By on August 31, 2010

Gasoline with up to ten percent ethanol have been approved for public sale in the US, and the ethanol industry has been pushing to increase the maximum allowed blend to 15 percent. Or 12 percent until the EPA can figure out if E15 damages engines. But with automakers turning against the e15 push, fears about E10-related engine damage (which primarily began with boat and small engine operators) are being more widely heard. So why is E10 allowed if it damages engines? For one thing, trailerboats.com points out that

Yamaha warns that due to the fungible nature of fuels in transit from refinery to service station, some E10 fuels may actually get an extra dose of ethanol

In other words, E10 may be safe but you may not actually be getting E10. But more importantly, the market is answering the call of consumers. Over at pure-gas.org, a site dedicated to connecting Americans with stations offering ethanol-free gasoline, the number of registered “pure gas” pumps has skyrocketed since June of last year. But, warns the site’s founder (a BMW motorcycle enthusiast),

We buy [ethanol-free gas] because we want to fuel our vehicles with it. If you want to save money on gas, this site is of no use to you – it will NOT have gasoline prices on it. They vary from day to day and this site isn’t about saving money. It’s about finding pure gasoline for your machine.

So we’re wondering: does ethanol-free gas exist near you, and if so, is it more expensive? Finally, is there a price premium you would be willing to pay for ethanol-free gas? Or would you even pick corn-free gas (and its groundwater-accumulating carcinogen MTBE) at price parity with E10?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

61 Comments on “Ask The Best And Brightest: Would You Pay More For Ethanol-Free Fuel?...”


  • avatar
    Dr Strangelove

    I only pay more if I also get the ethanol in a separate bottle.

  • avatar
    VLAD

    Sure, already do.

    There are quite a few stations that have a pump for what they call “boat gas” near lakes or “race gas”.
    It isn’t really race gas, but it is 100 octane unleaded gasoline without ethanol.
    Quite expensive, but the bikes don’t use that much and they run sweet on it.

    If the price difference were less then 1$ a gallon and it were widely available I would run it in the cars.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      you are correct.

      Here in the Ozarks you MUST use the ethonal free or your boat engine will suffer.

      Somebody PLEASE explain how my boat is more deserving than my car?

      I am one of those refusing to join the farmer’s lobby and press for more and more farm bailout, which is all this is about.

      However, I guess it is just another popular wave/movement that you need to let go or get plowed over by it’s force.

      Um, so for what it is worth…I vote YES!!!!

  • avatar

    Yes yes yes yes. My jetski and a few other small engines I know of have been killed by ethanol. The rubber came out as hard plastic in my case, and another ski had “terminal brown gunk” as the ethanol loosened up a few years of varnish.

    Carb rebuilds for all fixed things, but I miss the sharp response of “pure gas”. I now have to add fuel stabilizers to each tank, to counteract the ethanol. Sta-Bil is your friend.

    Other than as a subsidy to Archer Daniels Midland, this policy is a bust, and faux environmentalism once you add up production energy costs.

    Ethanol is for drinking, not driving.

    I’m not aware of any vodka free gas in the NYC metro area. There was one or two stations in Albany, NY and their demise was covered by the local newspaper.

  • avatar
    JMII

    As a boater the evils of Ethanol are well documented… its BAD, bad, bad stuff. If I could find E10 free fuel I’d buy it. However I think I’ve only seen ONE station in my entire county selling “real” gas.

  • avatar

    Yes, OMFG yes! Aside from the ruinous nature of E10 on older vehicle’s fuel systems, I actually noticed a 1 MPG improvement on the highway when I filled up with pure gas in OKC.

  • avatar
    TR4

    Simple economics for me. I figure that E10 increases consumption by about 3% so I would be willing to pay 3% more for pure gas. My older vehicles have already had their fuel line hoses and fuel pumps replaced with alcohol resistant materials so the potential for damage is minimized.

    Looks like the closest station to me is about 60 miles so I won’t be going there very often.

    • 0 avatar
      Detroit-Iron

      It may be my imagination but I swear it is closer to the % of ethanol; i.e. if it says “up to 10%” then my car might get anywhere from 1-3 mpg less, but if it says “contains 10%” then I will get 3 mpg less on a car that gets 30mpg.

    • 0 avatar
      redbeard

      I track my mileage religiously and all three of my vehicles suffer a 7-10% reduction in fuel economy on E10. The theoretical 3% that the corn-hucksters quote is based on ideal conditions with a perfect 10% ethanol ratio and no water absorption.

  • avatar
    67dodgeman

    YES!! I’d pay more (and grumble about it) for pure gas. Aside from my bike, my small engines, my stored gas for (hurricane) emergencies, I also have several antique vehicles. All would run better on non-alcoholic fuel.

    For my wife’s camry, not so much. Everything else, yeah.

    There’s nothing in the Houston area (non-attainment zone) that sells pure gas.

  • avatar
    sco

    I’m a bit confused by the whole ethanol issue. In Northern California there are a few gas stations, generally cut-rate places, that sell gas with 10% ethanol. Most places, however, do not add ethanol but I seem to recall that in CA something may be added instead. On a recent visit to Milwaukee, my wife noted tht virtually all stations added ethanol, couldnt find one that didnt. Could someone pelase clarify? By the way, I never go to the cut rate places.

    • 0 avatar
      benders

      Firstly, the EPA has designated the Milwaukee metro area as having air quality problems and therefore must sell oxygenated gas. With MTBE outlawed (for good reason), ethanol fills the gap.

      Secondly, Wisconsin grows a lot of corn and has a number of ethanol plants so ethanol is cheap volume in motor fuels.

  • avatar
    ash78

    None that I know of in the more urban areas of Birmingham (all are E10), but once you get about 20 miles out the country, seems like a good 20%-30% of stations advertise it on their signs.

    Prices are often ~10c higher or so–which is completely worth it–but it’s often hard to tell since many of these stations are off-brand (or marginal brand) and might have normally sold at a discount to begin with.

    Also, anywhere near a lake or a race track is a pretty safe bet on availability…but you’re paying the luxury/hobby premium at those locations, so again it’s not a direct comparison.

  • avatar
    Wagen

    E0 gasoline is available in my city; whether it’s “near me” is questionable as it’s a bit of a drive from where I work or live to get to the station that sells it. It is slightly more expensive, perhaps on the order of $0.05-0.10/gal more than E10. Would I be willing to pay a premium for it? Absolutely, up to 1.5X the cost of E15 or E12 if most stations are forced to switch to that blend, as the vehicle I currently drive is only OK with up to E10. The problem comes if there is a widespread switch to E15. What to do on a road trip where I’m not assured of the convenient presence of stations offering E0-E10?
    Beyond that cost factor, I’d look at buying a new vehicle that is E12+ capable.

    Just as an aside, I cringe at the thought of the woefully inefficently produced corn-based ethanol in this country. To those who say this is “against the American farmer,” you can go pound sand until you show me the large scale corn farmer that doesn’t contribute handily to the profits of (or is heavily indebted to) ADM, Monsanto, etc. Now if we had cellulosic ethanol and vehicles (that are dynamic and more interesting to drive than the American-dominated E85-capable vehicles now available) that were designed to make use of fuels containing more ethanol, I’d be very receptive to that.

    • 0 avatar
      benders

      So increased demand doesn’t benefit farmers? Only ADM and Monstanto?

      Corn ethanol isn’t a long-term solution. But it is a start to a post-gasoline world. Without an ethanol supply, no one will build ethanol burning vehicles and without ethanol vehicle, no one will invest in cellulosic ethanol.

      And I believe the Koenigsegg CCX will run on ethanol.

  • avatar
    carguy

    Yes – in a heartbeat. E10 is bad news in all sorts of smaller marine engines, reduces mileage and can cause problems with older cars.

  • avatar
    psarhjinian

    Most stations in Ontario have three grades: 87, 89 amd 91/93. The top grade is guaranteed to contain no ethanol; the bottom two are “up to 10%” but from what I understand there’s usually trace amounts.

    Do I bother to pay extra for it? When I had a turbocharged car, yes, but that had everything to do with premium fuel rather than ethanol.

    The problem is that there’s no incentive for automakers to out and out recommend against ethanol. They could do it, but they’d murder their CAFE ratings in the process and be preyed on by those who don’t break ranks. Until CAFE gets disentangled from ethanol exemptions it won’t make a lick of difference, and that won’t happen as long as E85-capable remains a cheap way for truck-dependent marques to make CAFE.

    I’m hoping that rating fuel by carbon footprint becomes more prominent. Say what you will, truthful CO2 emissions data doesn’t play out kindly for corn ethanol.

    • 0 avatar

      Honda and Toyota could do it if they wanted to. The artist formerly known as the Big 3 need to keep driving Canyoneros through the 80mpg flex fuel loophole in CAFE.

      Of course 10 or 15 years from now when everyone sells EVs in volume they can balance out the F150s, Suburbans and Grand Cherokees with “100mpg” EVs.

  • avatar
    ragtopman

    In Iowa, E10 corn juice gas is often up to a dime per gallon cheaper, even though the octane reading on the pump says it’s “premium”, read: 90 octane.
    I buy the 87 octane “regular”at the higher price. I’m not about to wreck the engine on my 16-year-old car — or my snowblower or lawn mower — so our overseers can feel good about some fantasy about a cleaner environment.

    I’d love to keep the revenooers out of the moonshine business.

  • avatar

    Been doing it for years in Iowa, where 89 octane – midgrade – usually sells for 5-10c cheaper than straight, non ethanol 87 octane. Just in regular vehicles have noticed a difference in economy and maybe even a little more power running the straight-87.

    Since I’ve moved to Cheyenne, I’ve had to find a non E-10 station, and I pay a small premium. But it’s worth it, as I’ve never owned anything with fewer than 100K (often 200 or 300K) on the clock.

    • 0 avatar
      maxo

      same in NE, I always thought only the midgrade had ethanol in it and the other two did not? I am very confused by this post and the comments, but I suppose I don’t take the car too far from my home state very often. Is it normal in other places to have all grades with ethanol? How did the heart of corn country not end up with the most ethanol in its blends?

    • 0 avatar
      ash78

      maxo,

      FWIW, I have always heard that stations only have two tanks underground–premium and regular. The two are mixed at the pump to create midgrade.

      E10 only started here about 18 months ago, and I remember the exact tank of gas where I started getting 3-4mpg lower in suburban driving.

    • 0 avatar
      benders

      ash:
      Depends on the model of pump the station has. There are 2 major manufacturers and one of them (forget which) blends midgrade in the pump.

  • avatar
    N Number

    Yes. I would and do pay more for ethanol-free gasoline. It’s fine with me to pay more because you’re getting more energy per unit volume. I do notice my Jeep gets slightly better mileage on pure gas that can be found around western and rural parts of Colorado, but not easily here in Denver. I also like the idea of putting unleaded gas in my plane from time to time and the regs say that it is only approved to run on ethanol-free gasoline when running automotive gasoline.

  • avatar
    sco

    I stand semi-corrected. According to http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/gasoline/types_of_gasoline.html
    the vast majority of stations in CA sell gas with 5.7% ethanol. A few cut-rate stations in my area do say their gas “contains up to 10% ethanol” which i assume means it contains 10% ethanol. I see virtually nothing above 10% and nothing below 5.7%. Hmm, so I have no choice as well.

  • avatar
    iNeon

    I do pay more for ethanol-free gasoline– it just goes in the boat.

  • avatar
    Loser

    Would be glad to pay more, I’m tired of replacing weed eaters/leaf blowers/edgers that keep burning up due to this crap fuel. Started using pre-mixed 2 cycle fuel with pure gas that the local hardware store sells, it’s expensive but cheaper than replacing equipment. Now having carb problems on my riding mower due to this fuel. Been looking for a while to find pure gas.

  • avatar
    racebeer

    The short answer is Yes, Yes, and Yes.

    I’ve got a station within 3 miles of the house that sells 91 octane non-oxygenated gas. No corn juice. The sign says it’s for classic cars, off road vehicles, and boats only. So I use it in the ’63 Dodge and fill a can for the lawn equipment while I’m there. When the 10% 87 octane stuff is selling for around $2.80/gallon, the non-oxy “pure” fuel is usually around $3.15/gallon. Not much of a difference in my opinion. I do sneak it into the Firebird every once and a while, and usually get around an 8 to 12% increase in mpg as a result.

  • avatar

    This is an anecdote which does not data make, but I had an onset of brown stuff in the throttle body of my 2L (pre-Magnum SOHC) Neon that coincided with the switch of area stations from MTBE to E10. Nothing else seemed broken, but throttle would stick once in a while and I had to clean this stuff out then. Possibly I had some deposits in the tank that alcohol was eating and transporting, and then they were delivered to intake by the Evap system. Note that injectors continued to work fine – how strange.

  • avatar
    Syke

    Had real gas, and lost it, courtesy of the EPA. I live in Hanover Country VA, a suburb of Richmond, and the Richmond area gets the same environmental diktats as the Bos-Wash corridor. Crazily enough, at first Goochland County (next county over, southwest) wasn’t under the thumb, so for a while I had real gas twelve miles from home. That disappeared about a year later, however. I assume the ‘environmental zone’ was expanded.

  • avatar
    tparkit

    Yes, I will pay more – and I already do. I gas up at Shell because their premium contains no ethanol, and I avoid any stations that don’t offer ethanol-free gas.

    I don’t know how long that will last, though. As I understand it, the “conservative” (spit) government now in Ottawa has plans to eliminate non-ethanol gas from the marketplace.

  • avatar
    mcs

    Don’t know about the ethanol free gas, but I definitely pay more for gasoline free ethanol. Especially when it’s been aged in oak barrels.

  • avatar
    joe_thousandaire

    I’d probably pay more for the E10 if I had to. I’d much rather support farmers than terrorists and dictators. For those of you with boats; just fill up at the marina, though there is a price premium. I wish there were more E85 stations around so people with compatible vehicles could have the option.

  • avatar
    golden2husky

    I would pay a bit more for pure gas. If 10% ethanol really had a true environmental benefit, I would be fine with it. But since more energy is used making it than is gained by burning it, plus the lower BTU content of it means it is a net loser for the environment, the driver, well everybody except ADM…until people start thinking about well to wheel costs, boondoggles like ethanol are going to happen…

  • avatar
    Macca

    I do this as well. There are two ethanol-free filling stations within four miles of my house. I frequent one more than the other as one is an ancient little place that doesn’t even have pay-at-pump.

    It’s certainly not a controlled, scientific quantification, but my ’08 Mazda3 GT achieves 2 to 3 MPG better with pure gas on the same driving cycle driven in the same manner. The engine seems to ‘run better’ on pure gas as well, although that’s purely a ‘feeling’ and may just be psychological. Three miles per gallon supports a decent price premium, and even spending a few cents more would be worth it to keep my car from suffering unnecessary damage from an idiotic fuel.

  • avatar
    srclontz

    I have happily paid more for ethanol free fuel, and would gladly do so again if were available near where I work or live. At first, I could find standard grade gasoline without ethanol. More recently, I found that I had to purchase premium if I wanted ethanol free. Now, in the state capital of Illinois, the only gas station I knew of within 1/2 hour drive stopped selling pure gasoline, premium or otherwise. Whenever I’m able to run fuel without ethanol, my fuel economy is noticeably better. At least I have an inconveniently located marina to get fuel for my small engines, but nowhere convenient to get pure gasoline for my car.

  • avatar
    Ron

    Yes, for two reasons:

    1) Ethanol is an Archer-Daniels-Midland scam — it takes about as much energy (fertilizer, diesel for tractors, etc.) to grow and harvest corn as there is in ethanol. While there is no reduction in the demand for oil, ethanol use raises corn prices, and therefore food prices, since corn is used to feed animals, etc.

    2) Ethanol contains 34.5% less energy than an equivalent amount of gasoline, so 15% ethanol reduces MPG by 5.2%.

  • avatar
    wallstreet

    I’m glad my oil burner only sip diesel.

  • avatar
    Andy D

    For my 22 yr old fleet with flat tappet cams , I also am sweating SM oils that dont have enough ZDDP. I dose the cars E10 fuel occasionally with Regane injector cleaner. It is the most PEA for the shortest money. I also use Marvel Mystery Oil a couple tanks a year. It is a top cylinder lube. Every time I fill the tank on my small engines, I add a cap full of MMO. I run what ever mix oil I can buy. I mix a rich 32:1 and use it in a 50:1 weed whacker, a 40:1 Chainsaw, and a 32:1 mower. The MMO keeps my old stuff starting reliably even after a few months downtime. My carb overhauls have gone way down since I starting using it. If nothing else, I love its wintergreen smell.

  • avatar
    PeriSoft

    I’d just like to state for the record my hearty approval of the word fungible.

  • avatar
    vvk

    I would absolutely pay more for Ethanol free gas. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania requires E10 to be sold in major metropolitan areas. Whenever I travel, I always try to look for Ethanol-free gas.

  • avatar
    George B

    I would pay a small amount more for ethanol free gasoline equal to the slight increase in energy content. However, if ethanol was a better deal in real price vs. energy content, I wouldn’t mind using it. Saw ethanol free gasoline selling for 10 cents more per gallon at a gas station in Oklahoma. Same station also had high sulfur untaxed “off road” diesel as a retail pump option. Didn’t check, but wouldn’t have been surprised if they sold ammunition too.

  • avatar
    peekay

    For my Porsche, I will seek out non-ethanol gasoline, 92 to 94 octane. The car runs much better and the exhaust tips stay clean. With ethanol, the chrome tips get black. Clean-burning ethanol?? Yeah, right!

    For my Jeep, I run regular 87 grade which in these parts is all “up to 10% ethanol”, by government mandate. In this vehicle, I don’t spring for the higher octane, non-ethanol fuel.

    In both vehicles, I notice about 5-8% decrease in fuel economy if I use fuel with ethanol. So, if the fuel is 10% ethanol and the car then uses 5-8% more fuel, the ethanol is nothing but a filler it would seem.

    I fail to see an iota of evidence that ethanol has any advantages; its use seems to be purely politically-motivated, and tolerated by a poorly informed public that has been duped into believing that it’s good for the environment.

  • avatar
    Toyondai92

    Oh hell yes! I’d love to eek the extra 3-4MPG out of that pig of an S10 me and my dad split. Running it on E0 from Camden I can muster up 24MPG highway on I-295, on E10 or whatever from Philly it’s more like 20 going up I-95, same mileage covered roughly. Nevermind city mileage, that sucks either way. Now to convince the idiots at the DEP and PennDOT to allow E0 everywhere *and* ix-nay the emissions checks for pre ODB-II vehicles. One can dream can’t they?

    • 0 avatar
      windswords

      Toyondai,

      I used to own an S-10 myself. And I drove it up and down I-295 and I-95 also – but in northern Florida, not Philly/NJ. I did live in South Jersey before moving to FL, so I know the roads you are talking about very well.

      In the case of my S-10, I used to get 25-26 on the highway. It had the 2.8 V6 and a 5 speed manual. One of the things that helped me out a lot was to simply drive slower. Instead of going 70-75 mph I just did 65. It took me 5 minutes more to get where I was going, a small price to pay for the gas I was saving. Once I made the adjustment I didn’t even notice it. I have to say it’s more relaxing driving in the slow lane while everyone speeds by. I don’t have to worry about going around slower vehicles except for the occasional RV.

  • avatar
    Wunsch

    In Saskatchewan, I believe regular (87 octane) is now mandated to be E10. However, that doesn’t appear to apply to premium. Both Shell and Petro-Canada don’t mix any ethanol into their premium. (And it appears that their pumps mix the mid-grade 89 octane on the fly, because it’s labelled as containing up to 5% ethanol.)

    Premium does seem to be a slight bit more expensive at those stations than others, but I do pay for it.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      Superstore’s premium fuel is also ethanol-free. I used to buy it when it was only 6 cents per liter more than regular. Now it’s 10 cents per liter more and I’ve been using the 87. I really should pay the extra for premium out of principle, but I’ve also heard that there is often much less than 10% ethanol in the regular stuff anyway.

  • avatar
    Adub

    I will pay more for straight gas vs. E10. But I have to say, I’ll pay for E85. It’s a lot of fun in turbocharged cars when you tune for it…

  • avatar
    buzzdsm

    I live in Iowa and here are my thoughts.

    For my Mazdaspeed 3 I must use premium 93+. That is not available with Ethanol.

    For my wife’s Nissan I’ve always used E10. It saves about 10 cents/gallon which makes up the difference in the 1-2mpg that we lose.

    Ethanol has been around for a long time and if it caused harm to cars you would know by now. As far a government subsidizing ethanol, I don’t like it. Corn based ethanol should be able to survive on it’s on. By subsidizing corn based ethanol you’re hurting other possible alternatives.

  • avatar
    cirats

    Yep – In fact, just this morning I drove an extra few miles out of the way on my way to work to a random no-name off-the-beaten-path station I heard had ethanol free gas. I ended up paying $3.15/gallon for premium versus around $2.89 at other local stations. I suspect that’s largely due to the fact that it’s a smaller, out of the way station – more of a service station than a gas station. Full service only and doesn’t even take credit cards. Anyway, I didn’t mind too much, as I am convinced based on the trip computer that my car (1997 BMW M3) gets roughly 10% better mileage in suburban driving with ethanol-free gas, and I’m convinced based on the seat of my pants that it accelerates better with it, too. To expand on the mileage point, I can usually get around 25 mpg on regular gas but usually only get 22.5 on E10.

    Since my mileage is 10% worse with E10, and my performance is hampered and it may even be damaging to my engine, I’d be better off paying the same price for 0.9 gallons of real gas and 0.1 gallons of air. That 0.1 gallon of ethanol is doing nothing but probably harming me and the environment.

  • avatar
    windswords

    So I’m wondering, if E10 is bad for old cars, what’s the cutoff? Older than 1990, 1995, 2000 – what year should I be concerned with the ethanol content of the fuel I’m using?

  • avatar
    slance66

    Not an option in Massachusetts unfortunately. I wonder if the EPA uses E10 when doing the MPG testing for new cars. It does seem to have a major effect.

  • avatar
    carve

    Ethanol is use the wrong way in this country. For Ethanol to really save gas, we need to take advantage of it’s octane rating.

    My car is a high-compression turbo 335i, so it takes premium. Still, you can use regular in a pinch, but boost and timing back off so you have reduced performance. Nevertheless, regular is fine for any time your foot isn’t in it.

    Wouldn’t it be nice to have a car with a high-compression, efficient, powerful engine with a seperate ethanol tank for acceleration duties? Crusiing, you’re running your 11.5:1 engine on regular (or, say, 15:1 on premium). When knock is detected (or when boost goes up, on a turbo), you start metering in 110 Octane ethanol. When you floor it, the gas shuts off and you run pure ethanol. Putting this in the intake manifold, rather than direct injection, would also keep the valves clean on DI motors.

    This would allow all motors to become more efficient using the same amount of ethanol we’re using now.

    I’m actually thinking of doing something like this on my 335i, when the warranty expires. You can get a methanol injection system for under $500, and a tune to turn up the boost for about the same amount. When boost rises, a methanol/water mix is metered in, raising the octane and cooling the air, avoiding detonation as cylinder pressure and temperature rise. It won’t get me any extra mpg without a compression ratio increase, but it will get me more power availability with the same efficiency.

  • avatar
    Mr Carpenter

    I have one station somewhat near me which sells premium unleaded E0 (100% gasoline) and I use it for my small engines, my BMW “toy” and when I can, I even put it in my daily drivers (though it costs more for it than cheapo 87 octane E10). So YES would be my answer.

    You guys are all men (and women) after my own heart! I’ve been writing on here for some long while about how crap ethanol is – I didn’t realize how many others knew the same thing.

  • avatar
    mopar4wd

    I used to be an out board mechanic when e-10 hit here in CT. CT required all over the road gas be E-10 so all gas stations sell e-10 Marinas can buy non e-10 but there is a premium as the distributors only want to send out full trucks with out ethanol added. I believe it’s the same in NY, MA and FL. I currently work in Marine insurance and I see a ton of claims for ethanol related damage(not covered by insurance) Fuel tanks melt, rubber hoses disintegrate and nothing stays in tune. Ethanol will attract water which means if the gas sits to long in humid conditions the ethanol can attract enough water that it separates from the gas and now you have real problems. The automotive industry started preparing for e-10 in the late 70’s everybody else started in the eighties. But certain new engines already have problems as noted. Yamaha was one of the most reliable outboards in the world until E-10 after E-10 I wouldn’t touch one. I have a number of friends who saltwater fish and have sworn by yamaha for years suddenly their outboards became unreliable and it was always a fuel problem. Now if you can run a Yammie without ethanol I’m sure they would be as reliable as ever, if you run e-10 beware.

  • avatar
    CopperCountry

    Keep this story going! Because the fuel system damage caused by ethanol is going to get worse if/when the EPA grants the E15 waiver. For newer cars that are driven daily, and get a fresh tank of fuel every week or two, E10 is pretty inocuous … however, run it in older cars (where the metals and elastomers in the fuel system are damaged by ethanol), or let it sit for a month or two, or run it in any 2-stroke equipment, and it’s a different story.

    Unfortunately, we have engine and equipment manufacturers who won’t admit that they have a product which can be damaged by the most common form of gasoline (E10), and we have refiners who won’t admit that their product will damage the fuel system in older vehicles and small engines. Just take a look at what Shell-Australia has to say about E10:

    http://www-static.shell.com/static/aus/downloads/e10/shell_e10_tds.pdf

    “Not suitable for use in …”


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributing Writers

  • Jack Baruth, United States
  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Vojta Dobes, Czech Republic
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Cameron Aubernon, United States
  • J Emerson, United States