EPA takes risky step to increase ethanol blend - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

MBeige · #31 10-24-2010, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDon

193!^99999^100!

can you say.. overflow?

[193!^99999^100!]^2

I always thought the gasoline pumped from the stations today already had E10 and we never felt any drop in performance on our gas MB's.

But if the blend goes up...

Was the primary reason for adding ethanol, for vehicle emissions?

mgburg · #32 10-24-2010, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by panZZer

I have a STRONG inclanation that MONSANTO is the main culprit pulling the strings behind this one.

You can't INCREASE corn-seed sales without (a) willing buyer(s). Or, in the case of a "shortage of seed" - you can't increase the cost of the seed ACROSS THE BOARD without being able to use the addage "Supply vs. Demand" and have some "external force" guiding the demand.

"Government steps in...it again."

gregs210 · #33 10-24-2010, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

I'm not sure how this will be implimented, if at all. There's no way the EPA can force all fuel to be E85. That means stations will need to emplace additional tanks and pumps and that simply is not possible for many gas stations.

Not possible?

Many thought it was "not possible" to force stations to provide unleaded fuel.

The small independent stations in California blanch every time CARB opens its maw. Vapor recovery systems originated in CA and closed many independents. Then they changed the standards for recovery systems and forced the closure of more, simply because they coudn't afford to refit their stations again.

We may elect the people in congress, but they delegate their power through committees and establish federal agencies (like the EPA) to determine what is possible...whether it really is or not.

No, this is not Europe...yet. But it seems every generation here moves closer to a socialistic democracy in which the politicians simply decide what is good for us (and without any pretense of being our "representatives"). Someday in the not-too-distant future, if you want to drive a "classic" you'll probably have to live in a major metro area even to find a station that still sells "plain gas", and you can believe there will be a significant levy on it as well, and it's likely you'll also have to pay a hefty "carbon tax" in order just to own it. That assumes, of course, that they don't simply outlaw the use of conventional gasoline engines.

We may be facing a new world, but with all due respect to Mr. Huxley, I'm not sure how brave it will be.

aklim · #34 10-24-2010, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MBeige

I always thought the gasoline pumped from the stations today already had E10 and we never felt any drop in performance on our gas MB's.

Was the primary reason for adding ethanol, for vehicle emissions?

SOTP dyno is pretty inaccurate. I think some marinas are saying boats have problems with the crap

I need the farmer's votes.

Chas H · #35 10-24-2010, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregs210

Not possible?

Many thought it was "not possible" to force stations to provide unleaded fuel.

Yup, not possible. When lead free gas became mandated, the repair shop I worked for quit selling gas because they had no room to install additional tanks. Or do you think some sort of emminent domain might apply?

Chas H · #36 10-24-2010, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

SOTP dyno is pretty inaccurate. I think some marinas are saying boats have problems with the crap

I need the farmer's votes.

Most newer boats have fiber glass re-enforced plastic/polyester fuel tanks and the ethanol attacks the plastic/polyester.

OzC36 · #37 10-24-2010, 11:17 AM

A lot more people in the world might go hungry as the arable land that now grows food crops starts being diverted to feeding cars rather than to feeding people...

aklim · #38 10-24-2010, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Most newer

That is the key phrase. There are lots of older boats out there. Just like there are lots of older cars out there.

Chas H · #39 10-24-2010, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

That is the key phrase. There are lots of older boats out there. Just like there are lots of older cars out there.

Older boats tend to have metal fuel tanks that are not affected by ethanol in any quantity. Cars are just the opposite. The older cars have fuel systems that were never intended to deal with ethanol in even small amounts.

retmil46 · #40 10-24-2010, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregs210

Not possible?

Many thought it was "not possible" to force stations to provide unleaded fuel.

Someday in the not-too-distant future, if you want to drive a "classic" you'll probably have to live in a major metro area even to find a station that still sells "plain gas", and you can believe there will be a significant levy on it as well, and it's likely you'll also have to pay a hefty "carbon tax" in order just to own it. That assumes, of course, that they don't simply outlaw the use of conventional gasoline engines.

Indeed. My first 2 or 3 years in the Navy, I stuck with driving my old 65 Mustang, as unleaded fuel still wasn't all that common in the areas I had to travel. Even when I bought my first new car, a 79 Mustang, I remember checking the station signs for "unleaded" before pulling into one for fuel.

Besides ethanol, there's the engine oil specs as well - SM rating that came out in 2003, and the CJ-4 spec for diesels in 2007. Both specs did the same thing - drastically lowered the amount of ZDDP, or zinc and phosphorous, in the oil - and for the same reason - to allow the use of emissions hardware mandated by the EPA.

For gas vehicles, the EPA mandated a major increase in the service life of catalytic converters. Since the zinc and phosphorous in the blow-by oil that gets sucked into the intake and burnt in the engine was one of the main causes of cats eventually "plugging up", the easiest thing for the OEM's and oil industry to do was simply come up with the SM spec that removed most of the zinc and phosphorous from the oil.

ZDDP has been used for decades as a hardening agent and film lubricant for high load areas in an engine - ie, keeping the chrome from wearing off your camshaft. If you have a newer type engine with roller lifters, not too big of a deal. But if you have an older "classic" with a flat tappet engine, you'd eventually end up trashing the engine if you don't have sufficient levels of ZDDP in the oil to protect these high load areas.

Same with the CJ-4 diesel spec. The levels of ZDDP were significantly lowered to allow the use of particulate filters (DPF's) in the exhaust on 2007 and newer diesels. Even the description of the spec on the API's website lists the primary function of CJ-4 as being "protecting the emissions hardware on 2007 and newer diesel vehicles". Yeah, screw the engine, gotta protect that particulate filter.

We've even ran into this situation at work. Since 1986 they've been using Mobilgard 450 oil in the 4500 HP dual fuel generator they have. Unbeknownst to them, over the years Mobil changed the oil to a "zinc free" low ash "railroad engine" formulation - which the tech manual specifically states you are NOT to use a zinc free oil in this engine, and specifies minimum levels of zinc/phosphorous/sulfated ash needed in the oil. A couple months back the engine suffered a geartrain casualty which has entailed a nearly complete rebuild of the engine. The managers and owners of the engine (UTSA) were quite surprised and rather embarrassed, to be told by the company contracted to rebuild the engine, that they'd been using the wrong engine oil for nearly 15 years (ie, since Mobil changed the formulation)!!!

And I got a major "I told you so" because I had pointed this out and questioned the use of this type oil well over a year ago.

When the district manager called up Mobil and tried to get specs on what was in the oil and which type to use, he ended up getting the runaround, told that was "proprietary" information. We ended up going with the contractor's recommendation as to which type oil to use.

End result, in addition to having to do a complete geartrain replacement, they're going to have to replace ALL of the crankshaft and conn rod bearings as they're worn down to minimum spec. My bet is they're going to have to pull the pistons as well and replace the rings, liners, etc - in other words, a complete overhaul and upgrade. UTSA is already making noise they want to talk to the contractor about doing an overhaul and upgrade, since the deeper they dig into the engine, the more items they find that need to be corrected, and we've already got it torn apart to this extent - if for no other reason, to help comply with future emissions regulations. Guess the campus police better get hot and start handing out a bunch more $100 parking tickets.

aklim · #41 10-24-2010, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chas H

Older boats tend to have metal fuel tanks that are not affected by ethanol in any quantity. Cars are just the opposite. The older cars have fuel systems that were never intended to deal with ethanol in even small amounts.

Not sure about boats since I don't work on them but I do know there is some grumbling about the fuel and the fuel system. Exactly what part I don't know but there is grumbling. I suspect for the inboard engines it might be the case but outboards probably had a significant amount of rubber lines. Could be the carburetors or whatever. Would need a marine guy to chime in

Hatterasguy · #42 10-24-2010, 01:15 PM

Ethanol is nothing but problems on the water, it separates and soaks up moisture very quickly.

Luckily some marinas offer ethanol free gas, although not nearly enough. If they keep upping ethanol this is whats going to have to happen in the future.

Pooka · #43 10-24-2010, 11:14 PM

retmil46....

That is handy info to have.