Well, got my tank replaced on the S2R. I asked them what the difference between this and the old tank and they said nothing. Told me that if i put fuel stabalizer in the tank and not leave to much unused gas in there I should be okay and it wont expand as much. Anyone know how fuel stablizer will cancel out the effects of ethenol?
Had a replacement tank as well, used the fuel stabilizer on every fill up, the tank still swelled and expanded more than the first tank. It got to the point where I couldn't even lift the tank up without removing the ignition guard [thumbsdown] Maybe try the Caswell treatment?
Whatevs, I still love my S2R.
Good luck with yours
The expansion is only indirectly caused by ethanol. The real cause is the water ethanol absorbs. Your best shot is to coat the inside with Caswell.
Read through these threads for the whole nitty gritty:
http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=25074.msg438664#msg438664 (http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=25074.msg438664#msg438664)
http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=43639.0 (http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=43639.0)
Also search the board for info on the coatings.
Ducatiz did some really great work.
Quote from: uclabiker06 on February 25, 2012, 06:55:15 PM
Well, got my tank replaced on the S2R. I asked them what the difference between this and the old tank and they said nothing. Told me that if i put fuel stabalizer in the tank and not leave to much unused gas in there I should be okay and it wont expand as much. Basically it expanssion is caused by ethonal. Anyone know how stablizer will cancel out the effects of ethenol? Whatever, better than nothing I guess.
Maybe give this a try as "ducatiz" thought the data sheets and independent tests promising. Note that you can't mix with other stabilizers. http://www.k100fueltreatment.com/eliminate_water.html (http://www.k100fueltreatment.com/eliminate_water.html) It appears to be water which causes the swelling in PA-6 tanks but ethanol attracts water.
Me too, I still love mine. If there is some coating that works I wonder why Ducati didn't include it as part of the settlement. Something tells me the lawyers played a big part in it...Kind of disappointing.
K100 is (mostly) another type of alcohol. I'm getting convinced the endgame here is to coat the tanks and use/adapt a marine fuel/water separator.
Fuel stabilizers will not help prevent your tank from swelling. If anything they would probably speed up the process.
"ducatiz" sent me independent tests which indicate that K-100 "encapsulates" water and renders it essentially inert. So..., if H2O is the issue...
Quote from: Curmudgeon on February 26, 2012, 07:16:21 AM
"ducatiz" sent me independent tests which indicate that K-100 "encapsulates" water and renders it essentially inert. So..., if H2O is the issue...
I would give this a shot.
I coated my wife's new s2r tank with Casewells and it seems to be holding up. My 09 m1100s tank is showing signs of expansion. Doesn't fit in the frame as good as it used to, I've got a bubble inside the tank with either H2O or gas trapped inside. If it gets any worse I'll try to get replaced and coat it.
It's a PITA because I have to drive 70 miles but I filled 4 race cans with 20 gallons of non-ethanol 93 (M+R/2) on Friday before the price gets any higher and stabilized that with 2 fl. oz./ 5 gal of Stabil red when I got home. Cost was $3.96 but it gives 10% better mileage right off the bat! (I can also get 260 GTX non-ethanol 35 miles from here @ 98 M+R/2 but that's probably $9- by now. Might as well live in Europe! [thumbsdown])
If the day comes when I can't buy pure gas, I'll try the K-100. If I then have a tank issue on the 796, I'll grab a PEX tank from Europe and let DNA pay for the labor and keep the new PA-6 tank as a spare.
Quote from: Curmudgeon on February 26, 2012, 09:08:31 AM
It's a PITA because I have to drive 70 miles but I filled 4 race cans with 20 gallons of non-ethanol 93 (M+R/2) on Friday before the price gets any higher and stabilized that with 2 fl. oz./ 5 gal of Stabil red when I got home. Cost was $3.96 but it gives 10% better mileage right off the bat! (I can also get 260 GTX non-ethanol 35 miles from here @ 98 M+R/2 but that's probably $9- by now. Might as well live in Europe! [thumbsdown])
If the day comes when I can't buy pure gas, I'll try the K-100. If I then have a tank issue on the 796, I'll grab a PEX tank from Europe and let DNA pay for the labor and keep the new PA-6 tank as a spare.
...and you still won't believe me when I say you're using too much octane.
It's OK...by the time you finish carboning up your motor...you'll need that $9/gallon fuel to keep from pinging. ;D
Quote from: ducpainter on February 26, 2012, 09:13:43 AM
...and you still won't believe me when I say you're using too much octane.
It's OK...by the time you finish carboning up your motor...you'll need that $9/gallon fuel to keep from pinging. ;D
You have experience of a 11:3 engine which is running lean already on a 14:3 mix from an OEM ECU? Last I checked, this bike didn't have Dellortos. 8) Never had carbon on the intakes of any of my EFi machines which ran this lean. If I ever add some Dynojet O2 optimisers to the mix, I might consider what you say, based on input from Donnie Unger.
Incidentally, if you ever have the slightest concern about carbon build-up in any modern engine, use this (CF-5) in the suggested dilution. http://www.bgprod.com/products/fuelair.html (http://www.bgprod.com/products/fuelair.html) Not black magic, well-proven, and manufacturer approved by BMW, Land Rover, etc., etc. I've seen a 300,000+ V8 without a hint of carbon, and extremely low wear using their oils too.
Quote from: Curmudgeon on February 26, 2012, 09:22:03 AM
You have experience of a 11:3 engine which is running lean already on a 14:3 mix from an OEM ECU? Last I checked, this bike didn't have Dellortos. 8) Never had carbon on the intakes of any of my EFi machines which ran this lean. If I ever add some Dynojet O2 optimisers to the mix, I might consider what you say, based on input from Donnie Unger.
There is much more to be considered besides the cr number. As well known and respected as Donnie is, I take my advice from Bruce.
Combustion chamber design as well as electronics play a huge part in the octane requirements of an engine.
My personal experience is no stock engined street Ducati I'm familiar with has ever required more than 87 to not ping.
More octane than necessary robs, not delivers, power.
You're unwilling to even try, so I'll stop suggesting.
Bruce who? I only know Eraldo and Larry and Reno. ;)
BTW, my manual reads "Unleaded fuel with 95 fuel octane rating (at least)". That's 91 M+R/2, which is the minimum we used to recommend in all the Euro vehicles I sold. They at least have knock sensors which advance and retard the timing in milliseconds. I'm more comfortable with that. I also have on machine @ 10:1 with SAGEM EFi which loves a 50/50 mix of 98 and 93; more than that I agree adds nothing.
What's with the heads on the new 2V engines which are so efficient that they can run without twin spark and meet Euro 3 and still run 11:1+? Suggests a different chamber design?
Wow, this sucks. Well is the Casewell coating process difficult? Once you get a new tank Ducati is going to be off the hook in terms of liability so only in your dreams will they pay for any labor down the road. Good thing I don't plan I selling I guess. Feel kind of ripped off in a way. Seems like this issue with the tank could really lower the resale price for the bikes. Guy at the dealership said that the most expansion they were seeing was on bikes that sat. Said that the guys who used the feul up regularly didn't have as much of a problem. This leads me to beleive that the ethonal takes some amount of time to seperate from the gas (and sink to the bottom).
I don't ride that often. I think if I really fill up the tank right before I get home then there will be less room for condensation when the bike sits. Then the next time I take the bike out if I don't use all that old fuel I'll add K100 to it. Right now I'm just trying to figure out why Ducati didn't inform me of the best result and why I had to get it from a forum.
Bruce Meyers
Quote from: uclabiker06 on February 26, 2012, 10:17:04 AM
Wow, this sucks. Well is the Casewell coating process difficult? Also where the hex do you get non ethonal fuel from anyways??? Seems like a great idea IF you can find somewhere to store it. Once you get a new tank Ducati is going to be off the hook in terms of liability so only in your dreams will they pay for any labor down the road. Feel kind of ripped off in a way. If I knew this when i originally purchased my bike I would have had much more barganing power for the sticker price to be lowered. Seems like it will really lower the resale price.
I don't ride that often. What about draining the left over fuel after every ride?
Less condensation if the tank is full. Pure gas here: http://pure-gas.org/ (http://pure-gas.org/)
One message just today:http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=54297.msg1029854#msg1029854
What about Bruce Meyers? Dang, wish there was some ethonal free gas closer to home. Looks like the ones in Ca are all up north. [bang]
Too much (within reason) octane became an issue with oxygenated fuel, particularly E10. Before that, you were merely throwing money away.
Carbon is a problem with E10 because ethanol does not atomize as well as gasoline. The poorly atomized fuel resists burning and becomes carbon. If my choice was between E10 87 AKI or pure gas 93, 93 it would be.
Nate, is my memory off or did Bruce also note a significant loss of HP running 93 in a superbike?
Quote from: Curmudgeon on February 26, 2012, 09:55:06 AM
Bruce who? I only know Eraldo and Larry and Reno. ;)
BTW, my manual reads "Unleaded fuel with 95 fuel octane rating (at least)". That's 91 M+R/2, which is the minimum we used to recommend in all the Euro vehicles I sold. They at least have knock sensors which advance and retard the timing in milliseconds. I'm more comfortable with that. I also have on machine @ 10:1 with SAGEM EFi which loves a 50/50 mix of 98 and 93; more than that I agree adds nothing.
What's with the heads on the new 2V engines which are so efficient that they can run without twin spark and meet Euro 3 and still run 11:1+? Suggests a different chamber design?
You're funny. Eraldo? Is he Geraldo Rivera's brother? [laugh]
I understand what your manual says. It's said the same thing for the last 15 years and it's still wrong.
That's exactly the difference. Chamber design. You notice the new big 2v is no longer a dual spark.
It doesn't need all the octane the book says either. ;D
Quote from: ducpainter on February 26, 2012, 12:27:14 PM
You're funny. Eraldo? Is he Geraldo Rivera's brother? [laugh]
I understand what your manual says. It's said the same thing for the last 15 years and it's still wrong.
That's exactly the difference. Chamber design. You notice the new big 2v is no longer a dual spark.
It doesn't need all the octane the book says either. ;D
The Eraldo who set up my 851 and whose bikes then won WSBK titles a couple of times. Eraldo made lovely jewelry and son, Larry, was hot with a laptop. http://www.ferracci.com/about/about.php (http://www.ferracci.com/about/about.php)
If you say so. Might actually be needed now. Things change. My muffler has no soot BTW.
Since there are ~ 140 fuel blends mandated by the bureaucrats, I've no idea what your blends for summer and winter are like in New England but it's not easy to generalize. I'll wager Central VA is a lot different. In NJ over decades I've observed ugly chemical deposits on valves and in heads, and numerous multiple misfire codes from clients' vehicles running 89 where 91 - 92 was specified, (M+R/2). That was on Porsches, Benzes and Land Rovers. In NJ, 93 from premium brands was usually cleaner than 87 or 89 as well. Your mileage may vary... Always best to buy fuel from high volume/turnover premium brand stations and not when they are getting a delivery! [roll]
You did convince me to try some 89 in my Bonneville because I have a little soot in the muffler since disabling the air injection on my T-100, this with now 7,000 miles. ;D The manufacturer also specs "87 AKI or higher".
Quote from: Curmudgeon on February 26, 2012, 01:16:10 PM
The Eraldo who set up my 851 and whose bikes then won WSBK titles a couple of times. Eraldo made lovely jewelry and son, Larry, was hot with a laptop. http://www.ferracci.com/about/about.php (http://www.ferracci.com/about/about.php)
If you say so. Might actually be needed now. Things change. My muffler has no soot BTW.
Since there are ~ 140 fuel blends mandated by the bureaucrats, I've no idea what your blends for summer and winter are like in New England but it's not easy to generalize. I'll wager Central VA is a lot different. In NJ over decades I've observed ugly chemical deposits on valves and in heads, and numerous multiple misfire codes from clients' vehicles running 89 where 91 - 92 was specified, (M+R/2). That was on Porsches, Benzes and Land Rovers. In NJ, 93 from premium brands was usually cleaner than 87 or 89 as well. Your mileage may vary... Always best to buy fuel from high volume/turnover premium brand stations and not when they are getting a delivery! [roll]
You did convince me to try some 89 in my Bonneville because I have a little soot in the muffler since disabling the air injection on my T-100, this with now 7,000 miles. ;D The manufacturer also specs "87 AKI or higher".
I know who Eraldo is.