Modern Vespa

Back in the 90's I found EtOH tolerant rebuild kits for my 1980 Carver boat engine carbs - twin Crusader 220 V8's. Occasionally had to refuel with E10 (150 gals per pop) and had no problems.

Perhaps your brother isn't getting proper rebuild kits?

At least 3 spots in St Paul and several more in the surrounding burbs have ethanol free gas. Send your brother to pure-gas.com!

Possibly, all I'm certain of is that my five bikes run great on non-ethanol fuel, even after sitting all winter with the same gas in their tanks. His give him nothing but aggravation. He doesn't own a bike newer than 1991 (GSXR1100, ZX11 Kaw).

I'll mention this to him next time we talk. Thanks.

E10 has been around since the early 80's. Not much fanfare about it until recently. For years, many folks were running on E10 without knowing it. Components compatible with E10 have been available since the 80's. Additives to compensate for EtOH (injector deposits, etc) have been a part of fuel blends since the mid 80's. In short, the industry has had the technology in place for over 25 years to cope with E10 and has been applying it.

Now, I'm not going to argue that E10 does not have some down sides. Yes, fuel mileage can be effected, care must be taken to minimize water absorption and there is a slightly higher potential for vapor lock, amongst other issues. Nor am I going to argue the economic or environmental issues involved. But the big "EtOH is gonna dissolve your carb and block your injectors" is horse puckey. At least in systems manufactured or rebuilt in the past 20 years. I know a bit about fuels and engines (not everything), and I say that based upon having been responsible for fuel and lubricant quality surveillance for several years, both for aircraft and ground vehicles, to include a couple of years where I supported HMX-1 (Google it), probably the most demanding fuels customer around.

SOYLENT GREEN!

I loled.

even on vintage bikes the E10 stuff is not that bad on the engine and carb parts. But I have seen plenty of factory fiberglass tanks turn to mush and start leaking fuel all over the place.

On cars with knock sensors and closed loop EFI switching between fuels may be no problem. The biggest issue I see is in pump to pump variation in what you are getting. It's badd enough having to rejet for altitude, but to have to rejet with each fill up gets to be a bit much.

Spot on, Patrick, and absolutely the biggest concern in marine applications. There are a raft of pleasure boats with fibreglass fuel tanks, often molded into the hull design. During a safety seminar on E10 a few years ago at our yacht club, the surveyor making the presentation half jokingly said that if your tank has any fibreglass, hope that it clogs your carb early in the game. Maybe that will alert you to having taken on E10 before the tanks empty into your bilges. Other than fibreglass fuel tanks, E10 can be readily managed in marine applications.

That's specifically fibreglass, IIRC, not all polymers in general.

Try actually experiencing the difference between the oxygenated and not. You might experience the difference. After which I'll shut up. Go ahead and QFT!

Subjectively or on a dyno? Retune for the fuel being used or no retune.

I'd celebrate the data either way by dyno. But I'd trust a subjective review by yourself... almost true.

Oh Oh did I just set myself up for data already tabulated?

Tom

Would love to oblige with a "personal test", but E10 is not available here, to the best of my knowledge, so I'm off the hook for a subjective review, even if I had a 4T scoot.

There is no question about the energy content of straight vs E10, and I'm sure the data is out there as to dyno testing. Google is your friend (sound familiar?).

As to what can be reasonably experienced in terms of "performance", my question would be "so?". The average motorist looses more fuel economy via ill inflated tires, aggressive driving and bad O2 sensors, and degrades performance more via dirty air filters than the theoretical numbers on E10. We are debating "honor amongst thieves" here. For the purist, perhaps it's an issue.

E10 will not damage a vehicle made in the past 10 - 20 years. They are built to burn it. That's a given, so the next question is one of performance and fuel economy and if there is sufficient benefit in the larger picture to worry about it in the first place. For the majority, there are bigger and easier fish to fry concerning fuel economy and "performance" than traveling 10 miles round trip to select a given fuel over that available down the street.

Note that I am only addressing the vehicle. I am not going into the minefield of the sources of EtOH and renewable and the like. Just my vehicle and the business of operating it.

While I enjoy the mental masturbation of wrestling with the theoreticals on the subject, for me, the practicals rule the day on this one. But, if it gives someone joy to burn EtOH free fuel, then go for it. Joy is important to a full life. Life is too short to spend even one minute of it being unhappy on purpose. That's why my neighbor Nina didn't close her insurance office for the general strike today. No way she was going to stay home and have to cook lunch for her striking husband!

Cheers

Thanks Al, I seldom take the time to think that hard. I simply find it interesting given all the coverage on forums. Already did the google, and nothing to convince me either direction yet. I think I experience a difference. Perhaps it's no more important than which toothpaste. But I know of a thread addressing those worries too.

Be well,

Tom

Two issues with ethanol on a compatible fuel system, as far as harm it could do;
1) Alcohol absorbs water easily. But if bought from a station that turns it's fuel around, this should not be an issue, hopefully

2) On older vehicles that have build up in the tank and fuel lines. Ethanol is a fantastic cleaner, it will clean all that old build up out of that fuel tank and fuel lines if it's there.
Not sure if this is an issue on scooters. Had big problems with cars in some cases. Fuel varnishes as it gets old, so cars that sat with the same gas for a long time were more of an issue.

Tom-

Scooterboy hit on two issues worthy of note. Water absorption over time in a partially filled tank can be a headache, as can the "tank cleaning effect".

When looking at EtOH, there are very different concerns across the four major application categories: Automotive, Aviation, Marine and Gasoline Powered Tools.

On several forums, I have seen people citing, for example, the pleasure boat sector's high level of concern as a generality applicable to all gasoline powered equipment or vehicles. I was the Safety and Education guy for my yacht club when the E10 issue began to bubble up in the late 90's, and turned to the Boat/US Safety Foundation for info. Probably the biggest concern was fibreglass fuel tanks made before about 1992, which are dissolved by E10. Fuel in the bilges is the potential for disaster. Replacing fibreglass tanks can be a very expensive proposition.

More recent Marine concerns pertain to E15, not E10. The boating community has more than sufficient data and experience to "manage" E10. To quote Evinrude Motors:


The most serious boat engine problems, resulting from ethanol E10 use, have mainly occurred due to illegal amounts of ethanol (over 10 %) being incorrectly added at the gas station pumps, by the delivery truck drivers..

Since using over 10 % alcohol gas is dangerous, it will invalidate all marine company engine warranties.

Many ethanol problems reported by boaters appears to be due to their lack of knowledge/information on how to properly manage alcohol fuels.

However, I have seen that middle paragraph, or similar ones quoted out of context to claim EtOH itself, regardless of % used, is dangerous to any and all engines.

As to water absorption, any large marine fuel tank, if left filled to a low level during a prolonged period, is going to result in water in the fuel. The greater the volume of humid air in the tank, the more H2O available to be absorbed or to condense. Thus, the prudent boater, whether burning an EtOH blend or not, keeps his tanks topped off (or totally empty), during the winter layup or other long periods of inactivity. Same goes for diesel. My anal, but loveable neighbor would actually use 5 gal cans to replace the 10 gals he burned between the nearest fuel dock and our harbor so that he would be filled up to the the filler pipe during layups.

For a good read, look at Evinrude's Jeff Wasil's testimony to the House of Reps this past July. Note that (1) his concern is only with E15 and (2) he is speaking specifically about "non-road" gasoline engine applications.

A boating web site made this misleading statement, mixing the above pertaining to E15 with E10, and generalizing "ethanol" with the actual industry concern, E15:

Many groups in the recreational marine industry, including the National Marine Manufacturers Association, have said studies prove ethanol can be damaging to boat engines. These groups are currently fighting the Environmental Protection Agency's recent approval of fuel with 15 percent ethanol for 2001 car models or newer. The Environmental Protection Agency did not authorize E15 fuel for boat engines, but industry groups say the distinction could be somewhat confusing for consumers.

Meanwhile, the National Boat Racing Association adopted E10 as the "official fuel" for it's 2011 race series.

So, after a long winded session, the fact remains that the Marine sector, often cited as justification for automotive concerns, has long ago learned to use E10. Thus, as you consider arguments offered pro and con, keep in mind that (1) Non-road engine concerns are quite different from automotive/PTW concerns, and (2) the non-road concerns are about E15, not E10.

Lastly, I am not a proponent nor opponent of EtOH fuel blends. They came into use and I learned how to "manage" their use so I wouldn't miss a day of boating or riding. However, I am a proponent of valid arguments.