Speaking of Cole-Fiered Boats...

[XLFD]

I can't recall how many times during this last election cycle that then-Sheriff candidate Kim Cole stressed that then-Sheriff Jeff Fiers had screwed up the whole system by either neglecting a problem, not spending enough on a problem, or a combination of the two.  Yet every time I tried to look into the 'problems' and check the documentation about these so-called irresponsible oversights, they uncannily were found only to be brought up last year for the election by Sheriff Kim Cole.  So whether it was car tires, car breaks (sic), light bulbs, leaky faucets, etc., affecting the correction officers, road patrol, marine units, etc. the blame was squarely placed on the square shoulders of Sheriff Fiers and Undersheriff Trenner.

 

Frankly, one can believe it more demonstrated a lack of leadership on the people that were in charge of day-to-day operational problems than the administrators, for those people need to present those problems, mostly small and outside of administrative overview, to the sheriff for remedy.  The paper trail was never established, Sheriff Fiers claimed ignorance of most of the gripes.  Was there a communication problem?  More than likely, and maybe both sides were culpable, but those problems never aired until it came time for elections and smacked of pure politics.

 

Even worse, it seemed as if Kim Cole wanted to blame everything that was going wrong in the department on anyone other than himself, who had a lot to say as a sergeant with vast experience at the MCSO.  It reminds one of President Obama's mantra of "It's George Bush's fault." to every problem that comes up.  In this case, Cole says "Under Fiers' leadership, this never got done because he was pinching pennies/ignoring ongoing problems."  For his part in the Schilling civil lawsuit, his conflict of interest in the Darius Vanbrook accident investigation, and his new sergeants' involvement in the McAdam's civil lawsuit, Sheriff Kim Cole seems willing and unashamed to shift the blame to the innocent parties involved.  That can be a significant character flaw for someone with the responsibilities of a county sheriff.

 

His first partial year has been to try to divert/devote a lot more money to his department for rectifying these so-called problems created by the negligence of the last administration.  The most recent involves the problems the MCSO had with blown engines on their boats, as noted in this Friday's edition of the City of Ludington Daily News (COLDNews), 

 

 

Interestingly, we find there are two things to blame for the marine engines having blown (or burnt out) motors.  First, there is the fiendish policy of the previous administration trying to save 50 or 60 cents a gallon on fuel, by having their tanks be filled up at the bus barn using gas that apparently was E-10 (10% Ethanol) gas.  Second, that such gas mixtures are detrimental to marine engines.

 

Now, with a little research, I found that E-10 gas, does not have to be labeled as such in Michigan, and so I first question whether the bus gas was such.  I checked out the bus pumps myself, and found no sign/sticker to the effect that said they had E-10 gas or any other ethanol-gas mix.  You will notice, the LAS Transportation Director is never questioned about it either.

 

But for sake of argument, let's say that for the last four years the MCSO has been putting that horrendous E-10 gas into their boats.  Will this have the bad effects that Undersheriff Jody Hartley authoritatively puts out in this article?   Will the E-10 gas attract/hold water, corrode engines, and blow/burn-out engines?  Let's look to some knowledgeable authorities for an answer to this.

 

You can find several authoritative reports that ethanol can be bad for engines, but these are mostly voiced by concerns worried about making such mixtures as E-15 (15% Ethanol) or greater.  That sentiment is even consistent with the articles included here, which indicate that the current E-10 mixture is perfectly fine for the MCSO's current engines, and workable for earlier engines if some safeguards are observed in their maintenance.

 

1)  The West Marine Advisor:  Busting Ethanol Fuel myths:  MYTH: Ethanol-blended fuels are bad and should be avoided.

TRUTH: Ethanol blended fuels (E10) are common throughout much of the United States. After the transition period from non-ethanol fuel, E10 may actually be a superior marine fuel, as it tends to keep low levels of water moving through the fuel system, keeping the system “dry”. For over a decade, marine engines have been engineered to handle E10 gasoline. However, all types of fuels should be treated if they won’t be used in a few weeks.

When E10 gasoline comes into contact with water, ethanol will allow fuel to absorb some or all of that water. This is actually somewhat beneficial, but fuel can reach a saturation point and water can phase separate to form a distinct layer in the bottom of the tank. The upper “gasoline” layer will be depleted of ethanol and have a reduced octane level. The lower “phase separation” layer will be a corrosive mix of water and ethanol. No chemical agent or fuel additive can be added to E10 gasoline, in a reasonable quantity, that will fully prevent phase separation or recombine a phase-separated layer.

 

2)  Harbortown marina: Is my boat engine compatible with ethanol fuels?

Pretty much all manufacturers have designed their marine engines to operate effectively and safely on ethanol blended fuels up to 10% (E10). Using this type of fuel generally will not invalidate a warranty, or cause any harm to your engine.

There is evidence that suggests E10 may be a superior marine fuel as it tends to keep low levels of water moving through the fuel system, protecting it from dangers like phase separation.

3)  This brochure also handles some of the myths spread about using E10 gas in boats:  Ethanol Marine Use  something you can also find on this pro-ethanol-marine-use website:  http://chooseethanol.com/what-is-ethanol/entry/ethanol-and-marine-e....  It even tells us that these gas mixtures are excellent for racing boats, which is what these boats would be doing in an  emergency.   

There are also some excellent studies done by the EPA into this particular topic, but since they are politically motivated to approve ethanol gas, I find their studies more difficult to wean from such bias. 

 

Undersheriff Hartley then is at least partially right, in his analysis; but with proper maintenance and care carried out, his concerns are mostly groundless.  And doesn't it seem odd that these engine problems only developed this last year in every marine engine?   Ironically, the deputy pictured, Matthew Warmuskerken, just joined the marine patrol this last year when these boat engines were found to be effectively useless.

 

You may recognize that name from the McAdam lawsuit, where he was alleged to have tasered a man guilty of no crime near the beach, and then when the man was handcuffed to a hospital bed.  Maybe Deputy Warmuskerken (with his fellow deputies Oscar Davila and Derek Wilson?) wanted more power and pushed the motors beyond their limits, knowing they would get new ones along with the new sheriff. 

Either way, their blaming the problems with these boat engines on having ethanol in the gas mixture is just one more way to avoid saying that they are responsible for the problems they had with these engines.  When you can't admit a simple thing like that, what other things can you justify so easily?

[Willy]

Terrific job on this article X. I'm curious why all of those motors had gone bad. A good mechanic should have been able to determine what caused all of the engine to fail. I wonder if a mechanic had been hired to check into it because if it wasn't from the fuel then it would be nice to know how to handle the new engines to prevent future failures and maybe to prevent possible operator errors.

[XLFD]

Good point, Willy, the type of damage to the engines should be able to be diagnosed by any qualified boat mechanic.  Absent any forensic engine examination (that sounds too much like an investigation) you can basically claim any sort of cause such as ethanol blended gas, Jeff Fiers defiantly putting sugar in the tank, or gremlins. 

And if these new engines start to blow because of some poor maintenance or other handler's error, who is the MCSO gonna blame?

[Lisa O'Brien]

Many members of my family in the Ludington area have boats - they all fill up at local gas stations ( all have ethanol)  and not the Marina - not 1 of them has every had a blown motor. I think they are grasping at straws.

[XLFD]

I see boaters throughout the summer filling their smaller boats up at the downtown Wesco.  Funny story occurred back when I was on the LFD.  A person opened up the gas tank on his new 20' (or so) boat, and clicked the pump handle for automatic filling, and then went into Wesco for some treats.  He came back, noticed the pump still going and about 40 gallons of gas in his tank, and a strong smell of gas. 

It seems that he had opened the wrong hole, and gas was filling the bottom of his boat's hull. 

[AQUAMAN]

Here's a peak on what I personally know about ethanol on boat motors. The older, pre-2008 or so motors are not made for ethanol usage, and therefore, will get gummed up carbs., fuel lines, pistons burned, and such problems. Ethanol won't necessarily blow or bust the motor, but it won't start, or will run very badly until fixed. The newer engines can accept ethanol usage, but, it's not recommended by the manufacturer. There are also additives one can buy at the auto service stores to add for best performance. In any case, using the highest octane, 93 rated or above, is the best for marine motors. And for boats of any type, I recommend going to the marina or airport for the best rated gas available. Saving a few pennies a gallon is going to cost much more later to rebuild and repair marine motors, esp. the older models. I have had problems with the ethanol gas previous to the municipal marina making the changes, and so have others that have trailer type boats that go to land based gas stations.

[XLFD]

Thanks for your knowledge and input, Aquaman, I just realized that in the process of trying to debunk the face-saving myth I think the MCSO is putting out, I probably sounded as if I am advocating that E-10 gas is as good a fuel as 90 rated gas for marine engines, but I am not.  Honda marine engineers have shown that a gallon of E-10 provides 28% less energy than a gallon without ethanol.  Therefore, if you buy E-10 at $2.86 a gallon (as in the above) you need to buy over another quart of it to equal a gallon of marine gas, which I believe has more octane/ energy than the regular gas at the bus barn. 

So you come out even if there is about an 80 cent difference in gas prices of the two types, so I agree you should avoid E-10 for your boat just for this factor even if your boat is new and is fully equipped to handle E-10.  

You must also be concerned if you have older fuel line components on your boat, say older than about fifteen years, and older fiberglass gas tanks should not be used with ethanol of any mixture due to potential reaction with ethanol.