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, 03:56 PM   #281 (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
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.
Yeah sure until they "decree" it safe for all other years then they will force that on us too. Kiss 50mpg goodbye if that happens :-) (I am being sarcastic I don't know how much an effect another 5% will have but it can't be good)

I am curious about your 3% how much of the FILL was E10 and E0? half a tank of E10 and half a tank of E0 means you were not running E10 but running E5

and that assumes it was E10 that was pumped in. I have measured as low as E6 from regular gas stations.

Just curious. to get a good measure you need to run several tanks of each so that last tank is almost pure E0 or E10

 
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-19-2010, 04:01 PM   #282 (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
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.
Thats my point slogfilet.

I believe my engine is NOT as efficient on the E10 mix hence why I am seeing such a larger drop in FE.

but its not an efficiency of the engine problem. its a compatibility of the fuel problem.

Dump diesel in you gas engine and its not your engine's fault it runs like crap.

"An engine mechanically adapted around E85 will be much more efficient as the video demonstrates. "

note he did NOT say its more efficient and certaintly not MUCH more efficient.

He said it was "almost as" efficient as the NON Ethanol based fuel. Though to be fair he was comparing it to "diesels" but the FE difference in gas and diesel engines on that scale (150/250 sized vehicles) is not much different and he is using an optimized V6 versus a V8.

ie he is doing a lot more than JUST optimizing for ethanol. he is using a small lighter engine as well.
 
Old 10-19-2010, 04:18 PM   #283 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 24
Thanked 160 Times in 106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by slogfilet View Post
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 voice of reason is a hard sell around here. Good luck
 
Old 10-19-2010, 04:27 PM   #284 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Phantom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Independence, KY
Posts: 606

Blue Meanie - '02 Volkswagon Golf TDI
TEAM VW AUDI Group
90 day: 48.52 mpg (US)

Wife's car - '05 WV Passat TDI

Rudy - '94 Chevy C2500
Thanks: 90
Thanked 46 Times in 43 Posts
Just because the O2 sensor can read Lambda for various fuel mixtures does not mean it will run well on it.

Quickly AFR at stoichiometric for Petrol is 1kg of petrol to every 14.7kg of air with a density of 0.755 kg/l. Ethanol (e85) is 1kg of Ethanol to every 9kg of air with a density of 0.790 kg/l.

Starting with the density ethanol is 4.43% heavier per unit that would help economy if stoichiometric was the same or close.
Now for stoichiometric differences ethanol needs 38.78% more fuel by weight.

So for "identical" (Same TPS, load, air temp, and rpm the engine will still suck in the same amount of air) situations if running e85 will need 34.35% (38.78-4.43=34.35%) more fuel.

With that said identical is not likely to happen due to different flame propagation speeds, evaporation, and timing all those can place a different load on the car making for a different amount of required fuel.


As for the post asking how can you go further on LESS energy 9gal of petrol to 9gal of petrol + 1 gal of ethanol. You are confusing TOTAL energy for PER UNIT in the 10gal there is more total energy but pound for pound ethanol (or a mix) has less energy.
Its like topping a bottle of Bacardi 151 off with 80proof rum and then wondering why you are not getting as drunk as those who have drank the same amount as you but there drink is straight 151 and your drink is 80% 151.


My info on the numbers I posted here http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post199084
__________________
I move at the speed of awesome.


"It's not rocket surgery!" -MetroMPG
 
Old 10-19-2010, 04:49 PM   #285 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 24
Thanked 160 Times in 106 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantom View Post
Just because the O2 sensor can read Lambda for various fuel mixtures does not mean it will run well on it.
Actually if you're within about 10-15% of of the stock calibration and the O2 sensor is still switching around lambda 1, pretty much any EFI system will adjust its long term fuel trim accordingly. Once you get to the limit of your engine management systems flexibility, it'll trigger the CEL. There is no real in between. Barring any fuel line issues, any EFI system should be able to hand anything up to ~ E30.
 
The Following User Says Thank You to tjts1 For This Useful Post:
Frank Lee (10-19-2010)
Old 10-19-2010, 04:53 PM   #286 (permalink)
dcb
needs more cowbell
 
dcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 267 Times in 210 Posts
If Coyote X says something is going on here, I'm inclined to believe it.
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
 
The Following User Says Thank You to dcb For This Useful Post:
rmay635703 (10-19-2010)
Old 10-19-2010, 05:31 PM   #287 (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
Ethanol is not going away, eliminating it is not a viable answer. I suggest you find a way to deal with it. Have you tried adjusting ignition timing or anything?
__________________
Current project: A better alternator delete
 
Old 10-19-2010, 05:58 PM   #288 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,741

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,572
Thanked 3,509 Times in 2,196 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjts1 View Post
If you have data to back that up, post it.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...nol-213-6.html

USDA study boosts fuel conversion efficiency rating for ethanol | Rural Cooperatives | Find Articles at BNET

1.36-1.5 conversion efficiency?

Eh, that's just the first few hits I got while searching. If anyone needs more I can look more...
__________________


 
Old 10-19-2010, 07:00 PM   #289 (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
Sure frank. if you DESIGN the engine specifically for ethanol then SURE with its naturally higher octane and the ability to handle higher compressions then YES just like DIESELS you may be able to extract a higher efficiency than you can from a gasoline engine.

you going to buy the new E85 tuned vehicle for me?

I am not saying we should get RID OF Ethanol. I am saying it should be OPTIONAL. a pump for E10 and a Pump for E0 so those of us (millions and millions and millions of us) with cars that run like CRAP on the stuff don't have to use it.

that is my core problem. FORCING me to use it and FORCING me to pay thousands more in fuel costs because of it not to speak of repair costs.

even if not different pumps LET GAS STATIONS CHOOSE if they wish to use ethanol (right not most do NOT have a choice they by law MUST use Ethanol)

I will gladly pay 10cents a gallon more for E0 and I would still save money.

In fact I think I mentioned this already but Ethanol is the REASON I bought the geo metro.

Ethanol raised my operating costs for my minivan by $1643 a year just in fuel. I simply could NOT afford to spend an extra $1643 a year in gasoline so I had to get something better. Then I found the metro and was able to work out a deal with him. (and now I am looking for a second metro so I have a backup) since if the metro broke and I had to go back to driving the jeep or the minivan I would spend more money than the cost of another metro inside of 4 months just in extra gas !!!

My minivan got 28mpg thats $3757 in gas a year now at 19.5 (average) thats $5394 a year in fuel for the year or $1643 more per year (at today's price) So I had no choice but to find something with much better FE.

Last edited by Nerys; 10-19-2010 at 07:07 PM..
 
Old 10-19-2010, 07:04 PM   #290 (permalink)
dcb
needs more cowbell
 
dcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location:
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 267 Times in 210 Posts
yah, but "fixing the system" isn't a diy. Fixing your car so it can deal with e10 might be, given the number of cars that work fine with it.

__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
 
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