NAC: ethanol blend

[JanDebL at aol.com]

In MN and probably a few other places, we are stuck with a 10% ethanol blend 
to subsidize the farmers.  The only exception that I know of is that a few 
stations offer a 92 octane non-oxygenated fuel for the summer which is only 
for "collector vehicles."  One problem with ethanol is the lack of BTU 
potential resulting in less power and less mileage.  I know the SAE was 
running a test car on much higher mixtures, close to 100%. I would assume 
this could work assuming the fuel system is recalibrated to provide the extra 
fuel that is required to maintain a given level of performance.  Sooner or 
later you will reach a point of diminishing return. I'm not sure what the 
advantage of a slightly cleaner burning car is, if it gets 2 miles per 
gallon.  The largest problem with ethanol is it ability to absorb water.  You 
listers in the Pacific NW could probably recant some stories of fuel 
companies being sued (and losing) and then replacing entire fuel systems on 
Porsches, MB and other cars which were stored for the winter.  I know one of 
the PCA tech writers from Seattle covered the topic very well in some of the 
Panorama articles he writes.
Finally, at least in MN there is no cost advantage like they originally 
promised.  Some of the excuses were "converting the refineries" subsidizing 
the farmers" etc. There were also several aviation related incidences where 
the monkey lads at the service station swore the gas had no alcohol, and was 
pumped into aircraft certificated to run on auto fuel.  After several forced 
landings, the word got around and  pilots quickly learned how to tell if fuel 
contained alcohol.
Sorry for rambling, Jan Lahtonen