Great mileage using 100 percent petrol

[427435]

427435 muffs:
Than why don't the EPA tests show that-------------they are mostly at part throttle.
///////
litesong wrote:

427435 works hard NOT to understand the 8%, 7% & 5% loss in mpg that 10% ethanol blends have vs. E0.......even tho he understands the "double whammy" ethanol pressure loss effect.
///////
427435 muffs:
And you work hard at trying to make your anecdotal (and likely prejudicial) results the standard as opposed to the repeatable EPA tests.
//////
litesong wrote:
427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA tests are(altho we found out EPA ratings are poorly monitored vehicle manufacturer numbers). 427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA tests are, altho 1970's numbers were way way over-estimated. 427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA tests are, altho 1980's numbers were way over-estimated. 427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA tests are, altho 1990's numbers were way over-estimated. 427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA tests are, altho 21st century numbers were over-estimated. How surprising that vehicle manufacturers' lobbying has caused EPA numbers to be over-estimated!!

427435 keeps saying how accurate EPA comparisons between E0 & 10% ethanol blends are AND are only 3%. How surprising that "ethanol in gasoline industry" lobbying has caused ethanol EPA numbers to be over-estimated!!

A majority of posters on this website & its many threads agree with me. Two posters on other websites have had the same numbers that I have posted..... E0 in my 3 cars gives 8%, 7% & 5% better mpg than 10% ethanol blends. All posters on this thread agree with me..... except for one poster & only one poster..... that denier being 427435.

This discussion is a technical discussion, not a popularity contest.

Again:

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

I admitt that the last time I knew of water in a gas tank was before the days of fuel injection. The problem was fixed by just emptying the gas tank with the water in it. No mechanical repairs were needed. Nor do I think a tank full of water today would necessitate changing mechanical components.

Another poster (and others) talk about 5-10% kind of mpg reductions. I'm not sure that even a fuel injected engine would run with a 10% water concentration in the fuel.

As I posted earlier, most states inspect gas stations for accuracy of their pumps and quality of their fuels. I doubt that even a 1% water concentration would pass, but a quick Google didn't find anything specific.

Bottom line, the mpg I get with E10 is as close to EPA estimates as my cars got before E10. And my measurements and driving variations have a lot more than 2-3% variability.

You have previously stated that a 3% decrease is what E10 should see, so you would not need 10% water in the mix to get a 5-8% decrease, only about 2-4% mix of water would do And as those articles previously posted pointed out (as late as 2014 actually) 2% mix of water was within the legal limits. However before E10 that was always sitting at the bottom and as you pointed out the fuel pick up was always well above that point to limit water getting pulled up.

Correction it doesn't says 2%. Michigan allows up to 2 inches standing at the bottom of the tank. That could be more then 2% depending on the tank.

 

[litesong]

This discussion is a technical discussion, not a popularity contest.

How surprising that "ethanol in gasoline industry" lobbying has caused ethanol EPA numbers to be over-estimated!! You are right. The EPA is very popular with the "ethanol in gasoline industry".

 

[427435]

How surprising that "ethanol in gasoline industry" lobbying has caused ethanol EPA numbers to be over-estimated!! You are right. The EPA is very popular with the "ethanol in gasoline industry".

It seems that the EPA tests overestimate both E0 and E85 relative to real world. However, the % difference in the real world driving between E0 and E85 would be the same.

And you claim to be a rocket engineer??????????????

 

[427435]

You have previously stated that a 3% decrease is what E10 should see, so you would not need 10% water in the mix to get a 5-8% decrease, only about 2-4% mix of water would do And as those articles previously posted pointed out (as late as 2014 actually) 2% mix of water was within the legal limits. However before E10 that was always sitting at the bottom and as you pointed out the fuel pick up was always well above that point to limit water getting pulled up.

Correction it doesn't says 2%. Michigan allows up to 2 inches standing at the bottom of the tank. That could be more then 2% depending on the tank.

Lets see now. A 4% water mix would be 200 gallons of water in a 5000 gal underground storage tank. I kind of doubt that happening. And the station would be in trouble when the state inspector stopped by and found 4% water.

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

Lets see now. A 4% water mix would be 200 gallons of water in a 5000 gal underground storage tank. I kind of doubt that happening. And the station would be in trouble when the state inspector stopped by and found 4% water.

Ah but I did not say how big of a tank, I said depending on the size of the tank, and I also never said it had to be 4% you do the math figure how much water has to be in the gallon to drop the E10 mileage 5-8%

 

[427435]

A 5000 gallon storage tank is actually a small one.


The Steel Tank Institute decided to research the new, not so typical tank purchase. By surveying buyers, they were able to get a better idea on what is being ordered today. From the June Steel Tank newsletter, here is a sample of their findings.

Two 20,000 gallon tanks (40,000 gallons total), each with two compartments, creating storage capacities of 15,000, 5,000, 12,000, and 8,000 gallons
Two 12,000 gallon tanks and one 20,000 gallon tank (44,000 gallons total)
A 20,000 gallon UST for regular gasoline, a 12,000 gallon for premium, and a 6,000 gallon for diesel (38,000 gallons)
Two 30,000 gallon compartmentalized tanks (60,000 gallons total)
Some petroleum marketers anticipate fluctuating fuel prices and install more capacity so they can buy and store additional fuel when it is offered at lower prices—for example, two 20,000 gallon tanks, one 15,000 gallon tank, and one 12,000 gallon tank (67,000 gallons total)
One 25,000 gallon tank and one 22,000 gallon tank, split into two compartments (47,000 gallons total)
Stores that dispense biofuels separately may install total tank capacities as great as 60,000 gallons. At a truck stop, diesel tank storage can be another 30,000 gallons or more.
Small mom-and-pop stores install less capacity, perhaps two 12,000 gallon tanks (24,000 gallons total)
In extremely rural areas, a single 20,000 gallon tank with multi-compartments might be installed.

- See more at: http://www.atlasoil.com/Blog/Fuel-storage-capacity-at-service-stations#sthash.EnPBcy1i.dpuf

 

[litesong]

It seems that the EPA tests overestimate both E0 and E85 relative to real world. However, the % difference in the real world driving between E0 and E85 would be the same.

The observation, "Two wrongs don't make a right.", applies here. Another view also applies, "Two wrongs probably make a third wrong".

Other sets of true observations,
1)"The E0 formula used by the EPA is seldom encountered in the real world.
2)"The E85 formula used by the EPA is seldom encountered in the real world.
3)"The E85 formula encountered in the real world is most often E52 to E70.
4)Therefore, real world comparisons "between E0 & E85" are often comparing, E10 vs E52 to E70". True real world mpg comparisons between true E0 & true E85 are much wider, truly a canyon... a Grand Canyon of difference.

 

[427435]

The observation, "Two wrongs don't make a right.", applies here. Another view also applies, "Two wrongs probably makes a third wrong".

Other sets of true observations,
1)"The E0 formula used by the EPA is seldom encountered in real world.
2)"The E85 formula used by the EPA is seldom encountered in the real world.
3)"The E85 formula encountered in the real world is most often E52 to E70.
4)Therefore, real world comparisons "between E0 & E85" is often comparing, 10% ethanol blends to E52 to E70". True real world mpg comparisons between true E0 & true E85 are much wider, truly a canyon... a Grand Canyon of difference.

The two EPA tests establish repeatable data points for engines running on "real" E0 and E85----------and prove that using the Btu's per gallon does correlate with expected mpg. Thus, using the Btu's per gallon of E0, E10, and E85, you can then calculate the variation in mpg between E0 and E10.

E10 is mandated to not exceed 10% ethanol, so all the the stuff you claim about "real world" E85 (without documentation or links) has nothing to do with "real world" E10.

Nor does any of this have anything to do with an engine making full use of the Btu's of the fuel it is burning.

And I see you still don't want to talk anymore about the fact that ethanol burns as fast (or faster) than pure gasoline.

 

[litesong]

....an engine making full use of the Btu's of the fuel it is burning.

And I see you still don't want to talk anymore about the fact that ethanol burns as fast (or faster) than pure gasoline.

I've talked about all things, you promptly mix up. A low compression ratio gasoline engine can't release as much of ethanol btu's that a high compression ratio ethanol engine can. That's why Indy cars use ethanol engines instead of gasoline engines to burn ethanol.

Doesn't matter if ethanol's burn rate equals that of gasoline, when most octane 114 ethanol is burned too late to be used effectively by the gasoline engine's power stroke. Also, the "cooling effect" of ethanol, that ethanol adherents are so proud of, means that some ethanol isn't burned at all, even at the latter part of the power stroke.

It is important to know, that all posters here that know of the much greater mpg of E0 vs E10, have experiential proof of the mpg advantage of E0. All posters here who know of the least mpg advantage of E0 vs E10(includes only 1 poster), have(has) no experiential proof of the near equality of E10 to E0.

______________________________

Help support this site so it can continue supporting you!

 

[427435]

I've talked about all things, you promptly mix up. A low compression ratio gasoline engine can't release as much of ethanol btu's that a high compression ratio ethanol engine can. That's why Indy cars use ethanol engines instead of gasoline engines to burn ethanol.

Doesn't matter if ethanol's burn rate equals that of gasoline, when most octane 114 ethanol is burned too late to be used effectively by the gasoline engine's power stroke. Also, the "cooling effect" of ethanol, that ethanol adherents are so proud of, means that some ethanol isn't burned at all, even at the latter part of the power stroke.

Pure BS. Ethanol burns as fast or faster than pure gas. Thus the expansion caused by that burning is captured as effectively as the burning of pure gasoline. The reason Indy cars use ethanol is that it does have higher octane which allows (but does not require) higher compression.

Again, a 10:1 compression engine converts as high a % of the Btu's in ethanol (or E10) as it does with pure gasoline.

It is important to know, that all posters here that know of the much greater mpg of E0 vs E10, have experiential proof of the mpg advantage of E0. All posters here who know of the least mpg advantage of E0 vs E10(includes only 1 poster), have(has) no experiential proof of the near equality of E10 to E0.

The only repeatable, scientific evidence provided in this thread is the EPA testing of E85 vs pure gas. Everything else is unrepeatable, anecdotal stuff and is thus useless in comparing different fuels.

.

 

[litesong]

litesong wrote:
I've talked about all things, you promptly mix up. A low compression ratio gasoline engine can't release as much of ethanol btu's that a high compression ratio ethanol engine can. That's why Indy cars use ethanol engines instead of gasoline engines to burn ethanol.

Doesn't matter if ethanol's burn rate equals that of gasoline, when most octane 114 ethanol is burned too late to be used effectively by the gasoline engine's power stroke. Also, the "cooling effect" of ethanol, that ethanol adherents are so proud of, means that some ethanol isn't burned at all, even at the latter part of the power stroke.
////////
427435 muffed:
The reason Indy cars use ethanol is that it does have higher octane which allows (but does not require) higher compression. Again, a 10:1 compression(sic) engine converts as high a % of the Btu's in ethanol (or E10) as it does with pure gasoline.
The only repeatable, scientific evidence provided in this thread is the EPA testing of E85 vs pure gas.
/////////
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 loses 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.

Yes, 427435 promptly mixes up. Along with all its other mixing ups, twice now, 427435 has used the term "compression"(sic), when it needed to use the phrase, "compression ratio".

 

[427435]

Anyone that understands and talks engines drops the "ratio" when speaking of compression as being 10:1 or what ever. Geez, the next thing, you will be complaining about "speling."

Higher compression engines are more efficient than lower compression engines regardless of the fuel they burn. It's because of the technical benefits of higher compression-----------not the fuel being burned.

Look at it this way:

If a 10:1 compression engine is 25% efficient, increasing the compression to 15:1 will perhaps make it 27% efficient (or whatever). That improvement will be irrelevant of whether ethanol or gasoline or some blend of the two is being used (as long as the octane is high enough to avoid detonation).

Btu's are Btu's.

 

[427435]

Here are a couple of pages from the Bible of engine design (Taylor and Taylor, The Internal Combustion Engine).

Please note the sentence on the image (page 21) that says, "From the preceding expression, it is evident that the efficiency of this cycle is a function of compression ratio and K only, and is independent of the amount of heat added."


The current edition of Taylor and Taylor is available on Amazon---------even after all the years since I was in engineering school. Let me know when you have purchased a copy and understand it.

 

[mf7lakes]

Wow -- quotes from the bible of engine design -- and quotes from astronomer neil tyson -- that ought to convince 'em -- these authorities back up everything I say -- therefore REAL gas cannot possibly get better mileage than gas with water, er i mean ethanol in it.

No matter what my lying eyes see, just believe my words. I have authority to back me up -- and my voice is louder -- that helps too. If I can repeat this lie long enough, it will be true. And besides, I can find some more authorities........

 

[427435]

How many college text books on engines do you have out?

 

[2011 Genesis 4.6]

Look at the last paragraph of the second page posted, "A typical value of FQ in the case of gasoline engines is 1280 Btu/lbm air."

That is GAS, you change the dynamic when you add ethanol/water

 

[427435]

Look at the last paragraph of the second page posted, "A typical value of FQ in the case of gasoline engines is 1280 Btu/lbm air."

That is GAS, you change the dynamic when you add ethanol/water

Again: Btu's are Btu's------whether from gas, ethanol, or some mixture of the two. A lbm of air will only allow so many Btu's of fuel to be burned. Those Btu's can come from any mixture of gas and ethanol.


Again: "From the preceding expression, it is evident that the efficiency of this cycle is a function of compression ratio and K only, and is independent of the amount of heat added."

 

[litesong]

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.

 

[Gunkk]

+1 This.