Mustang Survival Issues Recall on MD2010 and MD2012

(11/7/2011)

In keeping with Mustang Survival’s commitment to the highest levels of product quality and safety, Mustang Survival is voluntarily recalling all model number MD2010 and MD2012 inflatable personal flotation devices (PFDs) sold in the United States during 2011. This recall is being issued for the inspection and repair of an inflator installation inconsistency that may prevent some units from fully inflating. A solution has been developed that corrects any affected products and prevents re-occurrence of this issue. The inspection and repair can only be performed at a Mustang Survival factory. This recall notification is only for the MD2010 and MD2012 22LB buoyancy inflatable PFDs. No other Mustang Survival products are affected as they utilize different inflator assembly methods. “We have a detailed plan already in action to inform dealers and consumers of this recall and to collect, inspect and repair any model MD2010 and MD2012 inflatables that are affected,” commented Jason Leggatt, VP of Research, Development and Quality at Mustang Survival, “We will continue to work with the US Coast Guard and our dealers to implement the inspections and repairs for our customers.” Distributors and consumers are urged to return their MD2010 and MD2012 inflatable PFDs by directly contacting Mustang Survival’s Customer Service department at 1-800-526-0532 between 7:30am and 4:30pm PST, Monday through Friday for specific shipping instructions. Consumers with affected MD2010 and MD2012 inflatable PFDs should contact Mustang Survival’s Customer Service Department directly. Consumers should not return product to their dealers as all product inspections and repairs are being handled by Mustang Survival. Complete details on this recall, including how to determine if your PFDs are impacted, complete product return instructions, and frequently asked questions, are available at www.mustangsurvival.com/22lb-product-notice. For media inquiries please contact Cindy Cheung at 1-800-526-0532 or at media@mustangsurvival.com About Mustang Survival Mustang Survival has been providing lifesaving solutions for over 40 years. Through constant innovation and application of new technologies, Mustang is the leading supplier of quality flotation and hypothermia protection products to the most demanding users – from fishermen, sailors and commercial mariners to the Coast Guard, fighter pilots and shuttle astronauts. Mustang Survival. We save lives for a living.

Mercury Marine's Report/Testimony on Ethanol to Congress

There was a House Committee hearing on the unintended consequences of increasing Ethanol in fuel  from 10 to 15 percent. I would be willing to bet no one in the news covered this at all. The following is a summary from a report from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (DOE). Mercury Marine was contracted to conduct these tests, and demonstrates some disturbing effects of E15 fuel. Thes tests were exclusively performed on marine engines, and I hope that similar tests are performed on other outdoor power equipment.

The abridged version of the results are that two of three E15 test engines did not finish the test. All three of the non-ethanol control engines finished with no problems.The two-stroke E15 test engine was damaged so badly that Mercury Marine could not determine the cause of failure.

I feel that this information wasn't given enough attention in the hearing. The two stroke engine that was damaged beyond repair retails for approximately $15,000. Nobody mentioned this at the hearing. More attention was given to the testimonies of the EPA and the various individuals representing the Oil, Gas and Ethanol industries.

Click here to view the complete report. The Summary follows:

Objective:

The objective of this work was to understand the effects of running a 15% ethanol blend on outboard marine engines during 300 hours of wide-open throttle (WOT) endurance – a typical outboard marine engine durability test. For the three engine families evaluated, one test engine each was endurance tested on E15 fuel with emissions tests conducted on both E0 and E15 fuel, while a second control engine was emissions and endurance tested on E0 fuel for each engine family.

Summary of Results:

Results are based on a sample population of one engine per test fuel. As such, these results are not considered statistically significant, but may serve as an indicator of potential issues. More testing would be required to better understand the potential effects of E15.

9.9HP Carbureted Four-Stroke:

• The E15 engine exhibited variability of HC emissions at idle during end-of-endurance emissions tests, which was likely caused by lean misfire.

o Both the E0 control engine and E15 test engine ran leaner at idle and low speed operation at the end of endurance testing compared with operation at the start of the test.

o The trend of running lean at idle coupled with the additional enleanment from the E15 fuel caused the E15 engine to have poor run quality (intermittent misfire or partial combustion events) when operated on E15 fuel after 300 hours of endurance.

o CO emissions were reduced when using E15 fuel due to the leaner operation, as expected for this open-loop controlled engine.

• The E15 engine exhibited reduced hardness on piston surfaces based on post-test teardown analysis.

o The exhaust gas temperature increased 17°C at wide open throttle as a result of the leaner operation when using E15 fuel. Higher combustion temperatures may have caused observed piston hardness reductions. Lack of pre-test hardness measurements prevented a conclusive assessment.

• Several elastomeric components on the E15 engine showed signs of deterioration compared with the E0 engine.

o Affected components were exposed to E15 fuel for approximately 2 months; signs of deterioration were evident.

300HP Four-Stroke Supercharged Verado:

• The E15 engine failed 3 exhaust valves close to the end of the endurance test.

o Metallurgical analysis showed that the valves developed high cycle fatigue cracks due excessive metal temperatures.

• The pistons on the E15 engine showed indications of higher operating temperatures compared to the E0 engine’s pistons as evidenced by the visual difference in carbon deposits.

• The E15 engine generated HC+NOx values in excess of the Family Emissions Limit (FEL) when operated on E15 fuel, but did not exceed that limit when operated on E0 emissions certification fuel.

o The primary contributor to this increase in exhaust emissions was NOx due to enleanment caused by the oxygenated fuel.

o CO emissions were reduced when using E15 fuel due to leaner operation, as expected for this open-loop controlled engine.

200HP EFI 2.5L Two-Stroke:

• The 200 EFI two-stroke engine showed no signs of exhaust emissions deterioration differences due to the fuel.

o The E15 fuel caused the engine to run lean resulting in reduced HC and CO emissions. NOx was of little concern on this type of engine since NOx accounted for less than 2% of the total regulated HC+NOx emissions.

• The E15 engine failed a rod bearing at 256 hours of endurance, which prevented completion of the 300 hour durability test.

o Root cause of the bearing failure was not determined due to progressive damage.

o More testing would be necessary to understand the effect of ethanol on oil dispersion and lubrication in two-stroke engines where the fuel and oil move through the crankcase together.

4.3L V6 EFI Four-Stroke Catalyzed Sterndrive:

• Since E15 fuel was readily available in the test facility and an engine equipped with exhaust catalysts was on the dynamometer, emissions tests were conducted on a 4.3L V6 sterndrive engine to better understand the immediate impacts of ethanol on this engine family.

o At rated speed and load (open-loop fuel control) E15 caused exhaust gas temperatures to increase by 20°C on average and the catalyst temperatures to increase by about 30°C.

o More rapid aging of the catalyst system occur due to the elevated catalyst temperature when considering the high load duty cycle typically experienced by marine engine applications.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

Several issues were discovered in this study from an exhaust emissions and an engine durability standpoint as a result of running E15 fuel in outboard marine engines. Run quality concerns were also identified as a result of the lean operation on the carbureted engine.

Additional investigation is necessary to more fully understand the observed effects and to extrapolate them to all types of marine engines over broader operating conditions. Effects on operation at part load, transient acceleration/deceleration, cold start, hot restart, and other driveability-related concerns need to be evaluated. This test program was mainly testing for end-of-life durability failures, which would not likely be the first issues experienced by the end users. A customer would likely be affected by run quality/driveability issues or materials compatibility/corrosion issues before durability issues. The wide range of technology used in marine engines due to the wide range of engine output will complicate this issue (Mercury Marine produces engines from 2.5HP-1350HP).

More testing is needed to understand how ethanol blends affect lubrication systems in two-stroke engines that have fuel and oil moving through the crankcase together. Crankcase oil dispersion is the only mechanism by which two-stroke engines of this architecture provide lubrication at critical interfaces such as bearings and cylinder walls. Ethanol may have an effect on the dispersion or lubricity of the oil.

A better understanding of how long term storage affects ethanol blends in marine fuel systems would require more real-world testing. Marine vessels often go through long periods of storage that could affect the fuel systems given the fact that the ethanol portion can absorb water when exposed, especially in humid areas near saltwater.