Operating a motorcycle on Ethanol?

Hey,

Has anyone run E85 (15 percent ethanol) blend gasoline in their bikes? Any performance or mechanical related issues?

On a related note, one agrieconomist estimates that if ALL agriculatural production in the US was GEARED for the creation of Ethanol fuel, it will still ONLY provide 15 percent of our current gas consumption needs. Bottom line, ethanol among other sources can be used in a hybrid fashion but oil and gas as a major source of energy for transportation is here for the next 30-50 years.

Not many people talk about diesel in terms as a very effective means of developing super efficient cars that get up to 80-90 mpg. Of course, you will get the hicky on performance, but I think Mercedes Benz had a turbo-diesel in the 80s that had pretty good performance.

Question: Can the turbo-diesel feature enabled on the MB be utilized in motorcycles? We all know KLR makes a military version that gets close to 95 mpg but 0-60 in around ten seconds discourages some people plus they are very expensive.

Redo

I've not paid enough attention at the pump to see if I've put E85 in the bike yet. haven't noticed any difference in fuel mileage over the past few months.

Turbo Diesels can have plenty of punch. Sure they "lack" in HP, but their torque numbers are quite high.
Parents had a Mitsubishi 5cyl diesel in Africa and that thing would run like a striped kitty.
The FJ60 has a Cummins 6BT in it and while it ain't fast, it gets down the road just fine.

I've read that the diesel KLR is a dog, but its also a non-turbo'd diesel. I don't see why you could bolt a tiny turbo to it and actually get it to perform.
Don't forget that the Army requires their diesels to be pretty loose so they'll run whatever flammable substance they can dump in the tank.

I'd be interested in a diesel bike if its not incredibly expensive

a turbo adds a lot of complexity and the plumbing is a nightmare on a bike - the majors tried them in the early 80's and they were more problem than they were worth.

Torque is what moves a vehicle and no other engine comes close to a diesel when torque is what's needed.

tx-vfr said:

I've not paid enough attention at the pump to see if I've put E85 in the bike yet. haven't noticed any difference in fuel mileage over the past few months.

Click to expand...

You'd know if you put E85 in your tank....it's cheaper than the regular unleaded, and it has it's own pump at the stations at gas stations.

There aren't many gas stations with E85 yet though, at least in the Burleyville area. The Kroger on 731 has it, that's the only one I know of.

FJRMike said:

a turbo adds a lot of complexity and the plumbing is a nightmare on a bike - the majors tried them in the early 80's and they were more problem than they were worth.

Torque is what moves a vehicle and no other engine comes close to a diesel when torque is what's needed.

Click to expand...

Turbo technology has come a long way since the 80's.

agreed - turbo technology may have come a long way since the 80's but you still have a plumbing and heat nightmare to contend with - between your legs.

Cycle World has a blurb this month on a German Diesel cruiser. It it a parallel twin with turbo. $60k a piece...

wonder91178 said:

You'd know if you put E85 in your tank....it's cheaper than the regular unleaded, and it has it's own pump at the stations at gas stations.

There aren't many gas stations with E85 yet though, at least in the Burleyville area. The Kroger on 731 has it, that's the only one I know of.

Click to expand...

ah, well, everything I've put in my bikes has been expensive

There's a guy on ST.n(Uncle Bob) thats added turbos to most of his bike. I don't think he's had too much of a heat problem and I doubt you'd have much more heat then you already do. the Turbo's don't actually generate heat, its the exhaust that does that.

Red Brown said:

Hey,

Has anyone run E85 (15 percent ethanol) blend gasoline in their bikes? Any performance or mechanical related issues?

Click to expand...

E85 is 85% ethanol not 15%

E10 is a 10% ethanol blend which is already commonly sold at most gas stations. Some places put up notices, but pretty well all the stations are selling the 10% blend from what I gather.

tx-vfr said:

...I doubt you'd have much more heat then you already do. the Turbo's don't actually generate heat, its the exhaust that does that.

Click to expand...

Any compressor is going to heat up the air charge, whether it's a turbo or a supercharger. The turbo, however, has the liability of placing the compressor section in contact with exhaust components. Hotter air going through the intake means hotter exhaust.

You can find plenty of car supercharger systems without an intercooler, but it's unusual to find a turbocharged car without one. The question is, do you have space for an effective intercooler on a bike? I guess it depends on the bike.

I'm no chemE but ethanol has less energy per whatever unit and if I figured it out correctly, it's not worth it. The MPG that you lose more than offsets the lower cost.

I know Honda says to stay away from anything over 10%... I would guess the rest of the MC co's would be the same

If you fill up with E-85 and your carbs are jetted for gasoline, you air/fuel mix will be hopelessly lean.
If you jet for E-85 and you fill up with gasoline, your air/fuel mix will be black smoke plug fouling rich.

http://www.e85fuel.com/index.php

I've read that if just the stalks, waste, from corn were converted to ethanol (would require conversion of cellulose, not as easy (economical) as sugars) there would be enough to supply 100 percent of our fuel needs. There are lots of untapped sources of ethanol, but not all of 'em are as easy and cheap to utilize as corn or sugar cane, that's the problem.

I have the plan, though, called "dial a jet". I intend to try it in my stone axe simple little chinese 200cc DP bike first. If it works, I might upgrade in the future to a big thumper like a Beemer F650 or KLR or something for a main street bike. I have two net friends that have installed this thing on Royal Enfield Bullets (Indian manufacture) and RAVE about the product. Of course, if it's going to improve carberation on ANYthing, it'll improve the Bullet.

http://www.thunderproducts.com/dial_a_jet.htm

I've heard there is a bill to increase Ethanol to 30%. If this happens, it's estimated that one third off all vehicles on the road will fail. Ethanol (from corn at least) is a bad idea!

____________________
Mike
'01 Triumph Trophy 1200 R.I.P.

Jesse H said:

I'm no chemE but ethanol has less energy per whatever unit and if I figured it out correctly, it's not worth it. The MPG that you lose more than offsets the lower cost.

Click to expand...

Hey, I am a ChemE, and you're right! Ethanol generally only makes economical sense to put in gasoline when the government provides a tax subsidy (currently a 50 cents/gallon tax credit). That statement isn't always true when gasoline prices get high like they are at the moment. IF the research ever finds a way to cost-effectively convert organic waste (biomass) into ethanol, that could change things.

In the meanwhile, the rush to product ethanol from corn has raised prices for food, since corn syrup is used in a lot of food products, as well as feed for cattle and other livestock. It's created a crisis for the Mexican government as tortilla prices have gone way up. If you think about it, we're using food for fuel. That's great if you can afford it, but if you're at the poverty level, food prices are a big deal. Farmers are also switching to corn instead of potatoes and grains, so there will be a secondary effect of less supply of other crops, which in turn will drive up food prices.

If you buy gasoline in the major metro areas in Texas, you're buying reformulated gasoline, which since about mid-2006 has been 10% ethanol. That's why your gas mileage went down.

I've read that BMW and other manufacturers will void the warranty of any vehicles that use E85, or any ethanol blend over 10% ethanol. Ford, GM, and Chrysler sell some cars labeled for E85. I read somewhere that some of these cars are not really suitable for E85, but they sell them with that label because (1) they get a bonus credit on their CAFE calculation, and (2) they figure not that many people will actually buy E85, so they'll deal with the few failures that occur as a result.

Last but not least, it's my understanding that diesel engines are generally heavier than gasoline engines, which isn't a problem for a heavy duty vehicle like an F350 pickup truck, but is a problem when you're designing a motorcycle. If you put a heavier engine on a motorcycle, the frame, wheels, suspension, wheel bearings, everything has to get heavier to accomodate the heavier engine. Motorcycles are fun because of the horsepower to weight ratio. If the weight goes up without increasing horsepower, you just took the fun out of it.

Well, when (not if) gas hits 3.50 a gallon and ethanol E85 is 2.50 a gallon, it makes economic sense to me. You will actually GAIN some power as I understand it, just that it takes more ethanol to burn per stroke/ratio of air to ethanol. It has less energy, but burns more fuel per stroke. This is similar to methanol used in race engines. They jet MUCH fatter and make more horsepower, yet the molecule releases less energy when burned.

Why I hope they can eventually economically convert biomass (cellulose) to ethanol is to wean us off middle east oil, and to create a more stable fuel market, but it's a national security thing to me. We'll have to do it in a hundred years anyway, find another fuel, when the petrol runs out. But, as third world countries demand more share of the petroleum pie, the market gets more and more volatile for crude and we're held hostage at gunpoint by OPEC countries. We need an alternate liquid (because providing infrastructure for pressurized liquid gasses is too costly) fuel ASAP and E85, I believe, is the best candidate. Can you suggest something better, more feasible???? We NEED to do something. We cannot continue with the status quo much longer.

Jack Giesecke said:

Well, when (not if) gas hits 3.50 a gallon and ethanol E85 is 2.50 a gallon, it makes economic sense to me. You will actually GAIN some power as I understand it, just that it takes more ethanol to burn per stroke/ratio of air to ethanol. It has less energy, but burns more fuel per stroke. This is similar to methanol used in race engines. They jet MUCH fatter and make more horsepower, yet the molecule releases less energy when burned.

Why I hope they can eventually economically convert biomass (cellulose) to ethanol is to wean us off middle east oil, and to create a more stable fuel market, but it's a national security thing to me. We'll have to do it in a hundred years anyway, find another fuel, when the petrol runs out. But, as third world countries demand more share of the petroleum pie, the market gets more and more volatile for crude and we're held hostage at gunpoint by OPEC countries. We need an alternate liquid (because providing infrastructure for pressurized liquid gasses is too costly) fuel ASAP and E85, I believe, is the best candidate. Can you suggest something better, more feasible???? We NEED to do something. We cannot continue with the status quo much longer.

Click to expand...

Your MPG will be much lower on E85 vs. E10 (reformulated gasoline). If you can figure out that you pay less $/mile traveled with whatever the pricing scenario is, more power to you. The companies that sell E85 have to sell it at a lower price to offset the lower mileage, unless treehuggers are willing to pay a premium for it in the belief that they're helping the environment somehow.

We actually could continue what we're doing for a number of years, probably at least 30, maybe 75 years or more. There are massive reserves in Canada that are beginning to ramp up over the next decade. Venezuela also has a lot of oil close to our borders. There are reserves offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore California that could be exploited given the right political environment. The high price of gas in the US has more to do with the fact that the government has been openly hostile to permitting for new refineries, and they continue to change the regulatory environment which requires investment without any economic return, and they continue to come up with new interpretations of existing laws and then aggressively prosecute the oil companies for their past actions which were thought to be legal at the time. So, don't get me started.

Interesting, I just happen to be reading Cindy's '93 Nighthawk owner's manual. It has a nice page about useing ethenol. It is ver clear about NOT useing it and says why. The main reason is the corrosive nature of the stuff and that it will deteriorate the fuel system components. It goes on and points out the fact of there being 10% mix out there and that if that's all there is, not to exceed the 10% mix.

I've noticed in the past year or so a slight reduction in MPG on the bikes as well as the Explorer. My vehicles seemed to run better (smoother) when I got fuel out of town. At first I thought it was just my imagination. Then I start hearing more and more stories about poor performance and mpg.

This past month when we went to the races at NPR in LA the Explorer's mpg went up 3 points on the trip home useing the LA gas.

Since, I've experimented with Marvel Mystery oil in the fuel for the bikes. Not that they get that much better mpg, but they do seem to run smoother and idle better.

If you change your fuel lines to silicone or synthetic rubber and richen your fuel mix, you can run E85..I hope E85 and bio-diesel take off...It'd be great for everyone...

ThunderStar over in the Netherlands built a 1200 cc sport bike that weighs 450lbs and runs on diesel, estimated around 90 MPG with 120bhp and 250 foot pounds at 5500rpm...

As someone who's career is centered off of 'green design' and more environmentally stable systems I feel like I have to mention that you dont have to be a 'treehugger' to believe that doing better things for the environment is important. Yes, economics is an issue. We cant do what we cant afford. But lifestyle changes, one by one, are the single most influential changes as far as ecological footprint per individual.

For instance. I had a friend today look at my grocery receipt and freak out because I have 'expensive taste' and just gawked at my choices. Yes, I am in college. Yes, I have a tight budget. Yes, I do tend to by non-processed and organic foods where I can. I'd guess that 90% of my cart was fresh produce, organic foods, or other fresh items. But the big difference is, I have trained myself to eat smaller portions, and less food overall:closer to what humans are actually supposed to eat. Therefore, less more-expensive food comes out the same as more inexpensive food.

I know most people's motives for E85 is the cost benifit over fossil fuels. Thats great. But also keep in mind that it does burn a lot cleaner than fossile fuels, which does help the atmosphere quite a bit. No, I dont think E85 is an end-all solution. We purely need the crops for food. The pressure to grow MORE corn per acre will cause farmers to use stronger fertilizers and harsher chemicals etc, which could basically end up causing more harm than good.

Unless you are a very dense individual, there is no doubt that the world is changing and despite all the oil reserves that we might not have tapped yet, the world's consumption of fossil fuels is growing at an absolutely exponential rate, far too quick for the tapping of a few more reserves to really make a difference in the future.

Sorry, given how tied to this type of subject I am I figured I'd at least drop my 2 or 3 cents in here :P

-Kellan

Kellan,

I agree with you that we should endeavor to be good stewards of the environment. As more and more people come to understand this, I think the market will respond by giving people products that are produced in a more environmentally friendly manner, and are in themselves more environmentally friendly. After all, look how successful places like Whole Foods have been. Look at all the incredible choices you now have for organic foods. All those choices are the result of market demand and people meeting that demand.

TRUE education plays a key role in people making good choices. Mere propaganda for the sake of an agenda does not help. As you mention with the Ethanol issue, a higher demand for corn could result in the unintended and undesirable effects of even worse damage to the environment. The greater need for farm land might lead to more deforestation, which ironically would reduce the planet's ability to recycle carbon dioxide The market will not be perfect and can also have unintended consequences. However, the market is usually much more responsive to the demand for change than our government. If a company is losing money because it's policies or actions are not widely supported by the market, they either change their behavior or go out of business. Government programs get a LOT of inertia behind them. Once rolling, they are darn near impossible to reverse, much less stop. For instance, the governments of the world banned DDT because of the hotly disputed potential for harm to the environment, which we now know to be false. Meanwhile, literally millions of people have died from Malaria and other Mosquito born diseases. Seems a sore trade off. Nonetheless, DDT remains banned... I cannot help but see the same thing happening with respect to the Global Warming crisis. Int he name of preventing this potential crisis (as if we really could prevent it even if we wanted too), we will put up with the certain human disaster as a result of the retardation of the development of other countries.

With the market, real science matters. It matters because it will affect the bottom line. You can deny reality all you want, but when your products don't live up to their claims, people move on. Look at how the technologies in our products have changed in just the last 20 years! Now imagine if the government was controlling what new technologies could be used, which could be researched and developed, etc,... There would be so much political haggling over which technologies were more deserving of the support of government funding. Inevitably, we'd be getting lame products that many people might not even want and that are quite expensive. The real science would no longer matter. It would be a matter of political leverage. We see the same thing working out in the Global Warming "science". The real science is irrelevant. It is the money and power that can be leveraged in the name of Global Warming that matters!

There is no cost benefit to E85 over fossil fuels. Unsubsidized, it is vastly more expensive. If it were not for government subsidies, they would not even be considered for use because of the higher cost. We cannot even remotely produce enough to meet the growing demand for fuel, or even the current demand. It is more expensive to produce and handle because of the corrosive nature of the fuel. Hydrogen is not much better.

Oil is most likely a fixed resource. There are some that believe oil is produced by ongoing processes and thus the supply is not fixed, but I think they are in the minority. Even if it is a fixed resource that will eventually run out, this is not a problem. Left to themselves, the markets will change and adapt. As oil runs out, the price will go up drastically. No doubt the government will continue to confiscate and hoard reserves for its activities. As the prices rise, more expensive things like ethanol and hydrogen will become more feasible because the market will be willing to put up the money needed to make it profitable (without the need for subsidies!) The rise in prices will also stimulate research into other alternatives. This might include other sources of energy. It might include technologies that make better use of the resources we have. People WILL change their lifestyles because of the rising cost. It is impossible to predict all the ways in which our lives will change to adapt to the altering energy market. But we WILL adapt, and it does not require coercion and crazy government schemes, regulations, subsidies, etc,... Those will always be driven by political concerns that may or may not be based on sound reasoning and real science (most likely not... ). Rather than helping constructive change to occur, the government is more often an obstruction to the introduction of new technologies and changes.

Let me do some sci/fi speculating for a moment... Imagine if you will, someone develops a way to teleport stuff. Maybe not like the Star Trek where you can beam anything from anywhere to anywhere. It might require a transmission and receiver on each end. It might not even work with anything living. Still, just that one breakthrough would make a HUGE difference!! Think of all the non-living stuff that gets moved all over the world everyday. What if teleporting it requires less overall energy input than physically moving it by vehicle? Now imagine if it worked with people? All of a sudden, the automotive and shipping industries are effectively moot. The oil industry is relegated to providing lubricants, chemicals, and synthetic goods.

What if a new energy source is discovered? Recall that nuclear power has only been around a short time. Prior to that, people had no concept of something like nuclear power. Before that, there was steam power. Before that, animal, wind and water power... So who knows that other types of power might be discovered if there is money to drive the research? If fuel prices are allowed to soar and reflect true market conditions (which subsidies prevent), then there will be a LOT of investors seeking to cash in on those high prices! This is how we know where we need to be investing our wealth! If there is a shortage of anything that people need/want, the prices go up. When this happens, the potential to make money by relieving the shortage or finding a substitute goes up as well. When the government takes away our wealth and uses it for political purposes, it distorts and retards this market process. It disrupts the best mechanism for finding out what people REALLY need/want as reflected in the prices they are willing to pay for things. Worse yet, in some markets the government control creates barriers to new entrants into the markets and helps to keep prices artificially high. Think of any licensed profession: law, doctors, engineers, pilots, etc,... Look at the pharmaceutical industry with all the added cost of FDA approval that keeps many products out of the market and makes those that do make it very expensive.

The point is that yes, people do need to be environmentally sensitive with their choices and decisions. There can be no harm with people voluntarily doing this. Markets can and will respond the demands of consumers that are environmentally sensitive and they can do this much more rapidly, with much greater efficiency, and for far less cost than the government. This allows people to still remain free from any further intrusion into their lives by the government. It helps to keep the science real instead of it becoming subjugated into mindless propaganda for the sake of political purposes. Best of all, it is one less reason for the government to demand ever more money from us.

Venezuela also has a lot of oil close to our borders.

Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, let's hear it for Hugo Chavez. Right here is a prime example of what I'm talkin' about with national security, unless you wanna raise the troops and send 'em into Venezuela. I generally agree about the over-regulation/permitting of refineries and exploration, but I STILL think we should promote alternative fuels for national security's sake. No, I won't pay more for ethanol if it's not cost effective for me, Scot and German blood, ya know (I'm a penny pincher). The bottom line is where it's at. But, if I can, I'll go with ethanol if it's cheaper. Besides, I like projects like that and want to see if I can convert that little 200 to a flex fuel vehicle.

Yes, I am in college. Yes, I have a tight budget. Yes, I do tend to by non-processed and organic foods where I can. I'd guess that 90% of my cart was fresh produce, organic foods, or other fresh items. But the big difference is,

Click to expand...

When I was in school, I lived on Ramen Noodles. The only organic food I ate was what I killed, caught, or picked. I shot rabbits, a couple of deer, quail, dove, picked dandelion greens, fresh picked nopalitos, never missed a dewberry season, seined a pond that was full of crawdads with my room mate once a weekend for one semester. When I couldn't find game or didn't have the time, I bought canned goods or occasionally I'd splurge 33 cents for an El Chico TV dinner, a lot cheaper than fresh. The only red meat I remember eating was venison. Had a friend who's dad owned 750 acres in Freer and always let me hunt, felt sorry for me I think, all skin and bones. I held down as many as 3 jobs at a time and quit one semester to work and build up some money so I could go back. I wasn't worried about the whales. I was more worried about where my next meal was coming from. I probably spent too much on beer, but that's another story. Kids these days got it way too easy.


Concerning conversion to E85, change the fuel lines, sure. But, I will also watch carburetor O rings for compatibility to ethanol. Also, I haven't popped the float bowl off that Diamo, but I hope there's a metal float in there and not plastic. However, plastics are not generally corroded by alcohols which are water solvents, not oil solvents. Gasoline tends to be far harder on some plastics than ethanol is. Try using tygon fuel lines. You'll have to replace 'em every 6 months if used with gasoline, get stiff and start cracking. But, this very concern is why I wanna try it on the Diamo and not the SV or GL. Parts for the Diamo are dirt cheap if I eat up carb floats or something.

I've read, no experience yet, that you can expect 20 percent less mileage on E85. If so, if my van was flex fuel, we're talkin' 12 mpg vs 15, a whoppin' 3 mpg difference. Now, on the Diamo, we're talkin' 64 mpg vs 80 mpg on gasoline. That's a little more to make up with fuel cost, I reckon.

Problems with ethanol as a fuel:

1) Absorbs water from the atmosphere;
2) Corrosive;
3) Breaks down gaskets and seals;
4) Requires high compression ratio about (14.7:1) for maximum efficiency;
5) Low energy content 75,700 btu/gallon as opposed to gasoline's 115,000 btu/gallon;
6) Heavier than gasoline (0.79g/ml vs.0.73g/ml);
7) 1.644 times heavier than gasoline for the same amount of energy;
8) Burns with a colorless flame (How do you know the fire is out?).