Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-08-2011, 05:02 PM   #11 (permalink)
UFO
Master EcoModder
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,300

Colorado - '17 Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 LT
90 day: 23.07 mpg (US)
Thanks: 315
Thanked 179 Times in 138 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee View Post
Waaaah, the food supply!

Seen any empty store shelves lately?
You mis-understand me. GMO corn and soy dominate farming. Consolidation like this makes the whole supply vulnerable to a single pest.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 03-08-2011, 08:00 PM   #12 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
...re: Are we abusing alcohol?

...well, I can honestly say that I've never threatened nor struck a defenseless bottle of whiskey in my life!

...'cuz, all of them were 'armed & dangerous' as soon as their seals are broken (wink,wink)!

Last edited by gone-ot; 03-08-2011 at 08:54 PM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to gone-ot For This Useful Post:
Sularus (03-10-2011)
Old 03-08-2011, 09:05 PM   #13 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
nemo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: US
Posts: 1,015

Chief - '06 Pontiac Grand Prix
90 day: 26.7 mpg (US)

SF1 - '12 Ford Fiesta S
90 day: 30.95 mpg (US)
Thanks: 195
Thanked 247 Times in 190 Posts
Abusing? No. Strictly for medicinal purposes.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2011, 11:16 PM   #14 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

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: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Ah. Well it was getting pretty consolidated anyway wasn't it?
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 03:37 PM   #15 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 593
Thanks: 106
Thanked 114 Times in 72 Posts
I don't think a parallel fuel system like proposed here has a mechanism for actually.. improving anything.

What I don't get is why the ethanol haters aren't mad at people with leather anything, wood floors, pieces of paper, shaving cream, diapers, glue, crayons, firecrackers, tires, or any of the other countless non-food things that use corn.
__________________
Work From Home mod has saved more fuel than everything else put together.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 05:37 PM   #16 (permalink)
Eco-ventor
 
jakobnev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,630

Princess - '92 Mazda MX-3 GS
House of Tudor
Team Mazda
90 day: 53.54 mpg (US)

Shirubāarō (*´ω`*) - '05 Toyota Prius Executive
Team Toyota
90 day: 54.88 mpg (US)

Blue Thunder - '20 Hyundai IONIQ Trend PHEV
Team Hyundai
Plug-in Hybrids
90 day: 587.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 74
Thanked 701 Times in 444 Posts
Send a message via MSN to jakobnev
You guys, this thread isn't supposed to be about politics!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryland View Post
an engine that is designed for burning alcohol does not work well for burning gasoline and it's the same the other way around
Maybe you could point out some differences?


Quote:
Originally Posted by shovel View Post
I don't think a parallel fuel system like proposed here has a mechanism for actually.. improving anything.
So you don't think that increased CR gives better efficiency for example?
__________________




2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 06:20 PM   #17 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,190
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,525 Times in 1,126 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakobnev View Post
Maybe you could point out some differences?
...well, notable differences between gasoline and ethanol are:

gasoline (C8H16)... 115,400 BTU/gal; A/F = 14.7:1 ...%Oxygen = 0%
ethanol (C2H5(OH))...75,670 BTU/gal; A/F = _9.0:1 ...%Oxygen = ~35%


...and, thus, ethanol has only 70% energy density of gasoline.

...and, E85 content is 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol.

Last edited by gone-ot; 05-11-2011 at 06:00 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 06:34 PM   #18 (permalink)
Eco-ventor
 
jakobnev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,630

Princess - '92 Mazda MX-3 GS
House of Tudor
Team Mazda
90 day: 53.54 mpg (US)

Shirubāarō (*´ω`*) - '05 Toyota Prius Executive
Team Toyota
90 day: 54.88 mpg (US)

Blue Thunder - '20 Hyundai IONIQ Trend PHEV
Team Hyundai
Plug-in Hybrids
90 day: 587.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 74
Thanked 701 Times in 444 Posts
Send a message via MSN to jakobnev
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Tele man View Post
...well, notable differences between gasoline and ethanol are:

gasoline (C8H16)... 115,400 BTU/gal; A/F = 14.7:1 ...%Oxygen = 0%
ethanol (C2H5(OH))...75,670 BTU/gal; A/F = 9.0:1 ...%Oxygen = ~35%


...and, thus, ethanol has only 70% energy density of gasoline.

...and, E85 content is 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol.
I was trying to ask him how the engines would be different. (Besides obvious things like AF-ratios.)
__________________




2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 07:45 PM   #19 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

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: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Ethanol resistant materials for the fuel system. Carb'd will be jetted bigger and injected may have bigger injectors. Dedicated ethanol engines have higher compression ratios; flex-fuel engines are saddled with the lower gasoline C.R.s which compromise efficiency when they're running ethanol.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2011, 08:40 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: na
Posts: 1,025
Thanks: 277
Thanked 218 Times in 185 Posts
Compression ratio is the big thing mechanically wize, turbo's are the make shift compromise, E85 with the higher octane rating won't dentonate nearly as easy allowing for either higher compression ratio or higher boost pressures. Saab has been making the best E85 cars for 5-6 years, the timing, boost pressure and more vary depending on fuel. They make more HP & torque with E85 than regular. One article by Saab I found a few days ago, but can't again said they expect 15% better hwy FE, same city or combined.

In 2007 someone else did some testing of Saab's FFV car, HP numbers agreed with Saab, FE didn't in standardized testing, it was the normal roughly 20% less (almost same as my wife 02 Suburban that does 12.5 on E85 vs 15 E10 on her 4 mile commute, 83% of E10's mpg). Compared to an 2010 or 2011 Malibu's 33 hwy E0 vs 23 E85's is 69% of E0).

Energy density is one thing, higher compression I think increases efficiency so a engine capable of running higher compression can be more efficent. I want to see a E85 engine that can run E0 when neccessary.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com