Ethanol E85

[icrashalot]

To run E-85 you will have to change your hoses and rubber gaskets that will come in contact with the fuel. The E-85 will eat regular hoses up. It will also have to be re-tuned. Cars that run it will make the adjustments necessary to switch from E-85 to regular pump gas and back. Unless you come up with a system to switch back and forth, you would only be able to run E-85.

Here in N.C. they went to the 10% blend. It sucks. My sports car that was getting 21 to 22 mpg on premium is now only getting about 19.5 mpg. So, (if I have this right) they blend it to save the 10% of fuel and air pollution. But I am getting more than 10% less mileage. My SUV has lost about 20% mileage on the blend. I am not a smart man, but,...the math does not add up to me.

[ReGgAe TiCo MaN]

Both are "performance" type vehicles. They are, no doubt, programmed to adjust, when needed, to maintain max. engine performance.

A different vehicle, that either compensates less or that is programmed toward trying to maintain efficiency instead of performance, would no doubt, see a lesser change in mileage.

[nojoconnections]

I've seen similar dips that are out of proportion with 10% alcohol.

[Riley.]

Yes, energy in equals energy out. But, the only part of the energy out that we care about is what is causing the engine to move. Most of the energy that goes into an internal combustion engine goes to heat and friction which don't do anything to help the vehicle move forward. If the engine isn't tuned properly, the combustion can actually work against the engine, for instance, if the fuel is still burning after the power stroke has completed or if the fuel is ignited before the piston has reached the end of the compression stroke.

If you are loading ammunition for a gun, you can put a high-energy slow-burning powder into the cartridge and then try a lower-energy faster-burning powder. Just because the former has a higher energy content doesn't mean that it will make the bullet go faster. The powder can still be burning and releasing energy while doing no useful work.


True. But, you can use a greater percentage of that energy to do the work that you want accomplished and let less of the energy go to waste.

[nmikeyjay]

I was saying assume to pose a more simple explanation, not that they are the same. Calm down

[=) ♥]

Which one kills fire ants better? E85 or gasoline? That's what I want to know. :mrgreen:

[crazyhorse55]

Which is exactly what automotive engineers have been trying to do (in earnest) since the mid-70's. Turns out it ain't all that easy. :mrgreen:

[BabyGirl26]

this reminds me of a lark I was one a few years back.

Investigating the viability of converting from gas to propane for a car. Turns out that propane needs higher (something like 13:1) compression to burn efficiently.

I imagine alcohol has similar issues.

[myspiderungoliant]

One of the things holding those automotive engineers back is that they are limited to one basic fuel and one basic engine design. LP is one of the more ideal fuels, but since the delivery system isn't out there, it can never be used. Also, very few people think outside of the piston-connecting rod engine design box. Can you imagine if they replace the small block V8 or the V-twin with a spherical or rotary engine design? Many of the people here would be open to change, but I think most people wouldn't like.

[spazzdaily]

Sigh. I think this has gone far enough.

The engineers haven't been limited by anything except economics....and maybe some political pressure from "big oil".

Propane works fine. Some large fleets, even busses use it, mostly because of lower emissions. It has been more expensive than gas most of the time.

Mazda makes a fine rotary engine. Alas, it is expensive because of some exotic materials and close tollerances required. It works great but the gas mileage isn't so.

Turbine engines have even been tried. Not much economy there either.

Your knowlege of the subject is......incomplete. :bluethum: