Talk Morgan Forums Morgan Sports Cars Classic Morgans (pre-CX) E10

The post has certainly come up with lots of diverse opinions, it's interesting to see so many prepared to suck it and see. What do we mean by keeping an eye on it? Surely we are not going to get under our cars checking for leaks every time we go out.
thanks to all.

Depends on the age and state of your car, I would think. The way I look at it there are 3 separate areas to be considered:

1. Engine - this will be exactly the same as the car it originally came from in terms of vulnerability
2. Fuel Line from Tank to Engine
3. Tank, filler and pump

If you are capable of checking and changing the elements yourself, then I would recommend you do so. If not, then take it to a Morgan specialist and get their advice. Or simply do what most of us do, which is to use E5 fuel whenever you can, and chuck in some suitable additive when you can't.

In my particular example: My engine and fuel pump is from a 2007 car and is safe. My fuel line is Aeroquip braided stuff installed in around 2003 and is safe. The only suspect bit for me is the fuel filler neck, but I don't see it as a major issue.

Probably, although if it's fuel leaking it will usually evaporate before it's noticeable. I will however use my nose. My partners diesel recently had a tiny fuel leak, and the smell was obvious very quickly from the outside of the car.

For my classic 4/4 I've replaced all rubber hoses for ethanol proof rubber. The line between the tank and the engine is copper (and many a 'still' owner will know that ethanol is fine with copper). The only place for problems will be the tank, fuel pump and carb and I'll keep an eye on those in my regular 'fettles'. Tank can be replaced by stainless, pump by an electric, and carb with a throttle body (although I'm sure they'll be an ethanol proof carb kit out there somewhere.)

TBM, I have read rather too much on the possible issues relating to E10, I have no idea of how much of it is fake news even from "official" sources..?
As for that which might be affected I note that Ferrari seemingly are making plastic floats available for their carb fed engines to replace the brass ones..!

Me..? I will stick to premium brands whenever available, I think my Mog deserves nothing less...

Like Sospan I, too, have tried to understand the chemical effects of ethanol. Not the easiest of things to do.

My car is generally in a good position. Engine good, tank good, pump good. So I looked at the tubing, fortunately nearly all have some form of coding.
My interpretation…..
1. In the tank area the MMC filler pipe is an unknown.
2. All others are PA12/ PVDF which I believe to be acceptable except
3. one which is PA11/PHLY from pump to filter (I wonder why it has this type?) An unknown.

4. At the front end the fuel pipe to the injection system is wrapped in heat shield so an unknown.
5. The markings on the evap system pipe refer to a specific Ford preformed pipe. There are other small unmarked preformed evap pipes. Given Mondeos, Fiestas (but not SCi) are ok with ethanol I’m relaxed all these pipes are ok.

So, I have a couple of unknowns to clarify but nothing of a “critical, must be sorted out now nature” whilst with E5. As always with any “rubber” tubing their condition will be inspected regularly.

That said, excepting the vagaries of the filler pipe, all others are not the hardest job to make up and replace.

Just stick to E5, my Plus 8 has been on Super for the last 7 years anyway, it's a toy and I believe you can overthink these things, time is better spent driving them whilst we still can
In real terms it won't cost more than + - £150 for the E10 difference p.a. so a couple of tanks in reality..

IF and when we are approaching an E10 only time I'll look into changing hoses, meantime just get on with some quality miles..

Don't panic Mr Mainwaring springs to mind with this one

^ +1 ..... I fitted the German ethanol proof braided hose between the tank and the pump during the build as it will be under trim and a pain to retro fit later .... will stick to E5 while it's there and worry about an ethanol resistant gasket kit for the weber as and when ... the joy of a bog simple carb crossflow as opposed to an earlier injection car with high fuel pressure and o-rings and seals.

K

A previous reader suggested it was only a toy! Mine I’m pleased to say is used daily,

A toy is whatever you as an individual wants it to be and after 17 years of enjoyment I like to look forward to and savour the special times, but if you use yours as your commute that’s o.k. too, one thing you will discover is that there are as many different owners and useage patterns as there are Morgan’s, enjoy your miles.

I used to commute to Exeter 90 mile round trip for a couple of years in the 4/4 Sport, I found it didn't mix well the pleasure and work thing so dropped it as the association didn't work for me, and I wasn't looking forward to the weekend trips out so much after a while.

Not a problem since taking early retirement, just chose my day and time and go

I would never use mine daily as that would include salt laden roads as well, I like to take care of my toys .

Reading Jack&Jill description of carb settings has set me wondering how the ecu maps will deal with increased ethanol content. If the carbs need bigger jets then will the ecu map alter the injector timings in a similar way, i.e. increase the injection time by a few microseconds? For example, will the lambda sensors detect a variation and feed back to alter the fuelling ?
In some ways it is similar to using 95 octane or higher (97/99) octane petrol. As far as I can determine my Gems controlled engine has enough “intelligence” built in to cope with the petrol variation so likely to deal with ethanol variation in a similar way.
The only long term unknown is the effect of ethanol at 10% on the rubber fuel system components. Will it accelerate the normal age effects of rubber? Pure ethanol fuel might well do so but lower concentrations less so. I am looking for clear definitive test results conducted properly, not anecdotally or in ad hoc unscientific ways.