There is nowhere in the Chicago area which non-ethanol gas is available for our cars. Sign the petition below.


http://www.fuel-testers.com/fuel_cho...taA-FqUFMELZ9o

 

 

Versus pure gas? Explain.

 

 

The bigger concern is long term usage and storage.

https://www.hagerty.com/articles-videos/Articles/2009/08/12/Ethanol-Demonic-or-Devine


https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2012/11/14/tech-101-ethanol-in-gasoline-and-its-effects-on-collector-cars/

 

 

I would agree on the running, but ethanol is very hard on the rubber parts in the fuel system during long term storage. It essentially destroyed my friend chainsaw from sitting in the tank. He won't make that mistake again.
It's really not good for the steel parts either

 

Anyways, I'd like to have the choice. I'd DEFINITELY go with pure gas for my old cars.

 

But this will be a losing battle. The bottom of that form says this:

 

I went to sign the petition for ya Chaz but I see you need to live in IL. I will call my friend in Evanston and see if I can use his name.

 

We found that more horsepower was made with pure gasoline than with E10. This was during back to back engine dyno testing on Vortec style sealed circle track engines. The comparison was made between Shell's premium (92 octane and no ethanol) and Sunoco's Ultra 94 (which in these parts has 10% ethanol). Resistance to detonation wasn't an issue as these are relatively low compression pressure engines at about 9.5:1.
Horsepower was up an average of 5%.
Sadly now, all fuel sold in this country has to have a minimum 10% ethanol.
That said, for the average hotrodder, the impact is minimal and any well designed fuel system will have resistance to the effects of the additive.

Good luck with the petition.

 

I have non-ethanol fuel in Peoria. How come you don't in Chicago? Maybe stop voting the liberals into positions of power and it won't be like that.

 

 

Chicago is requiring something different than the rest of the state. I don't think you were catching on to that.

 

It turns to like a powder when it evaporates which causes problems on my seasonal toys (boats, jetskis, sleds).

-- Joe

 

Ethanol is horrible, and the ONLY reason for E10 is to subsidize the agricultural industry (corn).
It reduces fuel economy, and in cars that are stored seasonally, it absorbes moisture and creates a nasty varnish that clogs fuel systems. It's hell for carburetors. It does absolutely NOTHING to reduce pollution...

 

Wait a minute.... You mean to tell me that elected politicians establish policy?

 

 

I don't think ethanol in gasoline has much do do with subsidizing the corn industry, but there is some evidence that it reduces hydrocarbons and that was enough for the EPA to push for it.

Burning alcohol can be good, but as noted it causes problems on some fuel systems and most carbs. Boats, pwc, snowmobiles, etc.

-- Joe

 

It doesn't reduce any pollutants. It only reduces fuel economy...

 

Sure it does, a higher concentration of ethanol produces less ozone-forming compounds. Ethanol fuels produce less carbon and hydrocarbon emissions.

E85 for performance applications can have lots of added benefits.

But as previously stated, ethanol can wreck havoc on some fuel systems. I have to rebuild carbs on sleds/jetskis/boats a lot, stuff that has a lot of downtime throughout the year.

-- Joe

 

It has nothing to do with ozone, and it actually increase certain pollutants...

 

Well, I suspect anti-ethanol websites can say whatever they want, but research has shown otherwise.

-- Joe

 

Signed Chazman. While I’m on the fence about it (use it and don’t mind for daily’s and such) I do believe it effects older models and equipment not suited for it and the consumer should have a choice as well as a voice in the matter. Come to think of it, if my brother still lived in IL and not IA he’d be the spokesperson for the matter. He’s a smart educated dude, and even his response for most issues is “it’s probably crappy fuel” ����