E10 fuel for ST1100 Pan European

dnarod

Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
5
Location
Southampton
UK fuel stations will be supplying E10 fuel to vehicles shortly. For a while afterwards E5 standard UK unleaded (95 Octane) will still be available but I suspect become increasingly difficult to find. Can an ST1100 of 2000 vintage (and for that matter previous years models of ST1100) run on E10? I know the increased ethanol content makes the fuel less efficient with the outcome of reducing the mpg and increasing revenue for the Government. The removal of lead from fuel many years ago caused damage to engines such as valve seat burn out. I also do not know if the higher octane Premium fuel (98 Octane) will go the same way. Any thoughts?
 
I've run E10 87 octane for 150k miles on two ST11s, no problems. Just don't let the bike sit for more than a few weeks and you'll be ok.
 
dnarod said:
UK fuel stations will be supplying E10 fuel to vehicles shortly. For a while afterwards E5 standard UK unleaded (95 Octane) will still be available but I suspect become increasingly difficult to find. Can an ST1100 of 2000 vintage (and for that matter previous years models of ST1100) run on E10? I know the increased ethanol content makes the fuel less efficient with the outcome of reducing the mpg and increasing revenue for the Government. The removal of lead from fuel many years ago caused damage to engines such as valve seat burn out. I also do not know if the higher octane Premium fuel (98 Octane) will go the same way. Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
There was a thread a couple of weeks ago on the very subject.
Yes they're fine on E10. Both the 11 and 13.
And yes the mpg will probably suffer.
Upt'North.
 
Yep, runs OK, lower mileage. Many US gas (um... petrol) stations have been supplying it for years.

Now, E85 is a no-no!
 
I store the bike (ST1100) over the winter season (4 - 5 months) by filling up with premium ( 91 octane) non-ethanol Shell gas and with stabilizer added. 18 seasons so far with no issues.

Here in Ontario the Provincial government, in its infinite wisdom, has a plan to move to E85 by 2030 starting in increments in 2025. This garbage policy is to support farmers and, like most government programs, will probably cost consumers hundreds of millions $$ in repairs to buy votes in rural areas.
 
Not to begin a discussion on the benefits of ethanol fuel (there really are none except if a vehicle is tuned to run better on E85), but it’s not a great fuel, consumes a lot of resources to produce the corn (ok if for food, less so for fuel), and it’s got less BTU than regular gas. Probably better to just use regular gas for gas burning vehicles. Same with hydrogen and electrics. Hydrogen comes typically from natural gas, and electric cars (yup, no pollution to run them) run on power that’s more likely to come from burning coal.
 
ReSTored said:
I store the bike (ST1100) over the winter season (4 - 5 months) by filling up with premium ( 91 octane) non-ethanol Shell gas and with stabilizer added. 18 seasons so far with no issues.

Here in Ontario the Provincial government, in its infinite wisdom, has a plan to move to E85 by 2030 starting in increments in 2025. This garbage policy is to support farmers and, like most government programs, will probably cost consumers hundreds of millions $$ in repairs to buy votes in rural areas.
Click to expand...
Does this imply E10 won’t be available by then? What about all the current cars that require no more than 10% ethanol in the fuel?
 
Have run E10 in my bikes and cars for many decades now with no issues. (included bikes are GL1500 Gold Wing, Burgman 650, ST1100, CTX1300 (same engine as the ST1300)). The only issue I did find out about first hand several decades ago is that when I bought a really old used vehicle that had never had E10 in it and I simply jumped to a full large tank of E10 the Ethanol in it would start to clean out the coating of gunk the non-Ethanol gas left and that's what would clog the fuel filter. I swapped that out and had no more problems and the fuel system was cleaner. I learned from that to slowly introduce E10 by gradually over many tank fulls mixing both Ethanol and non-Ethanol. Even E5 would do this, just a little slower. Personally I never really noticed any significantly measurable difference in mpg when I swapped back and forth for month at a time just to see what it would do. Around here most gas supplies have some Ethanol even when it is not marked as "Up to 10%" on the pump.

The idea of making ALL gas E85 by any date is not likely to stick. Same as the idea of making ALL vehicles on the road in any location pure EV by a certain date.
 
Erdoc48 said:
Does this imply E10 won’t be available by then? What about all the current cars that require no more than 10% ethanol in the fuel?
Click to expand...

As I understand it we're going to 11% in 2025, 13 in 2028 and then 15% in 2030.

From the web page...............

To help ensure that industry has a chance to adjust to the new requirements, the province is gradually phasing in the renewable content from the existing 10 per cent requirement to 11 per cent in 2025, 13 per cent in 2028 and 15 per cent in 2030.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca news.ontario.ca

No specific info yet on any fuels that may be exempt or how people with older vehicles are going to manage this.

This will probably become an election issue.
 
All this discussion about how a bike or a car can take ethanol but my question is if changing to an ethanol fuel is better for the environment as a whole?
Or growing crops for fuel or food. Thing is that farms for fuel crops are not held to such high standards as are farms for food crops, meaning soil degradation and much more pollution with far more nastier chemicals and pesticides, the residue of which gets into the aquifiers and from there into the food chain.
I get it, Earth is running out of fossil fuel as a energy source, fracking, for instance, is scraping the bottom of the barrel and soon, very soon Oil will become an energy sink instead of a source after which we, as a high energy civilization, are very much ******.
 
Slammer said:
All this discussion about how a bike or a car can take ethanol but my question is if changing to an ethanol fuel is better for the environment as a whole?
Click to expand...
That is the big question. I have no opinion on the matter, because I have not done enough research to enable me to form an educated opinion, but I do suspect that after all the various energy inputs that are required to grow, transport, & process the corn are considered, the use of ethanol in motor vehicle fuel probably causes an increase in overall petroleum consumption (and emissions arising from that).

It is noteworthy that the widespread use of ethanol in fuel dates from the 1970s, a time of soaring crude oil prices, even though Nicolaus Otto, the inventor of the modern four-cycle internal combustion engine, used ethanol to power an early engine in 1876.

Michael
 
As usual, the politicians screw things up.

E10 has caused no harm I can see to any of my vehicles, other than slightly reduced MPG's. E15 will, however be a problem, as it has already proven to have a high enough percentage to start to "eat" the previously resistant materials. E15 is also a high enough percentage to be beyond the maximum the EFI computers can adjust for, so expect vehicles to run lean and pop CEL's, particularly older vehicles.

E10 eats some fuel system parts. It has cause millions of dollars in damages in marine fuel systems, despite being advocated at "completely compatible". My biggest problem with it is the phase separation that happens, and seems to happen randomly. I've just gotten in the habit of using fuel stabilizer in everything, yet some machines seem to be more resistant to it than others. Honda EU2000I generator carburetors will gum up on E10 in just a few weeks. Ask me how I know this.... Yet my Echo lawn equipment seems entirely immune. Its maddening.

Currently, Aviation gasoline is leaded. Not much lead, but leaded. Its the only use of leaded fuel left in the entire world. Roughly, only 30-40% of the engines in aircraft currently actually require the leaded fuel. Most notably the higher performance and turbocharged stuff. So many aircraft owners purchase an "STC" which basically is a license to use "unleaded, non-ethanol, automotive fuel" in their aircraft. If available, high octane non-ethanol unleaded works just fine, is cheaper, and better for the environment. Except in my State, where the lobotomized brain donors that run the place have passed legislation making it illegal to sell NON-ethanol gas. Yes, really. We could, and would, stop using the leaded aviation fuel. But we can't because the State won't allow it. Makes total sense!

RT
 
Slammer said:
All this discussion about how a bike or a car can take ethanol but my question is if changing to an ethanol fuel is better for the environment as a whole?
Or growing crops for fuel or food. Thing is that farms for fuel crops are not held to such high standards as are farms for food crops, meaning soil degradation and much more pollution with far more nastier chemicals and pesticides, the residue of which gets into the aquifiers and from there into the food chain.
I get it, Earth is running out of fossil fuel as a energy source, fracking, for instance, is scraping the bottom of the barrel and soon, very soon Oil will become an energy sink instead of a source after which we, as a high energy civilization, are very much ******.
Click to expand...

Remember now that the world was once lit with whale oil lamps, and wind/sail power was the way to get around. It changed, what we have now will change too. I don't happen to think that renewables are the answer. They may be part of the answer, but totally renewable energy? Considering the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, coupled with the fact that the energy captured is difficult and expensive to store "large scale", it doesn't seem viable as a total replacement. If petroleum went away tomorrow, the world would be building conventional nuclear and probably thorium reactors, and in a large hurry.

RT
 
rwthomas1 said:
Remember now that the world was once lit with whale oil lamps, and wind/sail power was the way to get around. It changed, what we have now will change too. I don't happen to think that renewables are the answer. They may be part of the answer, but totally renewable energy? Considering the sun doesn't always shine, and the wind doesn't always blow, coupled with the fact that the energy captured is difficult and expensive to store "large scale", it doesn't seem viable as a total replacement. If petroleum went away tomorrow, the world would be building conventional nuclear and probably thorium reactors, and in a large hurry.

RT
Click to expand...
I agree...the recent snowstorms in TX more or less demonstrate that solar panels can be snow covered and windmills can be frozen to the point of non functionality. I’ve done some research (so of course I’m no expert), but it would seem that Thorium nuclear reactors would be a viable alternative to a growing and power hungry world. From what I understand, they only need a small amount of fissile material to start the reaction (plutonium or uranium), and the thorium carries it forward, leading to a lot less radioactive waste. I could be wrong about this, but that’s what I understand.

EDIT: This explains it very well.


and here’s the funny version of Thorium:

 
Last edited:
rwthomas1 said:
............... I've just gotten in the habit of using fuel stabilizer in everything, yet some machines seem to be more resistant to it than others. Honda EU2000I generator carburetors will gum up on E10 in just a few weeks. Ask me how I know this.... Yet my Echo lawn equipment seems entirely immune.............
Click to expand...

As above, I use non-ethanol premium + stabilizer for storing the ST, has worked well for me. About 5 years ago I started using non-ethanol premium + stabilizer for all my small engines all year around. Snowblower, lawnmower, chainsaw, weed whacker, etc.... Annual incremental cost is probably <$20 all in and I've had zero carb issues.

I'm 98%+ certain that the overall net input to create ethanol to add to gas results in a bigger carbon footprint than just using 100% gas, but changing this would be very political and probably just not going to happen. You've got farmers making billions overall growing corn and keeping family farms solvent (no pun intended) and no politician wants to be seen to negatively impact this.
 
Erdoc48 said:
............. less demonstrate that solar panels can be snow covered and windmills can be frozen to the point of non functionality.
Click to expand...

I'm not a huge fan of windmills, but in northern climes windmills run perfectly fine in cold conditions, much colder than those experienced in Texas last month. I'm very sure that if you look at the design process for all or most of the Texas windmills that engineers reviewed, as part of their due diligence, designing in cold operating capability, and that someone reviewed this and decided to not include that capability to save money.
 
In Iowa the windmills all have heaters in the blades and other parts of the windmill system as part of the cold operating design. In Texas they don't.
 
rjs987 said:
In Iowa the windmills all have heaters in the blades and other parts of the windmill system as part of the cold operating design. In Texas they don't.
Click to expand...
To be fair to the Texan engineers, I can appreciate why they didn't specify de-icing and cold weather protection for the windmills built in that state. It's pretty uncommon for icing conditions & prolonged low temperatures to persist in Texas, and the windmills are not part of the 'baseline' power supply.

I am, however, a bit perplexed about why the natural gas generating facilities were not better protected for cold weather operations, because they form a substantial part of the baseline generating capacity, and it is reasonable to expect that if wind generation falls because of cold weather, the natural gas facilities will need to make up the lost power generation.

The good news, I guess, is that going forward, it will be a lot less expensive to retrofit cold weather protection to the natural gas facilities than to the windmills.

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom