E15 Fuel

[FZRguy]

Bipartisan congressional letter aims to prevent E15-related engine damage
Urge your representative to sign before the deadline, May 27! Take Action

U.S. Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Bill Flores (R-Texas), Jim Costa (D-Calif.) and Steve Womack (R-Ark.) are taking the lead by sending a letter to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to “…express concern about the lack of consumer awareness surrounding the inappropriate use of E15 gasoline and… how it [the EPA] plans to mitigate consumer misfuelings… .”

The bipartisan letter comes in response to the EPA’s Renewable Volume Obligations rule for 2014, 2015 and 2016. The EPA proposal would increase the amount of ethanol from all sources in the nation’s fuel supply to 17.4 billion gallons in 2016, up from 15.93 billion gallons in 2014.

Those increases come despite the EPA’s acknowledgement that the current market cannot absorb these higher ethanol production rates without substantially increasing the amount of ethanol in our nation’s gasoline supply. The practical effect of the EPA’s action is more unsafe E15 (15 percent ethanol by volume), less E10 and virtually no E0 for older and vintage machines.

The urgency of EPA action to address misfueling is supported by a recent study from the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute. The study indicates only five percent of consumers are aware that E15 is prohibited for use in certain engines and that 60 percent of consumers assume that any gas sold at a pump must be safe for all of their engines.

This letter would help protect the 22 million motorcycles and ATVs currently in operation and the riders who depend on their safe operation.

The deadline for signatures is Friday, May 27! Act today to ensure your representative signs the Goodlatte/Welch/Flores/Costa/Womack letter.

To urge your representative to sign on to the bipartisan letter, just follow the “Take Action” option, which will send a prewritten email directly to your lawmaker demanding access to safe fuel.
Take Action

[Aaron]

I'm all for it personally. More octane, cheaper, and doesn't support countries called not-America.

I've converted my 335 to full(ish) e85, and have been trying to do the same to my bike.

[AOK303]

but i want cheap corn and sugar cane

[FZRguy]

Poor mileage, damaging to many engines, rubber/plastics. More about subsidies & $ than fuel. Corn has no purpose in our fuel supply IMO.

[Aaron]

Poor mileage, damaging to many engines, rubber/plastics. More about subsidies & $ than fuel. Corn has no purpose in our fuel supply IMO.

Poor mileage is misleading. Full e85 requires about 30% more fuel than gasoline because of it's lower energy content. However, e85 is substantially cheaper than 91, the closest widely-available pump gasoline to e85 in terms of performance. And even then, close isn't even the word for, as e85 is generally around 105 octane. I filled up yesterday in my 335, e85 was $1.39 and 91 was $2.31. Adding 30% price to e85 to match the increase in consumption raises its effective price to $1.80, still substantially cheaper than 91. Not to mention it's pretty much race fuel, and burns a lot cooler.

The federal government mandates cars be equipped to handle of to e20, that's why many go straight for flex-fuel compliance, because the difference in e20 and e85 from a hardware perspective is, well, there is no different. If your engine can handle e20, which the government says it must in order to be sold to you, then it can handle e85. Although not a huge study, I've got 7,000 miles of e85 in my car, and hasn't burned through the stainless steel yet *rollseyes* e85 will not damage any modern fuel system.

Ya, it is more about money. It costs less, makes more power, burns cleaner.

And, if you're all about supporting US farmers as opposed to middle eastern terrorists, then there's that too.