Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumMyth: 15% Ethanol Fuel Will Destroy My Engine
http://www.fuelfreedom.org/myth-15-ethanol-fuel-will-destroy-my-engine/(emphases my own)
The testing conducted by the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) neither captures nor represents the reality of the U.S. car market. More than 80% of the miles driven in the United States are on cars that are less than 10 years old, yet 7 of the 15 cars tested were past their product useful life of 10 years. Only one car was a late model year a 2009 Honda Accord. It should not be surprising that a 1996 Toyota Camry, 5 years past its useful life, with a Kelley Blue Book value of $3,750, did not perform well under stringent testing conditions.
The test did not use the 15% ethanol blend (E15) that new standards call for. Instead, they used Aggressive E20. The word aggressive means the addition of sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid to the fuel mix (ph of 2.8). Needless to say, standard car parts were never built to withstand acid in the fuel. Moreover, ethanol in water is a slight base; hence any resulting corrosion does not resemble corrosion due to acid exposure. (Note: Off-the shelf E10 that was NOT aggressive was used for the control test.)
Water in the fuel is a strong abrasive. The water content of their Aggressive E20 blend was raised to the top of the legal limit. Commercially sold ethanol has about half of that water content.
The study specifies that: The project oversight panel specified the aromatic level of the base gasoline (prior to ethanol blending) to approximately 40% volume. In other words, per the request of non-scientist auto and oil representatives, CRC increased the percentage of octane-enhancing aromatics in the fuel to 40% 10% more than the normal fuel aromatics content of 30%. This change, in turn, enabled CRC to use 80-octane fuel, which has less tolerance for water, despite the fact that the minimum sold in the U.S. is 84-octane. Running the test on 80-octane fuel caused the water they added to the fuel to become an even stronger abrasive.
(more)
johnd83
(593 posts)I haven't heard much about them lately. Where I live ethanol is $0.50-$1.00 cheaper per gallon than gasoline with (I would expect) slightly better miles per gallon...
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)ethanol's higher octane. So you get worse mpg on E85 than on gasoline. However, with the lower price it may balance out.
The auto manufacturers could make their FFVs get better mpg on E85 with a little effort. HOnda sells two FFvs in Brazil only (plentiful supply of ethanol there) which get comparable mpg on any blend of ethanol (from 20% to 100%) as they do using gasoline.
Mileage (mpg) Using Ethanol Seen 20% Higher Than EPA Says - Bloomberg
http://www.democraticunderground.com/112754153
A tweak to an automobiles engine software can improve by as much as 20 percent the estimated fuel efficiency when using gasoline with ethanol or methanol, according to a non-profit group pushing gasoline alternatives.
A Fuel Freedom Foundation study showed that setting the engine to run at an optimal setting for the higher octane in so-called alcohol fuels can cut the greenhouse gases emitted on average by 17 percent to 20 percent, making it better for the environment than estimated by independent analysts and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Alcohol fuels are not getting a fair treatment, Eyal Aronoff, a founder of the non-profit group and co-author of the study to be released soon, said in an interview. With the correct analysis, the greenhouse-gas emissions look really, really appealing.
Fuel Freedom is an independent non-profit based in Irvine, California, that doesnt have financial ties to the ethanol industry. It advocates for policies to build a distribution system for alternatives to gasoline in order to cut drivers costs and spur economic growth.
(more)
link to the study: http://www.fuelfreedom.org/white-papers-temp
johnd83
(593 posts)I took a course on combustion systems in grad school and theoretically ethanol is a great fuel. I guess they really didn't make any effort to tune the engines to use the different fuel.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)... competed in optimizing a Chevrolet Malibu for running on E85. The three best teams got 13% to 15% BETTER combined fuel economy (city and highway) than the stock Malibu achieved on straight gasoline. Every one of the teams achieved BETTER mpg on E85 than on gasoline in the city cycle test.
The sponsors of the Ethanol Vehicle Challenge were the U.S. Department of Energy, General Motors and Natural Resources Canada. so the U.S. Government and General Motors know this is possible (and how it is possible). (actually, I'm sure General Motors knew how to optimize for ethanol before these college engineering students did it).
NOTE: this improvement in fuel economy was done WITHOUT ENGINE DOWNSIZING. When you are using supercharging (or turbo-charging) - as these teams did - you can produce so much more power with ethanol (higher octane than gasoline allows much higher combustion chamber pressures allowing you to achieve greater thermal efficiency which enables greater fuel economy) that you can use a smaller engine leading to gains in fuel economy from lighter weight and less friction.
1998 Ethanol Vehicle Challenge
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/C/19.pdf
johnd83
(593 posts)I was against ethanol when it was being made from food crops, but with the new biomass ethanol process it should stop competing with food crops.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)currently methanol is made from natural gas @ about $1.45 /gal wholesale. We can make it from any carbon based feedstock (i.e forestry and agricultural waste).
NOte that it will take about 20 yearss to get enough hybrids and plug-ins sold to equal about 20% to 25% of the entire fleet of cars and light trucks. At say 50% reduction in GHG emissions per car that gets you about 10% to 13% aggregate reduction in GHGs from light transportation - is 20 to 25 years. NOt nearly enough fast enough.
YOu can replace the fuel cars burn faster than you can replace the cars that burn it.
johnd83
(593 posts)it is pretty toxic compared to ethanol. It is possible that just spilling methanol fuel on skin could cause pretty severe injury.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)do now is mitigate the disaster. It's too late, in my opinion, to be able to rein in runaway Global Warming (cf. melting permafrost). Blending Methanol with ethanol and gasoline (until we are making enough methanol to replace gasoline entirely) is the quickest and cheapest (therefor the only feasible) way of mitigating GW.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)...note too, that they are using only ~5% by volume Ethanol. THe other 95% of the fuel being gasoline!
By Directly Injecting the ethanol they can go with even higher combustion chamber pressures as the higher latent heat of ethanol cools the air fuel charge in the combustion chamber allowing even greater combustion chamber pressures.
Patent application
https://www.google.com/patents/US8082735
Here's a more readable presentation of their engine design:
http://www.ethanolboost.com/LFEE-2005-01.pdf
Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines:
Biofuel Leveraging For Cost Effective Reduction of
Oil Dependence and CO2 Emissions]
D.R. Cohn*, L. Bromberg*, J.B. Heywood
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
*Plasma Science and Fusion Center
Mechanical Engineering Dept. and Sloan Automotive Laboratory
Ethanol has a high fuel octane number (a blending octane number of 110) 2. Moreover,
appropriate direct injection of ethanol can provide an even larger additional knock
suppression effect due to the substantial air charge cooling resulting from its high heat of
vaporization. Our calculations indicate that by increasing the fraction of the fuel provided
by ethanol up to 100 percent when needed at high values of torque, an engine could
operate without knock at more than twice the torque and power levels that would
otherwise be possible. The level of knock suppression can be greater than that of fuel
with an octane rating of 130 octane numbers injected into the engine intake.
The large increase in knock resistance and allowed inlet manifold pressure can make
possible a factor of 2 decrease in engine size (e.g. a 4 cylinder engine instead of an 8
cylinder engine) along with a significant increase in compression ratio (for example, from
10 to 12). This type of operation could provide an increase in efficiency of 30% or more.
The combination of direct injection and an a turbocharger with appropriate low rpm
response provide the desired response capability.
(more)
NOte that by achieving 30% BETTER mpg than gasoline this way, this DOUBLES the Dept of Energy figure for Ethanol's mpg relative to gasoline's (Dept of Energy uses .65 - based upon using ethanol in a low compression detuned, for no-lead gasoline, ICE).
NOw, what does this do to ethanol's GHG emissions reduction figure relative to gasoline's?
Since fuel efficiency is doubled, the GHG emissions of ethanol is cut in HALF:
(1.30)/(.65) = 2.0
DoE est of Ethanol's GHG emissions reduction = -.26 (this without the hypothetical Indirect Land Use changes figure, which is without any empirical validation)
... So, GHG emissions for ethanol relative to gasoline is: 1-.26 = .74
GHG emissions factored by the improvement in mpg from the MIT Ethanol Direct Injection turbo-charged engine = .74/2 = .37
Thus, the GHG emissions reduction compared to gasoline for ethanol in the MIT designed engine would be: 1 -.37 = .63
so, using the MIT Ethanol direct injection engine, the GHG emissions reduction for ethanol goes from -.26 to -.63 !
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)mileage is off 3-4 mpg and it goes down fast.
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)in fact the crap they are brewing now eats up aluminum and other alloys in the fuel systems of cars and small engines. It kills older vehicles not designed for it.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)A review of 43 studies of the effects of E15 (15% ethanol blends) on Model Year 2001 and newer cars by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) found that the studies reviewed showed no meaningful differences between E15 and E10 in any performance category.
~~
~~
The main conclusions of NRELs analysis were:
Several of the studies tested relatively large numbers of engines or vehicles, including the Coordinating Research Councils (CRC) engine durability study (28 engines); the University of Minnesotas in-use fleet study (80 vehicles); and the US DOEs catalyst durability study (82 vehicles). The data presented in these studies did not show any evidence of deterioration in engine durability or maintenance issues for E15 (or E20) in comparison to E0 and E10 (when tested).
~~
~~
Fuel system and engine durability. The NREL team reviewed 5 studies in this area. Engine and vehicle testing studies included:
CRC engine durability study. This study had concluded that two popular engines used in 2001-2009 model year vehicles experienced mechanical failure when operated on E15. However, the NREL researchers determined, the design and methodology of the study left the results open to a different interpretation than that provided by the study authors because of several factors, including: the leakdown failure criterion is not supported in the scientific or applicable OEM literature; statistical analysis included assumed data for vehicles that had not been tested, and omitted data for a vehicle that was tested; E10 was not used as a control fuel.
The NREL team concluded that when those factors are taken into account, the conclusion that engines will experience mechanical engine failure when operating on E15 is not supported by the data.
(MORE)
LINK TO complete NREL report: http://ethanolrfa.3cdn.net/b378858ac325c6e165_sgm6bknd4.pdf
Historic NY
(37,451 posts)or even my lawn movers and gas garden equipment.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)"NREL review of E15 effects on MY2001 and later cars finds no meaningful differences with E10"... you see, MOdel Year 2001 comes AFTER 1970 or 1940. yeah, it does.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Please, no 15% alcohol gasoline.
pscot
(21,024 posts)The background of the two principals of Fuel Freedom Foundation makes me wonder. Corn ethanol is a net loser in terms of return on energy input. IOW, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than you get from burning ethanol.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)rhoanken20
(1 post)Patexia is hosting a new alternative energy patent study. We are offering a prize pool of $4,000 for qualified submissions. You can view the contest here: http://bit.ly/GQaKw3.
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts).. of the MIT scientists, who designed the Ethanol Direct Injection engine (which works as good on methanol as ethanol) named Cohn sounds suspiciously Jewish .... uh-oh, they may not be Rothchilds but you gotta watch those damn Jews anyway, yeah!
http://www.fuelfreedom.org/about-us/meet-the-team/
pscot
(21,024 posts)there appear to be 2 principals, one of them born and educated in Israel. Which led me to wonder whether there was an Israeli interest in promoting ethanol. I have no motive other than curiosity. As for the EROEI of ethanol, reasonable men may differ. It depends on where and how the corn is qrown and what inputs you count. I'd like to see anyone produce 180 bushels an acre using only energy made from ethanol. Industrial corn isn't good for the planet.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Farrell et al study: Ethanol Can Contribute to Energy and Environmental Goals, was published in Jan 2006 in the journal Science.
Farrell et al examined several studies of Ethanol's net energy balance (net energy output -- i.e. net of energy inputs)
they found two 'studies' in particular that were dubious as to conclusions because of unexpained inputs and "input data that are old and unrepresentative of current processes, or so poorly documented that their quality cannot be evaluated".....the 'studies' referred to were two articles by Pimentel and Tad Patzek (a former petroleum engineer for on of the major oil companies, I bevlieve is was Shell Oil):
http://fire.pppl.gov/ethanol_science_012706.pdf
[font size="3"]Two of the studies stand out from the others because they report negative net energy values and imply relatively high GHG emissions and petroleum inputs ([font color="red"]11, 12[/font]). The close evaluation required to replicate the net energy results showed that these two studies also stand apart from the others by incorrectly assuming that ethanol coproducts (materials inevitably generated when ethanol is made, such as dried distiller grains with solubles, corn gluten feed, and corn oil) should not be credited with any of the input energy and by including some input data that are old and unrepresentative of current processes, or so poorly documented that their quality cannot be evaluated.
References and Notes:
[font color="red"]11. T. Patzek, Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 23, 519 (2004).
12. D. Pimentel, T. Patzek, Nat. Resour. Res. 14, 65 (2005).[/font]
[/font]
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)had been ANY wear engine durability/problems with E15 (or E20), such as seals breakdown, in 120,000 they would have known about it (like perhaps engine fires might have tipped them off there was a leaking seal somewhere, or engine seizure due to loss of lubricant...LOL).
Comparative Emissions Testing of Vehicles Aged on E0, E15 and E20 Fuels
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy12osti/55778.pdf
The 2009 vehicles were aged on mileage accumulation dynamometers (Section 3.3) and emissions tests were performed at approximately 60,000, 90,000, and 120,000 miles on the odometer (Table 2). The control vehicles were exposed only to RE0 and Cert_E0 ethanol-free fuels throughout the aging period and test process (fuels defined in Section 4). The RE15 vehicles were aged on RE15 fuel, and emissions tests were performed using Cert_E15 fuel, and then Cert_E0 fuel at each mileage interval. Likewise, the RE20 vehicles were aged on RE20 fuel, and emissions tests were performed using Cert_E20 fuel, and then Cert_E0 fuel at each mileage interval.
The present study is part of a multi-laboratory test program coordinated by DOE to evaluate the effect of higher ethanol blends, up to 20% by volume, on vehicle exhaust emissions over the lifetime of the vehicle. Six different vehicle models were chosen for testing at SGS Environmental Testing Corporation. Four types of vehicles from the 2009 model year were aged to 120,000 miles, and two types of vehicles from the 2000 model year were aged for an additional 50,000 miles over the starting odometer. The vehicles were aged under very consistent and controlled conditions by running them on mileage accumulation dynamometers using the Standard Road Cycle.
The fuels used to age the vehicles, or aging fuels, were designated as RE0, RE15, and RE20 to indicate the ethanol content. Emissions tests were performed using fuels designated as Cert_E0, Cert_E15, and Cert_E20 to indicate the amount of ethanol splash-blended into certification gasoline.
For each vehicle model chosen for testing, three closely matched vehicles were recruited. The three vehicles in the set all had the same engine family and evaporative emissions family. One vehicle was aged on ethanol-free fuel (RE0), one aged on 15 vol% ethanol splash blended into gasoline (RE15), and one on 20 vol% ethanol splash blended into gasoline (RE20). The test plan was designed to establish baseline (pre-aging) exhaust emissions, and then to periodically retest the eighteen vehicles in the study following mileage accumulation to quantify the change of exhaust emissions as the vehicles aged. For each vehicle model, the test results for the vehicles aged on RE0, RE15, and RE20 fuels were directly compared to assess the impact of ethanol content on exhaust emissions deterioration.
The conclusions drawn here apply to the six vehicle models tested. The reader is referred to the DOE V4 Program Rep
~~
~~
Two makes and models were tested from the 2000 model year. Both the 2000 Accord and 2000 Focus were certified to EPA NLEV standards. The cars were recruited from the public fleet by others and provided to SGS-ETC for testing. Significant operational problems and failures were encountered with some of the model year 2000 cars provided (Section 5), and testing was restarted with spare vehicles to complete the test matrix. Only the vehicles that completed the test matrix are included in Table 1 and in the results sections. The starting odometers were within 6,000 miles of each other for the 2000 Accord cars aged on RE0, RE15 and RE20 fuels. The starting odometers for the 2000 Focus cars were significantly different, with the Focus RE0 having the highest starting mileage of 103,069 miles, about 33,000 miles higher than Focus RE20. The model year 2000 vehicles were aged on mileage accumulation dynamometers (Section 3.3). Emissions tests were performed at the starting mileage, and following approximately 25,000 and 50,000 miles of aging (Table 2).
~~
~~
8.0 Conclusions
The conclusions drawn here apply to the six vehicle models tested. These findings are not sufficient to make conclusions about the use of higher ethanol blends in the nations legacy vehicle fleet. The reader is referred to the DOE V4 Program Report [Ref 3] for a comprehensive statistical analysis of 82 vehicles, including 14 vehicles from this study.
The vehicles aged on 15% and 20% ethanol-containing fuels did not produce higher exhaust emissions compared to control vehicles aged on ethanol-free fuel, for all six models tested in the study.
Blends of 15% to 20% ethanol into certification gasoline either produced no change or lowered NMHC and CO emissions for each vehicle tested, relative to the same vehicle tested on ethanol-free certification gasoline. NOx emissions were not statistically different for each vehicle tested on ethanol-containing certification fuels, compared to the same vehicle tested on ethanol-free certification gasoline.
The mean NOx emissions increased over the aging period for 17 of the 18 vehicles in the study. Of these vehicles, five were aged using RE0 fuel, six were aged using RE15 fuel, and six were aged using RE20 fuel.
For four of the six models tested, the vehicle aged on RE0 fuel had[font size="3"] higher exhaust emissions[/font] compared to the matched vehicles aged on RE15 or RE20 fuel. This finding contradicted the concern that higher ethanol content in gasoline may accelerate catalyst deterioration.
The 2009 Honda Odyssey aged using RE0 fuel had higher NMHC, CO and NOx emissions at 120,000 miles compared to the vehicles aged on RE15 and RE20 with 95% confidence. The catalyst conversion efficiency for the HC, CO and NOx species was poorer for Odyssey RE0 as it aged compared to the other vehicles.
NOx emissions from the 2009 Ford Focus aged using RE0 fuel were higher than Focus RE15 at 90,000 miles and higher than Focus RE20 at 120,000 miles with statistical confidence. All three vehicles in this set had significant deterioration of NOx emissions over the 120,000 mile aging period.
There was no statistical difference in NMHC, CO and NOx emissions for the 2009 Toyota Camrys aged on RE15 and RE20 fuels compared to Camry RE0 after 120,000 miles of aging.
NMHC, CO and NOx emissions were higher for 2009 Saturn Outlook RE0 compared to the vehicles aged on RE15 and RE20 fuels after 120,000 miles, with statistical confidence.
The effect of the aging fuel on NMHC and NOx emissions was not statistically significant for the model year 2000 Honda Accords. CO emissions from Accord RE0 were higher compared to Accords RE15 and RE20 at 120,000 miles with statistical confidence.
(more)
4dsc
(5,787 posts)The sooner we get away from ethanol the better.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Last edited Mon Oct 28, 2013, 08:29 PM - Edit history (6)
The corn used to make ethanol is of the type grown to feed cattle and pigs. People won't eat it. The supply of corn has not been adversely impacted by growing corn for ethanol as domestic needs are being met (for people and cattle... most corn is grown to feed cattle not people*) and exports have been growing. ONLY the starch from the corn is used to make ethanol. The protein portion is recovered and becomes Dried Distillers Grains and Solubles (DDGS) a high protein feed supplement(which can replace corn and other sources of protein) for cattle. THERE is NO LOSS of Protein for this process.
Nonetheless, since the Government has prohibited making much more ethanol from corn than we currently are we are now at about the limit of ethanol we can make from corn. We should start rapidly increasing the current production of methanol and add that to the ethanol being blended with gasoline. We currently make methanol for about $1.45 a gallon, wholesale. This is the quickest and cheapest way we have of cutting our consumption of gasoline/petroleum for light transportation.
Even with rapid increased production of methanol, with which we could eventually replace ALL gasoline being burned in light transportation sector, the best we can hope for is to mitigate the soon-to-be runaway GW.
I, of course, don't expect us to do this. The Oil industry disinformation machine is too powerful. In the future the Greenland ice sheets will be sliding off into the ocean and causeing an abrupt rise in the oceans - no this will not continue at a nice linear pace. THe ice will at some point get enough melt water underneath it to hit an inflection point where the speed of sliding off the Greenland landmass will abruptly increase. At this point there apparently isn't enough data to model when this will occur. But whenever it is will be a calamity like we have never seen in Human history.
..... if you are not under the age of say, 40 you probably don't have to worry. Otherwise, good luck ... and if you live too close tothe shoreline, move inland .. and upland... from the sea while you can afford to.
... beyond the melting Greenland Icesheets (and of course the Antarctic Ice sheets) there is the acidification of the ocean. Shell fish in the Northern Pacific are already starting to show the affects of this. At some point in the future, the food supply from the ocean will crash and billions who count on the ocean for a some or all of their food supply will be in dire straits. But at least we didn't use corn for starch to make ethanol - whew!
poopfuel
(250 posts)Plenty of other viable sources we can use right now.
alcoholcanbeagas.com
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)A robust qualification program will normally test at slightly beyond the actual limits. Only way to be certain that a product meets full performance specifications under the worst case normal service condition.
As to not caring about the millions with cars more than 10yrs old. Many of whom are low income and can't afford to run out and buy a newer vehicle. I don't think this article will make them all very happy.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)http://www.fuelfreedom.org/myth-15-ethanol-fuel-will-destroy-my-engine/
The test did not use the 15% ethanol blend (E15) that new standards call for. Instead, they used Aggressive E20. The word aggressive means [FONT COLOR="RED"]the addition of sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid to the fuel mix (ph of 2.8). Needless to say, standard car parts were never built to withstand acid in the fuel.[/FONT] Moreover, ethanol in water is a slight base; hence any resulting corrosion does not resemble corrosion due to acid exposure. (Note: Off-the shelf E10 that was NOT aggressive was used for the control test.)
Water in the fuel is a strong abrasive. The water content of their Aggressive E20 blend was raised to the top of the legal limit. Commercially sold ethanol has about half of that water content.
The study specifies that: The project oversight panel specified the aromatic level of the base gasoline (prior to ethanol blending) to approximately 40% volume. In other words, per the request of non-scientist auto and oil representatives, CRC increased the percentage of octane-enhancing aromatics in the fuel to 40% 10% more than the normal fuel aromatics content of 30%. This change, in turn, enabled CRC to use 80-octane fuel, which has less tolerance for water, despite the fact that the minimum sold in the U.S. is 84-octane. Running the test on 80-octane fuel caused the water they added to the fuel to become an even stronger abrasive.
.....More than 80% of the miles driven in the United States are on cars that are less than 10 years old, yet 7 of the 15 cars tested were past their product useful life of 10 years. Only one car was a late model year a 2009 Honda Accord.
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)The Question is what is the Phe limit for ASTM Compliant E15.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)Sulfuric acid is used in wet milling yes, but this is before centrifuging separates most of acid before fermentation.
Distillation after fermentation process would eliminate any Sulfuric acid from being found in the alcohol product.
by far most of the ethanol made in U.S. is via the dry milling process.
note in article referred to and quoted in OP:
[font size="3"] "The word aggressive means the [font size="5"]addition of sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid[/font] to the fuel mix (ph of 2.8)."[/font]
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)And the test needs to be based upon what the worst case "in Spec" limits are. Not what might be typical. I presume ASTM will be creating a new specification to cover the E15. What are the limits in the draft standard?
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)pHe 6.5 minimum, 9.0 maximum: ASTM D-6423
I haven't seen any draft standard for 15%.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)doc03
(35,349 posts)personal experience and from any small engine mechanic I have ever talked to that it ruins small engines. Just this spring I had to replace the fuel line on my outboard motor, the ethanol burned holes in it. Last year my older weed wacker and my leaf blower were rendered inoperable from the ethanol. Also I have been told it wrecks the engines in older autos.
Bill USA
(6,436 posts)or, then there is always:
unless you've got another option....