Great mileage using 100 percent petrol

[427435]

427435 muffed:
The reason Indy cars use ethanol.....
/////////
litesong wrote:
As stated, you promptly mix up. I mentioned Indy cars, NOT because they use ethanol, but mentioned they use ethanol ENGINES. High compression ratio(16:1) ethanol engines obtain more ethanol efficiency than low compression ratio(9:1 to 12:1) gasoline engines can extract from ethanol, meaning that of ethanol btus available(3% less than gasoline), gasoline engines also lose more ethanol btus than 3%. 87 octane gasoline engines are timed for 87 octane gasoline, & not timed for 114 octane ethanol. All these reasons are why E0, as used in 87 octane gasoline engines, has 8%, 7% & 5% better mpg than 10% ethanol blends.
/////////
litesong continues:
Another reason 87 octane 10% ethanol blends(E10) don't get the mpg of 100% gasoline(E0):
As mentioned, 87 octane E10 has average 114 octane ethanol. To make 87 octane E10, the 114 octane ethanol must be blended into average 84 octane gasoline molecules. Not only is the 114 octane ethanol incompatible with the low compression ratio gasoline engine, designed to burn 87 octane gasoline, the 84 octane gasoline molecules in the E10 are not quite right for the engine, either. 87 octane gasoline engines are timed for average 87 octane gasoline molecules, AND not timed for average 114 octane ethanol AND not timed for average 84 octane gasoline molecules. Nothing is more efficiently burned in a gasoline engine designed to burn 87 octane gasoline, than average 87 octane 100% gasoline molecules,. At two levels, the 114 octane ethanol misses the mark badly, AND nine times more numerous 84 octane gasoline molecules slightly miss the mark.

All these reasons are why 87 octane E0, as used in gasoline engines designed to burn 87 octane gasoline molecules, has 8%, 7% & 5% better mpg than 87 octane E10, which has the vast amount(all?) of its ethanol molecules & large amounts (almost all?) of its gasoline molecules NOT at or near 87 octane.

More pseudo science.

1. It is the compression RATIO that helps determine the efficiency of the engine. Higher compression equals higher efficiency--------------not the fuel used. Again, a 16:1 engine is as efficient burning heavily leaded gasoline as it is burning pure ethanol. Similarly, a 10:1 engine is as efficient burning pure ethanol as pure gasoline (and makes the same hp at stoichiometric ratios).

2. E10 is a blend. It's octane, Btu content, and burning characteristics are that of the blend.

3. What ever the mpg reduction is with E10, it would not jump around from 5% to 8% (a 60% variation from low to high). At least not in repeatable tests----------which are impossible on public highways.

4. Again, the Btu content of E85 is about 72% of E0. Guess what-----------------the repeatable, scientific EPA tests show exactly that. Same car, same engine, same test!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Buy the text book I previously mentioned (available on Amazon for less than $30 used). Then study it carefully.

 

[Gunkk]

Can you run a pump-gas (E10) engine at 16:1 on the street?

 

[427435]

Can you run a pump-gas (E10) engine at 16:1 on the street?

Not with the octanes commonly available at a pump. However, there is gasoline that can be run at 16:1 compression.


http://www.racegas.com/fuel/compare


A number of you seem to be hung up on compression ratios. As pointed out earlier, higher compression equals higher efficiency (complete with reference to an engine text book). That efficiency is not dependent on the fuel used, as long as its octane is high enough to prevent detonation.

Again, Btu's are Btu's.


If you burn 1 gallon of gasoline in pail, you will produce about 114,000 Btu's of heat. If you burn one gallon of ethanol in a pail, you will produce about 76,000 Btu's of heat. Notice that there is NO COMPRESSION in either case (but be careful how you ignite the fuel ).

It does not take compression to release the Btu's!!!!!!!!!!!!

A thousand Btu's from ethanol will produce the same hp in a given engine as a thousand Btu's from E0.

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

Not with the octanes commonly available at a pump. However, there is gasoline that can be run at 16:1 compression.


http://www.racegas.com/fuel/compare


A number of you seem to be hung up on compression ratios. As pointed out earlier, higher compression equals higher efficiency (complete with reference to an engine text book). That efficiency is not dependent on the fuel used, as long as its octane is high enough to prevent detonation.

Again, Btu's are Btu's.


If you burn 1 gallon of gasoline in pail, you will produce about 114,000 Btu's of heat. If you burn one gallon of ethanol in a pail, you will produce about 76,000 Btu's of heat. Notice that there is NO COMPRESSION in either case (but be careful how you ignite the fuel ).

It does not take compression to release the Btu's!!!!!!!!!!!!

A thousand Btu's from ethanol will produce the same hp in a given engine as a thousand Btu's from E0.

and this is where we get to the heart of the matter, which seems to be the point your missing.
How many gallons does it take to get those thousand btu's using E10 or any other blend....

 

[427435]

Gasoline gallon equivalent tables
GGE calculated for gasoline in US gallons at 114000 BTU per gallon,
or 7594 kilocalories per litre[2] Fuel: liquid, US gallons GGE GGE % BTU/gal kWh/gal HP-hr/gal Cal/litre
Gasoline (base)[3] 1.0000 100.00% 114,000 33.41 44.79 7594.0
Gasoline (conventional, summer)[3] 0.9960 100.40% 114,500 33.56 44.99 7624.5
Gasoline (conventional, winter)[3] 1.0130 98.72% 112,500 32.97 44.20 7496.5
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ethanol)[3] 1.0190 98.14% 111,836 32.78 43.94 7452.4
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ETBE)[3] 1.0190 98.14% 111,811 32.77 43.93 7452.4
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, MTBE)[3] 1.0200 98.04% 111,745 32.75 43.90 7445.1
Gasoline (10% MTBE)[4] 1.0200 98.04% 112,000 32.83 44.00 7445.1
Gasoline (regular unleaded)[5] 1.0000 100.00% 114,100 33.44 44.83 7594.0
Diesel #2[5] 0.8800 113.64% 129,500 37.95 50.87 8629.8
Biodiesel (B100)[5] 0.9600 104.17% 118,300 34.80 46.65 8629.5
Bio Diesel (B20)[5] 0.9000 111.11% 127,250 37.12 49.76 8437.7
Liquid natural gas (LNG)[5] 1.5362 65.10% 75,000 21.75 29.16 4943.3
Liquefied petroleum gas (propane) (LPG)[5] 1.3500 74.04% 84,300 24.75 33.18 5625.2
Methanol fuel (M100)[5] 2.0100 49.75% 56,800 16.62 22.28 3778.1
Ethanol fuel (E100)[5] 1.5000 66.67% 76,100 22.27 29.85 5062.7
Ethanol (E85)[5] 1.3900 71.94% 81,800 24.04 32.23 5463.3
Jet fuel (naphtha)[6] 0.9700 103.09% 118,700 34.44 46.17 7828.9
Jet fuel (kerosene)[6] 0.9000 111.11% 128,100 37.12 49.76 8437.7


The above is hard to read-------------just go to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

 

[litesong]

3. What ever the mpg reduction is with E10, it would not jump around from 5% to 8% (a 60% variation from low to high).

427435 has been told often, the 8%, 7% & 5% differences are for 3 individual gasoline cars, designed to burn 87 octane E0. Any tests 427435 has constructed........................
.........
........
Oh, yeah. 427435 hasn't constructed any long term tests about 114 octane ethanol inferiority usage in gasoline engines designed to burn 87 octane E0, altho it quotes businesses & gov't organizations, who constructed tests, for which they have vested interests in the outcomes.

 

[427435]

427435 has been told often, the 8%, 7% & 5% differences are for 3 individual gasoline cars, designed to burn 87 octane E0. Any tests 427435 has constructed........................
.........
........
Oh, yeah. 427435 hasn't constructed any long term tests about 114 octane ethanol inferiority usage in gasoline engines designed to burn 87 octane E0, altho it quotes businesses & gov't organizations, who constructed tests, for which they have vested interests in the outcomes.

Yada, yada, yada.


I know enough about testing (my first job was as a test engineer) to know that you need a chassis dyno and controlled conditions to compare mpg of different fuels in a given engine.

By the way, the EPA mpg tests were set up long before E10 or E85 were around------------------so whose vested interests are you paranoid about??
I may have confused with another ethanol denier, but I thought you said you were an engineer. Where, when, and in what area of engineering did you graduate?

 

[litesong]

I may have(sic) confused...... I thought you said you were an engineer. Where, when, and in what area of engineering did you graduate?

Ah......what you've been told, you forget........

 

[litesong]

2. E10 is a blend. It's octane, Btu content, and burning characteristics are that of the blend.

87 octane gasoline engines are timed for 87 octane gasoline, & not timed for 114 octane ethanol. 87 octane E10 has average 114 octane ethanol. To make 87 octane E10, the 114 octane ethanol must be blended into average 84 octane gasoline molecules. Not only is the 114 octane ethanol incompatible with the low compression ratio gasoline engine, designed to burn 87 octane gasoline, the 84 octane gasoline molecules in the E10 are not quite right for the engine, either. 87 octane gasoline engines are timed for average 87 octane gasoline molecules, AND not timed for average 114 octane ethanol AND not timed for average 84 octane gasoline molecules. Nothing is more efficiently burned in a gasoline engine designed to burn 87 octane gasoline, than average 87 octane 100% gasoline molecules,. At two levels, the 114 octane ethanol misses the mark badly, AND nine times more numerous 84 octane gasoline molecules slightly miss the mark.

All these reasons are why 87 octane E0, as used in gasoline engines designed to burn 87 octane gasoline molecules, has 8%, 7% & 5% better mpg than 87 octane E10, which has the vast amount(all?) of its ethanol molecules & large amounts (almost all?) of its gasoline molecules NOT at or near 87 octane.

 

[427435]

Ah......what you've been told, you forget........

So you don't want to refresh me (and others) as to what your background is? It sure appears that there isn't much thermodynamics or engine work in it.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[litesong]

..... controlled conditions to compare mpg of different fuels in a given engine.

Nobody gets better controlled conditions, than long continuous many years of usage of each fuel for each of 3 gasoline vehicles, designed to burn 87 octane E0.

 

[427435]

Nobody gets better controlled conditions, than long continuous many years of usage of each fuel for each of 3 gasoline vehicles, designed to burn 87 octane E0.

So you are not really an engineer.

 

[thompithak3182]

this thread went way out of hand... lol

 

[DRS]

I found it interesting. Some decent nuggets of info inside the passionate exchanges. And passionate exchanges are just fine. Good nuggets of data can come out of those.

 

[427435]

87 octane gasoline engines are timed for 87 octane gasoline, & not timed for 114 octane ethanol. 87 octane E10 has average 114 octane ethanol. To make 87 octane E10, the 114 octane ethanol must be blended into average 84 octane gasoline molecules. Not only is the 114 octane ethanol incompatible with the low compression ratio gasoline engine, designed to burn 87 octane gasoline, the 84 octane gasoline molecules in the E10 are not quite right for the engine, either. 87 octane gasoline engines are timed for average 87 octane gasoline molecules, AND not timed for average 114 octane ethanol AND not timed for average 84 octane gasoline molecules. Nothing is more efficiently burned in a gasoline engine designed to burn 87 octane gasoline, than average 87 octane 100% gasoline molecules,. At two levels, the 114 octane ethanol misses the mark badly, AND nine times more numerous 84 octane gasoline molecules slightly miss the mark.

All these reasons are why 87 octane E0, as used in gasoline engines designed to burn 87 octane gasoline molecules, has 8%, 7% & 5% better mpg than 87 octane E10, which has the vast amount(all?) of its ethanol molecules & large amounts (almost all?) of its gasoline molecules NOT at or near 87 octane.

Sigh.......................................

I missed this the other day. If engines wouldn't run as well as Btu contents would indicate on E10, they would really run poorly on E85-------------what with 85% ethanol in it.

The Btu content of E85 is 72% of E0. If the 85% of E85 was contributing less output in the engine than expected, it's mpg would be a lot less than 72% of what E0 gets.

However, if you do as I did a few years ago, and go through all the EPA tests for vehicles that can run on either E0 or E85, you will find that the mpg with E85 is almost exactly 72% (if not better) of the the same car with E0.

You do have to go through all of them-------not just one or two. The mpg ratings are rounded to the nearest whole number so you have to average all of them to get rid of the rounding errors.

Bottom line, E10 is a blend. Its octane is that of the blend. It's Btu content is that of the blend. It's mpg is exactly what you would expect from its Btu content. End of science lesson!!!

 

[litesong]

EPA tests for vehicles that can run on either E0 or E85, you will find that the mpg with E85 is almost exactly 72% (if not better) of the the same car with E0.

"ethanol propagandist 427435" continues to spout its ethanol propagandist error(purposeful error) & hopes everybody will not catch it veering from the truth. The claim of 72% comes from the percent difference in btus in 100% ethanol(E100) compared to 100% gasoline (E0). 427435 claims 72% is the btu difference between E85 & E0, which it is not. 427435 has done this before, been corrected, then repeats its "purposeful error". 427435 WILL AGAIN, repeat its "purposeful error".

All that needs to be known about E85 is that it is collapsing in popularity. Even E0, which the EPA & "ethanol in gasoline industry" have tried to drive to extinction, has 3 to 4 times MORE DISPENSING SOURCES than E85. That is why EPA & "ethanol in gasoline industry" are re-doubling their continuous & long held lies about ethanol & against E0. They see their suppression tactics against E0 have failed, as they see popular sources of E0 approaching 10,000. Strong attacks have been mounting strongly for years against EPA ethanol policies, from several directions.

427435 may win one collapsing ethanol tactic. It works hard to get the last post of ethanol threads...... even tho it is the only ethanol bulwark squawking here.

 

[427435]

You, sir, are either very ignorant or a liar.


Gasoline gallon equivalent tables
GGE calculated for gasoline in US gallons at 114000 BTU per gallon,
or 7594 kilocalories per litre[2] Fuel: liquid, US gallons GGE GGE % BTU/gal kWh/gal HP-hr/gal Cal/litre
Gasoline (base)[3] 1.0000 100.00% 114,000 33.41 44.79 7594.0
Gasoline (conventional, summer)[3] 0.9960 100.40% 114,500 33.56 44.99 7624.5
Gasoline (conventional, winter)[3] 1.0130 98.72% 112,500 32.97 44.20 7496.5
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ethanol)[3] 1.0190 98.14% 111,836 32.78 43.94 7452.4
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, ETBE)[3] 1.0190 98.14% 111,811 32.77 43.93 7452.4
Gasoline (reformulated gasoline, MTBE)[3] 1.0200 98.04% 111,745 32.75 43.90 7445.1
Gasoline (10% MTBE)[4] 1.0200 98.04% 112,000 32.83 44.00 7445.1
Gasoline (regular unleaded)[5] 1.0000 100.00% 114,100 33.44 44.83 7594.0
Diesel #2[5] 0.8800 113.64% 129,500 37.95 50.87 8629.8
Biodiesel (B100)[5] 0.9600 104.17% 118,300 34.80 46.65 8629.5
Bio Diesel (B20)[5] 0.9000 111.11% 127,250 37.12 49.76 8437.7
Liquid natural gas (LNG)[5] 1.5362 65.10% 75,000 21.75 29.16 4943.3
Liquefied petroleum gas (propane) (LPG)[5] 1.3500 74.04% 84,300 24.75 33.18 5625.2
Methanol fuel (M100)[5] 2.0100 49.75% 56,800 16.62 22.28 3778.1
Ethanol fuel (E100)[5] 1.5000 66.67% 76,100 22.27 29.85 5062.7
Ethanol (E85)[5] 1.3900 71.94% 81,800 24.04 32.23 5463.3
Jet fuel (naphtha)[6] 0.9700 103.09% 118,700 34.44 46.17 7828.9
Jet fuel (kerosene)[6] 0.9000 111.11% 128,100 37.12 49.76 8437.7


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

 

[litesong]

or 7594 kilocalories per litre[2] Fuel: liquid, US gallons GGE GGE % BTU/gal kWh/gal HP-hr/gal Cal/litre
Gasoline (base)[3] 1.0000 100.00% 114,000 33.41 44.79 7594.0
Ethanol fuel (E100)[5] 1.5000 66.67% 76,100 22.27 29.85 5062.7

Yeah, you're right. I was wrong, mixing E100 btus with E85 btus.

 

[mf7lakes]

his majesty sez "ignorant ..... liar ........." and this from an Ethanol engineer!!!! my, my, how nice....

he be zo zmart.........

 

[geops]

Wow, this thread just won't die. All these back and forth jabs became stupid many pages back. Keep it constructive or let it die.