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 interesting read
Turpin	#1  Posted on 08/27/10 - 9:33 PM
Member Personal Page Project Albums Posts: 434 Comments: 20 Joined: 07/04/08	I ran across these articles about ethanol and our future. http://www.e0pc.com/index.php http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsd...261431.htm Keep in mind I'm not trying to start a political debate over who's to blame for starting this mess, just something to read. Edited by Turpin on 08/27/10 - 9:42 PM 1963 13' Sport 50hp Evinrude Maintaining a level of sanity that is socially acceptable
CES	#2  Posted on 08/28/10 - 3:40 AM
Member Personal Page Photo Albums Project Albums Posts: 2681 Comments: 7 Joined: 04/27/07	It's a shame that this is being rammed down our throats as it is. Where I live in north Texas, I cannot hardly find a gas station that is ethanol free. What is the alternative I can use in my two stroke? Do I just deal with the ethanol and replace fuel lines and other parts or do we just give up boating if we cannot afford a new Etec or four stroke motor?? Cliff 1966 13' Sport with a 1993 40hp Yamaha 2 Smoker
Tig	#3  Posted on 08/28/10 - 5:04 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 122 Comments: 0 Joined: 02/24/09	My 2 stroke snowmobiles (1990), outboards(1966,1989) have been fed 10% eth for 10 to 15 years with zero problems. My string trimmer did have a primer bulb deteriorate before it's 18th birthday. I'm not sure if that counts as eth trouble after all those years. Now I'm not saying that I have proven anything that applies to all 2 strokes, but in my experience eth has been fine. The only thing I have always done that may be different from most is that I do not store fuel in the tanks off season. Edit: I just finished reading both links. My 2 cents. 1) I'm glad the EPA isn't rushing into 15% eth. Keep testing. 2) The EFPC site makes it clear that they hate eth, but does not present any coherent facts that are of any consequence. Just fear mongering and stand up for your rights rhetoric. I've never been impressed by this style approach. Edited by Tig on 08/28/10 - 5:25 AM 1995 Dauntless 15, Honda 50
John Fyke	#4  Posted on 08/28/10 - 5:20 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 1307 Comments: 0 Joined: 09/06/06	I have never had any problems with ethenol gas even though e-free gas is readily available in my area. I hope I don't have any problems in the future. John Fyke Re-Fit or Reef It 1979 15' Sport with Super Sport conversion and 70hp mercury.
JohnnyCW	#5  Posted on 08/28/10 - 8:04 AM
Member Posts: 684 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/16/09	I'm not as paranoid about ethanol as I had been previously. I make regular inspections of all my boats fuel systems and fuel supply and so far I've been problem free. I had one experience last summer with my little Outrage I thought had been fuel separation when my boat sat in the shop a month for its re-power but I now believe I pumped contaminated gasoline from a marina. During the motor's maiden voyage with the new etec, we were out on the water a very long day and fueled up at a marina. The next outing a few days later resulted in a "water in the filter" alarm. I drained nearly three gallons of water/alcohol from the bottom of the tank after that trip. The boat has sat unused several times since for at least 6-8 weeks and I have had no signs of separation since. I use moisture detection paste for my fuel quality checks.
Geo	#6  Posted on 09/19/10 - 11:04 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 104 Comments: 4 Joined: 11/05/08	I've been using my Yamaha 50 hp 2-stroke with ethanol blended gas for years and have not encountered problems. I don't even winterize the motor. I just keep it in my garage and flush it out regularly with fresh water.
Fishmore	#7  Posted on 09/19/10 - 12:23 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 270 Comments: 0 Joined: 11/20/07	I think Popular Mechanics said it best... "The idea is so appealing: We can reduce our dependence on oil—stop sending U.S. dollars to corrupt petro-dictators, stop spewing megatons of carbon into the atmosphere—by replacing it with clean, home-grown, all-American corn. It sounds too good to be true. Sadly, it is" The Ethanol Fallacy: Op-Ed http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/...ls/4237539 and Crunching the Numbers on Alternative Fuels http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/...ws/2690341 Edited by Fishmore on 09/19/10 - 12:37 PM
Gamalot	#8  Posted on 09/20/10 - 5:55 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 1086 Comments: 3 Joined: 06/21/10	We had a local station here that sold Gulf with no ethanol. I drive a 1991 Honda Accord Wagon and was taking a trip to Vermont, about 400 miles one way. With no ethanol fuel on the way to Vermont I got 27.4 MPG. On the way home I had to use ethanol fuel stated as may contain up to 10% ethanol. I got 23.7 MPG with it. Certainly not a scientific assessment but I am not at all happy that Federal Regulations just forced my local station to stop selling the No Ethanol fuel. I do believe those of us with older motors and fuel tanks are most at risk of failures from the alcohol which attacks lines and plastics and fiberglass. For the rest of us the alcohol in ethanol attracts moisture to our fuel systems and precautions must be taken. Ethanol fuel breaks down a great deal faster than Non ethanol and should always be used with in 2 months of purchase. It is never a good idea to top off a half empty tank of ethanol fuel and never a good practice to store ethanol for any period of time. Gary
Ralph Iorio	#9  Posted on 09/20/10 - 6:41 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 86 Comments: 1 Joined: 06/30/10	For what it's worth, I was introduced to a product made by Stabil (the folks who make the reddish colored fuel stabilizer we use for storage pruposes) expressly designed to offset and counteract ethanol contents in gasoline. It's supposed to somehow evaporate or otherwise minimize negative effects of ethanol. Talking about evaporation, has anyone noticed the amount of ethanol combined fuel that just dissipates when not in use. I could swear I lose about 10% of the fuel in my tractor (Ford 2000) when it goes unused for a month or so...is it my imagination? 1989 Montauk 17 w 1989 Johnson 90
Fishmore	#10  Posted on 09/21/10 - 12:15 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 270 Comments: 0 Joined: 11/20/07	Gamalot, you were not imagining the fuel economy loss. Supposedly the drop in fuel economy is due to less available energy in Ethanol fuel blends then there is in straight gasoline. Results will vary because a lighter vehicle does not get affected by the loss of power as much as a heavier vehicle does. The range seems to be between 10-30% lower fuel economy depending on the vehicle. Consumer reports did a test using E85 on a Tahoe flex-fuel vehicle. The flex-fuel vehicles are designed to work with ethanol blends yet in their tests they found that overall fuel economy on the Tahoe dropped from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10. In highway driving, gas mileage decreased from 21 to 15 mpg; in city driving, it dropped from 9 mpg to 7. Now if a vehicle that is designed to run on Ethanol blended fuels has a marked decrease in fuel economy then you can imagine what happens in a vehicle that was not designed with Ethanol blended fuels in mind.
Gamalot	#11  Posted on 09/21/10 - 5:50 AM
Member Personal Page Posts: 1086 Comments: 3 Joined: 06/21/10	Once again, it is nearly impossible to discuss Ethanol without going political. So far, all we are able to agree on is that ethanol is not better, not cheaper, does not cure our dependence on foreign oil and is not any better for the environment in the long run. I know the steak I want to have for dinner will cost more because corn is expensive and I have to retrofit my outboard to combat the side effects of putting corn in my tank and the tank won't take me as far as it used to. They have me convinced! LOL Gary
JohnnyCW	#12  Posted on 09/21/10 - 8:09 AM
Member Posts: 684 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/16/09	The difference in fuel economy is almost proportional to the amount of ethanol in the gasoline. E10 has roughly 4.3% less fuel economy that E0 and E85 has roughly 30% less fuel economy that E0. That means a typical vehicle getting 27mpg with E0 would get around 25.4mpg with E10 and around 18.9mpg running E85 under the same driving conditions. Somebody getting a 10% difference between E0 and E10 seems excessive. The difference in my 2009 F150 between E0 and E10 on the highway is slightly less than 1mpg. I get about 6mpg less running E85. All calculated on a long vacation driving through the US this summer.
Gamalot	#13  Posted on 09/21/10 - 2:43 PM
Member Personal Page Posts: 1086 Comments: 3 Joined: 06/21/10	"Somebody getting a 10% difference between E0 and E10 seems excessive." If your numbers and percentages are correct I would agree that it "seems excessive". You also must consider that a vehicle made back in 1991 and specifically designed to run on E0 might certainly get much better economy from the fuel it was designed to burn. Your 2009 F-150 was designed with E10 in the mix and could be expected to do OK with it. Likewise, our older 2 cycle outboard motros were never designed to run on E10 which presents a host of additional problems along with the reduced economy from motors that were never very economical to begin with. Muscle cars from the 60s & 70s went through a very similar condition as they were designed to run on leaded gas. When the lead was removed the valve guides in older engines had issues from the lack of lead as a lubricant. I have yet to see any definitive proof where the infusion of ethanol in to petroleum based gasoline has any positive benefits other than to make rich people richer and giving farmers another outlet to grow and sell corn. Is ethanol less expensive to produce and refine? Are the emissions from our vehicles cleaner if ethanol is used? We already know you need more ethanol to go as far and we also need various upgrades in our outboards and fuel systems to handle the effects of alcohol in our fuel. Exactly where is the benefit and how much less foreign oil did we not have to buy because of ethanol? I, personally, would prefer a choice at the pumps so I can decide if I want pure gasoline in my tanks and corn on my table and fed to the beef I eat. Gary
JohnnyCW	#14  Posted on 09/21/10 - 6:10 PM
Member Posts: 684 Comments: 0 Joined: 08/16/09	Gamalot wrote: If your numbers and percentages are correct I would agree that it "seems excessive". You also must consider that a vehicle made back in 1991 and specifically designed to run on E0 might certainly get much better economy from the fuel it was designed to burn. Your 2009 F-150 was designed with E10 in the mix and could be expected to do OK with it. The information I posted is based on the energy content of the fuel and not on the vehicle. Undoubtedly though there will be some variance given many factors. My wife's Trailblazer isn't a flex fuel vehicle but the mpg's for it are less than 1 mpg difference between E0 and E10 as well. I'm not an ethanol fan at all. Like most everyone else I know the politics and the false veil they've tried casting over ethanol. However I'm not convinced ethanol is as evil as some believe either.