Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > DIY / How-to
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Closed Thread  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-19-2010, 01:27 PM   #271 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
BTW if you just think I am lying then VACATE this conversation you serve no purpose being here.

IF you think I tested wrong THEN PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS for what you would consider "acceptable" testing.

ie how to MEASURE my fuel economy and provide the results to you. I will gladly drive back up to Allentown and bring home MORE E0 to test if you desire.

heck I am even inquiring about using a racing track for a day to have a more controlled test environment. that could cost me more than $100 but I am willing if it will get me good test results.

 
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-19-2010, 01:49 PM   #272 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 24
Thanked 160 Times in 106 Posts


You would think ecomodders would try to take advantage of the benefits of ethanol.
 
Old 10-19-2010, 01:54 PM   #273 (permalink)
Administrator
 
Daox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 11,135

CM400E - '81 Honda CM400E
90 day: 51.49 mpg (US)

Daox's Grey Prius - '04 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 49.53 mpg (US)

Daox's Insight - '00 Honda Insight
90 day: 64.33 mpg (US)

Swarthy - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage DE
Mitsubishi
90 day: 56.69 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,444
Thanked 2,494 Times in 1,506 Posts
I agree. Instead of trying to prove why you get so much less mileage with E10. Why not work on improving your mileage with E10? Its not going away, and the government is currently considering switching to E15.
__________________
Current project: A better alternator delete
 
Old 10-19-2010, 03:03 PM   #274 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
euromodder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 4,667

GasDwarf - '13 Volkswagen up! EcoFuel CNG
Thanks: 176
Thanked 643 Times in 510 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjts1 View Post
You would think ecomodders would try to take advantage of the benefits of ethanol.
I think we can reasonably assume this bloke knows what he's talking about :
30% FE detriment in flexfuel engines because of the ethanol.

And that is in engines built or specially adapted to run on ethanol / E85.
The hit when running E10 will of course be lower as there is less ethanol and more regular fuel.
But on an old engine that was never intended to run on ethanol-mixtures, built without the modern electronic wizardry that controls combustion, the hit could well be larger than the expected 30% x 10 / 85 .
 
The Following User Says Thank You to euromodder For This Useful Post:
rmay635703 (10-19-2010)
Old 10-19-2010, 03:05 PM   #275 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 135

1991 RED Metro 1.0 Auto - '91 Geo Metro Lsi Auto
Team Metro
90 day: 38.28 mpg (US)

1991 3/5 2 door Blue/green - '91 Geo Metro
Last 3: 42.6 mpg (US)
Thanks: 54
Thanked 16 Times in 14 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Mechanic View Post
Ethanol, once the transition was complete virtually eliminated fuel filter replacement here.
This is BS, ethanol doesn't cause as many problems on newer cars because they have plastic fuel tanks and the rubber in the fuel system is alcohol "resistant".

If you have an older car though ethanol's affinity for water will cause you never ending headaches due to rust in your gas tank and the slow disintegration of the rubber parts in the fuel system.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to robertwb70 For This Useful Post:
Nerys (10-19-2010)
Old 10-19-2010, 03:18 PM   #276 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 24
Thanked 160 Times in 106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
I think we can reasonably assume this bloke knows what he's talking about :
30% FE detriment in flexfuel engines because of the ethanol.

And that is in engines built or specially adapted to run on ethanol / E85.
The hit when running E10 will of course be lower as there is less ethanol and more regular fuel.
Flexfuel means the engine is compromised to run on anything between 87 octane regular unleaded and E85. There are no mechanical differences between a flex fuel engine and a gasoline engine. They both run the same low compression ratio and conservative spark timing to protect the engine when its burning on low octane gasoline. An engine mechanically adapted around E85 will be much more efficient as the video demonstrates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder View Post
But on an old engine that was never intended to run on ethanol-mixtures, built without the modern electronic wizardry that controls combustion, the hit could well be larger than the expected 30% x 10 / 85 .
Any engine sold in the US in the last 25 year will definitely have an O2 sensor and probably a knock sensor. Even my old 92 mercedes says in the owner's manual that it is adapted to run on anything up to E10. I've driven in and out of states that require E10 for years and the biggest FE difference that I could measure was maybe 3% at most. If the difference is any bigger chances are the O2 sensor is fried or the owner has been ignoring regular maintenance.

EDIT:
Here's the EPA's proposed E15 warning label for prevent any confusion.

I would like to see the octane rating on this stuff.

Last edited by tjts1; 10-19-2010 at 03:36 PM..
 
Old 10-19-2010, 03:38 PM   #277 (permalink)
VX Padawan
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 51

VX du Slog - '94 Honda Civic VX
Thanks: 4
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Just a small observation... I know there has been much talk in this thread about how ethanol contains less energy than gasoline on a pound for pound basis. Ths is absolutely true. However, I think the point is moot, as we are talking about engines that are not 100% efficient. The energy basis is known, and a 100% efficient gasolie engine will yield more power than a 100% efficient ethanol engine given the same amount of fuel.

But when the efficientcy of the engine is a variable, the fact that ethanol contains fewer BTUs than gasoline becomes irrelevant.

It is my opinion that this fact does not support nor deny any argument provided here, it just may help us avoid a red herring.
 
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to slogfilet For This Useful Post:
rmay635703 (10-19-2010), tjts1 (10-19-2010)
Old 10-19-2010, 03:50 PM   #278 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjts1 View Post
You would think ecomodders would try to take advantage of the benefits of ethanol.
So they put ALLL that effort into just bringing the engine almost equal than regular fuels.

when if they would simply STOP using ethanol they could already GET that performance without spending a penny?

Part of ecomodding is saving money. You can't save money if you have to redesign/rebuild/rebuy just to compensate for what is a "bad fuel"

at least no one has yet shown me it is anything but a bad fuel. it pollutes more it costs more it uses more it increases dependency. all of these are ecomodding NONO's

NO by the wording I am getting this is likely propoganda or total BS but I sent a message to Poet the people pushing ethanol here in the US.

they tell me they have data showing IMPROVED fuel economy on "unimproved" gasoline engine vehicles on E30. that is chemically impossible to the best of my knowledge.

BUT they claim its possible its bad gasoline causing my problem (I note I drove out to texas no improvement on E10 out to Colorado No improvement on E10 but those were one off trips so anythings possible)

they say some gas companies use really low quality gas and depend on the Ethanol to boost the octane or have bad storage ie water contamination and that this could be causing my fuel economy problems.

this makes sense to a point but is countered by why is it consistent? if it was bad gas or bad storage I should see a dramatic swing in results as I went from place to place or brand to brand. I don't but its still a valid consideration.

Ie there a way to test for water content? is there a way to test for bad gas?
 
Old 10-19-2010, 03:52 PM   #279 (permalink)
Grrr :-)
 
Nerys's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Levittown PA
Posts: 800

Cherokee - '88 Jeep Cherokee
90 day: 19.44 mpg (US)

Ryo-Ohki - '94 Geo Metro Xfi
90 day: 50.15 mpg (US)

Vger 2 - '00 Plymouth Grand Voyager SE

Ninja - '89 Geo Tracker
90 day: 30.27 mpg (US)
Thanks: 12
Thanked 31 Times in 25 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by slogfilet View Post
Just a small observation... I know there has been much talk in this thread about how ethanol contains less energy than gasoline on a pound for pound basis. Ths is absolutely true. However, I think the point is moot, as we are talking about engines that are not 100% efficient. The energy basis is known, and a 100% efficient gasolie engine will yield more power than a 100% efficient ethanol engine given the same amount of fuel.

But when the efficientcy of the engine is a variable, the fact that ethanol contains fewer BTUs than gasoline becomes irrelevant.

It is my opinion that this fact does not support nor deny any argument provided here, it just may help us avoid a red herring.
You sort of got it but the wrong way :-)

while the engine is not 100% efficient it is "x" % efficient.

lets say its 20%

20% of X energy (gasoline) is still larger than 20% of Y energy (ethanol)

there is no logical reason for the mechanical efficiency of the actual engine itself to change unless it is not compatible with the fuel (less efficient) or TUNED for the ethanol (more efficient)

but if the engine remains unchanged then its efficiency remains unchanged except for that compatibility issue if present.
 
Old 10-19-2010, 03:56 PM   #280 (permalink)
VX Padawan
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Vancouver, WA
Posts: 51

VX du Slog - '94 Honda Civic VX
Thanks: 4
Thanked 12 Times in 10 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nerys View Post
You sort of got it but the wrong way :-)

while the engine is not 100% efficient it is "x" % efficient.

lets say its 20%

20% of X energy (gasoline) is still larger than 20% of Y energy (ethanol)

there is no logical reason for the mechanical efficiency of the actual engine itself to change unless it is not compatible with the fuel (less efficient) or TUNED for the ethanol (more efficient)

but if the engine remains unchanged then its efficiency remains unchanged except for that compatibility issue if present.
I don't think we can make the assumption that a given engine has the same X% efficiency for different fuels. Efficiency is not an inherent property of an engine, but also of its fuel and other environmental variables.

 
The Following User Says Thank You to slogfilet For This Useful Post:
rmay635703 (10-19-2010)
Closed Thread  Post New Thread


Thread Tools


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I want to get to the bottom of this ethanol killing my mpg Nerys General Efficiency Discussion 175 08-16-2012 09:32 AM
The Ethanol Scam: Are ethanol advocates giving slanted mpg numbers? Ptero Fossil Fuel Free 15 04-22-2010 10:58 AM
The Ethanol Bubble Pops in Iowa hypermiler01 Fossil Fuel Free 13 04-18-2010 03:19 AM
Ethanol blends: 10% in "reg." gasoline, 5% in mid-grade, 0% in premium (in Ontario) MetroMPG General Efficiency Discussion 40 03-26-2010 10:27 AM
Ethanol in gasoline i_am_socket EcoModding Central 83 12-18-2008 10:01 PM



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com