posted 11-15-2013 05:43 PM                  

NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
The Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposal Friday to cut the amount of ethanol required to be blended into the nation's gasoline supply, the first such reduction since the renewable fuel standards were set in 2007.

A law passed by Congress in 2007 had called for the inclusion of 18.15 billion gallons of renewable fuel in 2014, but on Friday, the EPA proposed that this level be reduced to between 15.00 and 15.52 billion.

The standard had previously been increasing every year, with the 2013 requirement set at 16.55 billion gallons.
Lawmakers passed the 2007 legislation with the aim of increasing renewable fuel production and reducing dependence on foreign oil. But recent gasoline consumption has been less than Congress anticipated at the time, due to factors like the economic downturn and improvements in fuel economy.

As a result, adherence to the law's original standards next year would mean that the total ethanol required would exceed the amount that could be blended into conventional gasoline -- a problem known as the "blend wall."
Nearly all gas sold in the U.S. is "E10" fuel, which contains up to 10% ethanol.

Related: U.S. to become top oil producer by 2015
EPA administrator Gina McCarthy said the Obama administration continued to support increased biofuel production and use. "We look forward to working with all stakeholders to develop a final rule that maintains the strength and promise of the [Renewable Fuel Standards] program," she said.

The proposal is subject to a 60-day public comment period, and could later be changed.

The ethanol mandate has been a boon for corn farmers and big agricultural companies that profit from higher corn demand, and has also drawn praise from policymakers who want to wean the U.S. off imported oil from the Middle East and elsewhere.

But the law also has a variety of critics.

The oil industry doesn't like it because ethanol reduces its market share. Livestock producers don't like it because it drives up the price of corn, which is used to feed cows, chicken and pigs.

posted 11-17-2013 05:58 PM                  

Forget raising the national ethanol blend in standard gasoline to 15 percent (E15), the Environmental Protection Agency has, for the first time ever, proposed reducing the ethanol requirement in the American gas supply.

The reduction (technically, a not-as-big-as-possible increase) was proposed Friday (PDF) and, according to The New York Times, represents something of a head-scratcher for the ethanol industry, despite being expected. Basically, what's happening is that enough ethanol is being produced to fulfill the EPA's current ethanol requirement. Most of the ethanol is used to make a 10-percent blend with gasoline (E10), and some is used to make E85. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and the Renewable Fuels Standard say an ever-increasing level of ethanol should be used in the national fuel supply, but the EPA has had to adjust the biofuel mix because of the "blend wall." This is the level where we can't pour any more ethanol into the gasoline supply because it would push the overall blend above 10 percent (plus limited use of E85 and E15). Therefore, the EPA is recommending that the US add 15.21 billion gallons of ethanol to the gasoline supply in 2014. That's still within the 15-15.52 billion gallon projected range, but in the lower half. In the proposal's language:
[The] EPA is proposing to adjust the applicable volumes of advanced biofuel and total renewable fuel to address projected availability of qualifying renewable fuels and limitations in the volume of ethanol that can be consumed in gasoline given practical constraints on the supply of higher ethanol blends to the vehicles that can use them and other limits on ethanol blend levels in gasoline.
In other words, since y'all aren't using enough ethanol, we're going to cut back. The move was applauded by the oil industry and scoffed at by many farmers.

Most of the ethanol in the commercial supply is made from corn, but the EPA also regulates cellulosic ethanol, and there the news is even worse for biofuel supporters. The EPA said, "Based on an assessment of the available volumes of cellulosic biofuels, EPA is proposing to set the cellulosic biofuel standard at 17 million gallons, significantly lower than CAA target of 1.75 billion gallons (PDF).

Since this is just a proposed rule, there is still time for the public and private companies to weigh in. The EPA will release details on an upcoming hearing in the future.

posted 11-27-2013 08:47 AM                  

Senate ag panel chair opposes EPA decision for less use in gasoline

• David Shepardson
• Detroit News Washington Bureau

Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Lansing, has split with U.S. automakers over whether the Environmental Protection Agency should reduce the amount of ethanol that should be used by the nation’s nearly 250 million cars and trucks next year.
Stabenow, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee and is a strong advocate of U.S. automakers, said she opposes the EPA’s decision to reduce the amount of corn-based ethanol that will be blended into the nation’s gasoline supply next year.

“I certainly want to work with the auto companies,” she said in an interview. But, she added: “It’s important to have competition at the pump. The oil industry knows that they are not going to be able to stop this going forward, that once we move to cellulosic ethanol they won’t be able to hide behind the corn debate anymore and they’re suddenly going to have real competition and consumers are going to have real choice. This is about the oil industry taking their last push to stop competition.”
Automakers have lined up with the EPA and the oil industry to oppose the higher ethanol requirements and have praised the EPA decision.

The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which represents Detroit’s automakers and others, praised the EPA move. “This is good for consumers. Automakers support using alternative fuels — after all, we’re bringing so many new alternative fuel vehicles to market. However, our concern is for the many customers who are in older vehicles that were never designed or built to withstand ethanol above E10,” spokesman Wade Newton said.

Most fuel at gas stations now is an E10 blend — 10 percent ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. Because of the mandate that increasing amounts of ethanol be used despite the fact that gas consumption is flat, fuel producers were hitting a “blend wall,” in which it became likely that more E15 fuel — which is 15 percent ethanol — would have to be produced.

Asked if it was a problem that 90 percent of vehicles on the nation’s roads aren’t certified to operate on E15, Stabenow said that can be overcome. “We can work through that. There’s a way to ease this in,” she said.
Carmakers have argued that higher concentrations of ethanol could damage engine components, especially in older cars.
In August, Stabenow traveled to Brazil and met with U.S. automakers who are selling vehicles that run on E30 — a blend of 30 percent ethanol. “They are doing well ... if it can work in Brazil, it can work in America.”
Michigan is the nation’s 11th-largest corn producer, harvesting 318 million bushels in 2012.

Stabenow said the EPA decision would “pull the rug out from underneath a growing American-made energy sector poised to create thousands of jobs.”

The White House met last week with ethanol advocates after the EPA proposed to dramatically reduce the amount of ethanol going into the nation’s gas tanks from what Congress required in a 2007 energy law.

The EPA wants to cut to 15.21 billion gallons the amount of corn-based ethanol and other biofuels required next year to be blended with gasoline under the Renewable Fuels Standard. That’s nearly 3 billion gallons below the 2014 target of 18.15 billion gallons set by the law.

dshepardson@detroitnews.com

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20131127/AUTO01/311270037#ixzz2lrDfrTWg

posted 02-03-2014 07:11 AM                  

"The reduction of sulfur in diesel fuel, gasoline and motor oil has had measurable effects on fuel injectors and other vital engine parts.

Add to that restrictions on additives like ¬ZincDialkylDithioPhosphate (ZDDP), and it seems like the whole world of fuels and lubricants has turned upside down at times.

We’ll start with sulfur reduction. All crude oils contain sulfur. You may have heard of the term Sweet or Sour crude. This is in reference to the amount of sulfur in the crude oil. As a -result, products of refined crude oil like diesel fuel, gasoline and conventional motor oils -contain sulfur.

Today’s emissions regulations limit the amount of sulfur in all of these products. While this is a benefit for emissions, it does have some consequences.
Primarily, sulfur is a natural ¬lubricant, so reductions in sulfur reduce the ¬natural lubricity of refined products. This has been evidenced in diesel engines since the ¬advent of ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Problems with injector wear have been attributed to the lack of lubricity in this fuel type.

The sulfur reduction has also impacted both gasoline and motor oil. The lower level of sulfur in modern motor oils does reduce the natural lubricity of the oil. Starting in the mid-1990s, more and more motor oils are being blended from lower sulfur Group II and Group III base oils as opposed to the traditional, higher sulfur Group I base oils. Couple that with the -reduction in ZDDP, and it is easy to see why premature camshaft and lifter wear has skyrocketed since the mid-90s.

The effect of reducing sulfur in gasoline is not related to lubricity, but it is related to corrosive wear. You see, sulfur is not just a lubricant, it has an affinity for metal surfaces, which can prevent other chemicals from reacting with those metal surfaces.

Couple the reduction in sulfur along with the advent of Ethanol in gasoline, and carburetors suddenly were at risk.
Again, the timing is similar. In the mid-1990s Ethanol began to be added to gasoIine just as the sulfur levels were reduced. By the mid-2000s, the critical point had been reached there was too much Ethanol in the fuel compared to the level of sulfur and gasoline detergent additives.
The result was widespread corrosion in carburetors, which continues to this day.

Ethanol is corrosive towards the aluminum, steel and Zinc alloys used in carbs, fuel pumps and fuel tanks, and now the fuel has less sulfur to protect those components from the Ethanol.

Couple that with lower levels of gasoIine detergents in pump fuel, and it is easy to see why carbureted engines from Big Block Chevys to two-stroke leaf blowers have been struggling in the past decade.

Ethanol Addition
The reduction in sulfur is not the only issue affecting fuel and lubricants. The drive to reduce emissions resulted in other chemical changes besides reducing sulfur.
One change we already mentioned is the addition of Ethanol to gasoline. This is directly related to emissions, and the advent of Ethanol-blended gasoline has been effective in regards to emissions reduction.

However, the addition to Ethanol in gasoline has had other side effects primarily corrosion. Ethanol is hygroscopic, which is a fancy way of saying that Ethanol absorbs water. The chemical cocktail of Ethanol and water is very corrosive to aluminum, steel and Zinc.

The presence of water in the fuel also speeds up the oxidation of the fuel again, a fancy way of saying the breakdown of the fuel. When the fuel oxidizes, it can lead gummy deposits that affect the performance of both fuel injection systems and carburetors.

Because moisture contamination is related to storage time and conditions, daily drivers rarely see any of these issues.

However, vehicles that see long term storage and infrequent use tend to fall victim. Marine applications are the worst case scenario because they feature both high-moisture environments and long periods of storage.

Another area of chemical change is in motor oil. In order to provide better catalytic converter efficiency, the amount and type of additives used in motor oils have changed.

The most recent API SN and ILSAC GF-5 oil standards call for the use of a new type of ZDDP that provides better catalytic converter protection. At this you may be asking, aren’t all the Zinc additives the same?”

The simple answer is no. Several different compounds within the ZDDP family exist, and some are better at protecting catalytic converter performance than others.

These new additives are called Phosphorus Retention ZDDPs, and they have replaced the older-style ZDDP in API SN and ILSAC GF-5 motor oil formulas. While this is good news for modern engines and stock valve trains, engine testing has shown these new ZDDPs are not as good for the older style flat tappet valve trains.

Again, knowledge is power. Now that you are aware of these issues, you can easily take steps to avoid these problems.
Diesel engine owners have a variety of fuel additives to choose from that restore lost lubricity to ultra-low sulfur diesel.

Owners of street rods and lawnmowers alike can seek out non-Ethanol gasoline, or choose to treat Ethanol-blended gasoline with a corrosion and deposit-inhibitor additive.
These fuel additive products impart lubricity, corrosion protection and deposit control to readily available fuels and motor oils with boosted levels of ZincDialkylDithioPhosphate to provide the increased anti-wear protection older and high performance
engines need."

posted 02-03-2014 07:26 AM                  

"Passenger car motor oils (PCMO) were much simpler and easier to understand just couple years ago

There were only three performance levels: motor light (ML), motor moderate (MM), and motor severe (MS).

Auto manufacturers and lube oil marketers worked closely with the American Petroleum Institute (API), the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), and the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) to specify PCMOs as well as they knew how.

Oil marketers didn’t worry so much about profitability since oils were only a small part of their overall business. Auto manufacturers weren’t concerned about selling oils; they just wanted adequate protection for their new engine designs in the field.

Oils were developed by analyzing actual field failures and developing laboratory engine tests that would replicate the field failures. It seemed everyone worked closely together without much dissention in the ranks.

Enter the EPA
Then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) got involved in chemical regulations, and the game became more adversarial and political. You must first realize that the EPA and most environmentalists couldn’t care less about our internal combustion engines.

These ultra-left-wingers are only concerned with clean air, even if it causes all commerce to stop dead in its tracks. They are not your friends!

The EPA first flexed its muscles when North American passenger cars began utilizing catalytic converters in 1975 to reduce CO and HC emissions. Some laboratory engine tests using oils highly overdosed with zinc dithiophosphate, (ZDP or ZDDP) extreme pressure (EP) additives showed that the phosphorous tended to glaze over the face of the catalyst substrate slowly rendering it ineffective.

No field tests that I am aware of ever corroborated these lab test findings, but the EPA flexed its muscles anyway and pushed for new lube oil chemical restrictions to minimize phosphorous (therefore ZDP) content.

They’ve been on this bandwagon ever since, and no one in our Federal government has ever successfully moderated their powers.

When the oil embargo hit in the mid-70s, both the EPA and the public also began clamoring for better fuel economy (FE).

Oil in the 80s
By the 1980s auto manufacturers began pushing for the specification of new oil performance categories in which they could guarantee improved fuel economy.

This brought about the development of friction-modified passenger car oils.

Oil marketers and auto manufacturers now had two new performance issues to deal with.

The API, the ASTM, and the SAE began developing new oil performance categories as quickly as they could. But the process of defining oil performance deficiencies, developing laboratory engine tests, and achieving consensus among all involved is slow and methodical.

Besides, it costs millions of dollars to develop a useful new specification.

By the late 80s American auto manufacturers (AAMA) decided the oil industry either wasn’t moving rapidly enough or weren’t addressing some of their specific needs, so they formed their own trade association.

They formed the new group called the International Lubricants Standardization and Approval Committee (ILSAC) to make sure their needs were being addressed.
The auto manufacturers later changed the name of their trade association to the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM).

The traditional API approach defined general PCMO performance level categories labeled as API SG, SH, etc., up to the current API SN.

ILSAC members from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM), which included European auto manufacturers, and the Japanese Auto Manufacturers Association (JAMA) specified new performance categories labeled as GF-1, GF-2, etc., up to the current GF-5 and tried to force those standards here in the USA

Usually the GF categories can be satisfied by performing one or two additional tests over the API specified tests.
Oil and OEs Do Mix

After much flapping of wings and debate, the auto manufacturers and the oil industry learned to coexist, and the paired specification system SL/GF-3, SM/GF-4, etc.) continued forward through five oil performance upgrades and considerable expense through 2011. It seems these upgrades occur every four years, and there is no end in sight.
General Motors decided to get into the lube oil licensing business around 2010.

But they developed their own set of PCMO performance specifications (Dexos 1, etc.) and required oil marketers who met these specifications to pay them a licensing fee if they wished to use the Dexos name on their products.

This pissed off Europe and Japan
Many European auto marketers also sell their own branded oils (actually supplied by oil marketers). This has virtually no effect on North American oil markets, and here’s why: In North America, most oil changes are do-it-for-me (DIFM) or do-it-yourself (DIY).

Very few American motorists take their cars to the dealer for an oil change, because we have such a strong aftermarket.

In Europe the aftermarket isn’t nearly as extensive, and most European motorists rely on their OEM dealers for all their vehicle maintenance. This also holds true for the majority of truck owners, because Europe’s fleets are smaller, and they need good warranty protection.

In this culture it makes sense for each OEM to have an oil marketer formulate a branded product to guarantee warranty protection. Japan also does some of this, and their oils are often called genuine oils. Don’t worry about OEM or genuine oils for your vehicle in this country; no one can force you to use them.

First, pay no attention to the marketing hype. Look for the API donut on the back and the ILSAC starburst symbols on the front of the oil container. It will show the highest performance specification that container of oil meets. The only currently active API specifications are API SJ, SL, SM, and SN. Only ILSAC GF-5 is currently active. ILSAC GF-4 was obsoleted one year after GF-5 was introduced.
If a Dexos label also appears, that’s good news for GM warranty protection.

The thing to remember is that the more recent the specification, the better the oil performance in all aspects except valve train wear and EP protection.
Currently look for API SN/GF-5, because that will provide the best fuel economy for your vehicle. These are currently the best oils for your late model passenger cars without valve train modifications.

However, if you have an older engine design or you have altered the valve train (high lift cam, etc.), all bets are off!

You should take one of two possible approaches to select oils for these engines. You can choose one of the myriad of Hot Rod or Racing oils which are out there, because they all have higher ZDP levels to protect pushrod tips and flat tappet cams and lifters.

Although these oils are expensive, they are not nearly as expensive as a replacement cam and lifters.

If you want to be terrified, talk to the folks at Comp Cams about how many cams they see returned because the modern API/ILSAC specification lube oil used offered inadequate protection.

That’s one of the reasons why they offer their own proprietary lube oils to reduce the number of failed cams.
If your flat tappet camshaft isn’t very radical, or if you are utilizing rollers, you might take a second approach. Break the engine in on one of the many break-in oils out there. They really do work!

This will coat the cam and lifter surfaces with the sacrificial ZDP film the valve train needs for proper component protection. Then you can switch to a lower ZDP oil (APISN/GF-5) to maximize vehicular fuel economy.
However, this is not as safe an approach as is the use of specialty oils, because no one is certain how much ZDP your valve train actually needs. You might need to use a Hot Rod or Break-In oil periodically to replenish the depleted ZDP.

Carefully consider viscosity grades for late-model engine designs (e.g., LS engines, modular Fords, etc.). Since most of them were deigned for very low viscosity oils, they don’t like the thick oils us old school old racers are fond of. I know of several examples where both LS and modular engines have failed because of their inability to pump thicker oils through all the engine oil passages. Play safe and buy an oil specifically designed for these new engine families.

Stay away from ZDP containing additives to add to your oil. Oils are carefully blended by adding each ingredient at a specified temperature so it will mix properly. When one merely dumps a can of ZDP into the crankcase, there is no guarantee it will mix properly. Don’t take chances with your valve train!

New Standards Mandate Disclosure of Motor Oil Info on Repair Invoices
Recently, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology has made uniform recommendations for motor oil information on invoices. These uniform standards mandate that the SAE oil ratings, brand and weight are to be placed on a customer’s invoice. Twenty states automatically adopted the standards. Others will do so by administrative regulation.

The standards became effective July 1 for states that approve, and are outlined in a section known as the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities, as shown here:

• 2.33.1. Labeling of Vehicle Engine (Motor) Oil. – ¬Vehicle engine (motor) oil shall be labeled.
• 2.33.1.1. Viscosity. – The label on any vehicle engine (motor) oil container, receptacle, dispenser or storage tank, and any invoice or receipt from service on an engine that includes the installation of vehicle engine (motor) oil dispensed from a receptacle, dispenser or storage tank, shall contain the viscosity grade classification preceded by the letters “SAE” in accordance with SAE International’s latest version of SAE J300, “Engine Oil Viscosity Classification.”"

posted 02-17-2014 03:07 PM                  

"Chrysler extends fuel tank warranties on 153,000 older cars

• David Shepardson, Detroit News Washington Bureau

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Friday it is ending its investigation into 153,817 2006 Chrysler 300, above, Dodge Charger and Magnum vehicles equipped with 5.7L and 6.1L 8-cylinder HEMI engines. (Chrysler)

Chrysler is extending warranties on fuel tanks in more than 153,000 older vehicles over complaints of engine stalling at low speeds, the government said Friday.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Friday it is ending its investigation into 153,817 2006 Chrysler 300, Dodge Charger and Magnum vehicles equipped with 5.7L and 6.1L 8-cylinder HEMI engines after receiving nearly 300 reports that the engines may stall when the vehicle is stopped or traveling at low speeds.
The safety agency said the problem didn’t represent a serious risk to auto safety and said Chrysler’s solution was adequate.

NHTSA’s decision came after Chrysler and a supplier developed a solution to the problem and extended lifetime warranty coverage on the vehicles’ fuel tanks, NHTSA disclosed in a document posted Friday.

NHTSA said the multifunction control valve fuel shutoff float integrated into 19-gallon fuel tanks can swell in a stuck open position allowing an overfill condition.
“This condition causes fuel to enter into the purge line which may result in engine stall after refueling. Chrysler's investigation determined that the problem was related to dimensional changes/swelling of the float when exposed to fuels with high ethanol content,” NHTSA said. “Chrysler and its supplier, Stant, developed new fuel soak test requirements to address the condition and extended the warranty period on 19-gallon fuel tanks to lifetime coverage.”

NHTSA said there were 299 unique reports indicating that the fuel system allowed an overfill condition after refueling, and the predominant failure mode identified involved stalling when stopped or traveling at low speeds.
“The condition that is causing the majority of stalling incidents in the subject vehicles occurs at a stop or low speed and allows the vehicle to be restarted immediately. The condition represents a low risk to motor vehicle safety and is adequately addressed by Chrysler's extended warranty,” NHTSA said.

posted 02-20-2014 07:50 AM                  

An end is in sight for potentially engine damaging E15 ethanol blend fuels. President Obama has signed into law the Agricultural Act of 2014, which effectively relieves the worries of some 22 million motorcyclists and ATV enthusiasts. Mounting evidence indicated gasoline fuels made with 15 percent ethanol by volume causes small engine failure.

The Agricultural Act includes a rider that prohibits the Rural Energy for America Program’s grant money from being used to purchase or distribute E15 fuels at the pump. The fuel often creates confusion at gas stops, where motorists sometimes accidentally use the controversial fuel, which can void owner vehicle warranties. 

The farm bill runs through 2018.

The alcohol in E15 is made mainly from corn, which has also been blamed for rising food prices. Alcohol contains less energy than gasoline, which at an additive level of 15 percent, may be the cause of small engine failure.

Reportedly, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack intended to use REAP funding to install 10,000 blender pumps by 2016. 

Wayne Allard, AMA vice president for government relations, said, “It is gratifying to see our efforts on behalf of U.S. motorcyclists and ATV riders achieve this level of success. We plan to continue to monitor the E15 issue, including the Environmental Protection Agency's proposal to reduce the 2014 requirements under its Renewable Fuel Standard.”

Although the EPA has approved E15 use in 2001-and-newer light-duty vehicles, which include cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles, the agency has not approved its use in motorcycles or ATVs, according to the AMA. 



U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) introduced H.R. 1462, the Renewable Fuel Standard Reform Act. The bipartisan bill, in part, eliminates corn-based ethanol requirements and caps the amount of ethanol that can be blended into conventional gasoline at 10 percent. If passed, it would rescind the EPA’s E15 waivers and cap the amount of ethanol content in gasoline at E10, or 10 percent.

posted 02-25-2014 08:46 AM                  

While E15 availability has slowly spread across the Midwest over the last couple of years, a handful of provisions included in the federal farm bill passed earlier this month will effectively make the continued roll-out of the ethanol-blended fuel more difficult, if not stop it in its tracks entirely.

The Agricultural Act of 2014, which passed into law February 7, primarily set the federal government’s food and agricultural policies for the next several years. Perhaps the provision most crippling to the push for widespread E15 adoption, however, was the one cutting a Rural Energy for America Program subsidy that would help gas stations install as many as 10,000 E15 blender pumps over the next two to five years. Rather than dispense pre-blended E15, the blender pumps would instead mix the gasoline and ethanol in the specified blend, whether that be E10, E15, E85, or other discussed but yet-to-be-approved blends. The ethanol industry has long seen blender pumps as key to increasing demand for E15.

Reuters credited the subsidy cut in the farm bill to lobbying by the American Motorcyclist Association, which noted in a press release that it “has repeatedly expressed concerns about potential E15 misfueling and the subsequent damage that the fuel can have on motorcycle and ATV engines and fuel systems. The AMA believes that blender pumps dispensing E15 at service stations will create a high potential for inadvertent E15 misfueling by consumers.”
While the Environmental Protection Agency in 2011 approved E15 use in 2001 and newer passenger and light-duty vehicles, it has not approved it for use in motorcycles, ATVs, small engines, or in vehicles older than the 2001 model year. According to a list published by the Renewable Fuels Association, E15 is now available in 59 gas stations across 12 states, up from about a couple dozen about a year ago.

The farm bill also cut mandatory funding for advanced biofuels from $60 million per year to $15 million per year. At the same time, it eliminated the $5 billion in direct payments to farmers growing corn for ethanol.

Though the cuts don’t prevent gas stations from installing the blender pumps themselves, the ethanol industry responded critically to the cuts. “There is irony in the fact that EPA has proposed cutting back on the RFS because of their concern about the availability of infrastructure to satisfy higher blends of ethanol while the Congress eliminates funding for blender pumps,” Bob Dinneen, head of the Renewable Fuels Association, told Reuters.
Late last year, the EPA proposed to reduce the amount of ethanol it expects refiners to add to the U.S. fuel supply, from 16.55 billion gallons in 2013 to 15.21 billion gallons in 2014, in response to shrinking demand in the United States for fuel overall and the resulting “blend wall.” The Renewable Fuels Standard, passed in 2007, called for gradually increasing the amount of ethanol added to the fuel supply, eventually reaching 36 billion gallons in 2022. At a trade conference earlier this month, Dineen – who criticized the EPA’s proposal as “monumentally stupid,” called on the EPA not to renege on the Renewable Fuel Standard and claimed that any progress the ethanol industry has made over the last several years could be reversed if the EPA’s proposal stands.

The RFA maintains that E10 remains safe for all passenger and light-duty vehicles, including classic cars. The Specialty Market Equipment Association begs to differ.
Meanwhile, a number of bills have been proposed both on the federal and state level to curtail the spread of E15, including at least one (House Bill 1461, which remains in committee) to eliminate the Renewable Fuels Standard altogether. Two other federal bills – House Bill 875 and Senate Bill 344 – asked the EPA to suspend the sale of E15 until the fuel could be studied further, but no action has been taken on either bill since last spring. At the state level, Missouri is debating on blocking E15 sales, as is New Hampshire.

posted 02-25-2014 09:11 AM                  

It cost approx $125,000 for the tank, line and dispenser install. Federal program paid for 1/2 of it. Yes, $62,500 of your tax dollars.

Results - We sell appox 1,000 gallons of E85 there a month vs. 165,000 of typical E10! And the E85 is promiently placed and is 15 cents a gallon cheaper than 87 E10.

posted 03-03-2014 05:35 PM                  

"EPA orders clampdown on tailpipe emissions

Gabe Nelson
Automotive News
March 3, 2014 - 11:41 am ET

WASHINGTON -- In the Obama administration's latest push to clean up the new-car fleet and deal with America's lingering air pollution problems, the EPA today finalized stricter tailpipe emissions standards that will get ramp up from 2017 to 2025.

The rules, known as Tier 3, would require automakers to cut the smog-forming tailpipe emissions of a new car by 70 to 80 percent, starting in model year 2018. Much of the gains would come from better technology, like improved catalytic converters, but oil refiners would also need to strip sulfur out of gasoline so catalytic converters work better.
As a result, "the next generation of vehicles that fill our roads will be more advanced than ever before," EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said during a press conference today. "They will be more efficient and cheaper to power."
This cleanup comes at a cost.

EPA economists project that it will cost about $72 per vehicle to design new cars that satisfy the standards in 2025. That is half the cost the EPA projected when it proposed the rules last year, thanks to reduced estimates of the cost of loading catalytic converters with precious metals like platinum and palladium, Christopher Grundler, the director of the EPA's transportation office, told reporters.

Refiners will still need to spend billions of dollars on equipment upgrades to reduce the amount of sulfur in gasoline to about 10 parts per million, similar to the fuel in California, Europe, Japan and South Korea. According to the EPA, customers can expect to pay two-thirds of one cent more per gallon at the pump.

Oil companies had fiercely resisted the EPA's proposed rules, saying the agency underestimated the cost of cleaning up sulfur and that the new requirements could shut down some of their refineries. In an effort to lessen the cost, the EPA decided in the final rule to give 30 of the smallest refineries an extension from 2017 to 2020.

Automakers OK
Automakers embraced the rule, however. Mike Robinson, vice president for sustainability and global regulatory affairs at General Motors, took part in today's press conference, saying GM is glad that the federal emissions requirements will now be aligned with the special "LEV III" emissions standards that California is allowed to set under the federal Clean Air Act.

"The benefit from our standpoint is: you get to [engineer cars] once instead of several times," Robinson said. "We give the EPA a lot of credit for figuring out how to do this in a way that meets their requirements but also does it in a way that's more efficient for us."

Robinson said the cleaner fuel will also make it easier for automakers to introduce new technology to satisfy the Obama administration's stricter corporate average fuel economy standards, which also run through 2025.

A new car's tailpipe emissions of smog-forming nitrogen oxides and organic gases will need to decline by about 80 percent over that time, while its tailpipe emissions of particulate matter -- soot -- would need to decline by 70 percent. A new car's evaporative emissions from the fuel system would need to decline by 50 percent.
$15 billion over 10 years

According to the EPA, the rules will cost automakers $15 billion over the next decade. This is in addition to EPA's fuel economy and greenhouse gas regulations, which will cost $198 billion over a decade.

But the EPA and health groups like the American Lung Association, say the cost of the program will be dwarfed by the benefits, with 770 to 2,000 premature deaths prevented each year. EPA economists put the monetary value of the health benefits and lives saved at $6.7 billion to $19 billion annually -- outweighing the costs by between 4 and 13 to 1.

"By reducing these pollutants and making our air healthier, we will bring relief to those suffering from asthma, other lung diseases and cardiovascular disease, and to the nation as a whole," Albert Rizzo, a Delaware pulmonologist and the outgoing chair of the American Lung Association, said in a statement today.

You can reach Gabe Nelson at gnelson@crain.com."

posted 03-10-2014 01:58 PM                  

"Every engine builder knows the importance of using not only high-quality motor oil in an engine, but also an oil that has the right additive package and viscosity for the application.

This is especially important in performance applications where extremes of heat and pressure can push many ordinary motor oils to the brink.

Motor oil can make or break an engine. It lubricates the main and rod bearings, cylinders, pistons and rings, the camshaft and valve train.

It helps cool the bearings, pistons and valve springs, and in turbochargers it keeps the shaft bearings alive. Oil also helps disperse and neutralize combustion byproducts and moisture that end up in the crankcase, and it helps keep the engine clean.

The additives that are used in motor oils can vary quite a bit as can the base stocks that are used to formulate any given motor oil.

Additives make up about 20 to 25% of a quart of oil. Additives help boost the performance level of the base stock oil, and include Viscosity Index Improvers that allow multi-viscosity oil to flow more easily at cold temperatures while retaining film strength and viscosity at high temperatures.

The blend of base stocks and additives is what distinguishes one motor oil from another. So don’t think all motor oils are more or less the same.

Even motor oils that have the same viscosity rating and service ratings may perform quite differently depending on the situation.

Types of Oil
When it comes to choosing a motor oil for a given engine application, you have a lot of options from which to choose.

There are conventional motor oils made from refined petroleum, various types of “synthetic” oils, “synthetic-blends” and “semi-synthetics.” Synthetic oils are typically made up of extremely refined or “hydro-isomerized” oils, called Group III oils by the API (American Petroleum Institute).

For extremely demanding applications blends of “PAO” (Polyalphaolefin) and “POE” (polyol ester) base oils are used, which are API Groups IV and V, respectively.
Synthetics provide the best lubrication at both ends of the temperature spectrum, flowing more easily at cold temperatures while resisting viscosity breakdown, oil consumption, oxidation and sludging at high temperatures.
Synthetic-blends and semi-synthetics are a more affordable alternative to a full synthetic, and typically contain less than 30% synthetic oil by volume.

Blends help bolster the performance properties of conventional oil, and are a step up from an ordinary Group II base oil. In fact, most of today’s “conventional” 5W-20 and 5W-30 multi-viscosity oils are actually blends and contain a certain amount of Group III oil.

As for the various additives in oil, many are necessary to achieve the minimum API requirements for multi-viscosity rating, wear resistance, cleanliness and so on. API rates motor oils differently if they are for gasoline engines or diesel engines.

Up to Standard
There is also a “donut” that shows the service rating, viscosity and fuel saving properties of the oil. The current API standard for gasoline engines since 2011 has been “SN,” which supersedes the previous “SM” rating (2010), “SL” rating (2004) and “SJ” rating (2001).

All previous gasoline service ratings are now obsolete. Motor oils meeting the most current gasoline engine specifications will also have a “Starburst” on the front label.

Many engine manufacturers print the Starburst in their service manuals to direct customers to the highest performing engine oils available.

The current API service rating for diesel engines is “CJ-4” (introduced in 2010) which supersedes the previous “CI-4” rating (2002) and “CH-4” (1998) ratings. CJ-4 oils are primarily for modern diesel engines designed to meet EPA 2010 (on-road) and Tier IV (off-road) emissions regulations.
These engines burn ultra-low sulfur fuels (less than 15 PPM), have EGR systems, diesel particulate filters and many use DEF and exhaust catalysts – the previous CI-4 oils are for diesels with EGR systems.

Some oils are formulated to minimize friction for better fuel economy (“energy conserving” oils). Some are formulated for longer oil drain intervals (“extended life” oils).
Some are formulated to meet the special needs of older high mileage engines (“high mileage” oils that contain an extra dose of seal conditioners, dispersants and detergents).
Others are formulated to provide the kind of protection demanded by high-performance engines (“street performance” oils with extra anti-wear additives and “racing oils”.

Other Engine Oils
There are also specialty oils for marine engines, small air-cooled engines, diesel engines, and special fuel applications such as ethanol, propane and natural gas. Don’t forget the all-important break-in oils that are formulated with no detergent to help piston rings seat quickly and with extra ZDDP (zinc dialkyl dithiophosphate) anti-wear additive to prevent the cam and lifters from scuffing.

Choosing the “right” motor oil, therefore, is just as important to the longevity of the engines you build as choosing the brand and quality of all the other parts that go into your engines.

Which to Choose?
If you assemble an engine and do the initial break-in and tuning, your control kind of oil goes in the crankcase both during the break-in and dyno sessions.

If you are using a break-in oil (which you should be!), drain it after the initial break-in. Don’t leave it in for the dyno tuning. Break-in oil is for break-in only, not for tuning or driving.

If you are just machining parts for a customer or leaving the final engine assembly and break-in to your customer, your customer (or his sponsor) usually decides what brand, viscosity and type of oil to use – and that may lead to problems if they choose the wrong oil. In situations like these, you should recommend a specific type of lubricant both for break-in and another for everyday driving or racing. There’s no guarantee your customer will follow your advice – unless you warranty the engine and require a certain type of oil to keep the warranty in effect.
This is essentially what GM has done with their “dexos1” oil specification for 2011 and newer Chevy LS engines.
Oils that meet the dexos1 performance specifications are a high-quality full synthetic that exceeds current API SN requirements.

It supersedes earlier GM specifications (such as GM6094M, GM4718M and GM-LL-A-025), and is recommended for 2010 and older GM engines as well as new ones.

By requiring dexos1, GM is encouraging customers to use high-quality oil that will provide the best possible protection in their engines. GM is also requiring oil companies to license any product that claims to meet dexos1 requirements.

There are some full synthetic oils on the market that do meet the dexos1 requirements, but are not labeled as such.
The dexos1 specifications require additional friction modifiers to improve fuel economy, additives to control aeration (which is necessary for variable valve-timing), additives to improve oxidation, varnish, corrosion and deposit control to keep the engine clean (which also helps minimize emissions over the life of the engine), and viscosity improvers and/or base oils that resist viscosity breakdown for extended service intervals.

In sort, oils that meet the dexos1 spec far exceed the requirements of most current industry oil standards.
Many auto makers use synthetics as the factory-fill oil in their high-performance models, and for applications where an oil reminder service light tells the vehicle owner when to change the oil. Most of these systems do not actually measure the quality of the oil in the crankcase but use a mathematical algorithm to estimate remaining oil life.
The estimation is based on a variety of inputs including hours of engine operation, miles driven, ambient temperatures and so on.

Oil life in many instances is also based on using high-quality synthetic oil, not an ordinary conventional oil. Under ideal driving conditions, the service light might not come on for up to 10,000 miles, 12,000 miles or longer! Because of this, it’s important to use oil that’s capable of going that kind of distance – and a high-quality, long life oil filter.

Many conventional oils can go up to 7,500 miles between oil changes, though 5,000 miles is a safer interval.
Pushing conventional oil beyond 7,500 miles is asking for trouble – especially if the engine has a low flow PCV system that may allow moisture and sludge to build up inside the crankcase. Chrysler 3.5L engines are notorious for sludging up for this very reason. A lot of Toyota engines have experienced similar problems.

On the Shelf
Most branded oil products that are found on auto parts store shelves and other retail outlets carry both the API and ILSAC ratings, plus any other vehicle manufacturer specifications they also meet.

Most packaged motor oils are quality products that should perform satisfactorily for most motorists under normal driving conditions and oil change intervals.

Most of the synthetic oils are suitable for performance applications, but many are NOT racing oils.

Worse yet, most of commonly available brands of oil that meet current API SN and ILSAC G-5 requirements are ill-suited for use in pushrod engines that have flat tappet cams.

Consequently, if you want a specialty oil, high-performance oil or racing oil, you may have to buy it direct from an aftermarket oil supplier or their local distributor.
Local speed shops often carry these kinds of oils, but you usually won’t find them in your typical discount auto parts retailer.

ZDDP Reductions
In recent years, the critical anti-wear additive ZDDP has been gradually reduced to help extend the life of the catalytic converter (phosphorus can contaminate the catalyst if the engine is using oil).

Back in the 1980s, motor oils typically contained around 1500 PPM (parts per million) of ZDDP. In the 1990s, that was reduced to 1200 PPM, then down to around 800 PPM in 2005.

That level of anti-wear additive is adequate for overhead cam engines and pushrod engines that have roller cams, but it has proved to be inadequate for engines with flat tappet cams, causing accelerated cam lobe and lifter wear – especially if stiffer valve springs are used.

The demand for longer drain intervals has also caused the amount of detergent to increase, which interferes with the anti-wear protection provided by ZDDP and compounds the problem.

To address this issue, numerous aftermarket suppliers now offer ZDDP crankcase additives that can be mixed with conventional or synthetic oil.

Several companies have also introduced “Hot Rod” or “Street Performance Oils” that contain higher levels of ZDDP to protect the cam and lifters (usually around 2000 PPM). Although some suppliers promote the fact that their racing or performance oil contains more ZDDP than competitive products, more isn’t necessarily better.

According to some oil experts, once you get beyond 2000 PPM of ZDDP, additional ZDDP doesn’t really provide much additional protection and can accelerate acidification and sludging.

All multi-viscosity motor oils have a two-digit designation. The first number in a multi-viscosity rating refers to the oil’s cold flow characteristics while the second number refers to its hot flow characteristics.
Thus, a 5W-20 oil acts like a straight 5W oil for easier cold weather cranking and lubrication of critical upper valve train components, and maintains its viscosity when hot, like a straight 30W oil for good oil film strength and oil pressure.

Most late model engines are factory filled with multi-viscosity 5W-20 or 5W-30 motor oil, and some (mostly imports) require 5W-40, 0W-20 or 0W-30.

It’s important to follow the viscosity recommendations because many of these engines have tighter bearing clearances that require low-viscosity oil for proper lubrication.

Thin oils also work best with Variable Valve Timing (VVT) systems, and flow more quickly to overhead cams following a cold start.

Thinner oils improve fuel economy. But if the oil is too thin, it may not provide enough film strength at high temperature to protect the bearings in an engine with increased bearing clearances.

On the other hand, thicker oil is good for maintaining good oil pressure in a performance engine. But if the oil is too heavy it may interfere with the normal operation of the variable valve timing system, or be slow to circulate when a cold engine is first started.

Churning excessively thick oil can also generate heat and rob the engine of power.

Addressing GDI Needs
Another factor to consider when choosing motor oil is how it may contribute to intake valve deposits. This has become a major issue on many late model Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) engines.

Deposits can form on the intake valves in these engines because fuel is sprayed directly into the combustion chamber rather than the intake port.
There’s no fuel spray to keep the valves clean so the detergents in the fuel do almost nothing in these applications.

Oil drawn into the intake manifold through the PCV system combined with any oil that gets past the valve guides can oxidize and form deposits on the valves. Over time, this can interfere with airflow and cause performance problems and even misfires.

A motor oil with a low volatility rating (its “NOACK” number, which is based on the ASTM D5800 lab test) is best for GDI engines because it will reduce oil consumption and help keep the PCV system and intake valves clean. Most recent European oil specifications call for a low NOACK rating (less than 15%).

Re-Refined Oils
Another change in motor oils is the introduction of more “green” products that contain up to 50% or more “re-refined” motor oil. The U.S. generates about 1.8 billion gallons of waste oil a year.

About 60 to 70% of the used oil that is recovered is burned as a heat source for various industrial processes, but nearly 30 percent is recycled and made into usable base stocks for lubricants and other petrochemical products. Used motor oil can be re-refined eight to 10 times, extending the useful life of a valuable waste product.
Recycled motor oil is re-refined using a multi-step refining procedure that is very similar to that which is used to refine crude oil. The resulting base stock is as good or better than comparable virgin oil, and meets the same API and OEM performance requirements when it is reformulated with the proper additives.
Re-refined motor oil is being used successfully by numerous fleets, the U.S. military and ordinary motorists.

Oils For the Job
The oil you ultimately decide to use (or recommend) for a particular engine will therefore depend on the engine, bearing clearances, the type of fuel it burns and how the engine will be used.

For an everyday driver, most off-the-shelf oils (conventional or synthetic) should work just fine.
Choose a viscosity that’s appropriate for the bearing clearances and ambient temperature range (5W-20, 5W-30 or 10W-30 for year round driving).

Heavier oils (15W-40, 15W-50, 20W-50, etc.) should only be used for warm weather (65°F or higher).

If you are building a performance small block or big block with a flat tappet cam, make sure the oil you choose contains extra ZDDP, or use a ZDDP additive.

If the application is an all-out racing engine, choose high-quality full synthetic racing oil. Racing oils contain extra ZDDP as well as additional friction modifiers, and can handle temperatures up to 250 to 300°F (or higher).
They also contain fewer detergents, which means they are fine for racing but should NOT be used for everyday driving because they get dirty fast. If the engine burns alcohol, make sure the additive package is for alcohol. For nitrous engines, use a 15W-50 with an additive package that can handle the extra fuel dilution.

For any kind of endurance application (off-road), choose racing oil that can handle crankcase contaminants as well as elevated temperatures and loads. Popular viscosities include 20W-50 and 15W-50.

posted 04-11-2014 09:38 AM                  

Tech 101 – Octane: the facts and the fiction behind those higher-priced fuels
Jim O'Clair

Any discussion about octane invariably leads to statements from some cars’ owners that their engine performs better when they use the 91 or 93 (or higher) fuel blends in their vehicles.

For most modern, computer-controlled cars on the road today, this perception is more mental than it is factual. For classic car owners, octane can make a difference from an engine-efficiency standpoint; however, the octane rating of your gasoline has very little to do with the horsepower or torque output of your classic engine as is often alluded to in these conversations.

Octane is simply a measure of the fuel makeup, and its tendency or resistance to cause engine knock or ping when used under duress (higher RPM). The octane index rating is not based on a quantity of a chemical in the fuel mixture, but is a measure of the efficiency of the fuel blend, expressed as a ratio, relative to the efficiency of a pure hydrocarbon, which would have an octane index rating of 100 (or 100 percent). Because gasoline is made up of many different hydrocarbons, the octane rating is a comparison of the anti-knock characteristics of the blend relative to the anti-knock characteristics of a pure hydrocarbon with a 100 percent rating. Aircraft or racing fuels have a rating above 100 because the additives in the fuel raise the efficiency beyond that of a pure hydrocarbon.

Engine knock is caused when the fuel mixture ignites too early, often before the spark plug has fired. Knock often presents itself when there is an increase in engine RPM and cylinder combustion chamber pressures are also increased. The higher the cylinder pressure, the more likely the engine will knock.

Octane is measured by operating an engine under two different conditions and averaged to result in the rating you see displayed on the pump. The first method (R) is to test the fuel mixture for its anti-knock characteristics (as a percentage of efficiency to pure hydrocarbon) when the test engine is under load, the second test (M) measures the anti-knock tendencies when the engine is free-wheeling. The average of the two results is the percentage that is shown on the pump (R+M/2).

Fuel is required to meet minimum octane efficiency standards of 87 percent to be sold at the pump, with more efficient blends having an efficiency rating of 88 percent to 90 percent considered mid-range gas. Efficiency ratings above 91 percent get the “Premium” designation. Premium gas must be, by law, at or above 91 percent, although you do also see 93 percent octane ultra-premium at many stations.
Although higher octane can cost substantially more per gallon, it does not necessarily mean it is better for your car. Higher octane gas is processed through additional steps that further refine the blend and cause it to burn more slowly than lower octanes. These additional processes are what contribute to the higher pricing, but that does not mean the higher octane will offer any advantage over other blends in many engines. Octane does not offer any better fuel mileage, increase engine horsepower, or make the engine start quicker. Higher octane only reduces the likelihood of engine knock or ping.

On modern computer-controlled cars with fuel injection, the computer is constantly monitoring fuel trim and detonation and making appropriate adjustments in the timing and fuel air mixture to compensate for engine knock. Most of these late-model engines have a sonic knock sensor installed in the cylinder block for just this reason.

As you go back in time to earlier fuel and ignition systems, the octane content becomes more important because the old point distributors and early electronic ignition distributors had only a vacuum advance to correct for engine knock. Exhaust gas recirculation systems were also in their infancy and were not as efficient as modern systems, so they had less effect on reducing knock as well.
Because higher octane gas burns slower, it is more resistant to knock when subjected to higher RPM and cylinder pressures. Compression ratios also factor into cylinder pressures. Higher ratios cause higher cylinder pressures and therefore cause the engine to be more susceptible to pre-detonation or knock.

The introduction of ethanol in fuels further complicates the octane debate. Ethanol has a higher octane rating than hydrocarbons and also ignites at much higher temperatures. Blending ethanol into pump gas will slow the combustion process and reduce the likelihood of engine knock. The delay in the ignition of the mixture, caused by the addition of ethanol, allows the fuel burn to occur while the engine piston is in the down stroke, when there is less cylinder pressure, and this reduces the likelihood of engine knock.

Ethanol can also be used as a method of increasing the octane of a fuel blend by lacing lower octane hydrocarbon-based fuels with higher octane-rated ethanol to arrive at the required octane index rating.

In summary, most modern vehicles do not require higher octane fuels, unless specifically expressed in your owner’s manual (read carefully, because there is a difference between higher octane being “recommended” and “required” in the manual). There are a few high-performance engines that were built with higher compression ratings or use higher RPM camshafts where 91 octane may be needed, but your average Subaru or V-6 Explorer will see no noticeable benefit from using the more expensive blends.

In classic V-8 muscle cars and vintage engines, a higher octane fuel is probably a good idea, but we recommend that you not buy more than you can use quickly. The disadvantages of ethanol-laced fuels are most prevalent when stored inside your gas tank over longer periods of time. The higher octane fuels are slightly less efficient than the lower grades because the retarded ignition will lead to a little less overall power and a scant fewer miles per gallon, but the reduction of wear and tear on your engine should outweigh the extra cost of the higher-rated blends.

- See more at: http://blog.hemmings.com/index.php/2014/04/11/tech-101-octane-the-facts-and-the-fiction-behind-those-higher-priced-fuels/?refer=news#sthash.RyoJmrtQ.dpuf

posted 04-23-2014 12:39 PM                  

The Case Against Ethanol
The pro-Ethanol lobby seems to be stronger than the anti-Ethanol lobby, which seems to be made up largely of car companies — who don't love the idea of people shoving E10 (i.e. fuel made with 10% ethanol) down their fuel holes, and loathe the idea of what havoc E15 might bring.
We know this, because the EPA approved E15 for use in vehicles newer than 2001 and the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers couldn't stop it. Here's what they told David Shepardson:
The government rushed to approve the fuel, she said: "EPA approved an E15 waiver before sufficient testing was completed to gauge the cumulative effects of this more corrosive fuel. Ethanol can permeate and degrade rubber, plastic, metal and other materials in vehicles not designed to handle it."

So far, he reports, only Ford, GM, and VW have approved E15 for use across their newer cars. Chrysler and other car companies warn E15 use could lead to voided warranties.
The AP goes even further to point out the potential environmental impact:
Sprayers pumped out billions of pounds of fertilizer, some of which seeped into drinking water, contaminated rivers and worsened the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico where marine life can't survive.

The consequences are so severe that environmentalists and many scientists have now rejected corn-based ethanol as bad environmental policy. But the Obama administration stands by it, highlighting its benefits to the farming industry rather than any negative impact.

Bottom line: Know what you're putting in your tank.

posted 05-12-2014 08:57 AM                  

I drove around town for a couple of days and headed south on the freeway for a five hour drive. The difference in fuel economy was immediate and dramatic. I'm talking about 5 MPG in my non-scientific test. The performance was the same, starting, driving and acceleration. The only difference was fuel economy.

When I ran the tank down to about one-third, I refilled it with regular and headed back down the freeway. Fuel economy immediately returned to what I normally expect for that trip. By the second refill, economy was back to the 29-30 MPG from the 19-20 on the way down.

The cost saving for the purchase of E85 wasn't worth the measurably lower fuel economy observed.

posted 01-18-2015 11:57 AM                  

How do racing oils differ from everyday motor oils?

You might think all racing oils are synthetics, but they are not. Some use conventional mineral base oils, others use PAO and ester synthetics, and some are a blend of conventional and synthetic oils.

Some racing oil suppliers refine their own oil while others are blenders who buy base stocks from other oil companies and mix in their own additive package. It doesn’t really matter which way a racing oil is created as long as it meets the criteria for which it was designed.

Racing oils are formulated for hard use, high temperature operation. This requires a high quality base stock with an additive package that provides superior wear resistance and oxidation resistance compared to an everyday motor oil.
Base oils make up 70% to 90% of the liquid that’s in a bottle of oil. The rest is various additives. A high quality base oil usually requires fewer additives to achieve good performance, while less quality oils need a better additive package.

The bottom line is that two different racing oils formulated using different base stocks and additive packages can often meet the same performance criteria.
When choosing a racing oil, therefore, comparing apples to apples can be difficult because of the different base stocks and additives that are used.

Most oil companies will only hint at what’s in their product, preferring to keep their exact formula a proprietary secret. They may make certain claims as to how the oil performs or how much anti-wear additive it contains, but trying to compare one motor oil directly to another can be very confusing.

Motor oils with the same viscosity rating can have very different additive packages and very different performance characteristics.

So the best advice we can offer when it comes to choosing a particular brand of motor oil is to go with a brand that has a good reputation with the racing community. It doesn’t matter if the product is made by a big oil company with a big promotional ad budget or blended by a small supplier who relies on word-of-mouth advertising.

That said, let’s take a closer look at what goes into a racing oil and how that may affect the way you choose to build an engine.

All About That Base

Base oils are rated according to their “Viscosity Index” (VI) or pour point, how many “saturates” (paraffin and naphthenes) they contain, sulfur content, volatility, flash point, oxidation stability and other factors. Petroleum engineers have developed test procedures and a rating system for grading various base stocks.

• Group I oils are the easiest to refine and least expensive lubricants. They also contain lower levels of saturates (less than 90), higher levels of sulfur (over 500 PPM) and usually have a viscosity index rating of less than 100. Group I mineral oils have long been used in straight weight and multi-viscosity everyday motor oils, and are often blended with Group II or III oils in some multi-viscosity oils. But Group I base oils are generally not used in racing oils.

• Group II base oils are higher quality lubricants that are commonly used in today’s multi-viscosity oils. They contain a higher percentage of saturates (greater than 90), lower levels of sulfur (less than 500 PPM), and have a viscosity index rating over 100.

• Group III base oils have a viscosity index rating usually over 120, and include many synthetic oils.

• Group IV base oils are pure PAO synthetics and are the highest quality generally used in automotive applications.
Which group a base oil ends up in depends on how it was refined or made, and how it performs. Mineral base oils are refined from crude oil (paraffinic, naphthenic and aromatic) while synthetic oils undergo additional refining and may be made from crude oil or natural gas.
Synthetic oils fall into several subcategories: PAOs (polyalphaoefin), diesters, polyol esters and PAGs (polyalkylene glycols).

This is a lot of chemistry you really don’t need to know to choose a racing oil. But it’s helpful to understand what some of these terms mean and how marketing people tend to misuse them in promoting various high performance lubricants.

The general consensus is that synthetic oil is better than conventional mineral oil. Most synthetic oils do have inherent advantages over conventional oils because synthetic oils undergo additional refining, distillation and purification that results in a very high quality and consistent base stock.

Synthetic oils generally pour more easily at lower temperatures, resist oxidation better at higher temperatures, stay cleaner longer (extended drain intervals) and superior lubrication and wear protection. One oil supplier says the molecules in synthetic oils are more consistent in size.

This allows a synthetic oil to provide a higher film strength. Translated, this means although a synthetic oil is often thinner than a conventional mineral oil, it clings better to bearing surfaces under load.

Synthetic oils also have lower volatility, which reduces evaporation losses when the oil is hot. Synthetic oil is also more sheer stable, which means its viscosity characteristics are more predictable and consistent, and undergo less change over time than a conventional mineral oil.

Some synthetic oils also provide better air release, reducing the risk of aeration and bubbles being trapped in the oil when it is being whipped into foam by a spinning crankshaft.

High-quality conventional mineral oils can perform well in many racing applications with the right additive package, but for the most demanding applications many oil experts say a full synthetic will usually provide the best protection and performance.

Oil is relatively cheap, even the most expensive full synthetic racing oils when you compare the cost of the oil to all of the machine work and parts that have gone into a high performance engine.

Why skimp on oil quality and risk an engine failure if a premium quality racing oil can provide extra protection?

The Antidote to Wear

One of the key components in any racing oil is anti-wear additive. Typically this includes ZDDP (zinc dialkyl dithiophosphate) as well as other ingredients such as moly. ZDDP is a mixture of zinc and phosphorus, although many people simply refer to it as “zinc”.

The exact proportions of zinc and phosphorus in ZDDP can vary somewhat but generally there is slightly more phosphorus than zinc. Under extreme pressure, these compounds provide a protective barrier that prevents metal-to-metal contact and wear.

Everyday motor oils for passenger car and light truck applications that meet current API (American Petroleum Institute) “SN” specifications and/or ILSAC GF-5 specifications contain reduced levels of ZDDP (less than 800 PPM).

Phosphorus is great stuff for preventing wear, but it can also contaminate catalytic converters and oxygen sensors, reducing service life ¬– especially if the engine is burning oil due to worn valve guide seals or piston rings. The amount of ZDDP in current motor oils was reduced from earlier levels of 1200 PPM because most late model engines have roller cams or overhead cams.

Reduced friction in the valve train means these engines don’t need as much ZDDP for wear protection. But that’s NOT the case with performance engines or older engines with flat tappet cams. They need higher levels of anti-wear protection.

Most people assume that one of the hallmarks of a racing oil is that it contains at least 1500 PPM of ZDDP, or even more (some contain as much as 2000 PPM of ZDDP).
That’s generally true, but there are performance lubricants on the market that contain as little as 1100 PPM of ZDDP thanks to the higher quality base oils in the product and other additives (such as moly).

The exact amount of ZDDP in a racing oil doesn’t matter, nor does more always mean better as long as there is enough to protect the valve train components against wear. Some engines need more, some can get by with less.
Extremely high RPM and extremely stiff valve springs can place tremendous loads on the cam and lifters, so foe these applications a racing oil that contains extra ZDDP or other anti-wear additives is usually a must to prevent cam or valve train failure.

Taking it to the Streets

Street performance oils are a subcategory within racing oils that are formulated for the typical vintage muscle car or street/strip machine. Some of these oils are not API-rated, although they usually meet all of the other performance criteria for a modern motor oil.

The main difference is that they contain 1200 PPM or more ZDDP to protect flat tappet cams and lifters against premature wear. Since most of these vehicles are not equipped with oxygen sensors or catalytic converters, phosphorus contamination is not an issue.

Such products are usually NOT recommended for late model vehicles that have electronic engine controls (O2 sensors) and catalytic converters.

For more demanding racing applications, specially formulated racing oils with the highest quality synthetic base stocks may be required to provide the utmost protection and lubrication. Some racing oils are formulated for engines that are running alcohol, or for blown, turbocharged or nitrous applications. The best advice here is to follow the application recommendations of the oil supplier.

They know their individual additive packages and formulations and can help you choose a product that is right for the application.

Viscosity Confusion

Most late-model passenger car and light truck engines are factory-filled with 5W-20 or 5W-30 multi-viscosity oil, with some European makes specifying 0W-40 or even 0W-20 for Japanese hybrids like the Toyota Prius.

Thinner oils make cold starting easier and improve fuel economy. Thinner oils also flow more quickly following a cold-start to speed lubrication to the bearings, cam and upper valve train. For older pushrod engines, 10W-30 is still the most popular viscosity.

But for racing applications, the viscosity you choose can vary depending on engine bearing clearances, ambient temperatures, engine RPM and customer preferences.
Racing oil viscosities run the gambit from newly introduced 0W-50 and 0W-60 multi-viscosity synthetic oils to 0W-30, 0W-40, 5W-20, 5W-30, 5W-40, 10W-30, 10W-40, 15W-40, 15W-50 and 20W-50 multi-viscosity oils, to various straight weight oils including 30, 40, 50 and 70.

Each oil is formulated for a particular niche, but the oil companies usually won’t tell you which oil they recommend. They leave that up to the engine builder and the end user to decide.

Traditional old school engine builders and racers like looser bearing clearances, lots of oil pressure and a relatively thick oil such as 15W-40, 15W-50 or a straight 40 or 50 weight oil in the crankcase.

A heavier viscosity oil helps cushion the bearings and won’t drain off as quickly as a thinner viscosity oil if the engine loses oil pressure momentarily.

Others say they can gain additional horsepower running tighter bearing clearances, less oil pressure and using a lower viscosity racing oil such as a 0W-20, 0W-30 or 5W-20.
Thinner oils require tighter bearing clearances to maintain oil pressure, but they also reduce friction to free up more horsepower. What’s more, they can reduce the load on the oil pump which also frees up more power.

One of the most common misconceptions with thinner multi-viscosity oils is that might be too thin to provide adequate lubrication in a high performance engine at high temperature. The numbers on a multi-viscosity rating tell a different story.

The first number is the viscosity when the engine is cold. The lower the number, the thinner the oil and the easier it flows. The second number is the viscosity when the oil reaches operating temperature. Consequently, once the oil is hot, a 0W-40 oil flows and lubricates the same as a straight 40 weight oil. This transformation occurs thanks to the rubber-like “viscosity improvers” that are blended with the base oil to give it its multi-faceted personality.
For higher temperature applications (such as endurance racing in hot climates), a heavier multi-viscosity oil is usually recommended (something like a 15W-50 oil).
Recently, however, several oil companies have introduced 0W-50 and 0W-60 multi-viscosity racing oils for rally racing and off-road racing. The broader viscosity provides good cold lubrication for overhead cams and turbocharger shaft bearings, while the higher hot viscosity rating keeps everything well lubed at peak operating temperatures.
For a really demanding application such as Top Fuel drag racing, a heavy straight weight oil (usually 70) is required because of the extreme loads on the bearings and the fuel blowby that ends up in the crankcase. And the oil is usually so diluted after each run that it usually has to be changed.

How often should racing oil be changed?

It depends on the application and how far the end user wants to push his oil. If the oil looks dirty and/or smells bad, it needs to be changed. Dirt track racing and off-road racing are very dirty environments, so changing after every weekend of racing is a common practice.

A drag racer, on the other hand, might go all season on the same batch of oil unless he sees a lot of fuel dilution in the crankcase or oil discoloration.

The bottom line is there is no pat answer as to how often racing oil should be changed. Oil life depends on the quality of the oil, the additives in the oil, how hot the oil gets and how much contamination ends up in the crankcase.

Obviously, if an engine has experienced a major bearing, piston or rod failure, the old oil has to go and everything has to be thoroughly cleaned to remove any debris that could cause problems later on. This includes flushing out all the oil galleys, external oil lines, oil cooler and/or reserve tank.

posted 02-10-2015 09:46 AM                  

"US exported 836 million gallons of ethanol last year
About Six Percent of US Ethanol Production Was Exported Last Year

Danny King

Ethanol advocates just gave Americans another reason to appreciate Canadians. The US exported a near-record amount of ethanol last year. And our neighbors to the north were the biggest buyers.

About 836 million gallons of ethanol – worth $2.1 billion – were exported from the US last year, which is about six percent of the amount produced in the US, according to the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). At the same time, ethanol imports continued to decline, which further helped out out trade surplus.

Canada was the largest importer among the 51 countries that purchased US ethanol. It was followed by Brazil, the UAE, the Philippines and India. The overall export numbers would've been higher if it wasn't for the tariff on US ethanol imports imposed by the European Union.

US ethanol production has been a highly debated subject, with proponents saying it helps reduce both national refueling costs and dependence on foreign oil, while others (including Big Oil) argue that more ethanol production may be more harmful to both the environment and light-duty vehicle engines. There was even talk last year from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of cutting the biofuel component in American gas for the first time ever, but that decision has since been delayed. The RFA's press release is available below.
Ethanol Expands Global Reach, RFA Releases New 2014 Export/Import Publication
February 05, 2015

Ethanol Expands Global Reach, RFA Releases New 2014 Export/Import Publication

WASHINGTON - U.S. ethanol exports reached near-record levels in 2014, sending 836 million gallons of ethanol worth $2.1 billion to international markets, the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) explained today in its new publication "2014 U.S. Ethanol Exports and Imports: Statistical Summary." The publication offers a succinct overview of the U.S. ethanol export and import markets in 2014 showing the upward trend in exports and the downward trend in imports - reaching the second-lowest levels - since 2005.

The report finds that U.S. ethanol has made its way to all inhabited continents of the world, reaching more than 50 countries. The top five countries importing U.S. ethanol last year included Canada, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, the Philippines, and India. Meanwhile, exports to the European Union remain down due to a punitive trade tariff it chooses to impose on U.S. produced ethanol.

Bob Dinneen, president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, noted, "Last year U.S. ethanol producers produced a whopping 14.3 billion gallons of ethanol and nearly 6 percent was exported globally. We are working diligently to increase demand for this product abroad. It has been rewarding to see countries all over the world embrace the U.S. produced, high-octane fuel, which has also been the lowest-cost liquid transportation fuel found anywhere in the world."

Dinneen continued, "U.S. ethanol is now exported to 51 countries across the globe, including regions that once seemed far-fetched as renewable fuel destinations such as the Middle East and North Africa. But, we will not stop here. We will keep working with others in the industry and the U.S. government to keep exploring new regions that would benefit from U.S. ethanol. Last year, RFA participated in trade missions to Panama, China, Peru, Japan, and South Korea and we will keep at it until all countries understand the value of U.S produced ethanol."