EPA Drops Minimum 4-Gallon Purchase Requirement For Motorcycles And ATV’s

The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) reports that the the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scrapping its requirement that all consumers buy at least 4 gallons of gasoline from certain gas stations using blender pumps that dispense E10 and E15 through the same hose. The vast majority of motorcycles and ATVs in use today aren’t designed to operate on E15 fuel (15 percent ethanol by volume) and the residual E15 fuel left in a fueling hose could be detrimental to the performance of motorcycle or ATV engines

“With E15 gasoline, our members who make a concerted effort to fuel their motorcycles or ATVs with E10-or-less gasoline may be unknowingly refueling with residual fuel left in the hose,” Wayne Allard, AMA vice president for government relations, had said to the EPA. It’s when the EPA first revealed a minimum-purchase of 4 gallons of gasoline to to dilute any residual E15 fuel left in the hose.

On Dec. 17, in response to ongoing AMA concerns, the EPA indicated to the AMA that it would no longer require a minimum purchase of 4 gallons. Instead, the EPA will now likely require a label on blender pumps that dispense E10 and E15 through the same hose that state the pump is solely for passenger cars and trucks.

Ethanol is essentially grain alcohol produced from crops such as corn that is mixed with gasoline to produce an ethanol-gasoline blend motor fuel. In October 2010, the EPA approved the use of E15 in model year 2007 and newer light-duty vehicles (cars, light-duty trucks and medium-duty passenger vehicles). Then, in January 2011, the EPA added model year 2001-06 light-duty vehicles to the approved list.

No motorcycles or ATVs are currently on the list.

Zipper's

28 Responses to “EPA Drops Minimum 4-Gallon Purchase Requirement For Motorcycles And ATV’s”


  1. 1 BobS Dec 25th, 2012 at 11:35 am

    So I guess if its a blender pump we should just spray a gallon or two out onto the parking lot to make sure there’s no E15 left in the hose.

  2. 2 Fordaith Dec 25th, 2012 at 11:47 am

    Or here’s an even better idea….drop this ethanol crap altogether

  3. 3 Rodent Dec 25th, 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Who pays the idiots in our government to come up with this crap? We do!

  4. 4 Mike Greenwald Dec 25th, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Nice job, AMA. No time to relent with the EPA. Keep on kicking them back.

  5. 5 666 Dec 25th, 2012 at 12:37 pm

    The epa needs to be disolved

  6. 6 richard Dec 25th, 2012 at 1:49 pm

    Am I wrong? It seems to me the epa was making an attempt to protect bikes from possible engine damage…It might not have been the best choice of corrective action (I like the warning label better). Do you think it would have been better if they just allowed this to happen with no “heads up”?

  7. 7 fedup Dec 25th, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    If they were concerned about protecting our vehicles (and our economy, and our food supply, etc), ethanol would never have been mandated in the first place.

  8. 8 BobS Dec 25th, 2012 at 2:51 pm

    While I am mostly a fan of putting what works best in my tank a couple erroneous statements being repeated again are that ethanol isn’t good for the environment, the economy, or the food supply. It is good for the economy, is mostly environmentally neutral, and does not remove food from the food supply. It removes sugars from cow’s food supply which they just shit out anyway. The proteins are returned to the cow feed, which is what makes them grow. If you want to know what removes food from the food supply, its eating beef for dinner. It takes 10 lbs of feed to make 1lb of cow so if anyone is really honestly concerned about the food supply they should become a vegetarian.

  9. 9 Rob Dec 25th, 2012 at 5:48 pm

    I’ll compromise……………….drop it to a 5% blend!………..E5

  10. 10 DJ Dec 25th, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    @bobs…. You sir are a blundering idiot. It is people like you that we have driving this bus called the American government. It is better to keep silent and let everyone think you are an idiot then to open your mouth and prove it

  11. 11 BobS Dec 25th, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    @DJ, I know you are but what am I? Everything I said is accurate, but you go ahead and throw unfound insults if thats what you have to do to feel like a man.

  12. 12 Oldernowiser Dec 26th, 2012 at 9:43 am

    So, let me make sure I’ve got this correct. Corn, which would normally be fed to the cows so they can shit it out, minus the protein, removes food from the food supply, cause it takes ten pounds of it to make one pound of beef. (Wrong by the way) People, on the other hand consume no corn at all, whether they shit it out or not, unless they are eating beef which has consumed corn or corn leftovers?
    Corn meal, cereal, etc. etc. etc. just magically appear on the grocery store shelves removing no food from the food supply………By the way, I am wondering what exactly is so evil about removing food from the food supply. Isn’t that called eating? Sorry, I gotta go take a shit.

  13. 13 BobS Dec 26th, 2012 at 10:25 am

    Think it through Oldernowiser. If we are going to feed it to cows anyway, but before we do we take out the sugars that the cows don’t use, then we haven’t removed any food from the food supply. All we have done is put a raw material to better use. Wether it”s ten lbs of corn for one pound of cow, 8.5, 11.2, whatever the ratio is the point there is that this is not efficient use of food supply. Those that argue ethanol removes food from the food chain are simply misinformed. If we used the land to grow people food instead of cow food that would greatly increase the food supply. So therefore…raising cattle removes food from the food supply. Making ethanol does not.

  14. 14 Kroeter Dec 26th, 2012 at 11:33 am

    Thank you, AMA, for injecting some reason into the EPA’s way of thinking.

  15. 15 Dale Dec 26th, 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Thank you AMA. That was such a stupid idea from the EPA.

  16. 16 rebel Dec 26th, 2012 at 1:10 pm

    who cares about the food supply, cows, sugar, the ozone, or what Bobs thinks, just give ME pure unmolested high test fuel until I starve to death !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  17. 17 ROGUE Dec 26th, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Thank You AMA.

  18. 18 ROGUE Dec 26th, 2012 at 1:26 pm

    AMA : Can you Please try to get the Government to Cut Funding to NHTSA?
    Logic is the NHTSA must have too much money in their budget if they have enough to spend harassing motorcyclist.
    An example is funding motorcycle only stops and the list goes on and on, but you are aware of that as well as I am.
    If the Government is Really Interested In Cutting Spending this would be a good place to start. Following up with the EPA would be great as well.

  19. 19 tholland Dec 26th, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    I think that maybe BobS may be a scientist for Monsanto or a grunt for Al Gore

  20. 20 Rob Dec 26th, 2012 at 3:40 pm

    Check this site out: http://www.epaabuse.com

  21. 21 martin Twofeather Dec 26th, 2012 at 5:14 pm

    You took the words right out of my mouth tholland,and thank you AMA FOR STICKING TO YOUR GUNS!

  22. 22 Dave Blevins Dec 26th, 2012 at 7:03 pm

    @ DJ, Oldernowiser, and BobS,
    Just so you understand your own argument(s), it is NOT about cow feed and never has been, the argument against corn raised to produce ethanol is about depleting the soil from extensive farming which then requires chemical fertilizers to replenish the soil making ethanol from corn an even bigger money pit while destroying our fertile farmland. An extension of the argument is, if you are going to waste soil, at least feed people and animals instead of motor vehicles, which don’t like ethanol anyway! By the way, “distillers grain”, a by-product of making ethanol is readily available and known to all livestock farmers and is commonly fed to farm animals and not wasted. although sugar cane is a more viable crop for ethanol production, it too depletes the soil of its nutrients and ultimately renders the same result as corn. Now you know.
    Personally, I don’t like ethanol as motor fuel, or as an additive for that matter, it doesn’t work very efficiently in internal combustion engines and is simply not cost effective. Wish they would just give it up as a an impractical option (the above article proves that point) and move on to some other fuel source for experimentation.

  23. 23 DJ Dec 27th, 2012 at 9:52 am

    @Dave Blevins…
    I don’t need you to clear up my argument.. I am more then equiped to understand the ramifications of this poison called ethenol, however, I did not make an argument. I made a stand against a fool that has no clue about the politics and science of ethenol. I am very educated on this subject and that is precisley why I did not interject. If I did I would be speaking way over 95% of these peoples abilities to follow and ultimatley be wasting my time, ergo, I just let a fool be a fool.

  24. 24 jcott Dec 27th, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    For me it’s not about cows, or land/fertilizer use:

    Ethanol is just flat out bad for gasoline engines – particularly ones that may sit in storage for periods of time – it tends to seperate from the gas, and it is more hygroscopic than gasoline, so it attracts water more readily. As we all (should) know, water is not exactly ideal for combustion efficiency, and will cause rust in metal gas tanks….those reasons are enough for me to not want it in my motorcycle. Or my car for that matter, which tends to sit in “storage” over the summer while I’m out riding….

  25. 25 Duncan Dec 29th, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    So is that why I have to buy Premium for my Harley?

  26. 26 BC Dec 29th, 2012 at 11:54 pm

    Nah, Duncan. You have to buy premium for your Harley because high compression engines have a tendency to suffer from engine knock due to pre-ignition in the combustion cycle. Octane is a pre-ignition inhibitor. High octane fuels (premium blends) keep your engine from pinging. You could put low octane fuel in your bike, but it might not give you the performance you want, and it may well make a lot of knocking sounds from the engine. Or you could put ethanol in it and suffer a noticeable MPG reduction after the first tank. The newer Harleys have a MPG readout. Its quite easy to catalog the loss in efficiency. Ethanol is a horrible idea and is a politically sponsored boondoggle.

  27. 27 Dennis Farley Jan 1st, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    Ethanol in gasoline is another “Hoax” that has been perpetrated upon the United States consumer by the “Big Agriulture” industry. It damages engines and produces less power and has been proven to give lesser fuel mileage than straight gasoline. It uses fuel to produce the crops like corn and soybeans and isn’t really environmentally friendly to the ecology. When will the consumers recognize that the corrupt politicians that have shoved this nonsense down our throats are really the “Problems” and not the “Answers”?

  28. 28 Jay Jan 4th, 2013 at 11:29 pm

    Ethanol is a rouse. The politicians claim its good for the environment, and it helps farmers. The truth is the Gov’t gives farmers money to grow the corn (that’s your tax dollars). Then its converted to ethanol, and added to your gasoline. Ethanol makes your mileage go DOWN. In my car (2008 Ford Escape Hybrid 4wd) I GET 8 MPG MORE with ethanol free fuel than I do with E10.

    Adding ethanol to the fuel makes you buy MORE fuel. This means the Gov’t is collecting MORE in fuel tax revenue. All ethanol is, is a hidden tax. Put something in the fuel, so you have to buy more, and when you buy more, you pay more taxes. The station I regularly purchase fuel from sells ethanol free for $0.10/gal more than E10. For me, its well worth $0.10 for an extra 8 miles out of every gallon.

    Let the market decide, don’t cram it down our throats. If ethanol free was widely available, we would be buying less fuel, and people would be getting better mileage in their existing vehicles IMMEDIATELY.

Comments are currently closed.
Crusher
S&S
S&S
Barnett
S&S

Subscribe

Socialize

Facebook Google+ Twitter