Ethanol free gas
#21
02-20-2010, 10:28 AM
Elite HDF Member
I have been using ethanol fuel for about 3 years, in my 2005 SE Fat Boy.
I tried not to use it at first, but after a year or so it became difficult to find regular gas in my area. I haven't noticed any difference in performance or mileage, since I started using ethanol.
Tom
I tried not to use it at first, but after a year or so it became difficult to find regular gas in my area. I haven't noticed any difference in performance or mileage, since I started using ethanol.
Tom
#22
02-20-2010, 05:05 PM
Gas/Ethanol Fuels: Tank Up!
by Bob Hoffmann, from the March 2001 Newsletter
It irked me immediately when I saw it. Perhaps you’ve seen it as well: The sign in front of a local Chevron station that read "Prevent expensive engine repairs; buy ethanol-free fuels here." When I lived in Ohio, I usually filled my gas tank with 10% ethanol blends, and had never had a problem with them. I also liked the fact that my fuel dollars helped feed the farmers who grew the corn from which ethanol was distilled. Gasoline mixed with ethanol produces less carbon monoxide and smog compared to straight gas. Finally, since ethanol is produced domestically, and much of our petroleum supply comes from abroad, I was buying locally, so to speak, reducing the trade deficit, and keeping oil rigs out of environmentally sensitive areas. So when I saw the ethanol-disparaging sign, I stopped my petroleum-consuming means of conveyance at the nearest parking spot and walked in to see Marc, the station owner. Yes, he was responsible for the sign. Yes, he claimed, ethanol-blended fuels could damage vehicle engines.
He launched into a litany of ethanol-related problems. Ethanol oxidizes metal parts, which can result in the clogging of fuel injectors. Additionally, ethanol has a tremendous ability to attract and absorb water. This causes performance and mechanical problems. He mentioned a number of other supposed problems caused by ethanol.
I was skeptical, but he seemed to be presenting his case in a very scientific manner. "If you claim ethanol is so damaging," I asked, "Why do all automakers allow its use under warranty?" Simple, he responded; because the Environmental Protection Agency requires the use of ethanol in certain markets, therefore the automakers have to cover it in their warranties. Indeed, ethanol-blended gas obviously damages engines, because "I get service bulletins on this all the time."
To see if he was having a common misunderstanding in the automotive world, I asked if he wasn’t confusing ethanol with methanol, a much more toxic and corrosive fuel additive. "They’re both alcohols, aren’t they?" he responded. I was shocked that a mechanic would be equating the two.
"If you had a glass of ethanol and a glass of methanol, would you drink both?" I asked.
"I never drink," he responded flatly. Probably a good thing, I thought, since he doesn’t know the difference. I finally asked him if he had any proof of his claims. Where were those service bulletins he was constantly receiving? He didn’t have any on hand, but if I’d come back later, he’d show me what he could find.
When I returned, he had printed two chapters of Motor Gasolines Technical Review, a publication available on the Chevron Web site (http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/bulletin/motorgas/). He had highlighted the presumably pertinent passages. "What about service bulletins?" I asked. He didn’t have any for me, but suggested that I contact the individual automakers.
So what did the Chevron document contain to support his claims that ethanol blends could damage engines? In a word, nothing. Motor Gasolines Technical Review’s chapters on engine systems, including fuel injectors, did not mention ethanol a single time. The document did mention methanol's "corrosivity and toxicity defects," leading me to believe that this was another case of confusion between ethanol and a similar-sounding, but very different alcohol. After contacting customer service at Ford and Chrysler, and contacting local GM and Jeep/Nissan dealers, I couldn’t find any service bulletins or other documents claiming that ethanol damages the engines or components of any vehicles. Typically, service staff remembered hearing of this supposed damage in the past. Some said that ethanol actually had caused corrosion and deposits on the fuel injectors of early- to mid-1980's cars. Others said, no, not corrosion, but erosion. The details varied, but one thing was constant: The inability to produce supporting documentation.
I then contacted the American Coalition for Ethanol (http://www.ethanol.org/) and spoke with Trevor Guthmiller. He said that ethanol, besides being an alcohol, could be characterized as a detergent. It can loosen carbon deposits, particularly in older vehicles, but since many fuels now contain detergents, this effect is not unique to ethanol. He was very firm that this would not damage engines. "The fuel filter will capture any loose carbon deposits, so if you switch from leaded gasoline to a detergent fuel, you will eventually have to change your fuel filter." He also stated that he’d never seen any documentation about ethanol damaging fuel injectors. "Automakers were cautionary about ethanol fuel blends in the beginning, but after thorough testing, they realized that it wasn’t ethanol that was causing problems," he told me. "Methanol blends were frequently responsible for engine damage." Since then, automakers have endorse, without reservation, the use of gasoline blended with up to 10% ethanol. This is born out by Ford Motor Company’s Technical Article: Ethanol/Methanol Fuel Blends:
Ford Motor Company vehicles should operate normally if the customer uses blends that contain no more than 10% ethanol or a blend that contains no more than 5% methanol with its necessary co-solvents and additives. If the methanol does not contain the necessary co-solvents & additives, it will damage the vehicle.
Note that Ford’s statement is without qualification in terms of vehicle model, production year, or the presence of fuel injectors. Also note that a 10% blend is the maximum typically available, so if you buy an ethanol-blended fuel, you don’t have to worry about whether the ethanol concentration is too rich for your vehicle.
What about the claim that automakers allow the use of ethanol blends only because the E.P.A. mandates ethanol blending in certain areas? There is no such requirement. According to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, "All gasoline sold in the specified carbon monoxide nonattainment areas during the winter months when the carbon monoxide level is the highest must be oxygenated gasoline with a minimum oxygen content of 2.7 weight percent." There is no requirement for the use of ethanol, ever. The requirement is simply to use an oxygenated additive, and ethanol is one of several currently available. Chevron itself uses ethanol to oxygenate gasoline in numerous markets, such as Seattle, Spokane, Vancouver, and Portland, while it uses another common oxygenate, MTBE, in other areas. Incidentally, MTBE is the same additive that the EPA would like banned in motor fuels, as it is contaminating ground water supplies.
What about ethanol’s water-absorbing capabilities? Yes, water is soluble in ethanol, otherwise you would have to shake your beer to mix the alcohol with the water, and we know what a mess that would make. In terms of fossil fuels, Chevron states that a gasoline-alcohol blend can dissolve water up to 6000-7000 ppm at 70°F. "When this blend is cooled, both the water and some of the ethanol become insoluble. The result, in both cases, is two layers of liquid: an upper ethanol-deficient gasoline layer and a lower ethanol-rich (about 75% ethanol) water layer. The engine will not run on the water layer." (Chapter 4, Motor Gasolines Technical Review)
Chevron did not state the likelihood of this degree of contamination. But they specifically state that ethanol is transported in such a manner as to prevent contamination with water. While a 10% ethanol-gas blend can dissolve up to 40 times more water than straight gasoline, Trevor Guthmiller of the American Coalition for Ethanol states that it is highly unlikely that gasoline will come into contact with enough water to result in such high concentrations. This amount of water in your gas tank can stop your car dead, whether or not the gasoline is blended with ethanol. Because ethanol-blended gasoline can dissolve water, it greatly reduces the chance of fuel-line freeze-up or water accumulation in your gas tank (e.g. due to condensation). Any water is diluted throughout the fuel and passes through the fuel line and combustion system with little or no compromise in performance. This effect, says Guthmiller, is responsible for ethanol blends gaining market share in the winter in South Dakota, where he is based.
There are a number of other supposedly negative claims against the use of ethanol in fuel. These claims tend to vaporize with careful research. So you can confidently fill your gas tank with ethanol blends. They burn cleaner, support American farmers, and reduce the dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Chevron Corporation was asked to comment on technical issues and any policy about anti-ethanol signage at Chevron service stations. They forwarded the inquiry to the consumer affairs department three weeks before the press deadline, but no response has been forthcoming.
by Bob Hoffmann, from the March 2001 Newsletter
It irked me immediately when I saw it. Perhaps you’ve seen it as well: The sign in front of a local Chevron station that read "Prevent expensive engine repairs; buy ethanol-free fuels here." When I lived in Ohio, I usually filled my gas tank with 10% ethanol blends, and had never had a problem with them. I also liked the fact that my fuel dollars helped feed the farmers who grew the corn from which ethanol was distilled. Gasoline mixed with ethanol produces less carbon monoxide and smog compared to straight gas. Finally, since ethanol is produced domestically, and much of our petroleum supply comes from abroad, I was buying locally, so to speak, reducing the trade deficit, and keeping oil rigs out of environmentally sensitive areas. So when I saw the ethanol-disparaging sign, I stopped my petroleum-consuming means of conveyance at the nearest parking spot and walked in to see Marc, the station owner. Yes, he was responsible for the sign. Yes, he claimed, ethanol-blended fuels could damage vehicle engines.
He launched into a litany of ethanol-related problems. Ethanol oxidizes metal parts, which can result in the clogging of fuel injectors. Additionally, ethanol has a tremendous ability to attract and absorb water. This causes performance and mechanical problems. He mentioned a number of other supposed problems caused by ethanol.
I was skeptical, but he seemed to be presenting his case in a very scientific manner. "If you claim ethanol is so damaging," I asked, "Why do all automakers allow its use under warranty?" Simple, he responded; because the Environmental Protection Agency requires the use of ethanol in certain markets, therefore the automakers have to cover it in their warranties. Indeed, ethanol-blended gas obviously damages engines, because "I get service bulletins on this all the time."
To see if he was having a common misunderstanding in the automotive world, I asked if he wasn’t confusing ethanol with methanol, a much more toxic and corrosive fuel additive. "They’re both alcohols, aren’t they?" he responded. I was shocked that a mechanic would be equating the two.
"If you had a glass of ethanol and a glass of methanol, would you drink both?" I asked.
"I never drink," he responded flatly. Probably a good thing, I thought, since he doesn’t know the difference. I finally asked him if he had any proof of his claims. Where were those service bulletins he was constantly receiving? He didn’t have any on hand, but if I’d come back later, he’d show me what he could find.
When I returned, he had printed two chapters of Motor Gasolines Technical Review, a publication available on the Chevron Web site (http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/bulletin/motorgas/). He had highlighted the presumably pertinent passages. "What about service bulletins?" I asked. He didn’t have any for me, but suggested that I contact the individual automakers.
So what did the Chevron document contain to support his claims that ethanol blends could damage engines? In a word, nothing. Motor Gasolines Technical Review’s chapters on engine systems, including fuel injectors, did not mention ethanol a single time. The document did mention methanol's "corrosivity and toxicity defects," leading me to believe that this was another case of confusion between ethanol and a similar-sounding, but very different alcohol. After contacting customer service at Ford and Chrysler, and contacting local GM and Jeep/Nissan dealers, I couldn’t find any service bulletins or other documents claiming that ethanol damages the engines or components of any vehicles. Typically, service staff remembered hearing of this supposed damage in the past. Some said that ethanol actually had caused corrosion and deposits on the fuel injectors of early- to mid-1980's cars. Others said, no, not corrosion, but erosion. The details varied, but one thing was constant: The inability to produce supporting documentation.
I then contacted the American Coalition for Ethanol (http://www.ethanol.org/) and spoke with Trevor Guthmiller. He said that ethanol, besides being an alcohol, could be characterized as a detergent. It can loosen carbon deposits, particularly in older vehicles, but since many fuels now contain detergents, this effect is not unique to ethanol. He was very firm that this would not damage engines. "The fuel filter will capture any loose carbon deposits, so if you switch from leaded gasoline to a detergent fuel, you will eventually have to change your fuel filter." He also stated that he’d never seen any documentation about ethanol damaging fuel injectors. "Automakers were cautionary about ethanol fuel blends in the beginning, but after thorough testing, they realized that it wasn’t ethanol that was causing problems," he told me. "Methanol blends were frequently responsible for engine damage." Since then, automakers have endorse, without reservation, the use of gasoline blended with up to 10% ethanol. This is born out by Ford Motor Company’s Technical Article: Ethanol/Methanol Fuel Blends:
Ford Motor Company vehicles should operate normally if the customer uses blends that contain no more than 10% ethanol or a blend that contains no more than 5% methanol with its necessary co-solvents and additives. If the methanol does not contain the necessary co-solvents & additives, it will damage the vehicle.
Note that Ford’s statement is without qualification in terms of vehicle model, production year, or the presence of fuel injectors. Also note that a 10% blend is the maximum typically available, so if you buy an ethanol-blended fuel, you don’t have to worry about whether the ethanol concentration is too rich for your vehicle.
What about the claim that automakers allow the use of ethanol blends only because the E.P.A. mandates ethanol blending in certain areas? There is no such requirement. According to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, "All gasoline sold in the specified carbon monoxide nonattainment areas during the winter months when the carbon monoxide level is the highest must be oxygenated gasoline with a minimum oxygen content of 2.7 weight percent." There is no requirement for the use of ethanol, ever. The requirement is simply to use an oxygenated additive, and ethanol is one of several currently available. Chevron itself uses ethanol to oxygenate gasoline in numerous markets, such as Seattle, Spokane, Vancouver, and Portland, while it uses another common oxygenate, MTBE, in other areas. Incidentally, MTBE is the same additive that the EPA would like banned in motor fuels, as it is contaminating ground water supplies.
What about ethanol’s water-absorbing capabilities? Yes, water is soluble in ethanol, otherwise you would have to shake your beer to mix the alcohol with the water, and we know what a mess that would make. In terms of fossil fuels, Chevron states that a gasoline-alcohol blend can dissolve water up to 6000-7000 ppm at 70°F. "When this blend is cooled, both the water and some of the ethanol become insoluble. The result, in both cases, is two layers of liquid: an upper ethanol-deficient gasoline layer and a lower ethanol-rich (about 75% ethanol) water layer. The engine will not run on the water layer." (Chapter 4, Motor Gasolines Technical Review)
Chevron did not state the likelihood of this degree of contamination. But they specifically state that ethanol is transported in such a manner as to prevent contamination with water. While a 10% ethanol-gas blend can dissolve up to 40 times more water than straight gasoline, Trevor Guthmiller of the American Coalition for Ethanol states that it is highly unlikely that gasoline will come into contact with enough water to result in such high concentrations. This amount of water in your gas tank can stop your car dead, whether or not the gasoline is blended with ethanol. Because ethanol-blended gasoline can dissolve water, it greatly reduces the chance of fuel-line freeze-up or water accumulation in your gas tank (e.g. due to condensation). Any water is diluted throughout the fuel and passes through the fuel line and combustion system with little or no compromise in performance. This effect, says Guthmiller, is responsible for ethanol blends gaining market share in the winter in South Dakota, where he is based.
There are a number of other supposedly negative claims against the use of ethanol in fuel. These claims tend to vaporize with careful research. So you can confidently fill your gas tank with ethanol blends. They burn cleaner, support American farmers, and reduce the dependence on imported fossil fuels.
Chevron Corporation was asked to comment on technical issues and any policy about anti-ethanol signage at Chevron service stations. They forwarded the inquiry to the consumer affairs department three weeks before the press deadline, but no response has been forthcoming.
#23
02-20-2010, 05:10 PM
Here ya go, from a TMQ article on ESPN page two. Interesting reading on the topic:
If Only Ethanol Could Be Distilled from Pages of the Congressional Record: As members of Congress from both parties continue merrily to throw your money away, spending that seems to aid green energy rarely is questioned. As a result, corn-based ethanol has become one of the most subsidized substances in human history. And it not only represents tax-money waste, it may be bad for the environment.
Domestically produced corn-based ethanol is subsidized via federal payments to grain farmers, by refinery tax exemptions for fuel containing domestic ethanol, and by tariff barriers intended to prevent Brazilian sugar-based ethanol from entering the United States. (Sugar-based ethanol makes more economic sense than corn-based, but sugar is hard to grow in most of the U.S.) An unholy alliance of the farm lobby, farm-state members of Congress from both parties and Archer Daniels Midland, the largest maker of corn-based ethanol, has long pressured Washington for more subsidies. In 2007, under George W. Bush, Congress mandated that refineries begin blending gasoline with ethanol, most of which is corn ethanol, and that 15 billion gallons of ethanol be produced in the United States by 2012. (Fifteen billion gallons of ethanol equates to about two weeks of U.S. petroleum consumption.) Last week, the White House finalized additional rules from the Bush-signed law, requiring 36 billion gallons of ethanol annually by 2022.
Few people seem to know this, but owing to the congressional mandate, since 2008, the gasoline you purchase contains 10 percent ethanol. Because ethanol has a lower energy density than petroleum, a 90/10 fuel blend reduces miles per gallon by about 3 percent. So if your mileage has seemed a little low lately, that's because it is a little low -- Congress effectively mandated that gasoline become less efficient. For the typical driver, this works out to buying an extra 20 gallons of gasoline annually. Thus on top of all the other subsidies for corn ethanol, that's approximately a $60 per capita annual stealth tax American drivers are paying.
It turns out that with gasoline demand in mild decline, the 15 billion ethanol gallons may be more than the country needs at the moment -- fuel needs in 2022 are unknowable. To create a market for the coming ethanol, the ethanol lobby is demanding Washington raise the blend mandate to require that gasoline be 85 percent petroleum, 15 percent ethanol (technically 15 percent "biofuel," but ethanol is the only biofuel now available in quantity). If this happens, the energy value of gasoline will fall by a total of about 5 percent, causing the typical driver to buy an extra 30 gallons annually and raising the ethanol stealth tax to about $100 per car per year.
At least ethanol will reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gases, right? Maybe not: There are dueling studies on this point, but some research finds that because growing corn requires significant amounts of petroleum-based fertilizer, corn ethanol is a new loser in energy terms. This recent research from Princeton University suggests that calculations showing ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions contain a major error -- they don't take into account land-use changes to grow the corn. After fossil-fuel combustion, land-use change is the No. 2 source of human-caused greenhouse emissions, because many farming practices release carbon that is otherwise chemically bound in soils.
Last spring, the EPA issued a study suggesting that corn-based ethanol is a net cause of environmental harm, and that petroleum fuel may be cleaner than corn-based ethanol when production is taken into account. The study found that sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and cellulose-based ethanol from woody plants that don't require artificial fertilizer (a promising idea, but not yet practical) cause net reductions of greenhouse gas, but that corn-based ethanol does more harm than good. Because the farm lobby and some enviros don't want to hear about the faults of corn-based ethanol, the EPA study was buried on a Web page, underneath a soporific headline.
Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported the anti-ethanol finding has been "since reworked by EPA scientists." During the second Bush Administration, federal agencies were accused of politicizing science to reach whatever conclusion Republican activists wanted. Now Barack Obama is running the government, and by the most amazing coincidence, some science was just reworked to reach the conclusion Democratic activists want. Taxpayers and fuel-buyers are now being hit up for billions of dollars per year to subsidize corn-based ethanol, and it's not clear this benefits anyone other than the ethanol lobby.
Because corn ethanol grown in the Midwest sure sounds like a good idea, Washington pretends it is. There's also a long-term implication. Global petroleum reserves are ample for decades, while topsoil is stressed in many places, and topsoil is irreplaceable in food production. Affordable future alternatives to petroleum are a lot easier to imagine than alternatives to topsoil. Thus trading topsoil for petroleum, by growing more corn than is really needed, may be incredibly bad public policy. No wonder both parties in Washington favor it!
If Only Ethanol Could Be Distilled from Pages of the Congressional Record: As members of Congress from both parties continue merrily to throw your money away, spending that seems to aid green energy rarely is questioned. As a result, corn-based ethanol has become one of the most subsidized substances in human history. And it not only represents tax-money waste, it may be bad for the environment.
Domestically produced corn-based ethanol is subsidized via federal payments to grain farmers, by refinery tax exemptions for fuel containing domestic ethanol, and by tariff barriers intended to prevent Brazilian sugar-based ethanol from entering the United States. (Sugar-based ethanol makes more economic sense than corn-based, but sugar is hard to grow in most of the U.S.) An unholy alliance of the farm lobby, farm-state members of Congress from both parties and Archer Daniels Midland, the largest maker of corn-based ethanol, has long pressured Washington for more subsidies. In 2007, under George W. Bush, Congress mandated that refineries begin blending gasoline with ethanol, most of which is corn ethanol, and that 15 billion gallons of ethanol be produced in the United States by 2012. (Fifteen billion gallons of ethanol equates to about two weeks of U.S. petroleum consumption.) Last week, the White House finalized additional rules from the Bush-signed law, requiring 36 billion gallons of ethanol annually by 2022.
Few people seem to know this, but owing to the congressional mandate, since 2008, the gasoline you purchase contains 10 percent ethanol. Because ethanol has a lower energy density than petroleum, a 90/10 fuel blend reduces miles per gallon by about 3 percent. So if your mileage has seemed a little low lately, that's because it is a little low -- Congress effectively mandated that gasoline become less efficient. For the typical driver, this works out to buying an extra 20 gallons of gasoline annually. Thus on top of all the other subsidies for corn ethanol, that's approximately a $60 per capita annual stealth tax American drivers are paying.
It turns out that with gasoline demand in mild decline, the 15 billion ethanol gallons may be more than the country needs at the moment -- fuel needs in 2022 are unknowable. To create a market for the coming ethanol, the ethanol lobby is demanding Washington raise the blend mandate to require that gasoline be 85 percent petroleum, 15 percent ethanol (technically 15 percent "biofuel," but ethanol is the only biofuel now available in quantity). If this happens, the energy value of gasoline will fall by a total of about 5 percent, causing the typical driver to buy an extra 30 gallons annually and raising the ethanol stealth tax to about $100 per car per year.
At least ethanol will reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gases, right? Maybe not: There are dueling studies on this point, but some research finds that because growing corn requires significant amounts of petroleum-based fertilizer, corn ethanol is a new loser in energy terms. This recent research from Princeton University suggests that calculations showing ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions contain a major error -- they don't take into account land-use changes to grow the corn. After fossil-fuel combustion, land-use change is the No. 2 source of human-caused greenhouse emissions, because many farming practices release carbon that is otherwise chemically bound in soils.
Last spring, the EPA issued a study suggesting that corn-based ethanol is a net cause of environmental harm, and that petroleum fuel may be cleaner than corn-based ethanol when production is taken into account. The study found that sugar-based ethanol from Brazil and cellulose-based ethanol from woody plants that don't require artificial fertilizer (a promising idea, but not yet practical) cause net reductions of greenhouse gas, but that corn-based ethanol does more harm than good. Because the farm lobby and some enviros don't want to hear about the faults of corn-based ethanol, the EPA study was buried on a Web page, underneath a soporific headline.
Last week, the Los Angeles Times reported the anti-ethanol finding has been "since reworked by EPA scientists." During the second Bush Administration, federal agencies were accused of politicizing science to reach whatever conclusion Republican activists wanted. Now Barack Obama is running the government, and by the most amazing coincidence, some science was just reworked to reach the conclusion Democratic activists want. Taxpayers and fuel-buyers are now being hit up for billions of dollars per year to subsidize corn-based ethanol, and it's not clear this benefits anyone other than the ethanol lobby.
Because corn ethanol grown in the Midwest sure sounds like a good idea, Washington pretends it is. There's also a long-term implication. Global petroleum reserves are ample for decades, while topsoil is stressed in many places, and topsoil is irreplaceable in food production. Affordable future alternatives to petroleum are a lot easier to imagine than alternatives to topsoil. Thus trading topsoil for petroleum, by growing more corn than is really needed, may be incredibly bad public policy. No wonder both parties in Washington favor it!
#26
02-21-2010, 02:50 PM
bp here last yr started using ethanol.. didnt notice it for 3-4 tanks but did notice the 3-4 mph drop....
switched to another brand- just reg ole non leaded and mileage went right back where it is all the time...
she ran about the same but for sure lost mileage....
switched to another brand- just reg ole non leaded and mileage went right back where it is all the time...
she ran about the same but for sure lost mileage....
#27
02-21-2010, 03:55 PM
Tourer
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Inwood....Northwest Iowa
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Me too...kinda funny reading some of this.
#28
02-21-2010, 04:05 PM
Tourer
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Inwood....Northwest Iowa
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#29
02-21-2010, 04:11 PM
Ok around here only chevron has no E gas
e gas has NO Top end lube it has a colder BTU so u need a richer mixture
so what i and some oil sales friends are doing is adding 1oz synthetic 2 stroke oil to 5gal of gas for top end lube
it works in my street rod and my private use wrecker
after a epa meating were finding that cat converters are pluging with aluminum this is piston material
so the oil lubes the top end is good to help stoppimg corosion on injectors
will not fowl spark plugs
e gas has NO Top end lube it has a colder BTU so u need a richer mixture
so what i and some oil sales friends are doing is adding 1oz synthetic 2 stroke oil to 5gal of gas for top end lube
it works in my street rod and my private use wrecker
after a epa meating were finding that cat converters are pluging with aluminum this is piston material
so the oil lubes the top end is good to help stoppimg corosion on injectors
will not fowl spark plugs
Shell or BP 92 - 93 octane is great stuff. Blended or not, it has some great additives and runs great in my bike.
I don't need to add oil to my gas to "lube" it. It's not a two stroke.
It has a tank on it that you put oil in.
Last edited by Faast Ed; 02-21-2010 at 04:17 PM.