EPA acknowledges that ethanol damages engines | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

EPA acknowledges that ethanol damages engines

Forum Sponsor
Regarding "run cleaner" ... Sorta.

If you take fuel containing ethanol and you feed it to an older engine without air/fuel feedback control (i.e. carburetors or open-loop EFI) it will make the engine run leaner, and a lot of those older engines were calibrated to run rich, so yes, it sorta compensates for that.

BUT ... Take the same fuel and feed it to an older engine that was NOT originally calibrated rich, it will still lean it out, and if that is taken too far thing start going wrong. Most of the time, it will still run fine, just leaner (thus spewing out NOx ... not exactly "cleaner"). If you're mildly unlucky, it will just run crappy and misfire (thus spewing out hydrocarbons ... hardly cleaner). If you're really unlucky, you land on burned exhaust valves and pistons. Oops.

A lot of motorcycles in our market will fit in either of the above categories. And snowmobiles, and lawnmowers, and older cars. This is what the EPA (and AMA) are on about.

Now ... Take that same fuel containing ethanol and feed it to a modern, OBD-II equipped, full-emission-control engine with 3-way catalyst and oxygen sensor. It detects the slight lean-out and automatically compensates for it by delivering more fuel. Result ... No difference in emissions but worse fuel consumption!

Every car built since 1996 and every motorcycle sold in our market that is the same as the European Euro 3 or Euro 4 version (with oxygen sensor and 3-way catalyst in the exhaust) is in that category!

There was an emissions-reduction rationale when ethanol first started being used (many years ago, before OBD-II) but it no longer makes any sense!
 
I have a 1987 FZR 1000 and have been running mostly Esso high test. Bike seamed to always have top end pore response. My brother in law who has connections to specialists in the motor sports said I should be adding some STA-BIL to my fuel to eliminate the Ethanol. I did this and what a difference. They say the Ethanol pits the inside of the carbs on older bikes like you would see on the aluminum on a car engine. They also said Shell high test is the only non Ethanol fuel at gas stations.
 
Brian P said:
Regarding "run cleaner" ... Sorta.

If you take fuel containing ethanol and you feed it to an older engine without air/fuel feedback control (i.e. carburetors or open-loop EFI) it will make the engine run leaner, and a lot of those older engines were calibrated to run rich, so yes, it sorta compensates for that.

BUT ... Take the same fuel and feed it to an older engine that was NOT originally calibrated rich, it will still lean it out, and if that is taken too far thing start going wrong. Most of the time, it will still run fine, just leaner (thus spewing out NOx ... not exactly "cleaner"). If you're mildly unlucky, it will just run crappy and misfire (thus spewing out hydrocarbons ... hardly cleaner). If you're really unlucky, you land on burned exhaust valves and pistons. Oops.

A lot of motorcycles in our market will fit in either of the above categories. And snowmobiles, and lawnmowers, and older cars. This is what the EPA (and AMA) are on about.

Now ... Take that same fuel containing ethanol and feed it to a modern, OBD-II equipped, full-emission-control engine with 3-way catalyst and oxygen sensor. It detects the slight lean-out and automatically compensates for it by delivering more fuel. Result ... No difference in emissions but worse fuel consumption!

Every car built since 1996 and every motorcycle sold in our market that is the same as the European Euro 3 or Euro 4 version (with oxygen sensor and 3-way catalyst in the exhaust) is in that category!

There was an emissions-reduction rationale when ethanol first started being used (many years ago, before OBD-II) but it no longer makes any sense!
Click to expand...

Now, that makes sense ... the problem is that for the same older vehicles the ethanol is bad for other reasons .... like older rubber seals coming to contact with such fuel which were not manufactured with ethanol resistance in mind.
 
RockerGuy said:
If you're referring to me, yes, it was put in fuel for better emissions. Thought everybody knew that
Click to expand...

I just don't believe everything every interest group claims, there's always a catch ....
 
Last edited:
In my first year, i winterized the bike with Petro Canada's 87 and i had to clean the carbs the following spring.

The last two years, when i stored the bike with Shell's 91... it started up with absolutely no problems.
 
mxs said:
I just don't believe everything every interest group claims, there's always a catch ....
Click to expand...

I'm not part of that interest group, I'm just regurgitating facts I read.

To add to that, when they were experimentiing with ethanol, they needed a good compromise between cleaner combustion & compatibility with gasoline engines. 10% I believe was that number. If you read your car/bike manual they don't recommend using greater than 15%(don't quote me on that) ethanol.

Some people preach such hate for ethanol, but there was a reason it was mandated in most gas. Personally I prefer no ethanol, because of more energy for the same liter of fuel
 
squeegee said:
I have a 1987 FZR 1000 and have been running mostly Esso high test. Bike seamed to always have top end pore response. My brother in law who has connections to specialists in the motor sports said I should be adding some STA-BIL to my fuel to eliminate the Ethanol. I did this and what a difference. They say the Ethanol pits the inside of the carbs on older bikes like you would see on the aluminum on a car engine. They also said Shell high test is the only non Ethanol fuel at gas stations.
Click to expand...

Sta-bil cannot "eliminate" ethanol. Once the ethanol is in the fuel, it's there, and can't just magically disappear. It might be able to (somewhat) compensate for some of the bad side effects, at least for a little while ... but the ethanol is still there!

mxs said:
Now, that makes sense ... the problem is that for the same older vehicles the ethanol is bad for other reasons .... like older rubber seals coming to contact with such fuel which were not manufactured with ethanol resistance in mind.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you might have had some personal experience with that? LOL

RockerGuy said:
To add to that, when they were experimentiing with ethanol, they needed a good compromise between cleaner combustion & compatibility with gasoline engines. 10% I believe was that number. If you read your car/bike manual they don't recommend using greater than 15%(don't quote me on that) ethanol.
Click to expand...

Most owner's manuals for vehicles made in the last 20-ish years that are not "flex-fuel", have a limit of 10% ethanol and the warranty won't cover damage for going beyond that.

Know what's interesting ... US EPA emissions and fuel economy testing is done with a "spec fuel" and the specifications for that fuel have not changed since the 1970's ... before anyone dreamed of mixing ethanol into the general gasoline fuel supplied to everyone! To this day, even though the US mandates the use of a certain amount of ethanol in gasoline, the spec fuel used for EPA emissions and fuel economy testing not only does not contain ethanol but is prohibited from containing ethanol!

And you wonder why they've had to fudge the EPA numbers so that they align better with what real people actually see in real driving, and many cars STILL can not live up to their already-fudge-factored EPA estimates ...
 
DJM said:
Thanks for that. From that list of Ethanol free:

Ontario: Shell V-Power 91; Costco 91; Canadian Tire 91; Esso 91; Ultramar 91
Click to expand...

Where did you get your information about CT gas ?This would save me a trip to shell down the road .
 
Thanks for the clarification I did mean to say the effects of the Ethanol. I'm just learning about this problem and if it is a problem, all I know right now is that I put some STA-BIL in the tank and things got better. It is a old bike so there could always be other stuff going on.
 
Brian P said:
I wonder if you might have had some personal experience with that? LOL
Click to expand...

No kidding ... of course it's impossible to be conclusive what was the root cause, but the chances are pretty solid. After the carb valve o-ring seals had to be replaced, I found another rubber seal being "helped" to not seal anymore ... this time it was in petcock ... so it does make you wonder.


Brian P said:
Most owner's manuals for vehicles made in the last 20-ish years that are not "flex-fuel", have a limit of 10% ethanol and the warranty won't cover damage for going beyond that.

Know what's interesting ... US EPA emissions and fuel economy testing is done with a "spec fuel" and the specifications for that fuel have not changed since the 1970's ... before anyone dreamed of mixing ethanol into the general gasoline fuel supplied to everyone! To this day, even though the US mandates the use of a certain amount of ethanol in gasoline, the spec fuel used for EPA emissions and fuel economy testing not only does not contain ethanol but is prohibited from containing ethanol!

And you wonder why they've had to fudge the EPA numbers so that they align better with what real people actually see in real driving, and many cars STILL can not live up to their already-fudge-factored EPA estimates ...
Click to expand...


You see the hypocrisy of the group mandating the ethanol, eh? Games and more games ....
 
I have an 88 FZR 400 and tend to use Shell 91 most of the time. If I am burning the tank the same day, I tend not to worry about it too much, but I did find that the bike did not like the Esso brand much at all. Just never really ran well with that in it. Since then I avoid Esso for the old girl.
 
I personally won't store the bike with ethanol gas but would use it for day-to-day use. If it was cheaper I won't mind using it, but seeing I'll get better mileage with shell, why not. I do however get 7c off at Petro
 
mxs said:
Now, that makes sense ... the problem is that for the same older vehicles the ethanol is bad for other reasons .... like older rubber seals coming to contact with such fuel which were not manufactured with ethanol resistance in mind.
Click to expand...

A lot of Ski-doos had cracking intake boots, between the carbs and cylinder, and it was determined that ethanol in fuel was a cause for it. Unfortunately that leaned out a lot of sleds and wasn't a cheap repair... On the plus side, it was a great reason to buy an aluminum intake boot with upgraded reeds.
 
Brian P said:
Ethanol is actually a pretty good fuel IF the engine is optimized to run on it ... but properly optimizing the engine to run on ethanol means it will not be able to run on pump gasoline. It acts like 112 - 114 octane race fuel in the engine, aside from wanting much higher fuel flow rate. Part of the optimization involves raising the compression ratio - to beyond what pump gasoline will tolerate.

"Flex fuel" engines have to run on both ... means they can't have the higher compression needed to optimize ethanol.

E10 is normally not a problem for newer engines unless you are putting it in storage or there is moisture/condensation in the fuel tank (which can happen if the vehicle is in storage).
Click to expand...

When I got my new truck in 2012 one of the only changes from the 08 that I gave back was the addition of engine gaskets etc that can handle the newer ethanol fuels.......That change leads me to believe that the ethanol was harming them and they needed to be upgraded to remain reliable with this fuel

Besides reliability In Jamaica I had tons of problems running their ethanol fuel in our bikes, they just ran like crap and it would eat anything you spilled it on. There was only 2 choices, and 91 was a must their 84 ran like you were putting water in the bike...Just the fumes and weeping around my gas cap would eat the oem paint...And we would have to drain the gas tank if we weren't going to ride the bike for any length of time...I used a few additives from here that were designed to help with ethanol, it helped but they still sucked in terms of throttle response and power...The heat didnt help either...
 
Last edited:
I started avoiding ethanol a few years ago when a lot of our race cars using street fuel had problems with their fuel cells. The foam inside breaks down and plugs the fuel systems. These fuel tanks start at around $1200.
I also like how the same people that admit 15% ethanol will void your manufacturers warranty but then say 10% is fine.
Don't think I'll take their word for it..besides the best reason for Ethanol is the huge money that corn farmer lobbyists threw at the US government.
If you are so concerned with emissions...sell the bike and get a bicycle

My sports car...bike and if i ever get it put back together...my race car only get Shell 91 unless I am stuck. Even my lawnmower and snowblower get 91 ( fuel sits for a long time in the shed ) Shell is the only station I've seen that puts " No ethanol " on their 91 V power pumps. Ultramar puts stickers that say may contain 10% on the regular and mid grade and no label on the super.
I prefer to have it stated and don't want to assume just because there is no label then it is ethanol free.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom