Kawasaki KLR Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I was reading in the 300 mile club thread where people were talking about fuel with 10% ethanol being more efficient than 100% petroleum. The 10%ish blend is all I can find in California when it comes to primarily petroleum fuel.

What I want to know, is E85 safe gen 1 KLR (2005). It is around 85% ethanol. The station across the street from work sells it and it is sometimes close to half the price of gas. If it is safe, and if 10% ethanol gets better MPG would E85 be even better? I have never bought any because my car says not to use it as well as my lawn mower, welder, and other small gas powered equipment.

I also thought that ethanol fuel was less efficient than petroleum. I am going to try to dig up the owners' manual for my bike and see if it says anything. Thanks.

Edit: I found this thread https://www.klrforum.com/how-tos-tech-guides/4215-flex-fuel.html with a little more searching. Looks like it is not a good idea/not an easy back and forth. When I searched on my phone before posting this I could not find anything on it. Google on my PC got me better results. Sorry for the clutter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
You would have to change all of the rubber parts in the KLR fuel system to tolerate the higher ethanol content. Then, you would need to do a major retune of the engine (jetting/ignition curve) to take advantage of E85.

So you say "what advantage"? Well, the hotroders love the stuff and they are making huge power with it. Why? Octane rating. They can reflash the computer for a more aggressive ignition curve and pour lots more E85 into the engine. Some even raise compression ratio.

What, more fuel? Yep. Here is a comparison of the heat content of various fuels:

Gasoline/E10: 120,388 - 124,340 Btu/gal
Ethanol/E100: 84,530 Btu/gal for E100 (15% gasoline will improve this some, but will still be short of Gasoline/E10)

And now for a little nostalgia: Indy cars, alcohol dragsters, and sprint cars use methanol (loved the smell at the track!!) Heat content: 65,200 Btu/gal! So, with such a low heat content, why do these racers use this stuff. Again it is octane. Thus they run crazy high compression ratios and ignition advance. They have to pour the fuel through the injectors to get the power they do but, sometimes fuel consumption is of no concern!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
You would have to change all of the rubber parts in the KLR fuel system to tolerate the higher ethanol content. Then, you would need to do a major retune of the engine (jetting/ignition curve) to take advantage of E85.

So you say "what advantage"? Well, the hotroders love the stuff and they are making huge power with it. Why? Octane rating. They can reflash the computer for a more aggressive ignition curve and pour lots more E85 into the engine. Some even raise compression ratio.

What, more fuel? Yep. Here is a comparison of the heat content of various fuels:

Gasoline/E10: 120,388 - 124,340 Btu/gal
Ethanol/E100: 84,530 Btu/gal for E100 (15% gasoline will improve this some, but will still be short of Gasoline/E10)

And now for a little nostalgia: Indy cars, alcohol dragsters, and sprint cars use methanol (loved the smell at the track!!) Heat content: 65,200 Btu/gal! So, with such a low heat content, why do these racers use this stuff. Again it is octane. Thus they run crazy high compression ratios and ignition advance. They have to pour the fuel through the injectors to get the power they do but, sometimes fuel consumption is of no concern!!
Thank you. I knew it was less efficient but I did not realize the BTU was that much lower. I also did not realize it has such a high octane rating (over 100).

Why are people in the 300 mile club thread reporting higher MPG with E10??? I would think in our engines it would be less efficient than gasoline.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,042 Posts
yep, bad idea; the KLR has issues sometimes coping with 10% ethanol which is why I avoid "corn contaminated" fuel when at all possible. E85 would be far worse

Dave
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,042 Posts
Why are people in the 300 mile club thread reporting higher MPG with E10??? I would think in our engines it would be less efficient than gasoline.
because mileage is notoriously hard to calculate in a repeatable, scientific way; too many variables so I'd suggest that if they got better mileage with E10 vs. straight gas then there were other reasons why that was (temp, humidity, load, wind, speed, etc. etc. etc. The Environmental Protection Agency says E10 lowers mileage approximately 3 percent. Full article; https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a17240/how-does-ethanol-impact-fuel-efficiency/


Dave
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,601 Posts
What I want to know, is E85 safe gen 1 KLR (2005).
I attended a rally on Capitol Hill with AMA (American Motorcyclist Association) Government Office staff, decrying the disadvantage and destruction of E15 (the demonstration was entitled, "Fuel For Thought"). Also, I visited the offices of our area legislators (Senator Kaine (D) and Congressman Connolly (D)) lobbying for the AMA's position on ethanol (as in, we don't need no stinkin' ethanol). At issue then, was E15. If E85 is now on the radar screen, and the fuel indeed is 85 % ethanol, abandon all hope, gaskets and rubber fittings; expect your jets and other orifices to clog mercilessly, using that joy juice.

The result of the Congressional visitation? I was brushed off by staffers, immediately after my pitch.

Since ethanol production (planting, harvesting, refining) costs more, and leaves a higher, "CARBON FOOTPRINT," (gasp) than the same energy available from (dare I use the term) fossil fuel, WHY, with the greatest oil reserves ever known now accessible on earth, should we be required to burn ethanol, or give jillions of tax dollar incentives to those who produce it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
because mileage is notoriously hard to calculate in a repeatable, scientific way; too many variables so I'd suggest that if they got better mileage with E10 vs. straight gas then there were other reasons why that was (temp, humidity, load, wind, speed, etc. etc. etc. The Environmental Protection Agency says E10 lowers mileage approximately 3 percent. Full article; https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a17240/how-does-ethanol-impact-fuel-efficiency/


Dave
Good point about all of the variables.

I attended a rally on Capitol Hill with AMA (American Motorcyclist Association) Government Office staff, decrying the disadvantage and destruction of E15 (the demonstration was entitled, "Fuel For Thought"). Also, I visited the offices of our area legislators (Senator Kaine (D) and Congressman Connolly (D)) lobbying for the AMA's position on ethanol (as in, we don't need no stinkin' ethanol). At issue then, was E15. If E85 is now on the radar screen, and the fuel indeed is 85 % ethanol, abandon all hope, gaskets and rubber fittings; expect your jets and other orifices to clog mercilessly, using that joy juice.

The result of the Congressional visitation? I was brushed off by staffers, immediately after my pitch.

Since ethanol production (planting, harvesting, refining) costs more, and leaves a higher, "CARBON FOOTPRINT," (gasp) than the same energy available from (dare I use the term) fossil fuel, WHY, with the greatest oil reserves ever known now accessible on earth, should we be required to burn ethanol, or give jillions of tax dollar incentives to those who produce it?
I totally agree with you on the political side of the issue. I was curious mostly because of some posts in the 300 mile club thread. I have a BS in "Agriculture Business and Applied Economics". I teach mostly high school agriculture mechanics but every year I teach an ag business class. Every other year I alternate between Agribusiness Management and Agriculture Government and Economics. When I was in college I did a paper analyzing the economics of biodiesel. This was before the hardcore carbon footprint movement but we were looking at overall emissions mostly back then (early 2000's) and were just starting to talk about carbon footprint and carbon credits and all of that. I concluded that the environmental impact of biodiesel was greater for a variety of reasons especially when you looked at the amount of energy gained vs. what is required to produce it. Not to mention the impact on the agriculture industry. Bio fuels raise the cost of grain crops and other feed crops such as hay. This raises the price of grain products to the consumers along with the price of meat. That said, it hurts the meat producers (at the farm-gate level) even worse because they are by and large price takers and they get squeezed on both sides. Then you bring up the subsidies and incentives which create a market unequilibrium... Sorry I am launching into a lecture here.

Long story short, I agree with what you say and wish I could still find fuel for my older vehicles that do not have ethanol in them. Don't even get me started on the ultra low sulfur diesel. In my 12 valve Cummins I add two stroke mix to my fuel because ultra low sulfur diesel lacks the lubricity of older diesel fuel. They are even putting ethanol in California diesel blends now. :frown2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
California is Really getting strong-armed aren't they! Are you near any of these cities/towns? https://www.pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=CA
Strong armed doesn't even begin to describe it. I have friends that have had to retire their ranch trucks this year because of new emissions standards. Don't even get me started on the guns.

The closest one to me would be West Sacramento and that is 45 minutes to an hour depending on traffic. Then someone said in the review that it is $70 for a five gallon can... I think for now I have to buy at the pump though I will stay away from E85.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
92 Posts
Even before our fuels were being blended with ethanol, emission standards mandated oxygenated fuel. This reduced the "shelf life" of fuel, causing accelerated varnish deposits in as little as a few weeks.

Fuel additives such as Stabil, Sea Foam, or Star Bright (I'm sure everyone has their favorite) helps to address this issue and there are additive formulations that can reduce the deterioration of rubber parts due to ethanol (an observation, no proof).

If I expect my KLR to be parked for more than a week or 2, I'll drain the carb and add a few oz of one of the above additives to the tank. I've not had a fuel related problem using this strategy. YMMV!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Even before our fuels were being blended with ethanol, emission standards mandated oxygenated fuel. This reduced the "shelf life" of fuel, causing accelerated varnish deposits in as little as a few weeks.

Fuel additives such as Stabil, Sea Foam, or Star Bright (I'm sure everyone has their favorite) helps to address this issue and there are additive formulations that can reduce the deterioration of rubber parts due to ethanol (an observation, no proof).

If I expect my KLR to be parked for more than a week or 2, I'll drain the carb and add a few oz of one of the above additives to the tank. I've not had a fuel related problem using this strategy. YMMV!!
I used to use Stabil but the last few years I put Sea Foam in all my gas cans (I have up to 20 gallons in cans at times) which I keep on hand for my push mowers, riding mowers, generator, welder, and other small yard equipment. I have not had any gummed up carb issues since doing this. I have been riding 70-100 miles a week so I am not too worried about the bike but I have been putting a bit of Sea Foam in it as well. So I agree 100% with you.

Which additive do you use? Which one do you think fights the effects of ethanol?
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top