Cycle Whirl Ethanol article

[guzziownr]

http://www.cycleworld.com/real-world-look-at-alcohol-in-your-tank

[Dilliw]

Not a problem for my EV with external fuel pump but the Griso is another matter.  It's got two "dimples" and a small crack/bump in the plastic tank from the stuff. 

I still use 10% fuel but make sure that I'm almost empty before I get home.  Then luckily I have 90 octane ethanol free a few miles from my house and fill with that before putting it in the garage.  That way it doesn't sit with the stuff in there. 

[amamet]

i have a modified 69 ford bronco fuel injected.  it died on me all of a sudden 2 years ago, after tearing it apart trying to figure out what the heck was going on, i pulled the fuel pump from the tank.  well the rubber pickup line on the pump felt like gelatin.  i can only assume the ethanol was dissolving the rubber line in the tank.  replaced rubber line and all good to go.  ethanol sucks!

allen

[stevet]

Thanks for the link.  The current issue of Motorcycle Consumer News has a rather in-depth article about ethanol as well.  But, I can't link it.  It may be available to view in time at their website, though.

But a question for the motorcycle manufacturing industry as a whole, be they from N. America, Europe, or Asia- When are you going to get off your collective butts and start building machines that are not affected by alcohol products in gasoline?   10 years ago or so, sure, maybe they had a right to bitch, but folks, alcohol is never going away.  The motorcycle industry is a tiny piss-ant user of fuel, hardly worth the consideration of big oil and the federal government.  All (or nearly all) the builders build to meet Europe's pollution standards, so why aren't they building to meet American (and likely as time goes by, international) fuel standards?  Motorcycle manufacturers at this point, in my mind, are being negligent if product sitting on the sales floor today is unable to deal with the fuel we put in them.

Yes, not everyone has easy availability to non-corn juice gasoline.  I have only one dealer in my area that is convenient to me.  My 2010 FJR gets 89 octane corn juice, until the last month of the riding season when I draw the tank to near empty and then run a few fills of non-oxy gas into it.  My 2016 Stone, bought at zero miles by me, has never seen a drop of ethanol by my hands.  The dealer put a gallon or so of mystery gas in the tank to get me out the door, but I went straight to the non-oxy pump on the way home, because I knew Guzzis don't like corn juice.

To me, this topic is becoming a dead horse.  Old news.  Be wise to your fuel buying decisions and know the benefits and consequences.  That is our duty as a motorcycle owner.  But we, the motorcycle buying market, need to demand from the motorcycle manufacturers that they put their machines on the road fully capable of running on whatever it is the fuel manufacturers are serving to us.  Big oil and the feds will NEVER cater to our needs, never.  MC makers know how to do it (no more plastics, paints, or other alcohol-reactive materials in the fuel system), but they'd rather just bitch about our "bad gas", and then sell us new parts (ding, ding, ding!!!) rather than update their machines.

In the meantime, motorcycle owners, get smart about what you put in your tanks.  You've only been told about this for, oh... a generation or so.  Old news.

Steve.

[bad Chad]

Neither article had much to add.  The MCNs article did however have info on the type and how they use 600cc motors to figure out ROM and such.

[sib]

It's not a problem for '13 and younger V7s and V7IIs.  These motorcycles have steel fuel tanks, rubber hoses that are designed to take at least 10% ethanol, unpainted fuel pumps, etc.  Where I live, all gas is labeled "may contain up to 10% ethanol", so I don't have any choice in the matter.  On the other hand, I store my bike in the garage all winter, on a battery tender, without adding any fuel additive or draining the tank, or starting it periodically, and I've never had a problem starting it up in the spring.  I'm not a big fan of adding ethanol to gasoline, for reasons having to do with the effects of growing all that corn on "fossil" water depletion in the midwestern aquifers, but that's another story.  Personally, ethanol hasn't affected my motorcycles.

[lucydad2]

My 2012 V7R has a steel tank.  No problems, the tank remains a glorious black.

[LowRyter]

I've never seen any real world problems with E10 and ethanol gas.  I try to avoid it but I've never had a problem or actually known anyone with an attributable problem. 

I've had bad gas.  Particularity when I leave the lawn mower and gas can outside.  Rain and muggy weather really makes it nasty.  My new mower doesn't have a carburetor drain and I have to flip it over and then let it dry in the sun (RANT)!  (Marquez alert)

I wonder how many manufacturers with bad products and repair shops will just make the excuse that it was an ethanol problem because they don't know what they're doing or just had a plain defective product (like a gas tank)?

[Sheepdog]

The reason ethanol is a problem that must be dealt with is not just a motorcycle issue. We are filling landfills with farm and garden equipment. The farms in the Midwest grow corn (which is a lousy source for ethanol, anyway) with little or no regulation because it won't be consumed as food. Therefore, all that insecticide, herbicide, fertilizer, and altered DNA ends up in the Mississippi River to be used as drinking water or for other farms that DO produce food. In addition, all those chemicals cause a "dead zone" where the river empties into the Gulf of Mexico; no fish, no shrimp, no crab, no oysters for thousands of square miles. What is shameful is that it is all about money and the farm lobby. Corporate farms use government loopholes and are able to undertake their business without risk, but with a significant cost to us lowly citizens. Where is our vaunted EPA? Too busy demonizing oil, gas, and coal...and dumping heavy metals into Colorado and New Mexico rivers. This is a very real problem and it is being perpetuated by greedy people with agendas far removed from the Motorsport world, agriculture, and the environment. Ethanol-laced fuels as we know them in America now must be eliminated.

[Perazzimx14]

I'm not sure if I'm lucky or every gas station has lied about the quantity of ethanol percentage as I have not had one single issue with it. I'm talking about motorcycles from the 70's, thru 2013 models, lawn and garden, equipment, vehicles, anything that uses gasoline.  Steel tanks, plastic tanks did not matter.

Would I prefer 100% gasoline, sure would but not because of the effect it supposedly has on mechanical things but rather we should not be burning our food source. Nor should we manufacturer alcohol for fuel as it takes way more BTU's of energy to produce that it put out. 

YMMV

[kirkemon]

I read the article, thanks for sharing.
What I got out of it was the confirmation that ethanol is not good for our engines and adding Bel Rey All in One would be a good thing.
Anything else I'm missing?

[Gliderjohn]

I have not had a problem with it. Several times although not intended I have left things over winter with ethanol still in the tank and have not had issues in the spring. Generally if I have any ethanol left at the end of the growing season I just put it in my old 1958 Farmall Tractor. That tractor will run on anything. Same with any two stroke gas left over.
GliderJohn

[Rotten Ralph]

Many of us who have classic bikes just use Avgas. Of course at $4.00+ / gal we don't do a lot of long distance touring.

[JeffOlson]

Putting corn in my fuel tanks really tans my hide... This is really just the result of political decisions. Poor people suffer. Bees suffer. My Norge suffers from noticeably poorer fuel economy and engine performance... All for the sake of what?

[nc43bsa]

Putting corn in my fuel tanks really tans my hide... This is really just the result of political decisions. Poor people suffer. Bees suffer. My Norge suffers from noticeably poorer fuel economy and engine performance... All for the sake of what?

Votes in Iowa.

[kingoffleece]

I've seen many a snowmobile carb gunked up from ethanol going bad.

[ITSec]

A couple of points that have been touched on only glancingly, or not at all.

It was mentioned that ethanol isn't going away. This is true. Even if corn-based ethanol is reduced or eliminated, other more rational sources will replace it. In Brazil, ethanol based on sugar, saw-grass and other sources is a major part of the fuel economy and is produced with less impact on the environment than ethanol from corn or (for that matter) gasoline. It is also less costly than other fuels even with low oil prices. While this won't work everywhere, it is going to be a big part of the world in future.

Is there any excuse for companies that sell internal combustion machines - not just cars, trucks and motorcycles, but mowers, boats, chainsaws and anything else built since 1995 - to not take into account that their devices will be exposed to fuel with up to 10% ethanol? It's not a surprise, it's not new, and it's not acceptable that anyone from McCullough to Moto Guzzi to Mahindra would fail to address this issue in design, development and testing. If you can meet a spec for mufflers, catalytic converters, or headlights, you can meet a spec for fuel. We shouldn't make excuses for the stubbornness, ignorance or just plain blind-eye attitudes of people that should know better - and likely do, even if they don't act on it.

The statement was made that ethanol fuels as we know them must be eliminated. The key words are 'as we know them'. Ethanol that takes more energy to produce than it provides, that overall creates more pollution than it displaces, and that uses food crop resources to create non-food products in fact must be eliminated. Ethanol that provides more energy than it takes to create, that has a net positive effect on pollution, and that is created from resources (land and plants) that are largely not suitable for food is an inevitable part of our overall energy portfolio. One of the key reasons we started using gasoline and diesel is that they are easily portable and have a high level of energy for their size and weight. The same can be said of ethanol.

[Testarossa]

I've not had a problem with ethanol in Guzzis, but I do use a fuel stabilizer before winter storage. I fill the tank to exclude air, and I drain the float bowls.

When the old Triumph sits for more than a few weeks, fuel stabilizer or no, the pilot jet needs to be cleaned out before it will start. I've learned that the local airport sells 91 octane ethanol-free fuel for mogas engines, but it's not road-taxed so they won't sell it for direct decanting into a licensed vehicle. They will sell it if you bring a five gallon gas can, and I'll store the Triumph with a fill-up of that stuff this winter -- and drain the carb, and use stabilizer. I'll use the mogas in the F650 too, just because I don't know what ethanol in the carbs will do over the winter. Probably nothing very awful, because it sat in storage for several years before I bought it, and fired right up on a new battery.

The big O-540 in my Comanche was a relatively low-compression engine and in other airframes could be certified for 10% ethanol -- but the fuel tanks used rubber bladders so ethanol was verboten in all Comanche variations.

Another thing about ethanol that may be more critical up here at 5000 feet elevation is that the fuel runs just a bit leaner than 100% gasoline -- enough that most tuners jet a bit richer for blends.

[Sheepdog]

According to Dave Searle of Motorcycle Consumer News, E10 runs 3% leaner...E15 4.5%.

[sib]

....-- but the fuel tanks used rubber bladders so ethanol was verboten in all Comanche variations.

It's not impossible to make rubber bladders compatible with ethanol.  My two Priuses have rubber bladders and I've been using E10, in one of them for 160,000 mi, without problems.  Also no problems with fuel pumps, injectors, or hoses.  It CAN be done.

[GearheadGrrrl]

So many myths and old mechanics tales... Where does one start?

First off, ethanol does not take more energy to make than it produces- If it did, that energy would make ethanol more expensive than legacy gasoline. Corn is selling for below the price of production now, and eliminating ethanol would set off a rural and then worldwide depression.

Second, most every gas engine and it's fuel system built this century will run on E10 and stronger. Brazil mandates that motorcycles be able to run on 27.5% ethanol, and most makers build to meet that standard. For example, the parts numbers on the fuel system on my BMW F800S are the same in Brazil as they are here in 'merica. Thus I've been able to run that bike on E15 and even E20 for over 72,000 miles with no problems.

Finally, high octane unleaded is a myth and a waste of money. The three stations nearest to me all carry it, and I won't buy it. Blending to 91 octane without ethanol is expensive, for example the 87 octane RUG we get around here is really 85 octane rotgut gas with 10% ethanol to raise the octane by 2 points. Carrying real 91 octane no ethanol fuel requires setting aside a couple thousand gallon tank on the transport and a tank at the station, all for a product that's going to turnover slowly and costs way more wholesale. You want gas that's sat in the tank for a few days at most, not months! The quick and dirty way to make 91 octane "on ethanol" fuel is to blend 30% ethanol with that 85 octane rotgut gas, and that's what a lot of suppliers are doing... And because most of the makers are designing 21st century vehicles for 30% and higher ethanol mixes, most customers will never even notice the difference.

So go ahead and waste your $$$ on supposedly ethanol free 91 octane. The real issue is the decreased availability of high octane fuel from any source, and the changing chemistry of legacy fuels as the sources switch to unconventional sources like the Bakken and oil sands.

[Sheepdog]

I'm not saying that engines won't run on E10/15...apart from some slight lean-ness, they run fine. It's the side-effects that this hygroscopic compound has on fuel systems that is causing so much waste...especially on machines that were built before about 2005 or on carbureted power plants. I'm sure that modern engineering can adapt, but what about legacy vehicles and equipment? I guess we're all so wealthy that we can afford to throw all our old stuff in the trash...

[JeffOlson]

If ethanol has no effect on the operation of a modern motor, then why does my 2014 Norge run noticeably better (and achieve better fuel economy) with ethanol-free premium than it does with 10% ethanol premium? If it does have a detrimental effect, then why should we not complain?

[GearheadGrrrl]

Life expectancy of most 'merican motor vehicles is about 20-25 years, and their last years they spend pretty much parked with disabling but not fatal mechanical maladies. Thus just about every 4 wheeler with a carb has been reduced to scrap, and being that ethanol has been around for over 25 years, just about every 4 wheeler is built to run on ethanol blends. Motorcycles are a small sliver of the market, and an even smaller sliver of fuel consumption given their great fuel economy and low mileage they cover. And while some small makers like Guzzi have trouble keeping up with these changes, their suppliers have the resources to build ethanol tolerant fuel systems.

So given that motorcycles are 2% or so of passenger vehicles on the road and consume less than 1% of the gasoline, we're pretty much stuck with the E10 or stronger blends, and most of the motorcycles built in the last 20 years will run on E10, no problem. If you're using a pre-ethanol era bike as a daily rider, you really need to look at your finances- After you figure in rebuild costs, a couple decades old bike often costs as much as a new one. Fortunately some of us keep and ride older bikes for sentimental reasons and to preserve their history, and we need to adapt to changing fuels as best we can.

[Testarossa]

It's not impossible to make rubber bladders compatible with ethanol.

Comanche production ended in 1972, long before there was any need for ethanol-resistant rubber.

Finally, high octane unleaded is a myth and a waste of money.

That's true. High octane no-ethanol however is not a myth, but it is expensive. FBO charges $3.89/gallon for mogas. But they get $4.65 for 100 low-lead ($4.16 self-service), which is probably made in even smaller quantities. Not relevant to this discussion, but part of the reason aviation fuel is expensive is that it's very "dry" -- that is, purged of all water and kept that way in transport and underground storage. You don't want water freezing in the bottom of the tank, or in the fuel lines etc. And jet fuel (kerosene) has additives to keep it from gelling in the cold.

[kingoffleece]

My wife bought gas for her employer for 6 1/2 years.  She most certainly purchased 91 octane ethanol free fuel for the entire six years, unless the supplier(s) were lying.

She had a new tank installed only for the premium and the pumps use a different filter.  She went thru about 10000 gal every 10 days.

One of the local stations near us has installed new tanks just for 91 ethanol free.
not every one of the locations has it yet as it takes time to remove and install the new tanks but this owner is swapping every location over one at a time.

[bad Chad]

Here in Chicagoland, all you can get is ethanol, all the time, been that way for many years.

I run it in everything, what choice do I have.  Has caused no issues in my 1960s Ct90s,  1984 V65sp, or B1100, or lawnmower or power equipment.   I do stabilize the gas in all machines over the winter, however.   On the occasion that I get to another state to run pure petrol in my B1100, I can't say that I notice any performance difference at all.

[Sheepdog]

Folks here in Louisiana are really into fishing and hunting. So many boats and 4-Wheelers have had major failures due to E10 that we have 5 stations that sell ethanol-free exclusively within 10 minutes of my house. Two of them have premium. For local trips (as well as for all my gas powered farm equipment) my bikes only use these fuels...

[OlDogface]

Today's central PA prices.......




free

image

hosting

[ITSec]

So many myths and old mechanics tales... Where does one start?

First off, ethanol does not take more energy to make than it produces- If it did, that energy would make ethanol more expensive than legacy gasoline. Corn is selling for below the price of production now, and eliminating ethanol would set off a rural and then worldwide depression.

Second, most every gas engine and it's fuel system built this century will run on E10 and stronger. Brazil mandates that motorcycles be able to run on 27.5% ethanol, and most makers build to meet that standard. For example, the parts numbers on the fuel system on my BMW F800S are the same in Brazil as they are here in 'merica. Thus I've been able to run that bike on E15 and even E20 for over 72,000 miles with no problems.

Finally, high octane unleaded is a myth and a waste of money. The three stations nearest to me all carry it, and I won't buy it. Blending to 91 octane without ethanol is expensive, for example the 87 octane RUG we get around here is really 85 octane rotgut gas with 10% ethanol to raise the octane by 2 points. Carrying real 91 octane no ethanol fuel requires setting aside a couple thousand gallon tank on the transport and a tank at the station, all for a product that's going to turnover slowly and costs way more wholesale. You want gas that's sat in the tank for a few days at most, not months! The quick and dirty way to make 91 octane "on ethanol" fuel is to blend 30% ethanol with that 85 octane rotgut gas, and that's what a lot of suppliers are doing... And because most of the makers are designing 21st century vehicles for 30% and higher ethanol mixes, most customers will never even notice the difference.

So go ahead and waste your $$$ on supposedly ethanol free 91 octane. The real issue is the decreased availability of high octane fuel from any source, and the changing chemistry of legacy fuels as the sources switch to unconventional sources like the Bakken and oil sands.

While you raise some good points, there are also some clear inaccuracies or mis-statements in your comments.

First, some corn-based ethanol does take more energy to produce than it provides. If you like, I will go dig up the references and provide them. This obviously varies based on the cost of fuel for the farm tractors, etc. but it has been documented by independent research and is not a myth or old mechanic's tale. The economic fallout of reducing or removing corn ethanol from fuel would be noted in certain areas of the US heartland - but so would removing all the other bizarre subsidies given to American agriculture. I'm always amazed by how much some  armers fit the definition of what David Lewis called 'corporate welfare bums'.

Next, major automotive manufacturers have clearly and repeatedly stated that they will NOT warranty support their vehicles built prior to 2012 if fuels with an ethanol content above 10% is used, unless the documentation for that specific engine says otherwise (i.e., flex-fuel and similar designs). If your bike is built to world specs, wonderful. My 2008 Norge was apparently built to only handle E10 at most, according to Moto Guzzi. This is despite it being among "most every gas engine and it's fuel system built this century will run on E10 and stronger".

While ethanol raises octane levels, it is both illegal and open to both criminal and civil liability to use blending to sell fuel marked as 'up to 10% ethanol' or 'no ethanol' when in fact it may have much higher levels. Both state and federal laws would be broken, and the responsible party would be up for civil penalty (for certain) and criminal penalty (depending on intent and specific action). Every state I know conducts random fuel quality tests, as do several agencies of the federal government. Budget cuts may have made such testing less frequent than in the past, and more trust may be placed in refiners' own self-tests, but the chance that fuel labeled E10 (or no-ethanol) contains up to 30% ethanol is nil. If it did, not only would your engine barely run, but the mileage would be so dramatically bad you could not help but notice the difference for that tankful. Again, this is not an old mechanics' tale, but the knowledge of someone who studied organic chemistry, has followed the petroleum industry for decades (while living in Alberta and Texas, no less), and who has worked with engines that were designed to run on both fuels (though usually each was designed for one or the other, such as ethanol racing engines). As for source, the refinery handles those differences. Gasoline can be made from Brent, Texas, North Sea, Alberta tar sands, or Bakken shale - it all comes out the same if that's what the refinery operator wants. The only difference is that some refineries are equipped to best handle a particular range of source grades; a refinery set up for Alaskan north slope won't be efficient handling Venezuelan crud (I didn't misspell that).

As for whether one 'needs' premium fuel? That has been discussed in many, many threads here already. For me, there is no doubt, based on simple observation of engine knock, that my Subaru 'needs' 91 octane, and that the Norge 'needs' a minimum of 89. I wouldn't knowingly get aboard an aircraft that had been fueled below the engine builder's specs - would you?