what gas to use

  • Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.

    We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.

    We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
Status
Not open for further replies.
We're both saying the same thing, I think ... if not, clarify and I can show ya where you're wrong. :)

The fact remains:

pure gasoline + any water = phase separation, plugged carb, possibly dead engine

ethanol/gas blend + some water = solubilized water burned harmlessly in the engine.

I'm not saying you can't dump in a bucket of water and get the ethanol to separate, but for any nominal amount likely to accumulate under normal circumstances, assuming you actually put the gas cap back on, it is no issue.

Seals - yes, leather, natural rubber, latex of the 50's, 60's, 70's-ish vintage can have issues with ethanol. But really, the formulation of "gasoline" is so much different than it used to be, those materials would probably have issues with the modern stuff regardless.

Anything with modern materials... say the last 25-30 years is generally fine. Though standard disclaimer here...what usually happens is 10 or 15 year old parts wear out and suddenly it's an 'ethanol issue' ... we somewhat loose track of the fact 15 years is quite a long time for a part to be exposed to gasoline as well. Go look at a cheapo bottle of vodka...plastic, and it's not exactly breaking down due to the alcohol. Surely high end saw manufacturers can use materials as least as good as a disposable plastic bottle.

Regarding disclosure - no monetary interest / gain from ethanol what so ever. If we're going on location - I see "Western PA", so maybe I struck and oil/gas/coal nerve? If so, sorry about that - I'm not saying don't use gas, just that if it has a bit of ethanol, it's not going to make ya go blind, grow hair on your back and cause all the other nasty stuff usually attributed to it.

I have no direct connection to any oil/gas/coal/ethanol/"wet gas", etc., that would affect any investments of mine or my family. I stand to gain nothing from the success or failure of any particular fossil fuel, or fuel alternative that matter, other than what we all gain or lose as a country or region.

Yes, some ethanol is completely miscible in water. After a certain amount the ethanol can hold no more (saturation). At this point there is potential for not just the water to separate out in a "plug" but also the entire 10% of ethanol that had been present in the gasoline. It can take less than a tablespoon per gallon of gasoline for this to happen. Yikes!

That should be a good enough explanation. I am not going to teach organic chemistry here (although I have done so on more than one occasion ;)). The precise language and explanation is presented in my earlier post and should suffice for one who is curious to learn. [I did misstate when I wrote, "That's not phase separation...." I was thinking about the idea of "performing a separation" rather than the condition of "phase separation." Simply dumping some water into a tube of fuel and seeing two phases does not necessarily mean that you have properly performed a separation.]

Liquor bottle example: Just because a material (plastic liquor bottles in this case) doesn't seem to be affected by ethanol it doesn't mean that the liquor bottle material has the other necessary properties to be used in a chainsaw. If you've ever held a carburetor diaphragm in your hand you'd know that it's very thin, extremely pliable, yet strong enough not to tear or shatter during the vibrations--something a plastic liquor bottle can't come close to doing. To state it another way, why doesn't the liquor industry sell its booze in flexible bladders made of 2-cycle carburetor diaphragm material? Sometimes the "magic" material that we want simply doesn't exist at an economically viable price (yet).

Striking nerves: The only nerve you struck is with your slighting of the truth by not presenting all the facts, both positive and negative, and therefore proving yourself biased toward ethanol. I'm pretty sure I've had the same discussion with you in more than one forum. If not you, someone who presented the same old examples and reasoning. It is getting tedious.
 
Last edited:
Since internet rambling has never solved anything, I’ll be brief and as before, I’ll state this is my last post on the subject so you can circle around and have the last word.

I think we’ve cleared up the phase separation. You say a tablespoon water absorbed per gallon in an ethanol/gas mix…sounds about right. That’s a tablespoon more water than ‘100% real gas’ would absorb without phase separation - which is what I was pointing out originally.

The disposable liquor bottle – I wasn’t suggesting to use that specific material for a carb diaphragm. There are plenty of other materials out there which meet the chemical requirements for ethanol compatibility and the physical requirements for a carb diaphragm. Whatever they used in my 12 year old Husky, 18 year old jet ski or 10 year old lawn mower seems to be doing fine.

Regarding ‘slighting of the truth / presenting all facts’ – I will call the BS there, as presenting truth/fact is exactly what I’ve done in every post I’ve made. No, I didn’t write an encyclopedia of every possible good/bad point ever conceived, though it seems not many of the gazillion-or-so posts on the forum, certainly not the other posts in this thread, do either. So not sure why you suddenly want to bring that standard to bear on my post.

I guess when it comes to the bottom line, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve been using ethanol blended gas in 8+ small engines for the past 15+ years. I’ve rebuilt a total of 2 carbs… one due to tiny internal screens being plugged by general debris after 12+ years of service - so basically a fuel filter change after 12 years, not really ethanol related. The other was the generator which sat for ~ 4 months with ‘100% real gas’ and varnished up so bad the engine would no longer run. I’m gonna stick with the ethanol blend.
 
Since internet rambling has never solved anything, I’ll be brief and as before, I’ll state this is my last post on the subject so you can circle around and have the last word.

I think we’ve cleared up the phase separation. You say a tablespoon water absorbed per gallon in an ethanol/gas mix…sounds about right. That’s a tablespoon more water than ‘100% real gas’ would absorb without phase separation - which is what I was pointing out originally.

The disposable liquor bottle – I wasn’t suggesting to use that specific material for a carb diaphragm. There are plenty of other materials out there which meet the chemical requirements for ethanol compatibility and the physical requirements for a carb diaphragm. Whatever they used in my 12 year old Husky, 18 year old jet ski or 10 year old lawn mower seems to be doing fine.

Regarding ‘slighting of the truth / presenting all facts’ – I will call the BS there, as presenting truth/fact is exactly what I’ve done in every post I’ve made. No, I didn’t write an encyclopedia of every possible good/bad point ever conceived, though it seems not many of the gazillion-or-so posts on the forum, certainly not the other posts in this thread, do either. So not sure why you suddenly want to bring that standard to bear on my post.

I guess when it comes to the bottom line, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I’ve been using ethanol blended gas in 8+ small engines for the past 15+ years. I’ve rebuilt a total of 2 carbs… one due to tiny internal screens being plugged by general debris after 12+ years of service - so basically a fuel filter change after 12 years, not really ethanol related. The other was the generator which sat for ~ 4 months with ‘100% real gas’ and varnished up so bad the engine would no longer run. I’m gonna stick with the ethanol blend.

Your experience with ethanol gasoline has been good; however, that is anecdotal and against the multitude of service centers and engineers who have to deal with the consequences of using it.

From a chemist's perspective, ethanol is neither good nor bad. It it is simply another ingredient or tool I can use to build or achieve my goal. I will not promote or denigrate it or any other chemical/product at the expense of scientifically sound research.

There is plenty of information available to learn about this subject and other issues with ethanol. Here's a start:
http://www.echo-usa.com/Warranty/Learn-About-Ethanol/Ethanol-Fuel-062512
 
  • Like
Reactions: Knots
Bottom line is ethanol blows.....;lol

I like big words but in reality it's tree hugger junk thrust on the American public by a gummit that has to support an industry that can't be self supporting without subsidies (that originate in your wallet).
 
I go to gas station...get gas put in can..mix oil..put in saw and go.....runs fine st least for me
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bigg_Redd
I go to gas station...get gas put in can..mix oil..put in saw and go.....runs fine st least for me

Fair statement and you gas station may be a volume seller which helps. But then you may get a bad can of gasoline and the saw will run like crap, or not at all. The gas situation today reminds me of PEMEX in the 60's.

I always use Stihl Silver label synthetic with fuel satbilizer, in premium from a station that sells volume. I carefully measure out a gallon to a bottle using a quart measure. I don't trust the pump and I always startt the premium (at the pump) into the car to get out of the hose, any (maybe regular) that the last guy (or gal) pumped.

I've had focked up carbs in the past and it's no fun and expensive too.

Actually considering ordering a case of premixed gas/oil in quart bottles from Baileys. That is non ethanol gas.
 
We seem to have veered off into an ethanol vs non-ethanol debate here.

I think the real issue is running 87 octane fuel in an engine designed for 89 octane. Octane is the fuel's resistance to detonation, sometime s called "knock" or "ping". If you hear it, what you are hearing is the fuel exploding violently instead of in a controlled burn like it is supposed to. That violent explosion WILL destroy parts, pistons and rod bearings are usually the first to go. My old saw will run on just about anything but my Redmax backpack blower sounds terrible (think coffee can full of marbles) on 87 octane fuel. Did that once, never will again.

I personally just use premium in everything, So I'm not limited to what fuel I can put in what tank. My truck recommends premium, and my car requires it or I will be changing head gaskets. I add stabilizer every time I fill my 5 gallon cans and use those to make up my 2-cycle mix 1 gallon at a time. With every batch stabilized from the get go, I never have to remember to do it when something sits for a while. If I know I won't be using any of my small engines within the next few weeks I just drain them, run them out, and store them dry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TreePointer
We seem to have veered off into an ethanol vs non-ethanol debate here.

I think the real issue is running 87 octane fuel in an engine designed for 89 octane. Octane is the fuel's resistance to detonation, sometime s called "knock" or "ping". If you hear it, what you are hearing is the fuel exploding violently instead of in a controlled burn like it is supposed to. That violent explosion WILL destroy parts, pistons and rod bearings are usually the first to go....

Agreed. Link in post #8:

You want smooth, orderly ignition in your engines regardless of whether or not the fuel has ethanol in it. Low octane fuels will not give you this.

See the following article: http://www.madsens1.com/saw_fuelmix.htm
 
Bottom line is ethanol blows.....;lol

I like big words but in reality it's tree hugger junk thrust on the American public by a gummit that has to support an industry that can't be self supporting without subsidies (that originate in your wallet).


Get your facts straight ZERO subsidies for corn ethanol. As for oil who paid for gulf clean up after biggest spill ever?
 
Get your facts straight ZERO subsidies for corn ethanol.

A slighting of the truth again. Corn ethanol tax credit subsidies stopped in 2011, but then shifted to "ethanol blender pump" subsidies from the USDA (another form of subsidy for the ethanol industry). Guess what's back in Obama's FY2015 budget? You guessed it--more ethanol subsidies (under "advanced energy manufacturing tax credits."). The industry has been subsidized in one way or another for the past 30 years.
 
A slighting of the truth again. Corn ethanol tax credit subsidies stopped in 2011, but then shifted to "ethanol blender pump" subsidies from the USDA (another form of subsidy for the ethanol industry). Guess what's back in Obama's FY2015 budget? You guessed it--more ethanol subsidies (under "advanced energy manufacturing tax credits."). The industry has been subsidized in one way or another for the past 30 years.

Some people might have missed this the first time, so here it is again in bigger, bolder font.
 
You are talking about cellulosic ethanol not corn. The blender pump didn't go through so get your facts straight.

Wrong again. You are correct that blender pump didn't go through; however, you are once again NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH. Big Ethanol found another avenue to get blender pump subsidies through the USDA--they lobbied and qualified for rural alternative energy funds originally meant for wind, solar, and geothermal.

Congress finally stopped that in the 2014 farm bill, but the ink barely had enough time to dry before subsidies were back in that proposed FY2015 budget. The bottom line is indisputable that Big Ethanol has lobbied for and consistently received subsidies in the form of tax credits, federal grants, loan guarantees, and unnecessary ethanol mandates for 30 years! It's only in the last few years that there has been anything close to eliminating the subsidies and other forms of "help" Big Ethanol gets.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OldLumberKid
Wrong again. You are correct that blender pump didn't go through; however, you are once again NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH. Big Ethanol found another avenue to get blender pump subsidies through the USDA--they lobbied and qualified for rural alternative energy funds originally meant for wind, solar, and geothermal.

Congress finally stopped that in the 2014 farm bill, but the ink barely had enough time to dry before subsidies were back in that proposed FY2015 budget. The bottom line is indisputable that Big Ethanol has lobbied for and consistently received subsidies in the form of tax credits, federal grants, loan guarantees, and unnecessary ethanol mandates for 30 years! It's only in the last few years that there has been anything close to eliminating the subsidies and other forms of "help" Big Ethanol gets.

There may not be a subsidy for corn based ethanol but there is an EPA requirement for refiners to use ethanol, including from corn so a subsidy isn't required. http://fuelfix.com/beaumont/2014/11...ewable-fuel-sets-up-fights-in-court-congress/.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldLumberKid
As I recall when I got my Husky 435 and read the manual I thought it said fuel with any ethanol would void the warranty.
 
I have been helping out in a saw shop. A good percentage of chainsaws problems are fuel related. I.E. Ethanol.
 
I was having problems with my Jred when I was refueling, getting it started again. Brought it in to my saw shop and Ronnie said to switch to Premium fuel and that seemed to do the trick. I buy it with the lowest percent of ethanol. Then I blend in my additives, it seems to be working. I am going to be using the Echo today and I'm going to see if it makes a difference in that also.
 
Get your facts straight ZERO subsidies for corn ethanol. As for oil who paid for gulf clean up after biggest spill ever?

You need to research the subject a bit. I live 3 miles from a stinking (literally) ethanol plant that cannot operate without real estate tax abatement (subsidy) and additional subsidies on it's produced product. I was invited to become a stockholder and I passed. Don't believe they have ever paid a dividend and no, I don't grow e-corn. It's cheap and it's variety specific. Typically corn distillers are substantially below market on price paid per bushel, why bother, I can go broke farming on my own without the ethanol cartel's help.

As far as who paid for the Gulf Oil spill, you and I (if you pay taxes that is, in as much as almost half the country is on government subsidies of one form or another). Your comment is a meaningless red herring. You have no choice in what you pay for because Washington decides... they know better than you do....lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldLumberKid
I have been helping out in a saw shop. A good percentage of chainsaws problems are fuel related. I.E. Ethanol.

I bet. Ethanol blows for small engines. Ruins fiel lines, gums carbs and generally causes poor performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Firewood Bandit
Ethanol is a simply bribes paid to politicians by special interest groups. Anything that has to be subsidized is not a good idea. If you care to read on the subject, click on this link: If you don't want to read, an excerpt, I quote:

But it does not end there. Robert Bryce wrote on April 29, 2011 in the Energy Tribune.:

“Last year, the Congressional Budget Office reported that the cost to taxpayers of using corn ethanol to reduce gasoline consumption by one gallon is $1.78. This year, the corn ethanol sector will produce about 13.8 billion gallons of ethanol, the energy equivalent of about 9.1 billion gallons of gasoline. Using the CBO’s numbers, the total cost to taxpayers this year for the ethanol boondoggle will be about $16.2 billion.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2011/05/13/corn-based-ethanol-the-real-cost/
 
  • Like
Reactions: OldLumberKid
If ethanol was actually a good thing, I would have no issue with it. Right from the get go, it's an issue. It can't be transmitted cross country via pipeline, has to be surface transported in specific tank (rail) cars becaue it's corrosive and attracts moisture and has to be blended at the refinery so it creates infrastructure costs right away. Coren alcohol belongs in moonshine bottles, not in gas tanks.

Secondly, it takes cropland out of production for food (though I see under current trends and pricing, e-corn growers will be getting away from specific variety e-corn) and going back to producing food grains...it's a loosing proposition for a row cropper (like me though I never grew e-corn and had no intention of growing it...

Thirdly, the by-product of distilling the corn was widely touted as a viable animal feed...and it's not. It's a marginal additive at best.

Finally, modern emissions compliant engines are basically all low compression. To burn e-85 efficiently, an engine must have high compression which is why flex fuel engines (e-85 compliant) suffer from poor gas mileage when using corn alcohol. It may be cheaper per gallon (again subsidized) but the end result is a substantial reduction in MPG.

When the gummit diddles in anything, it's always bad. Ethanol is no exception.
 
Funny how the Greenies are for Ethanol. It has absolutely destroyed pheasant hunting in the Midwest. Corn is being planted on highly erodible terrain. Guess nothing was learned during the Dust Bowl days.

I hunted pheasants since the mid 80's in Iowa. Two years ago I quit. Iowa sold only 20,000 non resident licenses this year and many of those were probably to duck hunters on the Mississippi.
 
Double crop corn is always bad but it's greed not green. Why I especially like the bottom falling out of e-corn. take a bath and like it.....stooooooopid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.