Author Topic: ethanol v non  (Read 646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve in Sunny Fla

  • Industry Member
  • I Need a Life
  • *
  • Posts: 7727
  • AREA: Southeast Area
  • COG#: 6977
  • Membership Level: Active
ethanol v non
« on: January 24, 2019, 12:34:59 am »
C-14 ECU flashing for performance and rideability enhancement
C-10 Carb work , cams, & performance enhancements
 " Modifications for sport-tourers, BY a sport-tourer"
https://sites.google.com/site/shoodabenengineering/home

Offline VTconnie

  • Crotch Rocket
  • ****
  • Posts: 1612
  • AREA: Northeast Area
  • COG#: 11081
  • Membership Level: Active
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2019, 12:54:11 am »
Thanks for sharing, YT is one of my favorite resources. I use E-0 in my F-250 plow truck with the 5.4L gasser, even though it is more expensive.
<--2003 Concours C-10 "Conifer", -AKA- The Cruise Missile
1980 CB900C DOHC "Old Iron" -AKA- The Hill Climber                

Offline MAN OF BLUES

  • I Need a Life
  • ******
  • Posts: 8566
  • AREA: North Central Area
  • COG#: 5977
  • Membership Level: Active
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2019, 01:08:03 am »
thank you.
I was always a skeptic, and feared repercussions for my thoughts.
what you have shown me, with regards to lower compression, carb fed engines, and results based on non Loaded acceleration, simply add to the database.. and increase my beliefs.

running at a "set: rpm range, differs greatly when an engine is pressed Hard, and as oppsed to just run. This is a perfect example of what you and I both know, and understand.

30 YEARS OF KAW.....Rich R. (the other one..)  COG 5977  JUSTAMEMBAHNOW
and if you are gonna call me names... it's MR. Analdweeb if you please...

Offline Mettler1

  • Iron Butt
  • *****
  • Posts: 3319
  • You want answers? We got answers!!
  • AREA: North Central Area
  • COG#: 1431
  • Membership Level: Active
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2019, 03:40:41 am »
  Don't know squat about either types of gasoline but my car and  C-10 has been using it (ethanol) for 24 yrs and 115,000 miles and still runs great. Same with the lawn mower and snow blower. Doesn't seem to be a problem for me :)
'94 Concours 115,000 miles-- 7th gear,2MM,KB fork brace,Over flowtubes,Stick coils,Tcro shifter,GPS,SiSF'sTorque cams,SPOOKFAK,block off plates, SS brake & clutch lines,KB risers, FENDA EXTENDA, emulators, SiSF carb Spa, Delkevic exhaust, Murphs' knee savers +grips, etc

Offline bajasam

  • Bicycle
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • AREA: Southwest Area
  • COG#: Forum
  • Membership Level: Forum Subscriber
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2019, 05:02:58 pm »
and it will most likely never be a problem for you.its been mandated by law in az for nearly forty years with nary any complaints. only really big issue is in high moisture regions where you might store gas for long periods it will absorb moisture out of the atmosphere and cause issues if you lacking in your upkeep of your vehicles. if you keep up your equipment you have no worries.it does have less btu's per gram so there is a tiny advantage to pure gasoline on the performance side but most would never notice.

Offline Oldschool

  • Tricycle
  • Posts: 39
  • AREA: Southwest Area
  • COG#: Forum
  • Membership Level: Forum Subscriber
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2019, 07:26:33 pm »
I live in Grand Junction, CO. We have 3 places here where I can by 87 and 91 octane non ethanol fuel.

I ran a few tests of my own. I have 190,000 miles on my 2002 GMC Sonoma 4wd. I always track my mpg..I get tank after tank at 20 mpg using standard 85 octane fuel containing 10% ethanol.

I started buying the non ethanol 87 octane. I ran 3 or 4 tanks through the truck and got a solid 24 mpg each tank. It costs more so I put together a spreadsheet based on 40,000 miles of driving, which is what I drive in a year. Over this distance, at the difference in mpg, and considering the price difference, I save approx $200 a year using non ethanol fuel.

Mike


Offline TimR

  • Global Moderator
  • Iron Butt
  • **
  • Posts: 3622
  • AREA: Northwest Area
  • COG#: 9032
  • Membership Level: Active
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2019, 07:57:52 pm »
Great info all the way around. Mike I like your spread sheet info. I have a 95 Bronco5.8 with tow package. A few years ago we went to my oldest daughters house for Christmas. Getting to her house is a 5 hour drive. For this trop I filled up with pure gas. The tank was close to "E" and spent a lot of money filling the 36 gallon tank. I found for the one way trip my gas mileage did improve but not as much as mike did. There is a stretch of high way posted at 75mph. My 5.8 really likes gas at 75 mph.

My concern is how much more pollutants are we putting into the air by burning gas that doesn't take us as far. I wrote a WA legislator about my concerns and of course no answer back.  I use pure gas in my motorcycles and lawn mower as often as I can. I store the motorcycles over the winter with a tank full of pure gas.

Using pure gas the 900 gets 45 mpg going up hill or down.  The C14 likes pure gas too.  Tim
Blue 1975 Z1B 900, Red 09 C14     I might not be perfect but at least I don't ride a Suzuki

Online Ranger Jim

  • Iron Butt
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
  • AREA: Southeast Area
  • COG#: 6720
  • Membership Level: Asst. Area Director
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2019, 08:12:50 pm »
You/we aren't putting any more pollutants in the air with pure gas. Ethanol was required so as to (ostensibly) reduce the amount of oil required to produce the same volume of fuel. It was enacted during the time when the USA was importing a large amount of oil from other countries.  The only reason that pure gas is more expensive than the ethanol blend is because the ethanol blend is subsidized by the government (through a lower fuel tax.  The only folks benefitting are the corn farmers, ethanol distilleries, and politicians. >:(
JIM CULP
OtP Jr. Slave Laborer (Safety)

No one is a TOTAL failure; they can always be used as a bad example.

Offline bajasam

  • Bicycle
  • *
  • Posts: 113
  • AREA: Southwest Area
  • COG#: Forum
  • Membership Level: Forum Subscriber
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2019, 10:51:18 pm »
thats pretty spot on, the worst possible thing about ethanol-gas is not what it does to your motor but what it does to the taxpayer and how it corrupts the govt.

Offline MAN OF BLUES

  • I Need a Life
  • ******
  • Posts: 8566
  • AREA: North Central Area
  • COG#: 5977
  • Membership Level: Active
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #9 on: January 25, 2019, 04:15:18 am »
buying ethanol laden fuel, for the same prices, which rise and fall at  the whims of petro slugs, is simply ridiculous today... the prices I saw and paid, for the mandatory fuels here in Ohio, far surpassed what I now pay for 100% gasoline   (been filling up with it at $2.99/gal)

the prices of combo fuels, when they reached the $3+ mark, a few years back, when it was not gas, but alcohol laden gas.... just makes it a no brainier..
funny, the prices I saw, from the outlet that sold real gas.. only went up a max of $0.20 when the other stations went up $0.60 a gallon...

I guess it's time to buy corn, and brew yer own....and at least if it aint good for fuel, you can still drink it......



all my vehicles have been subjected to really puke fuel, soo much so that I have had to drain some, and add a lot of Iso-Heet, to remove residual water... since I restored and resurrected the last truck, and filled it with "real" gasoline, and subsequently done similar  to the one that had severe water issues.. I have found both to  give exceptional performance, reliability, and also mile per gallon readings that exceed 20% more, for the effort..
I'M A BORN AGAIN GASTION... I will never again pay for gas, at the price they ask, when it is  just simple "corn squeezing"... liquor is ok, I can drink that.. and will pay for it.. when they make boooze as cheap as gas... welll there ya go.

well... there ya go...

RIP Popcorn, you old Bastich'
\


30 YEARS OF KAW.....Rich R. (the other one..)  COG 5977  JUSTAMEMBAHNOW
and if you are gonna call me names... it's MR. Analdweeb if you please...

Offline connieklr

  • Street Cruiser
  • ****
  • Posts: 922
  • AREA: Northeast Area
  • COG#: 1608
  • Membership Level: Active
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #10 on: January 25, 2019, 10:57:48 am »
"ML's"???

Did this fella not know what an "ML" was, or was he just being lazy?

________________
Guy Young
COG #1608
COG Life Member
Semi-Civilian
GB Young Services, LLC

Offline Uncle Rob

  • Road Bike
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • "Knock it off with those negative waves!"
  • AREA: Southeast Area
  • COG#: 11810
  • Membership Level: Active
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #11 on: February 14, 2019, 08:05:00 pm »
Ethanol i fuel for America is a dumb idea that will never go away, because the corn farmers can make too much money off of it.  In Brazil, where they make it from the leftovers of sugar can production, it makes sense.  Having said that, if you turn it over fast enough, your vehicle will run ok.  If it is going to sit in the tank for an extended period of time, use non ethanol.  The decrease in maintenance cost will far outweigh the increased cost of the fuel.
2003 C10
1999 Buell X1
Others in pieces

Rob Thomson

Offline Nosmo

  • Crotch Rocket
  • ****
  • Posts: 1974
  • "We're all in this together" -- Red Green
  • AREA: Northwest Area
  • COG#: Forum
  • Membership Level: Forum Subscriber
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2019, 01:37:32 am »
The American Motorcyclist Association is fighting the upcoming approval and distribution of E-15, which is going to be a horrendous can of worms.  Rest assured it WILL get to the pumps and it WILL get into vehicles/engines that can't legally or physically run on it.  Who cares?  No one except a few informed vehicles owners who will never be listened to because the special interest corn farmers and their political minions will force it upon us to make more billions in profits.

https://www.slingshotforums.com/threads/ama-alert-congress-again-pushing-use-of-e15-fuel-despite-risks.54017/

http://magazine.americanmotorcyclist.com/5835/e15-fuel-subject-of-congressional-panel/

https://www.slingshotforums.com/threads/ama-explains-blender-pump-confusion-about-e10-e15-e16-e50-and-e51-e83.54273/

2003 Connie    2007 Wee-Strom   

"What could possibly go wrong...click....go wrong...click...go wrong...click...go wrong..."

Offline JS

  • Big Wheels
  • Posts: 2
  • AREA: South Central Area
  • COG#: Forum
  • Membership Level: Forum Subscriber
Re: ethanol v non
« Reply #13 on: February 16, 2019, 04:57:14 am »
If using a pour-in gas-tank repair liner it's best to have no cornflakes in gasoline. Liners that do not work with Ethanol usually form a film on the butterflies, etc. For my ZG1000 and my BBC it's definitely No Ethanol.

Just say gasoline with No Ethanol will save the endangered yellow dotted snowflake corn beetle.





« Last Edit: February 16, 2019, 05:14:27 am by JS »