A Cars forum. AutoBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Alcohol as a fuel



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 11th 05, 11:50 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 12th 05, 04:11 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 13th 05, 01:52 AM
Kevin Bottorff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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  
Old May 13th 05, 09:09 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 13th 05, 09:23 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 13th 05, 09:40 PM
N8N
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old May 13th 05, 09:56 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No, it does not work that way. Ask any physicist and he/she will tell
you.

  #19  
Old May 13th 05, 10:32 PM
Nate Nagel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old May 13th 05, 10:39 PM
Daniel J. Stern
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:16 PM
Infiniti Q45 oil pan removal procedure Miki Technology 25 December 30th 04 01:07 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.