E15 usability in a pinch?

[ratdude747]

In the middle of towing my boat this evening. Went to top off at a Flying J only to discover 87 and 89 octane is all e15 instead of e10.

Did not top off. But, with the only original fuel system parts being the hoses in and out of the fuel tank, the frame rail fuel line, and the tank itself, am I right to assume that e10 is as much ethanol as I dare run, right? And if e10 goes the way e0 has lately, I'm up the creek?

[ArdWrknTrk]

I'm not sure why you think an extra 5% of ethyl alcohol is any more dangerous to your remaining soft lines than any of the other constituents of modern gasoline (which are constantly changing, due to market conditions)

Gasoline used to be distilled from crude oil in a huge fractional column, but that was 50-60 years ago.

Refineries today use catalytic cracking to make whatever hydrocarbon molecule they like, and often whatever fetches the highest price on the spot market that day.

Different constituents are then blended to insure proper vapor pressure (volatility) for the season, and arrive at a certain R+M/2 octane rating.

The alcohol portion of gasohol is simply a jobs program for both farmers and distillers, and a subsidy to big Agra.

Ethanol isn't going to magically dissolve a fuel line or gas tank.

Methanol is highly corrosive to the zinc portion of brass, and race carbs exclusively use stainless jets and plastic floats for that reason.

Billions of people pour ethanol down their gullet every day. 🤷‍♂️

People used to deliberately put methanol or isopropanol in their gas in winter, because old storage tanks would get condensation inside, and it would freeze in the bottom of your tank, blocking the pickup screen.

Alcohol is miscible with both water and petroleum, as well as having a much lower freezing point than water.

So it will carry water through the system, and in high enough concentration (about 60%, or 120 proof) burn readily.

But it is hygroscopic, and when gasohol is left exposed to the atmosphere long enough the alcohol will take on enough water vapor that the alcohol portion can no longer mix with petroleum.

In this case MORE alcohol is better, because it takes that much more moisture to make it separate.

But if you use the fuel in your tank, or have a modern sealed system, that can't happen.

I used to blend a lot of race fuel, where mileage doesn't count (alcohol and nitromethane, but pure petroleum products to get around rules in some classes) and many race engines are built and tuned to run on ethanol or methanol exclusively.

My little brothers AWD Taurus Police Interceptor is a flex fuel vehicle and becomes an absolute animal on E85 (100-105 octane)

Pure ethanol is about 112 octane, and because it's subsidized by your tax dollars, cheaper than oil.

Refineries can then use cheaper petroleum products to come out at 87, 91, whatever.. octane rating they sell at the pump.

 

[Gary Lewis]

I don't know for sure when Ford changed from "rubber" hose to Nylon lines, but it looks like it was in 85 as that's when the Nylon lines show in the MPC. So you probably have hoses to connect the tanks to the steel line and steel line to the fuel pump. And in my experience those lines don't like ethanol. But I can't say that 15% ethanol in the gas would be a catastrophe.

What I've witnessed on at least two trucks is that the rubber hoses get soft and gooey and leak. Dad's truck leaked through the hose, not the connection, with a steady drip. And when I pulled the hose off it was so sticky that when I wadded it up in a ball it stayed that way - and stuck to my hand. And an 82 I parted out had gooey lines as well.

But it is possible that after 82 they changed the type of hose, although I don't think they went to Nylon yet. So you may not have problems. I really don't know.

[ArdWrknTrk]

I don't know for sure when Ford changed from "rubber" hose to Nylon lines, but it looks like it was in 85 as that's when the Nylon lines show in the MPC. So you probably have hoses to connect the tanks to the steel line and steel line to the fuel pump. And in my experience those lines don't like ethanol. But I can't say that 15% ethanol in the gas would be a catastrophe.

What I've witnessed on at least two trucks is that the rubber hoses get soft and gooey and leak. Dad's truck leaked through the hose, not the connection, with a steady drip. And when I pulled the hose off it was so sticky that when I wadded it up in a ball it stayed that way - and stuck to my hand. And an 82 I parted out had gooey lines as well.

But it is possible that after 82 they changed the type of hose, although I don't think they went to Nylon yet. So you may not have problems. I really don't know.

Any rubber fuel hose you can buy today is going to be completely unaffected.

I don't know about Larry's truck, but I have a mechanical pump.

There's feed & return behind the power steering pump (less than a foot each) and perhaps 3' of hose between the frame rail and rear tank, going from behind the saddle tank across the crossmember and into the hole.

 

[Gary Lewis]

Any rubber fuel hose you can buy today is going to be completely unaffected.

I don't know about Larry's truck, but I have a mechanical pump.

There's feed & return behind the power steering pump (less than a foot each) and perhaps 3' of hose between the frame rail and rear tank, going from behind the saddle tank across the crossmember and into the hole.

Yes, the new stuff is rated for ethanol. But apparently at least through 82 it wasn’t, and maybe that’s why they went to Nylon in 85 as ethanol was becoming common then.

The problem I had on Dad’s truck was with the line from the rear tank to the steel line. For some reason he wasn’t using the front tank, and while it might have been due to the sending unit, by the time I got the truck the tank, sending unit, and hose were all bad. But the rear tank was working so I drove it 100 miles to Skiatook. And when got here there was a constant drip of gas when sitting still. That’s when I discovered the gooey line.

[ArdWrknTrk]

Yes, the new stuff is rated for ethanol. But apparently at least through 82 it wasn’t, and maybe that’s why they went to Nylon in 85 as ethanol was becoming common then.

The problem I had on Dad’s truck was with the line from the rear tank to the steel line. For some reason he wasn’t using the front tank, and while it might have been due to the sending unit, by the time I got the truck the tank, sending unit, and hose were all bad. But the rear tank was working so I drove it 100 miles to Skiatook. And when got here there was a constant drip of gas when sitting still. That’s when I discovered the gooey line.

The stuff is like a buck a foot.

How hard is it to change on an older Bullnose?

You don't need to buy a stupid $$$ tool like the nylon lines, right?

The lines at my pump just have normal hose clamps.

[Gary Lewis]

The stuff is like a buck a foot.

How hard is it to change on an older Bullnose?

You don't need to buy a stupid $$$ tool like the nylon lines, right?

The lines at my pump just have normal hose clamps.

Yes, the new line is cheap. But it is a chore getting to that rear tank to replace it. However, the midship tank and the line up front are pretty easy.

[ArdWrknTrk]

Yes, the new line is cheap. But it is a chore getting to that rear tank to replace it. However, the midship tank and the line up front are pretty easy.

It's a maintenance item in a fuel system that's 40+ years old.

I know that I don't want to burn my truck down over $10 worth of hose that (like DOT brake hoses) should be changed at least every 10 years.

[85lebaront2]

Yes, the new line is cheap. But it is a chore getting to that rear tank to replace it. However, the midship tank and the line up front are pretty easy.

You want fun, when I first built T2K-CAR I used what was supposed to be the corect fuel hoses and clamps. Since the base fuel pressure on these Turbo Chryslers is 55 psi, and rises with the boost (at 14 psi boost it is 69 psi) The normal clamps most parts stores carry will (a) cut into the hose and (b) not stay tight.

I found the J70R9 hose and matching clamps on Amazon.

The small (1/4") hose is the return, the larger (5/16") is the supply from the in-tank pump.

[FuzzFace2]

You want fun, when I first built T2K-CAR I used what was supposed to be the corect fuel hoses and clamps. Since the base fuel pressure on these Turbo Chryslers is 55 psi, and rises with the boost (at 14 psi boost it is 69 psi) The normal clamps most parts stores carry will (a) cut into the hose and (b) not stay tight.

I found the J70R9 hose and matching clamps on Amazon.

The small (1/4") hose is the return, the larger (5/16") is the supply from the in-tank pump.

You said you were "topping off" how much did you have in the tank before the top off?

Where you going to use it mostly up or was the truck going to sit in the drive for weeks?

I would not think twice if I was down to say a 1/4 and was going to drive the truck and use it up in a short time. 1/2 and above I would let it sit and not worry.

I know if all the the pumps had were E15 and I needed fuel E15 is what I would use and drive on.

The other thing to remember the more "E" the leaner the mix so it takes more fuel per gallon to make the same power as lower / no E fuel. That is why "E" carbs have larger jets and passages.

EFI can compensate up to a point but carbs cannot as they are "fixed" on the fuel flow.

Dave ----