"Ethanol Killer"

Vendor announcements of new 356 products, product changes, recalls, requests for product feedback, or changes to their business.
Message
Author
User avatar
Helge Tielker
356 Fan
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: The Netherlands/ Rotterdam area
Instagram: www.instagram.com/helge356/
Contact:

"Ethanol Killer"

#1 Post by Helge Tielker »

Hey air-cooled friends,

when moving the car into the winter sleep. Ethanol is a bad guy for our girls. What do you do in the tank (beside full fill up) - any additions - fuel system cleaners - what can you advise?
Thanks for sharing any ideas.
356 B Coupe 12/59 ruby red/ black
"REDMAXX"
356 C Coupe 64 BaliBlue
(under restoration)

User avatar
Helge Tielker
356 Fan
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:49 pm
Location: The Netherlands/ Rotterdam area
Instagram: www.instagram.com/helge356/
Contact:

Re: "Ethanol Killer"

#2 Post by Helge Tielker »

16456A4A-E783-42BA-BCE0-7DFE4FF6A39B.JPG
356 B Coupe 12/59 ruby red/ black
"REDMAXX"
356 C Coupe 64 BaliBlue
(under restoration)

User avatar
Mark Roth
356Talk Moderator
Posts: 1866
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 1994 11:54 pm
Location: Houston, Texas

Re: "Ethanol Killer"

#3 Post by Mark Roth »

Mark Roth
65 C Cab (Black/black)

User avatar
Al Zim
356 Fan
Posts: 4307
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:37 pm
Location: FT.WORTH/DALLAS TEXAS
Contact:

Re: "Ethanol Killer"

#4 Post by Al Zim »

Do not use Aviation Gas in your Porsche. The Reed vapor pressure which is built into the gas is different when for travel in the clouds than on the pavement. Because the fuel burns slower because the atmosphere has less oxygen.
Purchase premium fuel from a station that is selling a lot of fuel. A newer one so the in ground tanks are still OK. If you are storing your car for a long period of time put some stable in the gas. What the bottle suggests. The gas will not go bad before it becomes time to drive again even if you do not use stable. Zim
www.allzim.com 
356 Parts and Services
www.facebook.com/ZimsAuto/
www.instagram.com/zims_autotechnik/

User avatar
Martin Benade
356 Fan
Posts: 12181
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:52 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: "Ethanol Killer"

#5 Post by Martin Benade »

Aren’t all gas stations required to replace their tanks fairly frequently so they don’t leak?
Cleveland Ohio
62 Cabriolet
56 VW
02 IS 300
04 Sienna

User avatar
Al Zim
356 Fan
Posts: 4307
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:37 pm
Location: FT.WORTH/DALLAS TEXAS
Contact:

Re: "Ethanol Killer"

#6 Post by Al Zim »

Martin: I do not drive around like I use to namely because traffic is worse than horrible. Only once in the past 10 years can I remember the gas tanks of a station being removed...this was because another gas company purchased it. It was easily a 20 ++ year old station that I frequented. I never had water in the fuel system of the Porsche's or the regular cars that I fueled there. The tanks are plastic and gas is usually pumped from above the very bottom of the tank. I am of the opinion that if a station continually had water seeping into the tanks they would be immediately removed because the damage to Fuel injected cars could easily run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Not much to go by the (rantings) thoughts of a old nut case. We usually use a long test drive on engine rebuilds (200+ miles) and have then filled at the newest station nearby as we do for all the gas we purchase for the shop. al
www.allzim.com 
356 Parts and Services
www.facebook.com/ZimsAuto/
www.instagram.com/zims_autotechnik/

User avatar
Ron LaDow
356 Fan
Posts: 8092
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: "Ethanol Killer"

#7 Post by Ron LaDow »

Adding ethanol to gasoline is in no way an engineering or environmental decision; it was and is purely political:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yDKeya4SU&t=33s
As such, I'll offer no further comment; draw your own conclusions.
Ron LaDow
www.precisionmatters.biz

User avatar
Ron LaDow
356 Fan
Posts: 8092
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Ethanol

#8 Post by Ron LaDow »

Seems my link disappeared; if some mod chooses to erase it, be decent and give me a reason, Here's the link (again):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-yDKeya4SU&t=33s
Ron LaDow
www.precisionmatters.biz

User avatar
Martin Benade
356 Fan
Posts: 12181
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:52 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: "Ethanol Killer"

#9 Post by Martin Benade »

My opinion is that originally corn based ethanol was added as an environmental helper. It was shown a good while ago not to be efficient or helpful, and should have been stopped. The fact that it continues is because people make money off it.
Cleveland Ohio
62 Cabriolet
56 VW
02 IS 300
04 Sienna

User avatar
Martin Benade
356 Fan
Posts: 12181
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:52 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Ethanol

#10 Post by Martin Benade »

The link was still there at 12:10 EST.
Cleveland Ohio
62 Cabriolet
56 VW
02 IS 300
04 Sienna

User avatar
Ron LaDow
356 Fan
Posts: 8092
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: "Ethanol Killer"

#11 Post by Ron LaDow »

Perhaps I'm a bit more cynical; never once saw anything which suggested it to be of assistance, and I'll leave it there, as a mod has already deleted the thread.
No, no one did; mea culpa.
Ron LaDow
www.precisionmatters.biz

User avatar
Ron LaDow
356 Fan
Posts: 8092
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 11:45 am
Location: San Francisco

Re: Ethanol

#12 Post by Ron LaDow »

Apologies; wrong thread. Mea culpa.
Ron LaDow
www.precisionmatters.biz

User avatar
Martin Benade
356 Fan
Posts: 12181
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:52 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: "Ethanol Killer"

#13 Post by Martin Benade »

My cynicism varies. (And I see two intact threads)
Cleveland Ohio
62 Cabriolet
56 VW
02 IS 300
04 Sienna

Larry Brooks
356 Fan
Posts: 793
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 10:16 pm
Location: Tigard, Oregon

Re: Ethanol

#14 Post by Larry Brooks »

Since you brought it up again:


The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) sent a letter to Growth Energy in response to our call for DOE to address the inaccurate and misleading study by Tyler Lark and others that claims to have been partially funded by the department.

“Failing to address this research’s inconsistencies and departure from mainstream science could have negative consequences in our nation’s quest to decarbonize the transportation sector—both on the ground and in the air. According to recent research by the Rhodium Group, our industry’s contributions in reaching net-zero emissions targets and decarbonizing the transportation sector will be necessary,” wrote Growth Energy CEO Emily Skor in her letter to U.S. Energy Secretary Granholm.

In response, DOE shared its concerns over the credibility of the findings of the Lark study.


We appreciate the concerns you have raised regarding the study released by Tyler Lark, et al., from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. We share many of your concerns about the methods and assumptions used in the study and are taking steps to ensure that more widely accepted science is shared in the public domain.

DOE shared its support for the use of biofuels, including corn ethanol, as a “readily available energy solution that deserves full consideration when strategizing our energy and environmental agenda.”


The most recent DOE study in 2021 found that U.S. corn ethanol has 44-52% lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than petroleum gasoline. Other credible studies have found similar results. A recent study from researchers at Harvard and other institutions find that conventional ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 46% relative to gasoline.

DOE’s letter follows comments from environmental scientists and experts from across the country associated with the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Argonne National Laboratory submitted earlier this year that directly debunked Lark’s study.

The scientists, including Steffen Mueller of University of Illinois-Chicago and Michael Wang of Argonne National Laboratory, who also published an initial response in March 2022, revisited many of the claims and found Lark’s modeling approach to be “too limited to effectively consider the drivers of ethanol industry.” They also found the Lark study to include “outdated and inaccurate projections for future crop prices”, “double counted” and incorrect emissions results, and “magnificent changes” in land use that are “overestimated”.

The report criticized “various major deficiencies and problematic assessments” from the Lark report, including a failure to account for yield improvements and overestimated land use impacts of corn ethanol.

“We recently reviewed the article published by Lark et al. (2022) in PNAS, detected various problematic assumptions, approaches, data, and results in that study,” wrote the scientists. “Based on our findings, we concluded that these authors overestimated GHG emissions of corn ethanol consumption due to the RFS.”

User avatar
Martin Benade
356 Fan
Posts: 12181
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 10:52 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Re: Ethanol

#15 Post by Martin Benade »

I was under the impression that the energy expended to create ethanol was a bit more than the ethanol that was created, but that subsidies made it profitable. Any knowledge about that?
Cleveland Ohio
62 Cabriolet
56 VW
02 IS 300
04 Sienna

Post Reply