This has been the case since the mid 1980′s when hydrofluoric acid wad removed from synthetic rubber seals due to health issues. (Synthetic rubber seals that contain hydrofluoric acid would degrade if the vehicle had been in a fire or the component the seal ran against suffered extremely high temperatures, exposure to hydrofluoric acid is normally contained by calcium carbide powder or in the case of people exposed to it who could not get any the acid would burn through fat and muscle until it neutralized itself on their skeleton).

So yes there was a window from the early 70′s thru the mid 80′s where that would be the case but not any more.

This has been the case since the mid 1980′s when hydrofluoric acid wad removed from synthetic rubber seals due to health issues. (Synthetic rubber seals that contain hydrofluoric acid would degrade if the vehicle had been in a fire or the component the seal ran against suffered extremely high temperatures, exposure to hydrofluoric acid is normally contained by calcium carbide powder or in the case of people exposed to it who could not get any the acid would burn through fat and muscle until it neutralized itself on their skeleton).

So yes there was a window from the early 70′s thru the mid 80′s where that would be the case but not any more.

We are already failing to feed the world, we are quickly going to fail to feed anyone except those who can feed themselves. Now we are going to use whats left for fuel?

Hope you enjoy your urban sprawl sandwich, subdivision with a touch of city on the side,you can wash it down with nice cold glass of biofuel.

Actually, that is not an accurate statement. If you are basing your claim on current “FlexFuel” vehicles, then the part about economy would apply. That’s because Detroit builds them to run primarliy on gasoline, with a compression ratio of approx. 8.5 to 1. That is far too low for ethanol to be efficient, since E85 has an octane rating of 103, which requires a higher ratio of 13.5 or 14 to 1. Give it that and it will easily match, or even outperform gasoline in both economy and horsepower. Just ask the drag racers and the Indy Racing League.

As far as harming the fuel system is concerned, that would be true of cars produced before 1979. From that point on, fuel systems were redesigned to be compatible with alcohol fuels.

Ethanol was added to gasoline to replace an outlawed additive, not as an octane booster. On the flip side, E85 has 15% unleaded gasoline to denature it (make it undrinkable), to give any flame that might occur some color (alcohol flames are invisible) and to help displace or prevent water absorbtion.

While gasoline may have the BTU values over ethanol, that only occurs when you have a thorough burn. I can’t think of a single production vehicle that has a completely thorough burn, though. That’s where the carbon that fouls your plugs and valves, and dirties your oil comes from. Not to mention the pollutants it produces.

Alcohol, on the other hand, burns much more thoroughly and cleaner than gasoline. The only significant carbon left behind comes from the additives. Engine and oil fouling are greatly reduced and the emmissions are a fraction of what gasoline produces.

However, since E85 requires higher compression, the amount of NOX produced is higher. This can be addressed by a type of catalytic converter.

Nay-saying ethanol based purely on engine performance is somewhat short-sighted. Pollution, finite oil resources and national security are serious considerations, when addressing alternative fuels.

What alternative do you suggest, because based on your post, nothing tops gasoline. So should we just give up and continue down the Big Oil path?

If as much energy went into developing alternatives as goes into shooting them down, we could make energy independence a reality for our children, if not us.

Actually, that is not an accurate statement. If you are basing your claim on current “FlexFuel” vehicles, then the part about economy would apply. That’s because Detroit builds them to run primarliy on gasoline, with a compression ratio of approx. 8.5 to 1. That is far too low for ethanol to be efficient, since E85 has an octane rating of 103, which requires a higher ratio of 13.5 or 14 to 1. Give it that and it will easily match, or even outperform gasoline in both economy and horsepower. Just ask the drag racers and the Indy Racing League.

As far as harming the fuel system is concerned, that would be true of cars produced before 1979. From that point on, fuel systems were redesigned to be compatible with alcohol fuels.

Ethanol was added to gasoline to replace an outlawed additive, not as an octane booster. On the flip side, E85 has 15% unleaded gasoline to denature it (make it undrinkable), to give any flame that might occur some color (alcohol flames are invisible) and to help displace or prevent water absorbtion.

While gasoline may have the BTU values over ethanol, that only occurs when you have a thorough burn. I can’t think of a single production vehicle that has a completely thorough burn, though. That’s where the carbon that fouls your plugs and valves, and dirties your oil comes from. Not to mention the pollutants it produces.

Alcohol, on the other hand, burns much more thoroughly and cleaner than gasoline. The only significant carbon left behind comes from the additives. Engine and oil fouling are greatly reduced and the emmissions are a fraction of what gasoline produces.

However, since E85 requires higher compression, the amount of NOX produced is higher. This can be addressed by a type of catalytic converter.

Nay-saying ethanol based purely on engine performance is somewhat short-sighted. Pollution, finite oil resources and national security are serious considerations, when addressing alternative fuels.

What alternative do you suggest, because based on your post, nothing tops gasoline. So should we just give up and continue down the Big Oil path?

If as much energy went into developing alternatives as goes into shooting them down, we could make energy independence a reality for our children, if not us.

Actually, that is not an accurate statement. If you are basing your claim on current “FlexFuel” vehicles, then the part about economy would apply. That’s because Detroit builds them to run primarliy on gasoline, with a compression ratio of approx. 8.5 to 1. That is far too low for ethanol to be efficient, since E85 has an octane rating of 103, which requires a higher ratio of 13.5 or 14 to 1. Give it that and it will easily match, or even outperform gasoline in both economy and horsepower. Just ask the drag racers and the Indy Racing League.

As far as harming the fuel system is concerned, that would be true of cars produced before 1979. From that point on, fuel systems were redesigned to be compatible with alcohol fuels.

Ethanol was added to gasoline to replace an outlawed additive, not as an octane booster. On the flip side, E85 has 15% unleaded gasoline to denature it (make it undrinkable), to give any flame that might occur some color (alcohol flames are invisible) and to help displace or prevent water absorbtion.

While gasoline may have the BTU values over ethanol, that only occurs when you have a thorough burn. I can’t think of a single production vehicle that has a completely thorough burn, though. That’s where the carbon that fouls your plugs and valves, and dirties your oil comes from. Not to mention the pollutants it produces.

Alcohol, on the other hand, burns much more thoroughly and cleaner than gasoline. The only significant carbon left behind comes from the additives. Engine and oil fouling are greatly reduced and the emmissions are a fraction of what gasoline produces.

However, since E85 requires higher compression, the amount of NOX produced is higher. This can be addressed by a type of catalytic converter.

Nay-saying ethanol based purely on engine performance is somewhat short-sighted. Pollution, finite oil resources and national security are serious considerations, when addressing alternative fuels.

What alternative do you suggest, because based on your post, nothing tops gasoline. So should we just give up and continue down the Big Oil path?

If as much energy went into developing alternatives as goes into shooting them down, we could make energy independence a reality for our children, if not us.