E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers?

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:

> On Thu, aarcuda69062 > wrote:
>
> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/
> >> Joe Fischer
> >
> >Did you even read the article?
>
> Why? Doesn't this paragraph say enough?
>
> "Slunecka says he does not expect any problems when Indy switches to
> pure ethanol in 2007. In fact, because ethanol generates more power than
> methanol, cars in the race will see their fuel efficiency rise by as
> much as 30 percent next year when they switch, he said."
> [unquote]
>
> Joe Fischer

"This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it
does with the actual need for high-performance racing fuel."

On Thu, aarcuda69062 > wrote:

>In article >,
> Joe Fischer > wrote:
>> On Thu, aarcuda69062 > wrote:
>>
>> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/
>> >> Joe Fischer
>> >
>> >Did you even read the article?
>>
>> Why? Doesn't this paragraph say enough?
>>
>> "Slunecka says he does not expect any problems when Indy switches to
>> pure ethanol in 2007. In fact, because ethanol generates more power than
>> methanol, cars in the race will see their fuel efficiency rise by as
>> much as 30 percent next year when they switch, he said."
>> [unquote]
>> Joe Fischer
>
>"This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it
>does with the actual need for high-performance racing fuel."

No doubt, in view of the fact that an ethanol group
put up a lot of money.

But if ethanol jumps the octane by 6 or 8 points,
that means the timing can be advanced, and the same
engine will have more pep.

I worked on a Corvair Spider in 1964 that somebody
had timed close to top dead center, and being it had a
supercharger, it had to be timed way before TDC, at
least 35 degrees, which is a lot.
The car was sluggish before timing it correctly,
and real peppy after.

There are lots of things good mentioned in the
article, and not much bad. It mentioned some smoke
when ethanol burns, so that will be better than methanol.

Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is
a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol.

Joe Fischer

aarcuda69062 > wrote in news:nonelson-
:

> In article >,
> Joe Fischer > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, aarcuda69062 > wrote:
>>
>> >> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/
>> >> Joe Fischer
>> >
>> >Did you even read the article?
>>
>> Why? Doesn't this paragraph say enough?
>>
>> "Slunecka says he does not expect any problems when Indy switches to
>> pure ethanol in 2007. In fact, because ethanol generates more power than
>> methanol, cars in the race will see their fuel efficiency rise by as
>> much as 30 percent next year when they switch, he said."
>> [unquote]
>>
>> Joe Fischer
>
> "This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it
> does with the actual need for high-performance racing fuel."
>

E85 vs Gasoline - credible numbers? This Ad Sponsored by Archer-Daniels-Midland and Koch Industries

On Wed, 06 Sep 2006 23:05:19 -0400, Joe Fischer
> wrote:

I think Danny's comment is regarding gasoline and ethanol, not
methanol and ethanol.

And looking at the paragraph you quoted in a later post, they _may_ be
dummies. "Ethanol produces more power, so we need less fuel", makes no
sense. If ethanol prodiced more _energy_ then we need that much less
fuel to go the distance, provided we only use the same average power
as before.

They use (x)thanol because it does allow more power than gasoline
(AFAIK) but at the expense of fuel load / miles per gallon.

>On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> wrote:
>
>>NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for
>>the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher
>>compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency,
>>(and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might
>>be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no
>>way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs
>
> Ha ha, so the reason methanol has been used for
>the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because
>they are dummys? :-)
>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/
>
>Joe Fischer

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:
>On 6 Sep 2006 17:20:14 -0700, "Mad Scientist Jr"
> wrote:
>
>>Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
>>credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline:
>>
>>For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end:
>>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol
>>vs
>>BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline
>
>
> It isn't that simple, there can be more power
>from ethanol than from gasoline, only the engine
>needs to be timed different and other changes made.
>

You cannot get more power from burning something which produces less energy.
Unless you somehow repeal the laws of physics.

> Almost all race cars will be using ethanol within
>a year or so, and that would not happen if it didn't
>have the power.

Totally false. NASCAR is most race cars in this country, and they're just
talking about going to unleaded gasoline.

> The only reason the gasoline is mixed to make
>E85 is to keep people from drinking ethanol solutions
>without paying the tax.

Ethanol doesn't start as easily -- lower vapor pressure. Ethanol by itself
would have even less power and mileage and range. Ethanol by itself is a good
solvent. Ethanol burns with a nearly-invisible flame.

> But it may also improve starting in cold climate.
>
> Flex-fuel vehicles have fuel injection which is
>able to sense oxygen levels in the exhaust and change
>the timing and furl-air ratio automatically.
>
>>and
>>
>>Simply burning the stuff:
>>Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned
>>vs
>>Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned
>
> Big difference, gasoline loses, by a big margin.
>
>>Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85?
>
> Look inside the gas fill door or look at the eighth
>character in the VIN.
>

Very few is the answer. Although most will run on E5, say, very few on E85.
The CR report mentions which.

>>People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil
>>fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors
>>1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the
>>facilities on ethanol?
>>2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol
>>vs gasoline?
>>3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU
>>for BTU?
>
> Already asked.
>
>>I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol
>>produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount
>>of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of
>>E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about
>>118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of
>>gas.
>
> Probably because E85 is not ethanol, it is 85 percent,
>and the flex-fuel system has to compromise to run the
>mixture.
>
>>Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to
>>reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info
>>on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their
>>friends, a couple from green friendly studies.
>>Thanks
>
> Google will give too many links, as usual, too bad
>they can use the same search engine ebay uses.
>
>Joe Fischer
>

In article <s8LLg.4600$%75.306@trnddc05>, "SJC" > wrote:
>If you have not tried
>www.ethanol.org
>I would make that my first stop.
>

Sounds like a real objective group!

>"Mad Scientist Jr" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Looking for some definitive (or at least of somewhat mainstream
>> credibility) numbers on E85 vs gasoline:
>>
>> For production/hauling/storage/etc, end to end:
>> BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from ethanol
>> vs
>> BTUs consumed to yield X BTUs from gasoline
>>
>> and
>>
>> Simply burning the stuff:
>> Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of E85 burned
>> vs
>> Pollutants produced per 100,000 BTU worth of Gasoline burned
>>
>> Also what car models (SUVs too) will run on E85?
>>
>> People talk about ethanol not being worth using because of the fossil
>> fuel needed to produce it. They are leaving out a couple of factors
>> 1) do you have to burn fossil fuel to produce ethanol? why not run the
>> facilities on ethanol?
>> 2) what is the total return of energy produced vs consumed, of ethanol
>> vs gasoline?
>> 3) what is the total pollution difference when you compare the two BTU
>> for BTU?
>>
>> I did not find consistent numbers, for instance Wikipedia says Ethanol
>> produces 27% less energy than gasoline, which would be 0.73 the amount
>> of energy from gasoline, but a USA Today article says one gallon of
>> E-85 has an energy content of 80,000 Btu - compared with about
>> 118,000 Btu for a gallon of gas, which would be 0.67 BTUs per gallon of
>> gas.
>>
>> Please no flames, just numbers or a balanced mix of web links to
>> reputable / high profile studies ie a couple by academia (plus any info
>> on who funds their research), a couple from the oil industry or their
>> friends, a couple from green friendly studies.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>
>

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:
>On Thu, 7 Sep 2006 02:14:38 +0000 (UTC), danny burstein
> wrote:
>
>>NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for
>>the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher
>>compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency,
>>(and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might
>>be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no
>>way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs
>
> Ha ha, so the reason methanol has been used for
>the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because
>they are dummys? :-)

F1 and NASCAR use gasoline.

>
>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12740848/
>
>Joe Fischer
>

In article >,
Joe Fischer > wrote:

> >"This probably has more to do with the politics of corn than it
> >does with the actual need for high-performance racing fuel."
>
> No doubt, in view of the fact that an ethanol group
> put up a lot of money.

Ya think?

> But if ethanol jumps the octane by 6 or 8 points,
> that means the timing can be advanced, and the same
> engine will have more pep.

I hadn't realized that Indy cars suffered from a "pep" problem.

> I worked on a Corvair Spider in 1964 that somebody
> had timed close to top dead center, and being it had a
> supercharger, it had to be timed way before TDC, at
> least 35 degrees, which is a lot.
> The car was sluggish before timing it correctly,
> and real peppy after.

I worked on a 1994 GMC Safari and a 2001 Pontiac Bonneville SSEi
yesterday. Interestingly, they both belong to the same person,
an official with CART

> There are lots of things good mentioned in the
> article, and not much bad.

Naturally, it's a sales job.

> It mentioned some smoke
> when ethanol burns, so that will be better than methanol.

No doubt an insurmountable problem when they made the switch from
gasoline years ago.

> Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is
> a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol.

Thing is; you only need to feed half as much of that "real dog"
compared to ethanol or methanol.

Joe Fischer > wrote in article
>...
>
> No doubt, in view of the fact that an ethanol group
> put up a lot of money.
>
> But if ethanol jumps the octane by 6 or 8 points,
> that means the timing can be advanced, and the same
> engine will have more pep.
>


If you believe a change in fuel from methanol to ethanol will result in
IndyCar teams simply "....adjusting the timing....", then you ARE as dumb
as many seem to think you are.....

You don't seem to understand the benefits of using an alcohol for racing
fuel.......

.......the ability - or, actually, necessity - to run much higher
compression than gasoline - 16:1, 17:1 or more - resulting in more power.
It is the mechanical compression, NOT the fuel that results in more
horsepower when racing with alcohol fuels.

......a "softer" flame front than gasoline - a less-violent "explosion" in
consumer terms - making it easier on internal engine components.

........cooler burning - again easier on engines, but actually mandated at
Indy following the mid-'60s gasoline inferno that killed Eddie Sachs and
Dave MacDonald........so, "idiots" or not, IndyCar technicians have little
choice but to run an alcohol fuel.

But, because it runs cooler and produces fewer BTU, it requires nearly
twice as much alcohol as gasoline to produce the same amount of BTU - and
it is BTU, or heat, that actually drives the internal combustion engine..



> I worked on a Corvair Spider in 1964 that somebody
> had timed close to top dead center, and being it had a
> supercharger, it had to be timed way before TDC, at
> least 35 degrees, which is a lot.
> The car was sluggish before timing it correctly,
> and real peppy after.
>

I'm sure when the IndyCar guys revert to mid-'60s Corvair technology,
you'll be among the first to receive a telephone call.......



> There are lots of things good mentioned in the
> article, and not much bad. It mentioned some smoke
> when ethanol burns, so that will be better than methanol.
>
> Without lead or aromatic additives, gasoline is
> a real dog compared to ethanol or methanol.
>

Without ANY additives whatsoever, gasoline contains MORE BTU than either
methanol or ethanol - which means there is MORE POWER in a gallon of
gasoline than in an alcohol fuel.....plain and simple.

Gasoline additives are there to help adapt gasoline to various conditions
and climates, just as mixing gasoline in an E-85 mixture helps make an
engine using ethanol much easier to start, warm up quicker, and avoid
cold-running stumbling.

In cooler climates, ethanol would be impractical without being mixed with
gasoline.

SJC wrote:

> If you have not tried
> www.ethanol.org
> I would make that my first stop.


Yeah, I'm sure that site is 100% objective and unbiased :-/