Ethanol OK?

[Scoob]

I went to a Hess station to fill up my tank and realized after I filled up that there was a sign on the pump that said the gasoline contains 10% ethanol. Is this a problem?

 

Thanks!

[Paul Mihalka]

With my K1100LT and later with my R1100RT I did a few midwest crossings and filled up often with 10% ethanol gas. Never had a problem. OTOH, on my last rip this September with my R1150R, west of St. Louis I filled up with the stuff and the bike almost died. I could barely maintain 70mph on the Interstate and was worried about fuel filter and fuel pump. After about three fill-ups, making sure no ethanol, it cleared up. I don't know if it was just one bad batch of gas, or this bike does not like it. Could it be the difference that my R1100RT did not use oxygen sensor and the R1150R does? I don't know...

I would say, if your bike runs OK, I would not worry...

[nrp]

Here in Minnesota (the state where nothing is allowed) we all hafta use 10% gasahol. Actually my 1100RT seems to tolerate it quite well, but with a slight loss of fuel economy.

[RFW]

I went to a Hess station to fill up my tank and realized after I filled up that there was a sign on the pump that said the gasoline contains 10% ethanol. Is this a problem?

 

The problem with ethanol is not so much how the bike runs, but what it may do the the fuel system components (especially rubber seals) over time.

 

Some manufacturers warn against using "gasohol" because of possible long term effects on fuel system components. My old '82 BMW 320i car carried such warnings.

 

So the best bet is to take whatever BMW's recommendations/warnings are for the specific vehicle. Opinions are not paricularly relevant when compared with the manufacurer's recommendations that are based on actual long term tests.

 

BOb.

[Paul Mihalka]

I understand that all of today's cars and motorcycles are supposed to be gasohol tolerant.

[mikeR1100R]

In CT, you can't get anything but 10% ethanol/90% gasoline. My '98 R1100R doesn't seem to care one way or the other, it being a damn fine-running machine. I get anywhere from 48 to 53 mpg. I have only owned it since April of this year and it is my first Beemer, so as to long term effects I cannot offer any data.

[jackflash]

I wouldn't run ethanol in my lawn mower. Thank goodness, down heera, all we gots is gasoline...so far.

[Ken H.]

The 10% blends should be no issue. E85 on the other hand is 85% ethanol (and the best darn idea ever IMHO BTW) will definitely cause issues in non-E85 compatible vehicles. Avoid it with the bike. Embrace it if you happen to have a flex-fuel vehicle. (We do! )

[SWB]

We had problems with Arco gas in our dirt bikes, which supposedly includes Ethanol. After doing some research, the "skuttlebutt" I read said that there's actually no problem with ethanol based gas or gas mixed with ethanol, as long as it's fresh. The problem with Ethanol seems to be that it loses octane faster than dino based fuels. Riding a bike on 2-month old gas (not too uncommon with our dirt bikes) was a problem; riding it on fresh Arco gas was no problem.

 

That's probably why one of our posters had problems with one tank. The station probably sold less premium gas, and the tank he got was probably old enough that the octane had dropped. Our 2-stroke dirt bikes need 91++ octane; any less and they just don't start. I've used nothing but fresh premium gas (i.e. I know the owner; he only sells the best stuff) in my Beemer. Haven't had the guts to try something with less octane. I've got enough mystery in my life without adding a bit of extra excitement; I'll pay for 91-95 octane premium.

[Bob Palin]

The problem with Ethanol seems to be that it loses octane faster than dino based fuels.

Why would gasoline lose octane over time? It seems to me that the first thing to evaporate off would be the ethanol, then the heptane and then the octane which would raise the octane level over time. The gas may absorb water more quickly if it has more ethanol, how would that affect the equivalent octane rating?

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Bob just hit on the real rub with Ethanol enhanced gasoline. The stuff is hydrophyilic and, more important, hygroscopic. Water might not reduce the octane but it sure plays hell with the BTU's which are what effects power and fuel consumption.

 

Alcohol itself is not a particularly good motor fuel in terms of BTU/lb. It's about 1/2 that of gasoline. I have used it in conjunction with Nitrous Oxide to get a bunch more power out of my motor (methanol). Main reason was its cooling characteristic rather than octane or BTUs but that is a whole nother story.

[Ken H.]

Alcohol itself is not a particularly good motor fuel in terms of BTU/lb. It's about 1/2 that of gasoline.

Wow I can't believe I'm getting to correct Ed on a scientific something:

 

 

Certainly E-85 (or E-100 for that matter) has less energy per gallon than standard gasoline, but not 50% less.

 

Don't go picking on E-85 or I'll have another new soapbox going here!

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Oops, stupid me didn't read the chart right. OK, not 1/2 but 40%

 

BTW, Mitch corrects me all the time. I don't mind. Same goes for you.

[Ken H.]

OK, not 1/2 but 40%

Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. If a gallon of gas has 114,100 BTU of energy in it and a gallon of E-85 Ethanol has 81,800 BTU, by my old age math that ciphers to Ethanol having 71.16914986% of the energy of gas, not 40%.

 

Or are you just messing with my head and trying to totally send me over the edge!

[ShovelStrokeEd]

So my keyboard can't add, sue me.

 

I just looked at it taking 1.4 gallons of E85 to make the equivilant of 1.0 gallons of gasoline. That's 40% more, not 40% of, sorry.

[Ken H.]

Okay we're getting confused in semantics here. Yes it takes 40% more ethanol fuel to go the same distance as with gas, but the percentage of energy in Ethanol is 70% of that of gas. 81,800/114,100=.71

 

 

To say that Ethanol has 40% of the energy of gas because it takes 40% more to do the same amount of work is incorrect math.

 

Mitch help me out here!

[codinn]

OK? Heck I love it!

 

That said, I prefer mine in a biochemically modified grape or barley matrix, preferably with meals.

 

(Disclosure: it pays the bills.)

 

As for a motor fuel, I'll defer to the experts in that arena...

[philbytx]

Damn...we need BMW to build a diesel bike a la Military KLR but with 2 big chugging jugs

[John Moylan]

Damn...we need BMW to build a diesel bike a la Military KLR but with 2 big chugging jugs

 

Amen to that. One can never have too many BTU's IMHO.....the 94.6mpg would be a mere side effect we'd have to live with... ...

[ShovelStrokeEd]

Ken,

I understand, just yankin your chain a bit.

[Ken H.]

just yankin your chain a bit.

Thanks just the same, but for that I have a wife.

 

Cheers!

[SWB]

Okay we're getting confused in semantics here. Yes it takes 40% more ethanol fuel to go the same distance as with gas, but the percentage of energy in Ethanol is 70% of that of gas. 81,800/114,100=.71

 

 

To say that Ethanol has 40% of the energy of gas because it takes 40% more to do the same amount of work is incorrect math.

 

Mitch help me out here!

 

OHHHhhhh.. what I started!

[Ken H.]

OHHHhhhh.. what I started!

OHHHhhhh.. You wanted us to stay on subject? Well why didn't you say so? OK everyone, no more 'thread creep' at bmwsporttouring.com!

[Fireant]

With my K1100LT and later with my R1100RT I did a few midwest crossings and filled up often with 10% ethanol gas. Never had a problem. OTOH, on my last rip this September with my R1150R, west of St. Louis I filled up with the stuff and the bike almost died. I could barely maintain 70mph on the Interstate and was worried about fuel filter and fuel pump. After about three fill-ups, making sure no ethanol, it cleared up. I don't know if it was just one bad batch of gas, or this bike does not like it. Could it be the difference that my R1100RT did not use oxygen sensor and the R1150R does? I don't know...

I would say, if your bike runs OK, I would not worry...

TWO COMMENTS: 1) there are test kits you can purchase (used to be <$10USD) to determine the % of alcohol in the gasoline/fuel. If the vehicle is designed to run on 10-15%, and you have 20%, performance can be affected; 2) ethanol is an alcohol, and alcohol is hygroscopic (it likes water!, so like brake fluid, it will absorb it); IMHO, this may be the root of your experience with poor performance - water in fuel, absorbed in the ethanol. Back to the test kit, then: the higher the % of ethanol, the greater capacity to hold water.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

You are correct on Ethanol being hygroscopic but not in the definition. Hydrophillic is the term for liking water. Hygroscopic means it will adsorb water readily from the air. A subtle but important difference and very likely the reason for the running problems. The last thing you want in your tank is old gasahol. Much worse than old gasoline.

[Bill Neander]

Ken; thanks for your chart. I didn't know bio-diesel was so close in BTUs as petro-diesel. I am looking forward to HDT releasing a consumer level diesel KLR650.

[bmwscoot]

The last thing you want in your tank is old gasahol. Much worse than old gasoline.

 

Ditto that, Ed!

 

I have YET to find an automotive expert, or even mechanic that will tell me it is OK to store a 10% ethanol blend in my gas tanks over the long term. One factor is what Ed has been referring to, the love relationship for ethanol w/ water. Another factor seems to be phase seperation over time...at least that is info. gleaned from 'experts' on local automotive radio talk shows.

 

I talked with a trucker I know who runs a gasoline tanker who told me that the 10% blend is mixed when he fills his tanker. i.e. when filling his tanker at the fuel storage facility, he gets 90% gasoline (by volume) and then 10% ethanol (by volume). Seems to me this could be a problem area, where the math might not work one day, and you could get a higher concentration of this stuff in your gas. Me, when I buy gasoline, I would like gasoline.

 

The problems w/ alcohol and fuel systems mainly show up in older vehicles not designed to run on this stuff. 'O' ring seals and gaskets not designed for ethanol can degrade over time.

 

Thread creep here...

 

I will temporarily get on my mini-soap box here, facing Ken (HI Ken ). I understand the need to get this country off foreign oil, and if a 10% ethanol blend helps, so be it.

I will NEVER tell you that ethanol is the wonder-fuel that others aspouse. Hell, it takes fossil fuel to grow the corn to make ethanol. Tractors need diesel, trucks transporting the corn need diesel. The processing plants need natural gas or fuel oil...or whatever they run on...to make the ethanol...all to return what, 40% less energy per given volume? How 'bout if we take all that diesel fuel/fuel oil/natural gas used, and figure out how much more gasoline we could have made?

 

You ARE getting less mpg w/ a 10% blend. (less energy per volume).

Now, my REAL b*tch.

 

In Minnesota (where nothing is allowed, and euphorians rule) our wonderful Governor and Legislative branch have passed legislation making it necessary for vehicles to run on a 20% blend. NO testing long term has been done, and if you look in your owners manuals most state no more than a 10% blend. These yahoos..who wouldn't know a fuel injector from their b*tthole, have just proclaimed this to be law, no doubt pleasing the farmer/ethanol lobby to no end. If we have warranty issues running a 20% blend, do you think the ol' Gov' is going to pay for my fuel system repairs? H*ll no!

 

Oh, what was the question?

 

Yes, your bike should be fine on a 10% blend...we just do not know you are getting only 10% each time you fill up.

Know that you are keeping the euphorians happy with that ethanol produced w/ fossil fuel! sheeeeesh!

 

Have a nice day!

 

Off soap box...for now, till ...oh, never mind!

[BobFV1]

We are forced to run Gasahol here in Arizona much of the year - no problems in lots and lots of miles on my oilheads, or on my Desmo 2-valve air-cooled Duc for that matter - and it has over 20K miles on it!

[Ken H.]

Thread creep here...

 

I will temporarily get on my mini-soap box here, facing Ken (HI Ken ).

Okay, just remember, you started it...

Hell, it takes fossil fuel to grow the corn to make ethanol. Tractors need diesel, trucks transporting the corn need diesel. The processing plants need natural gas or fuel oil...or whatever they run on...to make the ethanol...all to return what, 40% less energy per given volume? How 'bout if we take all that diesel fuel/fuel oil/natural gas used, and figure out how much more gasoline we could have made?

Well first off, just to clarify my position on the subject Jeff, I don’t believe Ethanol production is the holy grail to solving our energy problems either. Using grain to produce fuel, just like IMHO using grain for animal feed, is a horribly inefficient use of the grain. We should be creating more ways to eat the stuff directly! And the math in mass will never work. There are not enough acres in all of the US to grow enough grain to feed Ethanol production to make up for the 20.7 million barrels of petroleum products consumed per day in the US. Rather the real answer lies in figuring out how to not use so much, not how to produce more. An answer to which sadly I feel is hopeless for the US, and is the main reason I think this country has peaked and is entering it’s inevitable downslide to collapse.

 

But back to Ethanol. Yes there are production cost, including energy consumed to produce it. In your references (“Tractors need diesel, trucks transporting the corn need diesel. The processing plants need natural gas or fuel oil...”) you may be (indirectly) referring to Tad Patzeks 2003 paper in which he condemns the Ethanol industry as one that consumes more energy than it produces. Ignoring for a moment that Mr. Patzek was a chemical engineer for Shell oil for many years and is now the president of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, whose point of view can hardly be considered objective, he is guilty of his own sins. In his study he is quick to include factors in the cost of Ethanol production (such as transportation of the raw materials (grain)) that he fails to take into account in the cost of producing crude oil based energy products. An oil refinery uses electricity too, massive amounts of it. Yet nowhere in his study does he take that into account on the petroleum side of the chart, where as he does (or attempts to) in calculating the cost of Ethanol production. In every examination of Patzek’s work it fails miserably at even the most basic principled of objective study of an issue and has been widely discredited on that fact alone.

 

For a more objective look at the cost of producing Ethanol and the energy it produces vs. the same in the petroleum industry, see Russell Schiwal’s 2005 study - http://www.e85fuel.com/news/051305/russel_schiwal_energy_balance_paper%20.doc

 

Although Schiwal addresses D. Pimentel (another petroleum industry based critic of Ethanol) more than Patzek, the paper looks that the subject with correct study principles.

 

Another factor in favor of Ethanol is the air pollution produced. Vehicles burning E85 produce lower carbon monoxide (CO) and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and the same or lower levels of hydrocarbon (HC) and nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) emissions per net distance traveled that vehicles fueled with petroleum based fuels.

 

For further reading on Ethanol based fuels and the small but noteworthy dent they can make on this energy mess we are in, I direct the reader to:

 

The American Coalition for Ethanol – http://www.ethanol.org/

The National Ethanol Vehicle Coalition - http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php

And The National Corn Grower’s Association - http://www.ncga.com/ethanol/main/energy.htm

[Bob Palin]

Brazil has been trying to implement an Ethanol only (mostly anyway) policy for a long time, The Economist had an article on it recently. http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1313810&tranMode=none

If that is protected please let me know and I'll summarise.

[Ken H.]

Interesting. I thought the interesting part of the article in particular was the emphasis on Ethanol from the reduced pollution perspective more than an external energy reliance perspective. Thanks.

[bmwscoot]

OK, Ken..I am off to read your links.

 

I, like you wish for a better alternative to gasoline, and fear the downhill slide of our country because of our reliance.

The U.S. is so vast, so spread out, that I am afraid our huge appetite for energy will be our downfall.

I fear the loss of recreational driving as an extreme extension of the U.S. energy reliance if things do not change.

 

I know that Barb and I drive fuel efficient vehicles, and have car-pooled together for 30 years. I have saved a ton of pollutants and gasoline just by doing that, huh?

I have turned down more than a few jobs just because the car-pool would not work for us.

 

BTW, did I mention that along w/ our state mandating a 20% blend of ethanol...we subsidize our ethanol industry (farmers and producers) from the taxes we pay in order to bring ethanol in line (competitive) with gasoline? So, we pay our taxes to subsidize an industry that produces a fuel (ethanol) that has 40% less energy per volume than the fuel (gasoline) that we do not subsidize w/ our taxes?

So we subsidize, and get less mpg to boot.

[Ken H.]

we do not subsidize w/ our taxes?

Well I wouldn't go that far. With an average of 41 cents a gallon in fuel taxes in this country, and tax breaks for the petroleum industry galore, there's certainly plenty of subsidizing going on as far as I'm concerned. It's just a bit more in-direct and thus, "Out of sight, out of mind."

[bmwscoot]

A reply Ken, then if we wanna continue this, probably another thread?

 

Ken I was referring to us here in Minnie subsidizing the ethanol plants with our state monies, over and above what we are doing with our federal taxes to subsidize the oil lobby.

 

Re: your ethanol links, some pretty good stuff pointing out the virtues of ethanol. I agree plants have gotten more efficient. As a matter of fact, since we have an E85 station within a block of our home, it could even be feasible for us to use an E85 vehicle in our future, especially for our commute. Come on Honda...how bout that E85 Accord?

 

I dunno the secret to the huge U.S. energy problems that for sure are putting our economic futures in doubt, but I am willing to keep car pooling, and consider E85 in a vechicle designed for it.

 

As I stated, I hate our Governor telling me to run a 20% ethanol mix in my vehicle designed for 10%. No long term test have been run in our state, but I noticed in one of your links, Brazil tests say that a 26% mix will work in todays vehicles. That's nice, but Brazil ain't Minnesota...we are a tad colder here, huh? Vaporization of E85 at minus 25F, might be different than it would be at say 80F.

 

And as far as Government deciding what fuels we need:

Our Governor also kicked in mandate for the bio-diesel lobby. I think it was a 3% mixture now required in this state. Well, an awful lot of diesel owners were more than a little p*ssed in our first cold spell this year, when their new bio-mix gelled and clogged up the fuel systems...stopped those diesels...cold! The Governor, erred, and ummed, and them he suspended bio-diesel for a while. BTW, the Gov. did not offer to pay for all the towing charges and fuel system clean-outs.