View Single Post
Old 10-16-2010, 09:23 PM   #207 (permalink)
user removed
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,024 Times in 1,304 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by AeroModder View Post
Frank: Your recent posts in this thread are very unhelpful and unproductive.
205 replies and 8407 views on this single thread.

That's a whole lot of unproductive.

Nerys, you have made your point, to the point of writing a book on this topic.

Cars with knock sensors and automatic timing advance, in anticipation of engine knock, will to a great degree mitigate the lower energy content of ethanol.

Try advancing the timing on your vehicles, if it is adjustable, to see if it helps.

The last time I had the opportunity to use non ethanol fuel, was very early in the morning on a trip to Detroit from eastern Virginia. I was driving a 2006 Corolla. I filled with mid range fuel, because they had no regular, and I believe it was E0. Drove all the way to the western end of Ohio before I refueled again. Normally I got about 36.5 MPG in the Corolla. but on that one tank it was 39.5 MPG.

About 10%.

If you remove the alcohol from regular E10 the octane rating will be very low, because the alcohol itself has a very high octane rating.

Maybe the better option would be to try to fine tune the timing to get more advance. My neighbor has a 427 69 Camaro (Yenko clone) that runs fine on E10 here, but I am sure his mileage is terrible.

Best way to mitigate the lower BTU content of alcohol is higher compression.
The Nissan Titan flex fuel truck gets like 13 MPG on gas and 9 on E85, so you can see the huge difference due to energy content of the alcohol. Not practical to have 16 to 1 compression and run pump gas so you can run effectively on E85, or to increase the compression slightly to run on E10 instead of pump gas.

Is it really necessary to add to the 206 posts on this thread or the 8400 plus views to make a point that we all understand.

You could use the same argument about lead in fuel, which cost billions of gallons to eliminate by the time the manufacturers figured out how to get decent mileage while complying with emissions standards.

As far as getting 60 MPG in your Metro with an 1100 pound payload, that just is straining the credibility of your claims to the end of belief.

Take it any way you want, insult me, call me names. None of that will affect your situation to even the advantage on one penny.

regards
Mech
 
The Following User Says Thank You to user removed For This Useful Post:
Chuck. (10-16-2010)