Welcome to our resource for MG Car Information.
MG TD TF 1500 - Jay Leno opines on ethanol fuel
This might be of interest to us old car enthusiasts. I personally have had no problems with it on my 5 older British cars but maybe I've just been lucky. http://tinyurl.com/p9y2cne |
John Quilter (TD8986) |
I think that the ethanol debate will be with us for some time to come. I also think that Mr. Leno did a pretty good job of spelling out most of the issues in that debate. I doubt that most classic car enthusiasts are big fans of ethanol in their fuel for the reasons he stated. It is interesting to me how convoluted everything can get when all of the various interests involved start pushing and pulling to get the legislation that they find most advantageous. In Oregon up until about three years ago it was not legal to burn gasoline on the public highways that didn't have ten percent ethanol in it. Unless, it was in an "antique" vehicle. So, what is the definition of an antique vehicle in Oregon? Well, you have to take the current year (2015) subtract 1900 and divide by two! Therefore, currently your 1957 MGA is an antique but, your 1958 MGA is not. Thankfully, this rule was done away with about three years ago and now you are allowed to burn nonethanol gasoline on the state of Oregon's highways as long as it is Premium gasoline. So, what is the definition of Premium? Well, in Oregon, it's at least 91 octane or above. This rule has made things a lot better but, you will pay considerably more (up to a buck a gallon more in some cases!) for a gallon of nonethanol premium than you will for ethanol premium. The other problem is that the nonethanol fuel can be difficult to locate. You can usually find it at marinas and some ATV rental outfits if you happen to be near the dunes. It is also frequently available at commercial fueling card lock stations. Your best and most convenient source is likely to be a Mom and Pop type quick mart and gas station. The major branded stations are unlikely to have it for a couple of reasons. The first reason is because of their own marketing. However, this marketing decision is frequently made because the vast majority of pumps in Oregon only dispense three grades of gasoline (usually 87, 89, and 92 octane). The dispensers may or may not be equipped to dispense B5 diesel from a separate hose as well. A large majority of the dispensers blend 60 percent 87 octane Regular with 40 percent 92 octane Premium to make the 89 octane mid grade. Since nearly all the dispensers are the blending type it would not be possible for the major stations to supply nonethanol Premium to the public because 60% E10 Regular plus 40% nonE10 Premium would yield approximately an E6 89 mid grade fuel which is not allowed by law. It must be 10% ethanol (not 6% ethanol) unless it is Premium (91 octane at least). Sorry for being so long winded, but sometimes I find it interesting how all this stuff comes about. This is all made even more confusing by the fact that when you cross the state line into California, Washinton, Idaho, or Nevada, all the above gets thrown out and you operate under an entirely different set of rules. Ain't our republic great! |
Kirk Trigg |
And for Oregon motorists they may be interested in the fact that Oregon, and some other states, has a bill pending that would eliminate the ethanol mandate for motor fuel. This link from the Assn of California Car Clubs (ACCC) shows some details. http://www.acccdefender.org/docs/ACCC-Legislative-Alert-March-5-2015.pdf Non ethanol gasoline is readily available at a local Chevron station in Eugene, Oregon and I have tried it but noted no difference with any of my five vintage British cars. |
John Quilter (TD8986) |
Great post John. When I finally get the old girl on the road I plan to run 98 octane (with a teaspoon of castor oil because the smell brings back fond memories, not because of the effect it had on Spitfire pilots!). I've avoided ethanol in my DD. The comment Jay makes about eating the fuel tank sealer makes me even more wary about using the tin in my TD that I've had sitting around for the past 4 years. As I refuse to use ethanol I guess I won't have problems with hoses & diaphragms. We pay more than you guys for fuel but we can at least fill up with 95 & 98. Yet another reason I'm glad I live in what most people call the lucky country! Cheers Peter TD 5801 |
P Hehir |
I'm sure that this link to locate stations that sell ethanol-free gas been posted many times ... http://pure-gas.org/ Prices for 89-90 octane near me in Florida vary from the same as premium ethanol gas to about $3.00 more at marinas. Avaiation gas is another alternative with higher octane, but it is expensive. Lonnie TF7211 |
LM Cook |
Gents, For years i used 10 percent ethanol fuel in all my vehicles. Every spring the TD required carb cleaning and was hard to start until new fuel was added. Three years ago changed to straight regular gas and all spring time problems and hard starting have disappeared. I'm a convert. Jim Haskins 1953 TD |
J. M. Haskins |
Since Mr. Leno's garage is at Burbank airport using airport transfers tunbridge wells it would seem that a good if expensive solution would be to use avgas in his valuable antiques, especially the ones he rarely uses. It stores for years, has more than enough octane and won't eat the rubber components. For cars he drives often it would be more effective to retrofit resistant rubber components. I doubt he has much in the way of water problems in Southern CA. He's right, of course. There's NO good reason to have alcohol in gasoline! |
JE Carroll |
There's no free lunch, even with Avgas: http://www.fuelexpert.co.za/canirunavgas.php Unfortunately, my area has been declared an EPA super pollution zone or some such, so ethanol-free gas isn't available anywhere. |
David Littlefield |
P Hehir: I believe that the measurement of octane in the USA is done via a different method than other places. Something about the "research" or "motor" method or some form of average of the two. I do not believe there is anything as high as 95 to 98 commonly available in the USA except for possibly at airports. The cognoscenti on fuel information will know more. As to the fuel tank sealer, I have two cars where the tank was shushed with whatever Moss was selling 25 to 35 years ago and have not had any issues with it dissolving. I was pleased to see Jay Leno speaking out on a legislative issue with an impact on our collector cars. When I spoke to him in person a number of years ago at a Los Angeles British car show he indicated he was reluctant to speak publicly on such matters due to his connection with the Hollywood entertainment industry. At the time I was hoping he would weigh in on the pending loss of the rolling 30 year exemption for collector cars from the California biannual smog tests that slowly squeeze a lot of interesting cars off the California roads. |
John Quilter (TD8986) |
Last time I was in England, the car I rented was a 4 cyl, but not sure of the make, other than it seemed to have twice the horse power as the same size car here. It would really get up and go! I think it was a Ford, but not sure. Are they using higher octane gas and higher compression engines? Are their cars void of pollution equipment? PJ |
Paul S Jennings |
I have been using ethanol in everything from my now 35 year old snow blower and lawn mower to multiple cars all with no issues. Regards, tom |
tm peterson |
Tom, Ethanol damaged fuel system parts in Echo, Stihl, Honda, and Toro power equipment I have owned. Most serious damage dissolving tank coating in friend's TC. 1/2" of water due to phase separation in a local TD not driven for a year and a half. You are very lucky. It is very evil stuff. George |
George Butz |
I just did a bit of reading about octane and how the "antiknock index number" is arrived at on Wikipedia. I knew some of the information but much of it was new to me. I gained quite a lot from reading it. I already knew that the octane index was a number used to indicate how resistant a fuel was to pre-ignition and the problems that causes. However, I still had a vague feeling that the higher octane fuel must have better stuff in it, or burn "hotter". According to my understanding of the Wikipedia article, that just isn't really the case. It just means that the higher octane fuel is less likely to ignite before the spark event which would be detrimental in a bunch of ways. I also knew that the octane index in the USA is determined by an average of the RON and MON methods. These two methods both involve the use of motors that have been calibrated to knock at anything below a certain octane level. I guess the difference between the two methods is from a variable compression ratio used in the RON method. What I didn't understand at all is that although the USA and Canada for example use the R+M/2 method for indicating the octane index, countries such as Australia use only the RON method. Since the RON method yields an index number that is typically 8-12 points higher than the MON method then gasoline in Australia would be rated 4-6 octane index points higher than in the USA or Canada for the identical fuel due to the averaging of the methods. So our 92 octane premium in Oregon would be the equivalent of 96 octane in Australia. I hope my understanding of this is correct... |
Kirk Trigg |
Although anecdotal my personal experience with avgas including 115/145, 100/130, 80/87 and 100LL is as follows: 115/145 worked well in anything I ever used it in but left a heavy brown coating on the tailpipe and some sparkplug lead fouling. It was free and bead blasting the plugs occasionally didn’t cost me anything. 100/130 left an almost imperceptible coating on the tailpipe and no lead fouling. 100LL behaved just like auto gas, clean pipe no fouling. I had the occasion to teardown a Chrysler 383 engine that had been run almost exclusively on 100/130 as an airport vehicle. Valve spring broke and it swallowed the valve; certainly not related to the fuel used. The inside of that engine was as clean as on could expect, no heavy lead build-up or corrosion issues. The many light plane engines I had occasion to open likewise had little if any corrosion but some had lead build-up, especially those designed for 80/87 or even less being run on 100/130. The notable exception were engines operated by the US Army we worked on under contract that were designed for 91/96 or 100/130 but being operated on 115/145 with a no-lean policy under 5000’. The lead build-up on spark plugs made them pretty much a throw away item as it was almost impossible to clean. Exhaust valves and combustion chambers had a heavy brown build as did the exhaust stacks. I don't recall any corrosion though. Many in the classic motorcycle group are using 100LL especially those with fiberglass tanks who don’t have any non-ethanol gas available. I’m using ethanol gas in everything with no problem and my opinion is that unless you have susceptible rubber components or tank liner it’s OK. I’ve never heard of avgas hurting anything. |
JE Carroll |
I have two old farm tractors which run on gas and I've used 10% gas in them for quite some time with no ill effects. I use it in the 72 MGB and will also use it in the TF. I've used a couple tanks of non ethanol in the B when on the road and the only difference I observed was it had a slight improvement in acceleration. Beyond that, no difference. PJ |
Paul S Jennings |
Shortly after the introduction of ethanol in our local fuel, I had a set of carburetors with an older rebuild suddenly begin shooting fuel everywhere. The seals had turned to jelly. At that point I replaced all the rubber in my cars and I've never had a problem since. Nor have I ever run into fuel going bad, even after sitting for several months. Our climate is typically very dry here so that may play a part, and the fact that most of my cars use premium which seems to remain more stable than lower octanes. Probably because of the additional additives. BUT... the ethanol fuel does not burn as well. The cars don't run as smoothly as they used to, especially in hot weather. And fuel economy is noticeably down, so despite the ethanol costing less back then, I was still spending more money on gas... and on food. Lose-lose situation. |
Steve S |
setting aside the food issues (I like corn and so do the animals that I like to eat), the problem with ethanol is that it has a lower energy content per unit (gallon) than gasoline. As someone said above, there's no free lunch. Burning a gallon of gasoline yields X units of energy whereas burning a gallon of ethanol yields <X of energy. If you mix ethanol with gasoline you get less energy per gallon which translates directly to less mpg and less scoot. It's sort of like calling an electric car zero emission -yup, there may be no emission at the car (maybe some ozone from the electric motor) without considering the emission at the electric power plant that sent the electricity to the car's batteries. Xth law of thermodynamics - ain't no free lunch. Jud |
J K Chapin |
...and the fact that manufacturing an electric car creates more pollution than a T-Series would in a decade. Assembly plants for various parts, shipping parts around the world several times, power plants to run the factories and refineries to make it all happen, workers commuting to said plants, etc. And in five years when it wears out, all that toxic crap has to go somewhere because we have to build another one. |
Steve S |
Steve S: I want a bumper sticker for my TD that states "No new natural resources used to create this car in 60 years" |
John Quilter (TD8986) |
I love it John, that would be funny. I've always called my Model T the "greenest" car ever built. A single manufacture using no plastics or other toxic consumables, and it's still on the road 85 years later. From initial manufacture until now, considering pollution produced and resources used, it must be the healthiest vehicle ever made for the planet. ;) |
Steve S |
This thread was discussed between 06/03/2015 and 08/03/2015
MG TD TF 1500 index
This thread is from the archive. The Live MG TD TF 1500 BBS is active now.