Biofuel Timebomb for older cars.

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2011 at 15:02

Yes it melts it, same as a lot of resins used in repairing steel fuel tanks.

I don't see that changes the similarity to leaded.

Lack of leade can. Result in destroying engine. It remains to be seen how its implemented and there's nothing stopping garages selling either or both. Which many did when we switch to unleaded. Many kept one leaded pump and phased it out as the demand for it dropped of.

And just like leaded, you can add addatives that stabilise it and make it no more crossive than normal petrol.

But yes perhaps I should use might, as nothing's been decided yet.

Dogbreath · 23 Dec 2011 at 15:05

Glaucus said:
Leaded was a massive issue and could kill engines as well without addatives. So it is very similar.

Not remotely similar. Not even slightly.

An engine without hardened valve seats could still be run on unleaded perfectly well for a considerable length of time, but valve seat regression would eventually cause problems that could be relatively easily fixed by machining the head to accept hardened valve seats. At the time that 4 star was phased out LRP (lead replacement petrol) was made available for cars that required it, and whilst this was also eventually phased out, numerous companies had developed there own lead replacement additives. These additives used compounds that had been known about since the WW2.

When E10 is introduced, will every fuel station also have pumps for non-ethanol fuel (or at least the minimal ethanol content fuel we currently have)?

Do the fuel companies already have 70 years of experience of the effects of ethanol in modern engines? No they don't. Have they been investigating compounds to combat the corrosive and plastic incompatibility for 70 years? No they haven't since it would already be in place in the US and Aus.

Dogbreath · 23 Dec 2011 at 15:07

Glaucus said:
Lack of leade can. Result in destroying engine.

It does not "destroy" engines. it simply causes accelerated wear of valve seats.

Seems to me you should really learn a bit on the topic before standing on the soap box.

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2011 at 15:08

What has 70 years got to do with it.
That PDF I posted is 4 years old.

How about when sulphur and other things were banned. This is not the first time.
As to what will happen we don't knew. The change on naming laws is under discussion. It hasnt been decided. As for what companies will do. That very much depends on demand. As there's no legal reason not to sell e5

Glaucus · 23 Dec 2011 at 15:09

Dogbreath said:
It does not "destroy" engines. it simply causes accelerated wear of valve seats.

Seems to me you should really learn a bit on the topic before standing on the soap box.

Just like e10 speeds up corrosion.

People should read the OP. most have what I have said iphas been based on that the name change is only under discussion, then later on the fact addatives that make the fuel as corrosive as normal petrol are avilable and already in use.

DAnDan · 23 Dec 2011 at 15:09

Dogbreath said:
Do the fuel companies already have 70 years of experience of the effects of ethanol in modern engines? No they don't. Have they been investigating compounds to combat the corrosive and plastic incompatibility for 70 years? No they haven't since it would already be in place in the US and Aus.

Probably not for 70 years, no, but they have a lot more information on stuff like that than you think they do.

Information that was gained from other projects that ended up producing results on similar areas will all be held. And for something like corrosion there will be masses of testing information done on what is/isn't good, and what can/can't be used to reduce it from their own tests, as well as publicly available stuff.