If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 11 May 2005, dyno wrote:
> >>Since alcohols have less energy per volume and must run much richer to > >>maintain the same relative A/F, one increases the delivered fuel volume. > > > > Thereby getting less work (or "power", if you must) out of any given > > volume of fuel. Exactly. > Your point was that one could NOT get the power back. That was (and is) one of my points, and for virtually the entire on-road fleet in North America, it's quite true. Even the flex-fuel models! |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
In article ch.edu>, Daniel J. Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005, dyno wrote: > >> >>Since alcohols have less energy per volume and must run much richer to >> >>maintain the same relative A/F, one increases the delivered fuel volume. >> > >> > Thereby getting less work (or "power", if you must) out of any given >> > volume of fuel. Exactly. > >> Your point was that one could NOT get the power back. > > That was (and is) one of my points, and for virtually the entire on-road > fleet in North America, it's quite true. Even the flex-fuel models! Some flex fuel vehicles can take advantage of some of the anti-knock properties of E85. However, one needs an engine set up for E85 to take full advantage of it, just as with high octane gasoline. The compression ratio has to be there. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in
.umich.edu: > On Wed, 11 May 2005, Kevin Bottorff wrote: > >> > there's nothing you can do to change the fact that alcohol >> > contains less energy than gasoline. You're simply going to burn more >> > alcohol than gasoline to do a given amount of work. >> >> your still not getting it!!! only less per "volume" > > Yes. Less work per volume unit of fuel burned. I'm not sure what you > imagine I'm "not getting". > > if you add back the proper amount of fuel then no power loss is realized, regardless of BTUs per volume. hence same power, lower milage. 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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article ich.edu>, 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. Flex fuel is a compromise, that's why. It's basically a change in fuel map and spark timing if that. The compression ratio isn't changed to take advantage of the E85 for instance. If an engine is set up for E85 as it's fuel, then it should have equal or better power than an otherwise equivilent engine set up for gasoline. Will the E85 engine consume a greater volume of fuel? Sure. Just like the engine designed for 92 octane gasoline will consume more than the one designed for 87 octane gasoline. But there is no reason the engine running on 92 octane can't produce equal or greater power because the fuel has less energy per unit volume. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Brent P wrote: > In article ich.edu>, 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. > > Flex fuel is a compromise, that's why. It's basically a change in fuel > map and spark timing if that. The compression ratio isn't changed to take > advantage of the E85 for instance. > > If an engine is set up for E85 as it's fuel, then it should have equal or > better power than an otherwise equivilent engine set up for gasoline. > Will the E85 engine consume a greater volume of fuel? Sure. Just like the > engine designed for 92 octane gasoline will consume more than the one > designed for 87 octane gasoline. But there is no reason the engine > running on 92 octane can't produce equal or greater power because the > fuel has less energy per unit volume. I agree with most of your points, but how do you figure that an engine optimized for 92 would consume more fuel than one designed to allow use of 87? AFAIK there's not a significant difference in the energy densities of gasolines with different octane ratings as there is between gasoline and E85. If anything, I would suspect that the engine optimized for 92 would get the *best* economy of the three, all other factors remaining equal, on a MPG basis. nate |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
No, it does not work that way. Ask any physicist and he/she will tell
you. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
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. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
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...! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Alcohol as a fuel | JP White | Technology | 118 | May 17th 05 09:50 PM |
warman i am surprised you mix oil | [email protected] | Ford Mustang | 5 | May 8th 05 04:04 AM |
DaimlerChrysler Commits Over $70 Million to Fuel Cell | Shrike | Dodge | 0 | March 30th 05 09:03 PM |
Failed Smog Check 1981 Trans AM | TheSmogTech | Technology | 0 | January 30th 05 04:16 PM |
Infiniti Q45 oil pan removal procedure | Miki | Technology | 25 | December 30th 04 12:07 AM |