no ill effects on any of the fuel related components.

Been using Ethanol mix here during winter for years. We plan to go back to a standard mix in April. While I avoid putting the winter fuel in my 911 at all costs, I've used it in every other car (including MB and BMW) with no ill effects.

On the left coast, the ethanol additive replaced the MTBE addditve several years ago. However, this additive is only used for our "Winter Blend." We just changed to the summer blend, with no additive. My biggest complaint is a very noticeable drop in fuel economy with the use of ethanol. Usually 15-20%....

FWIW, I don't love the Ethanol mix but the MTBE additive is extremely toxic and worth the sacrifice. Apparently it migrates to ground water very, very quickly and renders many potable water sources unusable....sometimes for years.

What gets me, is the drop in fuel economy with the ethanol additive. We're being fed the story that the ethanol burns cleaner? But now we have to burn more fuel as a result of dercreased MPG... It's a shame that Acetone isn't used as the additive instead of MTBE or ethanol. The added cost would only be be pennies to treat each gallon. It burns FAR cleaner, and typically increases mpg by 10-20%...

Check out this article.

10% ethanol has been in use in California gas for years now. There's a sticker on the pumps that state so. Alcohol only has half the BTU output of gasoline, so it takes twice the amount of methanol or ethanol to produce the same power output and keep the equivalent Lambda ratios. Closed loop O2 systems will measure the mixture of the alcohol/gas mix as leaner vs straight gasoline. A 10% ethanol mix measures about 95%, as if you cut 5% fuel from the fuel system, and as O2 sensor measures the air/fuel mixture in Lambda (not AFRs), with Lambda=1.0 as the adjustment target, the sensor will try and compensate for the reduced mixture by adding more fuel. This ultimately increases your fuel consumption. Another drawback of the leaner mixture would be a decrease in part throttle response from less transient enrichment, and also a corresponding leaning out of the full throttle mixture as the Lambda system has no influence there. If the mixtures are lean enough, knocking may occur, and on knock sensor equipped cars, this can cause the ECU to dial in ignition retard which will reduce power output, further decreasing fuel efficiency. Alcohol though has a higher octane rating than pump gas, so fuel refineries may be counting on the higher octane to counter any potential predisposition to predetonation that leaner mixtures may cause.

Fuels need to be cleaner not just when they are burned, but also when they are transported, stored and dispensed. That was the problm with MTBE (groundwater migration when it leaked out and very high toxicity). Acetone also flunks for related reasons.

We have 5% Ethanol 100 Octane fuel (AKI of 94 Octane) available to us now. I don't think 5% will cause any problems, and if it does, it will probably take many many years to show up :confused: