Not really- the picture is a cast iron pump sitting in a water contaminated sump. Did you not read your own report?

 

There is a finite amount of moisture in the air trapped in the tank. Even if the air was at 100% absolute humidity when it was sealed, the total volume of water is negligible. One 'benefit' of ethanol in gasoline is it's hygroscopic properties. The tiny amount of water is absorbed by the ethanol and kept in suspension out of harms way.

If pure gas was substituted- the moisture would not be absorbed by the fuel and remain as vapour causing fuel tank corrosion. Wait a minute- that doesn't really happen either ?!?

 

I know you are devoted to your believes, but do try to reading whole thing. The part about water vapors in a sealed fuel station tanks leading to all kinds of undesirable effects. Unlike cars, these storage tanks are made out of concrete, so only pumps, that contain various metals like, aluminum, copper, and steel corrode. With cars, whole tank can and does corrode.

What do you think your car's pump is made of? Gold?

Here is picture of motorcycle pump from this article :

 

For the whole month or two. Then fuel separates into water, ethanol, and lower octane gasoline. Then bacteria starts growing in it. This bacteria turn ethanol into more water and acid. Then you have acetic acid at the bottom of your gas tank.

I know you are not huge on reading other people's posts, but I will try to link this again in hopes of getting through to you:


Microbially influenced corrosion communities associated with fuel-grade ethanol environments

 

Actually, I do read them hoping to learn something. I'm retired and have all the time in the world. I end up finding that 99% of the articles are just bad/thin science, full of weak theories, inapplicable subject matter or are just plain scaremongering.

Again and putting verifiable accurate science aside- if your predictions were even 1% accurate , there would hundreds of thousands of damaged vehicles with accompanying public outrage and lawsuits galore. But there isn't.

If the best a person can find as 'evidence' is a story about some random guy that bought an old bike that sat in unknown conditions (including unknown contents of the gas tank) for ten years, and then states that the rusty fuel pump 'must have been caused by E10' cause his mechanic says so, that's pretty weak.

 

So when I tell you that I had a gas tank rust out from inside, explain you why that happened and how to avoid this, link you studies and articles explaining more about this... you call me a troll.

At the same time, your 'look through the fill hole' anecdote is definitive proof.

Very rigorous thinking.

 

This thread should be locked. Clearly SinF is more interested in justifying his own opinion rather than having a valuable discussion that helps the community. This topic is just like oil change intervals; everyone has their own opinion and there is no amount of evidence or science you can provide that will change anyones mind. This is not a constructive topic.

 

But gas tanks have been rusting out since car serial #1 was built over 100 years ago. Nothing much changed with the advent of E10.

 

That was not the intended goal but I agree with you. What a shame.

 

Are you sure? Because reading through your condescending tone and underhanded insults I got the exact opposite impression.

 

what's trolling (I'm not familiar with that term)? I go through a lot of cars (that's my hobby). The F Type is more fun to drive without a heavy tank of gas...would you not agree (who wouldn't?). Cross contamination is an issue (I feel it when it happens)...I'm looking to learn more about that issue....I've already resolved not to use E5 or 10 (too many bad stories)....

 

I'm surprised that you're willing to risk pulling sediments into the filter with a low fuel level in the gas taken when you're this concerned about ethanol.

 

"I like to keep my tank less than a third full; the car is more responsive, so fuel quality is important in this regard."

Sorry, but I'm trying to get my head around this statement.... 1. can you really perceive a difference with less gas in the tank? 2. What does the volume of gas have to do with quality? Shitty gas is still shitty, no matter how much of it there is.....

I've always thought that one should keep a full tank as to lessen condensation. That's definitely true in airplanes.... one reason why we sample the fuel before a flight.

 

Again- gas tanks on modern cars are sealed so condensation is NOT a factor. Aircraft (my professional background) are a different animal.

I think the OP had already made up his mind on each 'issue' prior to posting his questions and was just looking for someone to agree. He seems to have found that person so no amount of logic or facts from others will change anything.

 

ive gone through 50000 km total on two F types with no sediment issue. is that really a concern?

 

not my intent al all actually; just looking to learn from more experienced F Type owners (apparently there doesn't appear to be many)...

 

1. yes (weight is a big issue to me and I notice the difference that 35 kg of fuel weight to handling)...
2. nothing. my point was always to use the highest quality fuel with no cross contamination with lower grades by not using the same pump that dispenses low and high grade fuels...


Condensation; never thought of that...

 

Absolutely, one bad fill up and you're screwed. This is why you don't fill at station while a semi is filling the tanks. But even then, if the gas stations tanks become contaminated or crack, you'll never know. With that little fuel in the tank at a time, you're always running the risk of pulling any sediment into the filter. Running with more than a quarter tank reduces this risk and helps "wash" the sock on the pump so you don't starve the system.

The risk of this is much greater than the risk of ethanol damaging the system, which won't happen until after you're dead.

 

 

good points...