Originally Posted by LDB

Unless you are storing over the winter, there is no need to “fight” the water problem. Even in winter storage, odds you will have a problem are quite low. The problem in storage situations is that once in a while due to screwups, some dissolved water can get into the gas. That can happen both with and without ethanol. The only added risk to ethanol is that if it happens, a bit more water will have dissolved, so the problem will be a bit worse. But as long as the water stays dissolved, there’s no problem even with ethanol. The reason winter storage comes into the picture is that the colder the gas gets, the less water will stay dissolved, so as the gas in your tank cools during storage, if you were unlucky enough to get a last tank of gas that had some dissolved water, that water can start dropping out of solution and form an actual water layer. Stabilizer will prevent that. But as long as the temperature isn’t getting colder as it does in winter storage, the problem will not happen even if you do have some dissolved water, so there is no need for any treatment.

As pointed out in various other posts, the other supposed ethanol problems are either outright myths, or are things that were once true, but due to changes in engine design, no longer are. For cars built since the early 1990’s, ethanol does not carry even the slightest risk on things like corrosion, lean/rich, octane, pulling timing, power loss, water problems from gas tank "breathing", or any of the other things mentioned by some on the forum. You will lose a little fuel economy, about 1 mile per gallon for 10% ethanol. But other than that, from a performance standpoint, it’s no sweat.

To add a bit of credibility to the above statements, I’m against ethanol too. But my objection is economic. It’s more expensive and does not deliver even one of its 3 claimed benefits, the reduction of pollution, greenhouse gas, or imports of foreign oil. Ironically, this boondoggle is one of the very few places where Republicans and Democrats cooperate, the Democrats because they falsely believe it reduces pollution and greenhouse gas, and the Republicans to buy votes from farm states and the billionaires who own the ethanol plants. But that said, from a performance standpoint, there is no consequential risk to using it, nor is there any need for using special additives.

Originally Posted by Ward Cleaver

Originally Posted by Ward Cleaver

Originally Posted by tabing

Why do the British drink warm beer?

Because their refrigerators are made by Lucas.

Originally Posted by Bruze

I'm going way back in the memory hole, but didn't the old British bikes have Lucas electrical systems? They were nothing but trouble. I never had a Brit bike, but guys I used to ride with did.

Originally Posted by Atomic6

Anyone use this product in their C6? Seems like it could only help. It certainly doesn't cost much at each fill-up. I used it in my C4 and just wondered if I should continue with my C6.

Originally Posted by dr_gallup

First off, how much ethanol are you talking about? If you are talking about the ubiquitous E10 "contains 10% max ethanol" stickers plastered on nearly every gas pump in the country, then no you don't need any "treatment". Every car sold in the US in the last 20+ years has been completely compatible with E10. Yes, it will drop your mileage about 3% but "pure gas" will cost you a lot more than 3% more if you can even find it in the right octane. We have plenty of 93 octane E10 around here and the engine is not going to pull any timing or overheat or do anything else bad while running it.

If you are talking about flex fuel E85 then our cars are not compatible with that, you should not be running it at all unless you have remapped the ECU. As noted else where, our cars don't come with a flex fuel ethanol content sensor or a wide band oxygen sensor.

Since other people have brought it up, the Lucas Oil people are not in any way associated with the old British Lucas Industries (i.e. Prince of Darkness). Why they choose such a reviled name is a mystery to me. However, I avoid nearly all "miracles in a bottle". They are mostly snake oil sold to prevent problems that don't actually exist and most of them have very little testing or science behind them. The one exception I make is the occasional use of Techron which I know has been extensively tested to do no harm and is widely rumored to prevent fuel level sensor failure.

Originally Posted by Corvette_Ed

Uh, no, it isn't. The only thing incorrect here is you.

Originally Posted by LDB

If you’d like to post what you believe is true about ethanol, along with your basis for holding those beliefs, I’ll reply, and if you catch me in an error, I’ll admit it.

Originally Posted by Ward Cleaver

No LDB...you won't.

I pointed out an error (not 'caught you' in an error) once before in another thread...not to insult you or castigate you in any way, but simply to contribute to the thread and maintain the accuracy of the information in the thread.

However, you seemed to take the correction as a personal affront, as if your ego was bruised, and you simply belittled and denied the information and facts I presented, and instead maintained that your position was the correct position...even though it was shown to you that it was not correct.

So no LDB, I have no presumption that you would ever admit you were in error...about anything...nor have I ever seen any incidence out here on the forum when you have ever admitted that any other information conveyed by anyone else is correct...unless that information agrees with what you have already pontificated as being correct.


Regards,
-Ward

Originally Posted by Ward Cleaver

"Corvette Ed," grow up and comport yourself like a man and act like an adult...instead of an adolescent.

Regards,
-Ward

Originally Posted by Atomic6

I've read this about it, Lucas Product is completely soluble in all ethanol fuels and will not harm filters. Lucas Safeguard Ethanol Fuel Conditioner with Stabilizers contains effective additives to prevent rust and corrosion associated with the use of ethanol fuels. ...

Originally Posted by LDB

Stabilizer will prevent that. But as long as the temperature isn’t getting colder as it does in winter storage, the problem will not happen even if you do have some dissolved water, so there is no need for any treatment.tial risk to using it, nor is there any need for using special additives.

Originally Posted by Chiselchst

I challenge that statement (that adding an additive will change the saturation point of E10, resulting in phase separation). Phase separation due to ethanol's saturation point can't be changed by a simple additive. Many make that claim, like Startron, claiming it has special "enzymes, etc." Never proven, have not heard of a single report in the marine area where it has worked as claimed.

Originally Posted by LDB

Ironically enough, in the same thread where Ward Cleaver incorrectly said I never admitted I was wrong, I’ll admit I was mostly wrong on your topic. In a technicality sense, I could protest that I was somewhat right in that various compounds can shift the point at which water will drop out. The classic that’s been around for decades is a bit of IPA in pure gas preventing icing and water dropout via the mechanism of the alcohol group holding on to the water and the isopropyl group holding on to the gas. Unfortunately that doesn’t work with large amounts of ethanol present because the ethanol overwhelms the small amount of IPA, and I had pointed that out in past threads. But there are compounds that will perform a similar function with ethanol present. K100 is an example, with a mix of ethers and amines to do the trick. None of those approaches (IPA in pure gas, K100 on ethanol gas, or any other that I know of) can prevent phase separation if a significant amount of liquid water is added (like a leaky storage tank), but they can shift the solubility enough to be useful for winter “cool down” separation, tank breathing, etc.

Now comes the embarrassing part. I admit that the above paragraph is mostly defensive for context on where I went wrong. My error was that I assumed without looking into it, that stabilizers advertising how well they worked with ethanol contained compounds like K100’s that did shift the water solubility. That’s where I was sadly mistaken. It only took a brief internet search to find any number of tests showing that most stabilizers do not shift the water solubility of gas with ethanol. So I’ve been making the incorrect statement that they did for some time. I’ll correct that in future threads on the topic, and thanks Chiselchst for making me look further into it.