Anything Goes Self explanatory forum name... (No NWS)

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-06-2007, 09:44 PM Thread Starter
phil-osepher
 
kneedragger77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: El Mundo
Posts: 3,699
 
E85?

I saw some bullshit commercial about this fuel made from corn. Another gimmick? Or a real solution to a problem that will be shot down by oil companies in lieu of profits?

The real deal: We will continue to bury our heads in the sand and use our resources up until they run dry. Only then will we move to alternative fuels.

Good news: Most if not all of us will be long gone or too old by the time this happens, so who gives a fuck. Yea, I've got a kid, but she'll just have to adapt when the shit hits the fan. Conservation is for pussies.

Love my V-8


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kneedragger77 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-06-2007, 09:55 PM
7c Forever
 
Junior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: the business end of a CAD station.
Posts: 9,879
  
it has more power potential than conventional gasoline. it can't get here fast enough for me.

HAIL TO THE KING!!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Junior is offline  
post #3 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-06-2007, 10:18 PM
No Crying Allowed
 
R1Lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: California
Posts: 20,229
   
It's real and Chevy is actually making most of there trucks E85 capable... they call it FLEXFUEL

Budha knows a bit about this as it's in his backyard...



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R1Lover is offline  
post #4 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-06-2007, 10:20 PM
No Crying Allowed
 
R1Lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: California
Posts: 20,229
   
Here is a list so far that will run on it.
  • Ford F150 5.4L Triton®
  • V8 Ford Crown Victoria 4.6L
  • Mercury Grand Marquis 4.6L SOHC V8
  • Lincoln Town Car4.6L SOHC V8
  • Buick Terraza 3.9 Liter
  • Chevrolet Monte Carlo K
  • Chevrolet Impala K
  • Chevy Express
  • Chevrolet Uplander 3.9 Litre
  • Chevrolet Silverado Z
  • Chevrolet Avalanche Z
  • Chevrolet Suburban Z
  • Chevrolet Tahoe Z
  • GMC Yukon
  • GMC Yukon XL
  • GMC Sierra Classic
  • GMC Savanna 5.3 Liter
  • Pontiac Montana 3.9 liter
  • Saturn Relay 3.9 Liter
  • Chrysler E85 Flex Fuel Vehicles
  • Chrysler Aspen 4.7
  • Dodge Durango 4.7 L
  • Jeep Commander 4.7 L
  • Jeep Grand Cherokee 4.7 L
  • Chrysler Sebring Sedan 2.7
  • Dodge Caravan, Grand Caravan and Caravan Cargo
  • Dodge Dakota 4.7
  • Mercedes-Benz C230 2.5liter
  • Nissan Titan 5.6L V8
  • Nissan Armada 5.6L V8




100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R1Lover is offline  
post #5 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 03:22 AM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 53
 
I was watching a new show about this stuff. They tested it and the results were "skewed" When they finally broke it down it did have more power potential than regular gasoline, but in the long run it winds up being way more expensive to refine, and was less efficient than what we currently have. I dunno I want to know more about it, but im not gonna research it as I am terribly lazy and dont even want use it.

On a side note, anyone seen a place you can buy this fuel at?
ChebuhHawk is offline  
post #6 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 03:35 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 14,712
  
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChebuhHawk View Post
On a side note, anyone seen a place you can buy this fuel at?
Local supermarkets?
valerossi is offline  
post #7 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 05:43 AM
Ass Cramp
 
R6Flyby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 44° 53' N 93° 13' W
Posts: 2,153
 
Send a message via Yahoo to R6Flyby
My 04 Dodge Stratus can use E85. It is a nice alternative when gas prices skyrocket currently gas out here is at $3.25 and I filled up with E85 on Thursday at a price of $2.44. My car has a 2.7 V6 so it is not really lacking in to much power.

It does have it's pro's and con's

Pro's
1. Cheaper than 81 octane at any given point
2. Bio safe


Con's
1. Loss of gas milage (as much as 5mpg)
2. Loss of power ( Don't care what dealers say)
3. Hard to find (just lucky that a service station up the street carries it)
4. Must be running a Synthetic oil which = more money on oil changes.
5. Seems to make my car run rougher

</IMG></IMG></IMG>

Not much into thinking on conserving the earth or fossil fuels but over all as long as it makes my car get from point A to B cheaper I will use it.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R6Flyby is offline  
post #8 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 08:16 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,350
  
E85 is an interesting concept, however it's not very new.

You'll mostly find it available in Iowa and Minnesota, with many more locations in Minnesota than Iowa.

It is slowly spreading and does have some potential to extend fuel supplies dramatically.


THE GOOD PARTS

1. It's fairly easy to make and doesn't require all that much equipment in theory.
2. It's renewable. You can make it from any crop which contains cellulose material.
3. It is a new technology, and as such, it is fairly low on the efficiency scale. Why is this good? Because every new technology will increase efficiency over time, and this, in a relatively short amount of time, has proven to be the same.
4. Despite what certain Cornell University based "experts" claim, it is NOT a catastrophic money loser. Next time, don't add the cost of the trucks and roads into your skewed research. It is possible (and very likely in todays world) to make significant amounts of money producing, mixing and selling the product.
5. This product is a fuel extender. It takes a known fuel supply and increases the life of that fuel supply dramatically by only requiring 15&#37; as much as traditional vehicles.
6. This product requires no dependence on outside sources. It is grown, produced, shipped, and consumed entirely within the USA. Because only 15% of the oil is needed, this product could, theoretically be made in it's entirety, out of current US oil stocks from the alaskan and gulf of mexico fields and the production of ethyl-alcohol in US farm fields .
7. When production of this fuel is combined with production of bio-diesel, more and more of the everyday fuel requirements for commercial and residential use can be met without need of foreign oil.

THE BAD PARTS
1. Making this product from current corn/sugarbeet/other crop hybrids is wasteful. These current hybrids are not designed to have the optimum levels of the required components to optimize the production of alcohol.
2. the federal government, in it's infinite wisdom, has outlawed long distance pipeline transport of ethanol only. While fuels containing ethanol MAY be transported via pipeline, they must do so in separate lines than conventional gasoline fuels, and under stricter guidelines. No reasonable answer has ever been given for this.
3. converting current crop production, under current farming bills, into ethanol production, has serious effects on the costs of traditional foodstuffs.
The reason for this is actually quite simple.
Ethanol plants are "online" manufacturing facilities, meaning they never shut down. The required time to shut down a plant and restart it, just like an oil refinery, is so cost prohibitive, that it is almost never done unless absolutely required. Thus, if a smaller than expected harvest is available (i'll skip the drop moisture level technobabble), and there is a choice between a traditional "food" coop, and the ethanol plant, you can bet the ethanol plant will be paying more for the crop, as they do not want to chance "running out" of raw material.
4. Because of #2 above, more small plants are being built, near the raw material source, than a single, more efficient larger assembly where material could be rail car shipped to and pipeline shipped out. While most argue this point (because they, like me are invested in the smaller local plants), the logic is actually quite simple. It doesn't take a lot of "human labor" to create the product, it's mostly mechanical in nature. So if you can take the 100 or so people that work at two or three small 'refineries', and condense them down to 20 doing basically the same amount of work, you save on "people expenses" which are the only real non-fixed expenses in the equation at this time.
5. Ethanol based fuel will not produce as high mileage vehicles as traditional gasoline powered vehicles. The difference is small, approx 5%, but is real. As engineers spend more time working with the fuel, this number has dramatically reduced from nearly 18% to a now more acceptable 5%, however it will never equal gasoline as it has less potential chemical energy in its raw form.
6. It gives off the same amount of "greenhouse gases" as traditional gasoline engines.



All in all it's a logical solution, however, to fully address the situation, it should really be considered in context and the government should take some steps to move it forward.
Such as:
1. No longer paying for fallow ground when that fallow ground could be used to raise a "resting" crop such as switchgrass, which could then be converted to ethanol production.
2. Backing bot hprivate and public research into using ALL available crop sources (not just traditional sources like corn, sugarbeets, etc)(see switchgrass above), so that future farming families have options for crops on a rotational basis that will always provide income without needing subsidy by the government during "fallow" times.
3. Removing idiotic restrictions on transportation of the end product.
R1Budha is offline  
post #9 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 08:29 AM
Master of Sergeants
 
No1stunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 5,536
  
Send a message via AIM to No1stunner Send a message via Yahoo to No1stunner Send a message via Skype™ to No1stunner
if its cheaper than gas .... Im all for it!!!


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
No1stunner is offline  
post #10 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 08:32 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,350
  
Quote:
Originally Posted by R6Flyby View Post
My 04 Dodge Stratus can use E85. It is a nice alternative when gas prices skyrocket currently gas out here is at $3.25 and I filled up with E85 on Thursday at a price of $2.44. My car has a 2.7 V6 so it is not really lacking in to much power.

It does have it's pro's and con's

Pro's
1. Cheaper than 81 octane at any given point hopefully you mean 87 octane
2. Bio safenot really, it still contains petroleum derivatives and as such, still is harmful, just slightlky less so


Con's
1. Loss of gas milage (as much as 5mpg)correct, but its a percentage, not a sliding scale
2. Loss of power ( Don't care what dealers say) yes, although this has more to do with poor engine control than the actual fuel. dyno runs on engines that are optimized for ethanol will show slight power gains actually
3. Hard to find (just lucky that a service station up the street carries it)yes, but it is getting better. and most major cities will have at least one source if not more. Just like you cannot find diesel at every gas station, so too, you cannot find E85
4. Must be running a Synthetic oil which = more money on oil changes.PATENTLY FALSE. THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR RUNNING 'SPECIAL' OILS FOR THE USE OF E85
5. Seems to make my car run rougherthis is usually a symptom of someone who "switches" back and forth. Ethanol is a cleaner fuel, and as such, will actually remove deposits from your engine as it goes through it. Valve deposits, and piston domw deposits are the first to go, and this usually transfers into a rougher running engine for a short amount of time. Also, switching back and forth causes the engine ECU to have to try and compensate, as it is relearning every time. This is especially true if you fill up and switch mid tank and end up running a hybrid mix of the two fuels. ECU programming in juts the last two years has mitigated this somewhat, however it is still possible to have these problems

</IMG></IMG></IMG>

Not much into thinking on conserving the earth or fossil fuels but over all as long as it makes my car get from point A to B cheaper I will use it.
R1Budha is offline  
post #11 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 08:33 AM
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,350
  
Quote:
Originally Posted by No1stunner View Post
if its cheaper than gas .... Im all for it!!!
currently only because its subsidized.
R1Budha is offline  
post #12 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 08:34 AM
Master of Sergeants
 
No1stunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 5,536
  
Send a message via AIM to No1stunner Send a message via Yahoo to No1stunner Send a message via Skype™ to No1stunner
Quote:
Originally Posted by R1Budha View Post
currently only because its subsidized.
True true..TRUE!! but cheaper is cheaper....


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
No1stunner is offline  
post #13 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 09:16 AM
Ass Cramp
 
R6Flyby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 44° 53' N 93° 13' W
Posts: 2,153
 
Send a message via Yahoo to R6Flyby
Quote:
Originally Posted by R1Budha View Post
4. Must be running a Synthetic oil which = more money on oil changes.PATENTLY FALSE. THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS FOR RUNNING 'SPECIAL' OILS FOR THE USE OF E85
Even though E85 runs cleaner, doesn't it burn hotter to remain cleaner? hence can and may burn hotter than what standard oil burns at?? At lease that is what my owners manual says



BTW great insight thanks Budha


</IMG></IMG>


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R6Flyby is offline  
post #14 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 09:30 AM
No Crying Allowed
 
R1Lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: California
Posts: 20,229
   
And if you read the owners manual on the R1, or R6 it tells you to shift at 2500 rpm too.....



100% free webcam site! | Awesome chicks and it is absolutely free! | Watch free live sex cam - easy as 1-2-3


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
|
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R1Lover is offline  
post #15 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 11:09 AM
Trust me, I'm a Ninja
 
Ronin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: In the Mountains, or right behind you.
Posts: 459
 
Send a message via Yahoo to Ronin
IIRC Ethanol was seen as saviour in the late 70's early 80's... It didn't catch on then and I don't see it doing any better now.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

USMC: We put the "laughter" back in Slaughter.
Ronin is offline  
post #16 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 11:10 AM
7c Forever
 
Junior's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: the business end of a CAD station.
Posts: 9,879
  
did well in south america.

HAIL TO THE KING!!

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Junior is offline  
post #17 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-07-2007, 12:27 PM
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,350
  
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronin View Post
IIRC Ethanol was seen as saviour in the late 70's early 80's... It didn't catch on then and I don't see it doing any better now.
The "failure" of ethanol in the 70's and 80's was widely overstated.

The lack of widespread adoption was caused by several factors including:
1. Federal regulation that limited the amount oif "additive" into commercially available fuel to no more than 10%.
2. CARB requiring that in California the additive to be used be MTBE (that worked out well, GO CARB!).
3. Fedral regulation that prohibited pipeline transmission of fuels containing ethanol or ethanol iyself.
4. Fuel prices remaining low enough, and a lack of technology to efficiently produce ethanol in high volumes.

Most of the upper midwest has been using fuels with ethanol additives in them since the early 70's.
One of the interesting by products of ethanol in gas in winter weather is not needing to add "fuel dryers" to your fuel. (HEET and the like) since they do basically the same thing.

The current use of ethanol will gradually increase (as it is) simply because the need for SOMETHING is becoming noticed by people.
High gas prices will continue to pound thi8s into the consciousness of the american public.
R1Budha is offline  
post #18 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-08-2007, 04:22 AM
Ass Cramp
 
R6Flyby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 44° 53' N 93° 13' W
Posts: 2,153
 
Send a message via Yahoo to R6Flyby
Filled up with E-85 this morning:
Attached Images
File Type: jpg e85.jpg (45.3 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg e852.jpg (48.7 KB, 0 views)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R6Flyby is offline  
post #19 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-08-2007, 04:27 AM
Ass Cramp
 
R6Flyby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 44° 53' N 93° 13' W
Posts: 2,153
 
Send a message via Yahoo to R6Flyby
Read this yesterday, pretty interesting reading




In the rush to cash in on ethanol, the Midwest might be giving away its greatest natural resource


Sucked Dry


STORY BY CONRAD WILSON

ILLUSTRATION BY MARK DANCEY


Even the experts didn't anticipate the consequences of building an ethanol plant in Granite Falls.
Typically, ethanol plants are built to run for upward of 20 years. "But the tests showed that the long-term viability of that aquifer system would not allow that as their source for the duration of their plant," says Minnesota Department of Natural Resources hydrologist Jay Frischman. So the DNR granted a temporary three-year permit.
After one year of operation, however, the plant had reduced the aquifer's water level by 90 feet, exhausting roughly half the reservoir. Frischman was alarmed, to say the least. "It was even more than I anticipated, and I felt I was being conservative in my approach," he says.
Luckily, the Minnesota River was located just a quarter-mile from the plant. The river water, which is also protected and permitted by the DNR, requires less treatment and contains less sediment than groundwater, making it more efficient. Before, the plant consumed roughly 3.7 gallons of water to create one gallon of ethanol. Now, only about 2.6 gallons of water are needed, says plant manager Robin Spaude.
The example points out a little-known downside to the ethanol craze: The industry uses massive amounts of water. It's a key component during the fermentation and cooling stages of ethanol production. And most plants in the state are much less efficient than Granite Falls, which has the benefit of being located near another water source. Minnesota Energy, a plant in Buffalo Lake, uses 4.5 gallons of water to produce just one gallon of ethanol.


All told, the state's 16 ethanol plants use a total of 1.9 billion gallons of water each year to produce over 562 million gallons of ethanol. With five new plants under construction, and several others looking to expand, the state's production capacity could reach one billion gallons by 2008, requiring the use of more than 4.3 billion gallons of water. That's slightly less water than was consumed by the city of St. Cloud in 2006.
Experts say there is a significant risk that increasing ethanol production could suck groundwater dry. Already, officials in and around the Midwest are delaying or denying approval of permits for ethanol plants out of concern for the water supply.
"What you want is to protect your water supply for future population and economic growth," says Jim Japs, assistant director of the DNR's Division of Waters. "Those are the two things that drive cities. Ultimately, if you don't have the water, you're not going to have the growth."

While technology is helping plants use less water—and efforts are underway to recycle some of the water used in the production process—many plants lag far behind in efficiency. Some use less than three gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol they produce, while others use more than five. On average, plants use about 4.3 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol, according to the Minnesota DNR.
"There is a potential to be a problem if there is continued expansion of projects," says Sean Hunt, a hydrologist with the DNR's Division of Waters.
Ethanol isn't a product that stays here. As the U.S.'s fourth-largest ethanol producer, Minnesota is providing much of the ethanol used as fuel by the rest of the country. More than half of the ethanol produced here is shipped elsewhere. Most of the demand comes from places like the East Coast, the Chicago corridor, and the Los Angeles area. When California banned the use of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE), a toxic fuel additive, ethanol was suggested as an alternative.
In 2006, Minnesotans consumed an estimated 263 million gallons of ethanol, only about half of what the state produced, according to the state Department of Agriculture. While that's good for the local economy, it also means that our local water supply is being shipped to other states in the form of ethanol.
"The ethanol industry is mining our groundwater," says Janette Brimmer, legal director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.
In the Twin Cities, water is readily available, but other regions around the state aren't as fortunate. The bedrock aquifers don't exist in the southern and western portions of the state, which makes groundwater much harder to come by. That's also where most of the state's corn is grown, and where the majority of the ethanol plants are located.
"The things that really drive the locations of these plants are mainly corn availability and rail lines," says William Simpkins, a professor of hydrology at Iowa State's Department of Geological and Atmospheric Sciences. "Water comes into it, but water's not the top dog."
Groundwater is also scarce in other parts of the country looking to expand ethanol production, says Mark Muller, director of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, a nonpartisan, farm-advocacy think tank based in Minneapolis. Nebraska and western Iowa are both very dry regions that are making efforts to increase their ethanol production.
"Mining" water that is closer to the surface could result in a dryer landscape, says Bob Libra, a geologist with Iowa's Department of Natural Resources. "Some of that stuff has been in place for hundreds of thousands of years. If you take that out of the bank, you don't know when you're going to get it back."


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R6Flyby is offline  
post #20 of 31 (permalink) Old 07-08-2007, 04:29 AM
Ass Cramp
 
R6Flyby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 44° 53' N 93° 13' W
Posts: 2,153
 
Send a message via Yahoo to R6Flyby
Cont...


Despite these concerns, many states and the federal government have failed to monitor the water issue closely, and acknowledge they don't know if ethanol plants are using more water than their aquifers can withstand.
Nationally, government oversight for water use is spotty, at best. In fact, a call from this reporter was the first inquiry the Environmental Protection Agency's press office in Washington, D.C., had received regarding ethanol and water consumption. "The state has quite a bit of authority," says EPA spokesman John Millett.
Yet states don't do much better in tracking the issue. In a recent paper, "Water Use by Ethanol Plants: Potential Challenges," Muller and co-author Dr. Dennis Keeney discovered that "minimal data is available on groundwater depletion, and the scope of future water availability is not clear." The study also found that there are no public records available that document water use by ethanol plants in the United States.
In a review of ethanol-producing states, it appears that only Minnesota keeps tabs on water use by specific plants and the amount of ethanol produced. Those numbers are reported to the DNR Division of Waters by the ethanol plants themselves.
But even Minnesota lags in some areas. The Groundwater Protection Act of 1989 required the DNR to map and identify sensitive groundwater areas.


Source: http://www.citypages.com/databank/28...ticle15612.asp


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
R6Flyby is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Sport Bike Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ethanol = more power OhBrianZX6R General Bike Talk 17 02-15-2007 08:50 AM
Gas prices R1Budha Anything Goes 33 09-12-2006 01:14 AM

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome