Ethanol and fuel pump failure?

I've read all the threads on the 3rd Generation fuel pump failure. It has been suggested that ethanol is the cause of the problem. Does anyone have a "for sure" answer as to whether or not ethanol is the problem? The reason I ask is that I have always used ethanol free gas in my trucks. I'll get the recall done, but prefer waiting until this COVID-19 thing settles down a bit.

 

Here is a great post with a link to the study that Toyota did. IMHO, it all but says that ethanol is a factor in the failures. Nylon doesn't swell and crack in E0 fuel:

 

It isn't the ethanol that is causing failures. It is poor engineering. I live in a state that ONLY sells ethanol and has done so for oh, about two decades. Zero issues with Honda, Ford, GM and FCA. Any company suggesting that E10 is causing their fuel pump "failures" really needs to hire some summer interns from the local engineering school and have them do a re-design....

 

When you talk about "only selling ethanol" are you referring to E10? I believe that's a federal mandate.

 

Yes, I am referring to E10. It is not a federal mandate, lots of areas of the country still sell "pure gas" to the old-timers ;-)
BTW, many vehicles run E85 (!) without issue and their fuel pumps are fine. Some countries run only E100 and their vehicle fuel pumps are fine.

It is an engineering/accounting problem, most likely due to going with the cheapest bid (that saved 25 cents per fuel pump) by using inferior pump impeller material.

Remember: We are taking about vehicle manufacture that is still using their stockpile of drum brakes from 1968 ;-)

 

Have a look at the linked study. They had a tolerance issue that was on top of swelling and cracking. Also, the LPFP recall is effective for Honda, Subaru, Mazda, and others.

https://www.nhtsa.gov/equipment-detail/DENSO/FUEL%252520PUMP/a__4357742#recalls

I believe it is mandated in urban areas or some such. E0 is available but has to be searched out.

 

It depend on the emissions standards and the emission measurements of those areas. Example: the state I live in has the same emissions standards as Cali, even though we are 3,000 miles away. You couldn't buy a Mercedes Blu-tec diesel in Cali or here. All our vehicles must meet Cali emissions.

During certain parts of the year (most notably Winter) we would get weather "inversions" where the emissions would just linger. Sooooo we (like many other states with the same issue) went to "winter blend fuel". Turns out the methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE) that we put in the fuel was leeching into the ground water (lots of wells around here) Sooooo, E10 was mandated here about twenty years ago and has been in our fuel ever since. That corn juice is less toxic than the MTBE.

The MTBE was used for emissions, the corn juice is primarily due to the requirement to use "renewable" resources as a fuel. It doesn't HAVE to be ethanol, it is just that ethanol is inexpensive and that is what most refineries when with. I believe that requirement started in about 2005, although E10 was used even earlier.

Anyway, 100's of millions of miles later, no issues with fuel pumps except by manufacturer's trying to save twenty-five cents by using subpar materials for the impeller.

 

Gasohol has been around since the 70s. I don't know why any manufacturer would still have problems with it.

WAVY Archive: 1979 Gasohol - YouTube

 

Yep. We had MTBE when I was growing up in rural PA. Here in WA, we have E10 in most places. E0 can be found if searched out.

The smog is noticeably better here in the past decade or so, even with more people. I don't want to see a change there, but I cannot credit ethanol for it. Better engine controls on both gas and diesel? Certainly. Corn is for eating beyond the fact that it takes more petrol to create and transport than it saves.


I have seen plenty of problems with ethanol though. Whether it is nylon fuel tanks on bike (indirect), fuel degradation in boats (indirect), jets in my mower, rubber fuel line degradation (direct), or this problem (indirect). It is great that you haven't been directly affected by fuel / ethanol problems, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.

 

Again, there are no problems with ethanol, only engineering and accounting problems. I put 144,000 on a Honda motorcycle and it ONLY had E10 fuel. Oh sure, the occasional Ducati with their cheap @ss fuel tanks would implode, but again, they simply went with an inferior design.

Some countries (Brazil) went years and years on ONLY E100...with zero issues. My educated guess is that Brazilian engineering teams are not THAT much smarter than American or Italian engineers (or maybe they are?).

Anyway, since 2005 and the Renewable Energy Act E10 has become ubiquitous in North America. Suggesting that engineers haven't figured out a way to make a vehicle's fuel tank or fuel fittings E10 proof in oh, a decade and a half is simply not rooted in reality. Blame bean counters, not E10 or engineering.

BTW, during the 144,000 miles on my Honda, most of the time I was running an aux fuel tank and never had an issue with E10 'eating' the hose feeding the main tank. Maybe Toyota engineering should hire me ;-)

Every passenger vehicle on the streets of Brazil has been running E20 to E100 since 1993 (!) without issues. Time for Toyota to send some engineers there !

 

Covid-19 ain't going. Away. Might as well sleep on it

 

What you credit ethanol for or what I credit ethanol for is frankly, moot. The science is what counts ;-)

EPA estimates that smog-forming pollutants are being reduced annually by at least 105 thousand tons, and toxics by at least 24 thousand tons by using RFG (reformulated gasoline). When MBTE was removed, it was replaced with Ethanol, specifically E10. As a result we can breath fresh air. I spent seven years at Arizona State University in Tempe, AZ, a suburb (sorta) of Phoenix back in the early 1990s. The air there was a dark brown. We called it the Valley of the Scum. It is 100x better now do to many reasons, including Ethanol fuels.

 

Okay. You can credit it for whatever you want. The facts are that is more energy intensive to produce than E0.

I have no dog in this. Have fun.

 

I guess it isn't a mandate, but most fuels are like that.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26092

But, yes I know E0 is available in certain spots, but I believe you have to look for it specifically. Ethanol causes many issues with engines in the long term. They usually contain additives to try and mitigate that though.

As for E85, the Tacoma specifically says not to use E85.

 

LOL

HONK HONK

 

Eh, the Pfizer vaccine is fast tracking it's way through CDC and FDA. There's a good chance vaccines will be in use by next month and, one of three scenarios will happen: 1, COVID goes away because the vaccine works flawlessly. 2, Anti-vaxers were right and the vaccine slowly kills everyone that had it administered. 3 (really 2.5), zombie apocalypse.

 

It's not ethanol fault, the fuel pump engineers specified the wrong material and ethanol contributes to the failure. New fuel pumps won't have that problem, nor will old fuel pumps that always run ethanol free.

 

What am I missing? Doesn't even suggest at ethanol from reading that. Not saying ethanol isn't a contributing factor, but I don't know how you got that from the Toyota study.

 

What I said was:

What the document says:








My conclusion:
E0 gasoline is completely safe for nylon and rubber components. The addition of ethanol is known to react with nylon in these ways as it separates from the fuel, absorbs water, and is absorbed by nylon.


My feelings:

-- The petroleum required to grow, produce ethanol, and transport it is more than the energy gained from it.
-- The subsidies are a false economy.
-- The unintended environmental consequences of ethanol fuels (production of failed parts, disposal of bad fuel, production of stabilizers, etc.) is worse than any good that it might do.​

 

FWIW. I recall filling my '63 Buick with E10 in 1976.

E10 has been around for many 1M logged miles in 1000s of different vehicles. Its not new by any stretch of the imagination.

Engineers would design for the poorest fuel. Otherwise, there would be countless fuel related issues throughout fuel systems in 1000s of vehicles.

I seriously doubt if E10 caused the recall. More likely a manufacturing or design issue.

Be careful slurping up the mythconception koolaid on the misinformation highway.