• Aug 13th 2009 at 7:59PM
  • 37
Today, we take another look at ethanol for our weekly Greenlings post. You've probably noticed that many vehicles are labeled with a Flex Fuel badge from the manufacturer, indicating that the car or truck is capable of running safely on E85 – a blend of 85-percent ethanol and 15-percent gasoline.

For this article, we're not talking about E85 or other mixtures with high concentrations of the alcohol fuel. Even regular-grade gas that you get from the fuel pump nearest you is very likely to have at least some amount of ethanol added, and in fact, the single largest single use of ethanol in the world is as fuel. Why? And does your car need any modifications to use this ethanol-infused gasoline? Read on to find out.



Lead Photo by drewzhrodague. Licensed under Creative Commons 2.0


In the early 1990s, the United States government issued a series of amendments to the Clean Air Act that included the requirement to use oxygenated gasoline (minimum oxygen content of 2.0-percent by weight for reformulated gasoline in ozone non-attainment areas, for what it's worth) to help the fuel burn more completely in combustion. One of the favored oxygenates was methyl tert-butyl ether, or MTBE.

This chemical compound was chosen due to its low price and because it helped mixers generate higher octane ratings. All seemed well until California discovered in 1995 that MTBE was showing up in high concentrations in drinking water, which was traced back to spilled gasoline and leaky underground containers. Ethanol was widely seen as a safer replacement for MTBE and its use was pushed by the agricultural industry here in the States.

So, now that we know why regular gasoline probably has at least some ethanol in it, the next logical question is do you need to be worried about it? The answer is a qualified no. Today's cars and trucks are all fully capable of running on E10, a blend of 10-percent ethanol and 90-percent gasoline. Sophisticated computer systems and sensors constantly monitor the engine and the exhaust to be sure that everything (i.e., the air-fuel mixture) is kept at its optimum level.



Even older cars (say, from the mid-1980s or so) are unlikely to be damaged by low concentrations of ethanol in gasoline, though it's possible a carburetor may need to be rejetted to run on highly oxygenated fuels. Classic cars and trucks may need some replacement of older rubber lines and fittings that could potentially be damaged by high concentrations of alcohol in gasoline.

But what about the environment? Is a 10-percent ethanol blend eco-friendly? That's a tougher nut to crack. Obviously, the burning of fossil fuels isn't a great thing in and of itself for the environment, so the question may be whether burning ethanol-infused fuel is better or worse than straight gasoline. Since ethanol is used to oxygenate the gasoline mixture, which in turn allows the fuel to burn more completely and therefore produce cleaner emissions, its use in fuel has obvious benefits for air quality.

Of course, the full issue is a bit more complicated than that. For a more detailed discussion on the merits and drawbacks of ethanol (including cellulosic ethanol), click here.




I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 37 Comments
      • 6 Years Ago
      The type of corn planted for ethanol production is not your edible kind. Because there is an abundance of farmland, land used for cultivating ethanol corn does not create scarce land that might have been used for food production. Prior to gasoline additive MBTE, oil companies blended tetra-ethyl lead into their gasoline to cheaply raise octane. For over 70 years, the lead from tetra-ethyl spewed from millions of auto tailpipes poisoned America, especially children who are the most susceptible victims. Medical studies have shown conclusively that excessive lead exposure causes neurological problems. Lead in gasoline had to be banned. MBTE, derived from oil refinery and lobbied by the oil companies, was hastily approved and blended with gasoline as an "oxygenator" over the objection of the ethanol lobby. MBTE is a carcinogenic compound and not readily biodegradable whereas ethanol is completely biodegradable. After leaky gas tank and spills poisoned ground water for almost seven years throughout America, every State in the union had to ban MBTE in order to preserve what little clean drinkable ground water they still have. And finally, after almost 80 years of propaganda from Big Oil, America is finally free from a gasoline additive that poisoned them to their graves.
      • 6 Years Ago
      "Greenlings: Why is there ethanol in gasoline?"

      Obviously because of the massive corporate welfare system and it's massive lobby power. That is the answer to why it is there. Everything else is an argument about SHOULD it be there?

      We can argue about:

      The fact that with modern pollution controls we dont' need Oxygenators at all.

      The minuscule amount of net energy derived from growing corn for fuel.

      The negligible impact on oil imports even if you turned over all available land to ethanol.

      How poorly ethanol meshes with our fuel infrastructure (pipelines).

      How ethanol destroys marine and classic car engines.

      The impact of food price, from turn land over to growing an ethanol crop.

      The large amount of water use further depleting dwindling ground waters.

      The extra fertilizer run off, creating massive marine dead zone where sea life is killed off.

      Land use studies that show a negative C02 impact for the first 100 year.

      The obscenity that in a world were people are going hungry, fueling an SUV with ethanol ONCE, displaces enough food crops to feed someone for a YEAR.


      But we can't argue with the only factor that really matters. The massive corporate welfare that drives this boondoggle. The profits of this industry come directly from the pockets of the citizen of the land. As long as we pay the massive welfare, they will have the massive lobby and we will have ethanol in gas.

      The is no technical reason, there is no economic reason, their is no environmental reason. There is simply the big corporate welfare. That is all you need to know.

      http://www.reason.com/blog/show/130183.html

        • 6 Years Ago
        Carney, you haven't proven anything. You have offered commentary by an ethanol friendly scientist. That isn't proof.

        A survey of studies on energy return from corn ethanol is about 1.3 times input. Quite small.

        It is also funny how you switch gears to it being about food when I mention the massive marine dead zone. You are proponent of massively increasing land use for ethanol, and thus increasing the dead zone. Your answer is don't starve me. Like all pollution, there are tipping points. What is sustainable at food production level might not be a fuel production levels.

        As far as irrigation, some corn is grown with irrigation. If you want to push higher levels as you would, this would require more irrigation.

        As stated increasing ethanol production, will increase marine dead zones from agricultural runoff, increase water usage, increase food prices, and frankly displace little oil.

        The only beneficiary agri corporations like ADM, that exist only as massive welfare recipients that have no business model that exists outside of swilling taxpayer funding.

        • 6 Years Ago
        "The minuscule amount of net energy derived from growing corn for fuel."

        Actually the return involved is several fold. I've documented this for you already, Snowdog.

        "The negligible impact on oil imports even if you turned over all available land to ethanol."

        Far from being negligible, the Wall Street Journal in 2006 reported that oil prices were 15% lower than they would otherwise have been just from the relatively minor competitive pressure that biofuel was able to provide then.

        "How poorly ethanol meshes with our fuel infrastructure (pipelines)."

        Right, so with legacy pipelines we can't use ethanol. Wah. So until they're upgraded we use trains and trucks. Excuse blown up.

        Next fake excuse for jihad-helping inaction and/or ineffective distractions, please.

        "How ethanol destroys marine and classic car engines."

        Future marine engines can be made flex fuel like car engines, which would be great for water quality because you wouldn't have that iridescent scum floating on the water that is so typical now.

        As for classic car engines, you seriously propose continuing to fund Saudi madrassas and the Iranian nuclear program by keeping our entire transportation network unnecessarily locked in to petroleum only, all just so a handful of hobbyists can play with their toys?

        Ridiculous. If you want to run your Packard or Studebaker or whatever at the car show, you can buy your old-school fuel at a handful of nostalgia sellers. The rest of us will move on to a cleaner world that is not held economically (or literally) hostage by death-cultists.

        "The impact of food price, from turn land over to growing an ethanol crop."

        Again, I've proven this false for you, with facts. What, were you hoping I wouldn't be here to notice?

        You are thus repeating things you now know to be false; ignorance is no longer an excuse.

        "The large amount of water use further depleting dwindling ground waters."

        Corn ethanol is not irrigated.

        "The extra fertilizer run off, creating massive marine dead zone where sea life is killed off."

        Standard extremist complaint about modern agriculture. Sorry, I refuse to starve.

        Land use studies that show a negative C02 impact for the first 100 year.

        "The obscenity that in a world were people are going hungry, fueling an SUV with ethanol ONCE, displaces enough food crops to feed someone for a YEAR."

        The real obscenity is repeating lies spread by DC PR firms hired by the UAE to derail ethanol.

        There's NO food shortage in the world and tremendous agricultural slack capacity - what there is instead is a WEALTH shortage.

        Nothing would benefit the world's poor more than re-directing our fuel dollars to them and away from the sheiks and jihadis and terrorists. Subsistence farmers could grow a cash crop, earn hard currency, and enter modernity.

        I know, most green fanatics are anti-human and would really deep down prefer all those people to stay "authentically" primitive or just die and turn their homelands into a nature park for camera toting Western tourists to fly in and out of.

        "But we can't argue with the only factor that really matters. The massive corporate welfare that drives this boondoggle. The profits of this industry come directly from the pockets of the citizen of the land. As long as we pay the massive welfare, they will have the massive lobby and we will have ethanol in gas. The is no technical reason, there is no economic reason, their is no environmental reason. There is simply the big corporate welfare. That is all you need to know."

        "Big" corporate welfare? A whopping $10 billion? Who cares if it's even $50 billion? Going to farmers and agribusiness? Who cares?

        That's chump change compared to the HUNDREDS of billions, trillions, we have dished out to the oil cartel, which is a gang of viciously tyrannical, extremist cut-throats. It's about PERSPECTIVE.

        The cranks at Reason need to re-read their Hayek, who said that fanaticism about the free market was the greatest threat to it, and who strongly supported state action against cartels - and he was talking about PRIVATE, DOMESTIC cartels. Being all kid-gloves with FOREIGN, STATE-MONOPOLY SOCIALIST cartel that commits acts of war against us is not libertarian or free market, it's just suicidally stupid, with no basis in principle or logic.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Actually as usual, when I look at the details, you are completely wrong.

        I first quoted the 1.3 Energy return of Ethanol, which does seems to be the current consensus number.

        You claim this is from the Pimentel study, which is false. As an ethanol zealot you should be aware that the Pimentel study is the first to point to NEGATIVE energy balance for ethanol, not the current consensus 1.3 return.

        Here is a more current study on Ethanol Energy Return (2006):
        http://www.pnas.org/content/103/30/11206.abstract
        1.25. Very close to the consensus number in general use.

        Also note by reading this I found out that Ethanol production only achieves positive energy balance by counting animal feed by products as an energy output. Even then as I stated before. Energy return here is pitiful.

        Corn ethanol is an abomination, supported by a massive lobby, it has a host of deleterious effects for practically nil net benefit except apparently some animal feed.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "Carney, you haven't proven anything. You have offered commentary by an ethanol friendly scientist. That isn't proof."

        Wrong. As you know, the study I refer to is not a mere commentary, but the most comprehensive survey of the entire existing peer-reviewed published literature on the subject in the world's most prestigious peer reviewed publication, "Science" (Jan. 27, 2006).

        "A survey of studies on energy return from corn ethanol is about 1.3 times input. Quite small."

        Wrong.

        The only major voice claiming this is David Pimentel, an entomologist writing far outside his area of expertise, and who has had his fatally flawed studies (which use outdated statistics and false assumptions such as ethanol corn being irrigated) spammed all over policy debates and media by oil-funded think tanks, long after being thoroughly refuted in the refereed literature.

        "The only beneficiary agri corporations like ADM, that exist only as massive welfare recipients that have no business model that exists outside of swilling taxpayer funding. "

        Again, who cares if some agribusiness makes ten of billions extra? Compared to the jihad raking in hundreds of billions or trillions? That's the choice in the real world. I choose agribusiness. You have chosen to make yourself useful to the jihad, but they will not be grateful to you, I assure you.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The only Jihadist here would be you with the religious fervor you bring to the debate. You are completely and totally mind locked to this one issue.

        It isn't even clear what you think this comment supports or what you are arguing against.

        Are you saying you don't believe the 1.3 times energy return and only one person did that. Complete BS. That is based on a number of studies. If I were going to pick one study. I could find a few that say the energy return on Ethanol is ZERO or less.

        The best way to show that something actually has a usefull return is actually force it to compete in the marketplace. That quickly removes all the BS.

        Propping up an unsustainable industry with taxpayer money while contributing to the host of deleterious effects is obscene.
        Steven
        • 4 Years Ago
        Burning alcohol produces MORE greenhouse gases than straight gasoline. Now I don't believe in the AGW lies, but it seems ironic that the people who do believe, push this whole gasoline/alcohol agenda. Modern Direct Injected Gasoline (DIG) Engines have just about achieved the theoretical limit of thermal efficiency, meaning they are so clean, the ethanol is actually hurting economy and cleanliness. Todays DIG engines blow away anything that was produced when (30 years ago) these stupid laws where shoved down our throats. What else would you expect when you mix environMENTALists and Big Government?
        • 5 Years Ago
        "The only Jihadist here would be you with the religious fervor you bring to the debate. You are completely and totally mind locked to this one issue."

        What does that mean? Calling me names somehow erases or negates the physical reality of thousands, if not millions, of oil-funded violent Islamists?

        Yes, I'm dedicated to defeating them. We should all be. That's to be celebrated, not sneered at with a "too cool to be enthusiastic or committed to anything" juvenile attitude.

        Wake up - this isn't about how cool you are online. The world out there is real, and there are (and have been) devastatingly real consequences for our inaction in the face of our continuing to fund these people.

        "It isn't even clear what you think this comment supports or what you are arguing against."

        I support a mandate that all new cars sold in America be fully flex-fueled, able to run equally easily on any alcohol fuel as on gasoline. That's a good idea for environmental, economic, and especially geostrategic reasons. Myths that ethanol are harmful for the environment are just that, myths. Clear enough?

        By the way after my point-by-point takedown of the myths you posted, I notice you simply dropped the matters in question. Have the honesty to admit you've been refuted and your case is not as airtight as you thought.

        "Are you saying you don't believe the 1.3 times energy return and only one person did that. Complete BS. That is based on a number of studies. If I were going to pick one study. I could find a few that say the energy return on Ethanol is ZERO or less."

        Then find and post them, especially those that are not paid for by the oil cartel. Since you are so scornfully dismissive, surely there must be overwhelming evidence from DISINTERESTED parties (not the equivalent of the Tobacco Institute). Of course, there isn't.

        "The best way to show that something actually has a usefull return is actually force it to compete in the marketplace. That quickly removes all the BS. Propping up an unsustainable industry with taxpayer money while contributing to the host of deleterious effects is obscene."

        You're focused on the wrong issue. You are consumed by whether alcohol would beat oil in a fair fight without any government distortion of the marketplace. Thus you are annoyed by government actions in favor of alchohol.

        But fulfilling your aesthetic and intellectual desire to gaze with satisfaction upon a segment of the economy that has no state-imposed slant on the outcome is FAR LESS IMPORTANT than the urgency of de-funding the crazy men who are desperately eager to kill as many of us as possible and spread an insane totalitarian death cult until it dominates as much of the world as possible.

        Your priorities are wildly out of whack.
      • 1 Year Ago
      Let's see, ethanol reduces fuel economy in gasoline vehicles that were not originally meant to burn it. This reduction in fuel economy causes you to need to buy more gas. Last time I checked, buying more gas means burning more gas and "destroying the environment" (even though a recent study has shown that CO2 levels are lower now than they were in 1999, and are still dropping). Ok, so Flex Fuel vehicles can run E85, and that's a good thing, they can actually run that fuel efficiently and are burning less fossil fuels. But for people like me that can't afford a new vehicle and are stuck driving a '98 4.0L L6 Jeep Cherokee, we aren't benefiting from 10% ethanol in our standard 84 octane fuel (low compression engine, not supposed to run higher than 84 octane). On top of bad fuel economy, burning a hole in my pocket, and "killing the environment", I'm also destroying my vehicle. The rubber lining in some fuel lines and my fuel tank (which is a plastic tank to prevent corrosion problems) are actually being eaten apart by the ethanol and degrading...now, allow all of that degrading plastic and rubber to mix in with my fuel and be burned and spewed out by my engine...How does that sound Mother Nature? Do you like that? Didn't think so...Ethanol is not helping anything except for vehicles that were meant to run it (E85 Flex Fuel vehicles). As you can see, I am against putting ethanol in ALL fuels (like I said, those Flex Fuel vehicles can burn it efficiently and actually make use of it properly), why not just keep it in the E85 and take it out of the rest of our fuels...we are honestly getting no benefit from it.
        • 1 Year Ago
        Sorry, 87 octane...don't know why I put 84....
      • 6 Years Ago
      Ethanol is the bane of the green energy movement. Its not greener by any measure. Okay, maybe it creates less pollutants than normal gasoline, LOL, I guess we should throw away our catalytic converter systems! Higher fuel effiency? lolwut? I have to burn more ethanol per unit of gasoline for the same power, thus further reducing my mpg and even my car's total power. Why on earth do I want that?

      If all this money - and like many have said, what could be billions - was put into something useful like hydrogen or even battery research, we wouldn't have to deal with ANY pollution from the vehicle itself, something ethanol cannot stand its name upto. At worst, we'd have to deal with the chemical side of battery production.

      And then all this corn could be used for something truly beneficial, such as helping to feed developing nations.
        • 6 Years Ago
        "Ethanol is the bane of the green energy movement.'

        In fact, actual environmentalists championed alcohol fuel for years especially from the 60s through the 80s. Flex fuel cars were invented to reduce smog and were extensively field tested by the California Energy Commission.

        "Its not greener by any measure."

        It is, by light-years.

        Burned ethanol emits significantly less NOx, and in its vapor form (which as with gasoline vapor is released through imperfect combustion or flawed refueling) reacts to atmospheric NOx at less than a tenth the rate of gasoline. Also unlike gasoline vapor it washes out of the atmosphere when it rains. All leading to drastically less ozone smog.

        Burned ethanol emits ZERO sulfur, the cause of acid rain.

        Burned ethanol emits ZERO smoke, soot, or particulate matter, the cause of smog and black roadside snow

        Ethanol is not a carcinogen - gasoline is riddled with them.

        Ethanol is not a mutagen - gasoline is riddled with them.

        Ethanol CANNOT cause water pollution - it is water soluble and dissolves away into the vast hydrosphere, rather than remaining floating and concentrated. Furthermore it is readily biodegradable and breaks down into harmless components, unlike petroleum.

        "Okay, maybe it creates less pollutants than normal gasoline"

        Yeah, and maybe chemistry and physics are true and voodoo isn't.

        "Higher fuel effiency? lolwut? I have to burn more ethanol per unit of gasoline for the same power, thus further reducing my mpg and even my car's total power. Why on earth do I want that?"

        Because maybe you'd want to look up from your narrow, short-term, what's in it for me, high MPGs and screw everything else perspective and realize the harm sending hundreds of billions a year to Islamist fanatics is doing to the world. Not to mention the economic and environmental damage.

        And really, who really cares about MPGs if a) the fuel tank is 50% bigger so you don't have to refuel any more often, b) the fuel is renewable rather than a fossil fuel so you're not going to run out of it, and c) it burns cleaner?

        Also the higher octane rating is nice.

        "If all this money - and like many have said, what could be billions - was put into something useful like hydrogen or even battery research, we wouldn't have to deal with ANY pollution from the vehicle itself, something ethanol cannot stand its name upto. At worst, we'd have to deal with the chemical side of battery production.

        And then all this corn could be used for something truly beneficial, such as helping to feed developing nations."

        Here's where you reveal your true ignorance. Hydrogen is a hilariously bad fuel and always will be.

        http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
      • 6 Years Ago
      Don't forget that the requirement for oxygenated gas was based upon a flawed study which looked at only a single season in a few cities. For example, in Seattle. The air was remarkably cleaner that season, and so oxygenated gas was mandated. But, the next year, the air was not only not as clean, but dirtier than before, despite the use of oxygenated fuels.

      It is unclear oxygenated fuel has any advantageous effect on air quality.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Oxygenators like ethanal are also unnecessary since the advent of more modern pollution controls.

        • 6 Years Ago
        Since OBDII
      • 4 Years Ago
      I would also like to elaborate on the massive problem of what damage ethanol does to marine engines. In My area we are seeing (since 2006) an increasing # of people who run outboard motors, have catastrophic carb and water separated fuel issues. Thanks to ethanol (which is a nasty, caustic, aluminum chewing waste of energy) small marinas are loosing lots of customers. why? simple: Lots of people do not have mechanical ability. They assume that when they put an engine away for the winter, it will start on demand and nothing needs to be done with the fuel. Wrong.... but when they have carb problems or the motor won't start they blame the small mom and pop marina down the road because everyone has been telling them that ethanol does nothing bad to an engine. This indirect way of damaging the economy, even if it is a small one, is just one more problem with this type of additive. I collect old motors and love to work on them. Since fuel now goes bad in a month, I need to add expensive fuel stabilizer to each tank. I guess the farming industry just has too much say.... what a disaster!
      majortom1981
      • 6 Years Ago
      I saw a special how a lot of brazillion cars can run on gas,ethanol, or natural gas. (which ever one is the cheapest at the time).

      Why cant our american cars do that?
      • 6 Years Ago
      As a pointer:

      The debate of the CO2 emissions of ethanol revolve around whether the mass corn industry (mostly in the United States) process consumes less fossil fuels than gas at a pump. It is relatively conclusive that it releases more CO2 per gallon to create ethanol than oil.

      Also keep in mind that the corn industry devastates a vast amount of topsoil every year, leading to a situation to further increasing pollutant seeping into the groundwater and the ocean (there are already growing "dead zones" in the Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Mexico due to fertilizer runoff).
      • 6 Years Ago
      Butanol is much better than ethanol. It has the same energy content as unleaded gasoling and and its just as easy to produce. With the same energy content as unleaded fuel you don't lose power and you get the same fuel mileage making it more efficient than ethanol.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Add turbo chargers and you can get the power and efficiency out of ethanol.
        • 6 Years Ago
        Butanol is fine but it is NOT easier to produce and is more expensive. Also, it's a lot smarter to make flex fuel a standard feature so that new cars can burn methanol, ethanol, propanol, or butanol.

        That way we don't have all our eggs in one basket and the oil cartel can't easily cripple one single industry to hog things for itself again. With fuel choice, their vertical monopoly will be permanently broken, never to be retrieved again.
      • 6 Years Ago
      The real question is why is there any gasoline in the ethanol?

      http://www.permaculture.com/ This is a link for anyone who really wants to have a clue and not wade through so many of the corrupt industry lies and disinfo.

      The short truth is ethanol is, and always was, a superior fuel. Only through Rockefeller sponsored bs, things like prohibition for example, did gasoline even gain a foothold. The truth is we have (more than) enough land to run every ICE on ethanol. The truth is we have no shortage of arable land for food even if we did use a lot of the land for ethanol. The truth is we would probably have more food, because the subproduct of the ethanol crops would be animal feeds, which would yield meat and organic fertilizers. The truth is the loss of topsoil is because of chemical fertilizers and because we break the natural cycles and don't let the remineralization plants grow between crops (you know, they're called weeds). Guess which industry produces the chemical fertilizers.

      The truth is as a species we're dumb and lazy. We already had natures bounty yet we let ourselves be sidetracked by bloodsucking businessmen to the point of wrecking our biosphere. Now, the biosphere could easily recover in a couple of decades, but our stupidity is harder to cure. The clearly paid opinions littering the internet is proof of this.

      How about you folks defending big oil honestly study something instead of being intelectual prostitutes? Ethanol works. I'm a fan of the electric car too, but if ethanol were mandated, if the conversion was forced, at the technical level on the corporations, much good would come to the world as more and more people discover and adopt it, as we would again be in symbiosis with plants. Brasil is proof of concept, and they don't waste time on corn ethanol debates and disinfo. They do have amazonian issues, but that has nothing to do with ethanol and is another stupid corporate thing related to agriculture.
      • 2 Years Ago
      You do need to be worried about it ethanol in your fuel. Since the mandate for an ethanol blended fuel, corn prices immediately rose almost 100% from a very long historical average of $2.50. Following years have produced prices nearly 350% higher than historical averages at $8.50. It has also created world-wide shortages of grains for food leading large bio-engineering companies to modify crops in order to produce more. While this sounds like a great solution to a food shortage, the unintended consequences are nutrient deficient and toxic food sources. Similar practices have made the majority of the world's wheat virtually indigestible and our bodies are systematically rejecting the wheat protein Gluten as you are probably aware of due to the rising popularity of "Gluten Free" products. Studies show 70% of the world's population is allergic to wheat gluten and allergies are beginning to show in response to corn gluten. If we continue to use food for fuel we are sure to render our major crops inedible.
      • 3 Years Ago
      WARNING: ETHANOL GASOLINES IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR SMALL ENGINES, SPECIALLY IN 2 CYCLES ENGINES. IT WILL CHANGE MIXTURE RATIO AND WILL CHANGE CARBURATION SETTINGS LEAVING SMALL WATER DEPOSITS INSIDE THE CARBURATOR. ON CARS, IT WILL INCREASE FUEL CONSUME. USE PURE GASOLINES AS SUNOCO. DON'T LEAVE TAKE YOU FOOL ! TAKE CARE WITH THIS STUFF !
    • Load More Comments