1. Use the full 4 digit year for everything you are asking your question about. Example: 1962, 1988, 2000, 2011
2. Include the correct name of your Whaler model. Example: Montauk 17, Montauk 170, Outrage 26, Outrage 260
3. Include the length when necessary. Example: 16, 17, 18, 20, 22
4. Do not post your email address anywhere on this site as it is already in your user profile.

Ethanol myths clarified per Boat U.S.
CES	#41  Posted on 12/04/11 - 5:56 PM
Member Personal Page Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 2681 Comments: 7 Joined: 04/27/07	Actually you get about a 10% reduction in fuel mileage too. It take more alcohol to get the same of energy as compared to regular gas. There are no benifits to burning ethanol at all. It's a less efficient fuel. Cliff 1966 13' Sport with a 1993 40hp Yamaha 2 Smoker
jimmyrinaldi	#42  Posted on 12/04/11 - 7:56 PM
Member Posts: 212 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/29/07	So again... Why ?
zappaddles	#43  Posted on 12/05/11 - 8:31 AM
Member Posts: 478 Comments: 2 Joined: 06/03/10	Here is a responce to this post from another site I visit daily: As a chemist, let me clarify something: Alcohol results in "less mileage" not for some nefarious conspiracy plot but simply because of chemistry. What counts in a fuel is the number of carbon atoms per volume or weight of measure. For every two carbons in ethanol there is an oxygen atom and nearly all gasoline hydrocarbons have nothing but carbon and hydrogen atoms; ethanol has less carbon to burn and thus less BTUs or calories. This is the reason diesel has about 13% more "energy" than gasoline: the fuel is more densely packed with carbon atoms. The oxygen atoms do help in one way: It gets more oxygen into the combustion and thus less likelihood of either unburned carbon (particulates) or partially oxidized carbon (carbon monoxide). That is why MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether) used to be added to gasoline--it improved combustion (as well as octane)--it was an oxygenate. Unfortunately, when underground gasoline tanks leaked, the MTBE did a great job of helping the gasoline move into the groundwater and MTBE is not healthy to drink. Thus, it was essentially replaced by ethanol as an oxygenate, not as an improvement in the fuel per se. However, with today's computer controlled fuel injected engines, they can get very good combustion without any oxygenate as part of the fuel. The debate on how much fuel it takes to produce ethanol will go on forever since it all depends on what you measure and how you measure it. My best guess is that it indeed takes at least as much fuel to bring to market as it replaces and that combined with its corrosive effect on certain metals and hoses, tubes, o-rings, etc. plus its reduced role as a fuel oxygenate ought to at least mean it should stand on its own feet and not be subsidized and if it is made, it shouldn't be made out of a food crop which without any doubt, raises food prices. But my view on getting rid of ethanol in fuel is an opinion and no one is ever wrong with an opinion, just disagreeable. Name withheld by Zap If you can't play hurt....stay home.
OutragousBob	#44  Posted on 12/05/11 - 9:47 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 101 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/26/11	Zappaddles, That was a very good explanation of Ethanol. Did anyone see the report today about the U.S. exporting a record amount of gasoline? Yep we are exporting 10% of our domestic gasoline production. Coincidence? I think not! Edited by OutragousBob on 12/05/11 - 3:18 PM
CES	#45  Posted on 12/05/11 - 10:11 AM
Member Personal Page Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 2681 Comments: 7 Joined: 04/27/07	It's amazing how much goes on begin the scenes and because it's now PC to talk about it, the media makes no mention of it. Juat look at the oil boom in the Dakota's? Do we hear about it?? Nope.... Cliff 1966 13' Sport with a 1993 40hp Yamaha 2 Smoker
thegage	#46  Posted on 12/05/11 - 10:43 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 341 Comments: 1 Joined: 06/25/09	CES wrote: Juat look at the oil boom in the Dakota's? Do we hear about it?? Nope.... I don't know what media you follow, but to take just one example, in the last four months NPR has done at least 6 stories on the Dakotas oil boom that either is directly about it or has significant content relating to it. John K. John Kittredge 1991 16 SL - 2013 E-TEC 90
zappaddles	#47  Posted on 12/05/11 - 12:26 PM
Member Posts: 478 Comments: 2 Joined: 06/03/10	I too have seen the Dakotas oil boom on a few of the channels. Here's a real out -of-left field question for those of us who would like to have cheaper gasoline for our Boston Whaler fuel tanks: How many have heard of the Haitian oil reserves? Yep, you read that correctly. Do an internet search on the subject. Pretty interesting. Zap If you can't play hurt....stay home.
Gamalot	#48  Posted on 12/06/11 - 4:42 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 1086 Comments: 3 Joined: 06/21/10	Between the Baken Reserves in the Dakota's, Off shore reserves and the oil in Alaska the US has as much or more oil than the OPEK countries. What we lack are politicians willing to buck the trends and get us drilling. It is likely just as well that we don't drill because by the time the EPA and the Dept. of Energy get done regulating every aspect of the drilling process the fuels produced will be more expensive than what we currently buy from countries that have no such regulations. Energy fuels are based on a Global Market and it matters not where the oil is found but what the current going price is for it. If China is willing to pay a premium then we will sell it to them or pay the going price to keep it here. If an ounce of gold is $1200 here in the US then it will be the same price in every other country based on that countries equivalent of the US dollar. The price we are paying at the pump is more accurately based on the value of the US dollar and the more of them we print the less they are worth in the world market. Ethanol is a failed experiment and as costly to produce as the fuels it is designed to replace. Just like wind and solar power, it costs more to produce it than the alternative fuels it replaces, coal and oil.
Tom W Clark	#49  Posted on 12/06/11 - 9:12 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Fellas -- The topic is E10 fuel and its effects on boats. The topic is not global oil production or energy policy. If you want to have a debate on global oil production and energy policy, take it elsewhere. Ignoring the several ignorant off-topic comments from this thread, let me point out a few facts, and I'll preface it by stating that I personally think Ethanol in our nation's gasoline supply is really, really bad energy policy, but that has very little to do with the effect of E10 on boats. - If Ethanol has 10 percent less energy per gallon in it, and that is a more or less accurate figure, that does not mean you will get 10 percent less fuel economy in your boat or car. E10 is a mixture of 10 percent Ethanol and 90 percent gasoline. A 10 percent reduction in energy of 10 percent of fuel means there is (theoretically) a net 1 percent reduction in fuel economy in your boat or car. It is insignificant in other words. This reduction in fuel economy can be measured by comparing the carefully measured fuel economy of a boat both before the advent of E10 fuel and after. I have fuel economy measurement of my own boat that I have taken for years from both before and after the introduction of E10 fuel here in Washington State. I have seen no change in my fuel economy as one percent is within the margin of error. Don't worry about worse fuel economy with E10. - OMC (the predecessor of BRP) starting manufacturing outboard motors and fuel components that are rated for up to 10 percent Ethanol back in 1980. That is over 30 years ago. Mercury similarly manufacturers outboard motors that have Ethanol resistant components. My own 1989 Mercury Outboard's Owner's manual clearly state that the motors can be operated on fuel with 10 percent Ethanol with no ill effect. E10 is nothing new. - In addition to my boat not suffering from the change to E10 fuel in 2009 (and I was very paranoid about the changeover when it happened because of what I had read) I also realize that I run my 9.9 HP outboard, two lawn mowers, one lawn edger, one line trimmer, one hedge shear, one power washer and several chainsaws with absolutely no effect from the E10 fuel we now use. It would seem my own personal experience with Ethanol matches Boat U.S.'s conclusions very closely. Edited by Tom W Clark on 12/06/11 - 12:37 PM
mtown	#50  Posted on 12/06/11 - 1:48 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 613 Comments: 5 Joined: 07/06/08	Please,everyone read the article by going to Boatus and clicking on publications. Just my opinion but they don't cahnge my mind about ethanol one bit. I never believed the myths they pretend are the problem anyway. Read what they say about topping off tanks and that alone is reason to not want ethanol in your fuel. " In the midwest topping off is common as it reduces the condensation that leads to fuel separation. Fuel separation results in a highly corrosive mix of ethanol and water that damages fuel tanks." I paraphrased but that is essentially what it says. I am not sure if anyone else has not had time or inclination to top off their fuel tank before not using their boat for a month or two, but I have and it has resulted in a motor that was running fine when stopped, to one that needed the carbs removed, disassembled, and re-installed. Cost each time $300x3=$900. The mechanic who does this is totally honest and busy all the time with similar work. I have just purchased a 6 gallon tank to keep E-0 in to run the motor with after each late season use. I will keep you posted. On another note my 115 4 stroke yamaha has been no problem with e-10 fuel. I specifically enquired about it when purchased [2004] and was told that the injected yamahas tended to handle the ethanol better. Bottom line for me is this. Boats are fun, maintainence, expense, joy, pride, maybe even transportation. Adding to the maintainence and expense because we don't easily have the option to avoid e-10 is frustrating.
jimmyrinaldi	#51  Posted on 12/06/11 - 2:14 PM
Member Posts: 212 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/29/07	As I pointed out earlier. Even if there is no downside, what is the upside ? NONE... Edited by jimmyrinaldi on 12/06/11 - 2:27 PM
CES	#52  Posted on 12/06/11 - 5:32 PM
Member Personal Page Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 2681 Comments: 7 Joined: 04/27/07	Many people I know including myself have had issues with ethanol blended fuel. Any mechanic who does engine work for a living will tell you the same thing as what's stated above......corroded fuel tanks, deteriorating fuel lines and carb issues. There's nothing to get over except the use of ethanol...... Cliff 1966 13' Sport with a 1993 40hp Yamaha 2 Smoker
Tom W Clark	#53  Posted on 12/06/11 - 6:44 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 4280 Comments: 7 Joined: 09/30/05	Again, the topic is E10 in boats. Off-topic comments will be deleted.
jimmyrinaldi	#54  Posted on 12/06/11 - 7:15 PM
Member Posts: 212 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/29/07	I must protest. I agree with deleting off color comments, but E10 in my opinion has cost me money replacing an aluminum fuel tank that I would have otherwise spent elsewhere. How does my effort to make others aware that E10 is a crock not relate to my boat and for that matter everyone's boat. We are a group of boater enthusiasts sharing ideas and opinions. I agree let's keep it civil, but why police content ? Edited by jimmyrinaldi on 12/06/11 - 7:19 PM
kamie	#55  Posted on 12/06/11 - 7:19 PM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 2975 Comments: 3 Joined: 11/04/05	http://pure-gas.org/ Should help those of you that want it, or feel you need it to find it.
John Fyke	#56  Posted on 12/07/11 - 12:41 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 1307 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/06/06	I haven't had any problems with E10 at all. John Fyke Re-Fit or Reef It 1979 15' Sport with Super Sport conversion and 70hp mercury.
70katama	#57  Posted on 12/07/11 - 2:40 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 30 Comments: 0 Joined: 03/20/09	i am not sure that i have had any issues due completly ethanol or not . I did have a problem a ccouple years ago with deteriorated fuel lines . The filter screen under the cowl was plugged with a rubbery goo . luckily did not trash the carbs . the fuel lines were far from new so probably should have been replaced a few years before . other than that i dont think ive had problems that could be attributed to fuel . the other thought iv had is this ; i do have about 5 ' of line that is exposed to the sun. when the boat is outside and uncovered which over time is alot of hours. my concern is this , the sun wrecks paint over time , it dry rots tires from the inside out , will fade and crack auto interiors , cause skin cancer if left unprotected. I just wonder if it has any bearing on the fuel line issues many have expierienced, which seems to be the major complaint about ethanol. i still am concerned about the deterioration of the metals in our motors over the long haul.