Alcohol as a fuel

Ulf > wrote in
:

> Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 May 2005, Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>if you add back the proper amount of fuel then no power loss is
>>>>>realized
>>
>>
>>>>...which, of course, explains why FFVs are so much doggier when
>>>>driven on M85 than on gasoline.
>>
>>
>>>They really shouldn't be
>>
>>
>> And yet...!
>
> "On the road, the 180 bhp/ 280 Nm Saab 9-5 BioPower running on E85
> delivers sportier performance due to a significant 30 bhp lift in
> maximum power and 40 Nm more torque, compared to its gasoline-powered
> equivalent. Whilst fuel economy in SEK/km in city and mixed driving
> conditions is unlikely to show an improvement, testing indicates that
> a useful 15 per cent gain in fuel cost in SEK/km can be expected at
> cruising speeds because of a better combustion with higher
> efficiency."
>
> http://saab.com/main/GLOBAL/en/press...nt/2/index.xml
>

thats what can happen when the eng is built for high ethanol content. the
comp. automaticly raises the boost if ethanol is used instead of gas.
probly uses a higher comp ratio to start also. KB

--
ThunderSnake #9 Warn once, shoot twice
460 in the pkup, 460 on the stand for another pkup
and one in the shed for a fun project to yet be decided on

In article >, Steve wrote:
> Maybe its not what you intended, but from my chair that's exactly what
> you did.

Other people got it just fine.

> I pointed out that high(er) compression combustion is a more
> thermally efficient process by a great enough degree to offset the
> difference in energy content in the fuel required. Then you brought up
> HiPo 60s v8s, which have nothing to do with the basic question.

Look, I brought 87 vs 92 octane as an example of theme. If you want to
play usenet hair splitting fine. go for it, I don't give a ****, I'm too
old for it.

Brent P wrote:


>
>>I pointed out that high(er) compression combustion is a more
>>thermally efficient process by a great enough degree to offset the
>>difference in energy content in the fuel required. Then you brought up
>>HiPo 60s v8s, which have nothing to do with the basic question.
>
>
> Look, I brought 87 vs 92 octane as an example of theme.

A "theme?" What "theme?" Floral or earth-tones?


If you want to
> play usenet hair splitting fine. go for it, I don't give a ****, I'm too
> old for it.

So am I, and that's not what I'm doing. I was pointing out what I
perceived as an utterly incorrect generalization, not bring up totally
irrelevant pseudo-comparisons of engines separated by 40 years in time
and 200 horsepower in output.

I'll admit that its possible that I'm old and senile enough to have
completely missed the point. But I don't think so....

Steve wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
> >
> > I would suggest that the poor fuel economy might have been caused
by a)
> > cam timing that makes the idle sound like the drum intro of "Hot
For
> > Teacher" b) running the engine waaaay outside the sweet spot on the
BSFC
> > curve (due to a) that's going to be at a fairly high RPM)
>
>
> No, they're not efficient, but DAMN they sure are a lot of fun!!!

No argument there! Nothing says "fun" like sitting at a stoplight and
watching your whole front end sheetmetal dance around
(anticipation...)

nate

N8N wrote:

> Steve wrote:
>
>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I would suggest that the poor fuel economy might have been caused
>
> by a)
>
>>>cam timing that makes the idle sound like the drum intro of "Hot
>
> For
>
>>>Teacher" b) running the engine waaaay outside the sweet spot on the
>
> BSFC
>
>>>curve (due to a) that's going to be at a fairly high RPM)
>>
>>
>>No, they're not efficient, but DAMN they sure are a lot of fun!!!
>
>
> No argument there! Nothing says "fun" like sitting at a stoplight and
> watching your whole front end sheetmetal dance around

Or driving through a parking garage setting off all the car alarms as
you idle past by with the top down and the A/C blowing... :-)

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
>Daniel J. Stern wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 May 2005, Kevin Bottorff wrote:
>>
>>
>>>if you add back the proper amount of fuel then no power loss is realized
>>
>>
>> ...which, of course, explains why FFVs are so much doggier when driven on
>> M85 than on gasoline.
>
>They really shouldn't be, ASSuming they have big enough injectors. MPG
>would be in the toilet of course.

Well, if you've optimized everything -- fuel pressure, injector pulse
width, injector size -- for gasoline, you can't also optimize the same
for E85. All you can easily change is the pulse width.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.