Ethanol Fuel NOT What The Government Spin Drs Tell Us !!! - Page 3

phillyc · 12-10-2009, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbgs351

How about quoting a source for your fairy tale? It sure isn't Cornell University or the University of California-Berkeley.

Enjoy.

http://www.biofuelsaustralasia.com.a...ning+the+Myths

http://e-85.com.au/e85/environmental-benefits-e85/

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ns/sub0104.pdf

Romulus · 12-10-2009, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

Enjoy.

http://www.biofuelsaustralasia.com.a...ning+the+Myths

http://e-85.com.au/e85/environmental-benefits-e85/

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ns/sub0104.pdf

Got anything independant of the ethanol industry and the politicians supporting Ethanol production?

McDonalds food must be healthy for the masses as it has the heart foundations tick of approval too.

xbgs351 · 13-10-2009, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

Enjoy.

http://www.biofuelsaustralasia.com.a...ning+the+Myths

http://e-85.com.au/e85/environmental-benefits-e85/

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committ...ns/sub0104.pdf

Enjoy poking fun at the fact that your three sources are all from the biofuel industry and are inheritable biased?

Romulus · 12-10-2009, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyc

CAT600 and you EBXR8240 are the only ones making any real sense!

Overall CO2 emissions are reduced by about 30% even taking into account the higher fuel burn rate & energy involved in the production.
Gee, what a terrible thing. Increase power and reduce emissions by 30% (at same power level.)

Whether you agree with climate change or not. Governments are talking about reducing emissions by 50% by 2050. Here is something that can reduce transport emissions by 30% now. A damn good start.

That is simply staggering. So the entire life cycle of methanol from production throught to it being burnt in your vehicle produces less CO2 than petrol derived from crude oil. Does this also include the CO2 from the power stations that power the Ethanol plants?

I struggle to see how a fuel which needs more of it to be burnt compared to petrol produces less CO2 emissions than petrol e.g. 10l/100km for petrol vs 13l/100km for Ethanol.

Provide me with some evidence to convince me Ethanol is green.

**ebxr8240** · 12-10-2009, 11:18 AM

I love Cobra's.. Especially on Ford's.. Lol...

QUOTE=Bad Bird]You two should stop messing up the thread with logic and facts. ;)[/QUOTE]
Yea sorry about that...

tickford2001 · 12-10-2009, 10:19 PM

E85 has its place, it is not a one size fits all fuel though.

Current mass produced cars are not designed with E85 in mind (yet), if E85 becomes more mainstream, and cars engines are designed to maximise the benefits that E85 offers then im certain the fuel consumption will decrease.

In my experience E85 offers many things that im interested in: lower operating temperatures, able to increase compression & timing, increased horsepower, INCREASED TORQUE, and VERY forgiving for tuning. In short it offers many of the benefits of running an $8/L or $9/L race fuel, but at less than $1/L

For those running boosted cars, the performance benefits are even more significant.

Obviously this is for race purposes, but there is no reason why some of these benefits cant be explored for road cars in the future if E85 were to become more mainstream.

GK · 12-10-2009, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by csv8

Teams are tweaking and tuning and they know a single mistake can cost them an engine, and the race.

Team Vodafone, HRT and Jim Beam Racing have all damaged engines trying for maximum economy in pre-Bathurst testing.

Once the engines run too lean they damage valves.

"We will be keeping the power, because if you've got a car in the right place you will need every ounce of performance," said Adrian Burgess, team manager at Jim Beam Racing.

And Burgess, who is responsible for the Falcon of James Courtney and Steven Johnson.....

For all of this discussion, everyone has missed a key bit of info.

Didn't one of the Jim Beam cars drop a valve yesterday? If so, so much for not going lean.

GK

Spanrz · 12-10-2009, 11:23 PM

Don't know what the problem is, even though it's only e10, but I got 680km's on just over 3/4 a tank from Yass to Melbourne. Still had over 80k's on it to go, before my "amount of reserve" was reached, even though the reading said 120k's to empty.
A 91 octane would only get me 710 max, and that was the smell of an oily rag (just under E)
Same road, but this time, the wagon had a crap load of weight in it. It was on the bump stops most of the way up to and back from Bathurst.
So, all i can say is ethanol is better than the 91 garbage.
(got 9.4lt/100k's from Yass to Melb on e10)

And if I really tried, I could squeeze another few k's out of it still, the Yass to Melb trip wasn't being an old lady driving to Church on Sunday's either.

dom_105 · 13-10-2009, 12:34 AM

So what is the magic price difference that E85 has to be as opposed to 91/92 Octane unleaded in order to come out on top?

xbgs351 · 13-10-2009, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dom_105

So what is the magic price difference that E85 has to be as opposed to 91/92 Octane unleaded in order to come out on top?

Unless you have an E85 specific motor with an elevated compression ratio the E85 would have to be more than 43% cheaper.

**CAT600** · 13-10-2009, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Unless you have an E85 specific motor with an elevated compression ratio the E85 would have to be more than 43% cheaper.

More than half the people posting in here that are pro-E85 are basically agreeing with you that the engine needs to be optimised for the fuel.... there are those that will argue facts by misrepresentation but those that understand E85 know that it is a green, high performance fuel that has a justified existance in the modern world.

Can it ever become mainstream in the Western world? Brazil seems to make it happen...... that's a massive real-world example of how it works.

So I say justified existance... hence Ford going down the "Ecoboost" line of thinking by squeezing more power out of less capacity with forced induction and/or higher compression. The "555" prototype (not the 777 race engine) in the states that Ford is playing with uses a common gallery in the engine block that has dedicated E85 running through it which works in conjunction with the engines main DI gasoline fuel system, squirting a small amount of Ethanol into the cylinder JUST prior to main injection, creating a small flame front for the gasoline to propagate from there, it reduces NOX hugely and allows the engine to be run well beyond stoich without the drawbacks that DI-only gives there. There is also plenty of high comp NA engines being tested that are within a small % economy of gasoline-only cars.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Yes, but they could also substantially increase the compression ratio with the old fuel that they were running.

Hmmm, thats a crap argument, I could also say that all the current vehicles running out there could have 1-2 full points of compression removed along with 4-8 degrees of timing and they would still run.... Not using the full potential of E85 and then writing it off follows the same logic I have give above.

Go build a 15:1-17:1 NA engine with the right components on E85, and I bet it will make more power and torque, run cleaner, be renewable and emit less harmful human-affecting emissions than a maxed out 12:1 equivalent gasoline engine, all the while using almost the same amount of fuel.

Daniel

xbgs351 · 13-10-2009, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAT600

Hmmm, thats a crap argument, I could also say that all the current vehicles running out there could have 1-2 full points of compression removed along with 4-8 degrees of timing and they would still run.... Not using the full potential of E85 and then writing it off follows the same logic I have give above.

Go build a 15:1-17:1 NA engine with the right components on E85, and I bet it will make more power and torque, run cleaner, be renewable and emit less harmful human-affecting emissions than a maxed out 12:1 equivalent gasoline engine, all the while using almost the same amount of fuel.

Daniel

Not really as the engines in V8Supercars run 10:1 compression which is extremely low. They really should have something in the range of 12:1 - 14:1.

Even if you were to build two engines with compression ratios optimised to suit the fuel types, the E85 engine would still use a heap more fuel as ethanol has much less energy per litre than petrol does. I may even do the calculations tonight.

xbgs351 · 13-10-2009, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAT600

Go build a 15:1-17:1 NA engine with the right components on E85, and I bet it will make more power and torque, run cleaner, be renewable and emit less harmful human-affecting emissions than a maxed out 12:1 equivalent gasoline engine, all the while using almost the same amount of fuel.

Daniel

Here we go:

Otto cycle efficiency calculated at: http://www.engineering-4e.com/calc3.htm
10:1 = 60%
12:1 = 63%
15:1 = 66%
17:1 = 68%

Now take into account that E85 has only 57% of the energy per litre that petrol has. If we were to compare a 17:1 E85 engine compared to a 10:1 petrol engine we get the following numbers:

Petrol -> 60
E85 -> 68 x 0.57 = 38.8

(60-38.8)/60 x 100 = 35% -> Hence the E85 will use 35% more fuel.

burnz · 13-10-2009, 11:06 AM

just make shure your car is compatable. (corrosive)
http://www.sae.org/technical/papers/971648
http://www.ethanolproducer.com/artic...rticle_id=5270

tickford2001 · 13-10-2009, 01:01 PM

how about going back and reading what has been written throughout this thread with regard to E85 and its application...

Nikked · 13-10-2009, 08:08 PM

K.o...

Qwik6 · 13-10-2009, 10:24 PM

Just found out E85 is sold at the pump in Adelaide.
Only 99.9c a litre.

FreddyDUZ747 · 13-10-2009, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trav 4.0

Just found out E85 is sold at the pump in Adelaide.
Only 99.9c a litre.

Yep and 100 octane e10 is at about every second United aswell.$1.12c a litre roughly.Popping up everywhere.

Qwik6 · 14-10-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gilmore

Yep and 100 octane e10 is at about every second United aswell.$1.12c a litre roughly.Popping up everywhere.

Yeah, been using it for months now. Great stuff.

just_pazz · 14-10-2009, 07:44 AM

how would the 100 octane e10 run in an i6 tuned for premium? I'm interested in trying it out..

xbgs351 · 14-10-2009, 11:08 AM

I now get 12% more fuel for the E85.

phillyc · 14-10-2009, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbgs351

I now get 12% more fuel for the E85.

Down to 12% additional fuel is pretty good.

**ebxr8240** · 14-10-2009, 11:01 PM

Lol seems a waste to mix good [drinking] alcohol with petrol.. haha

xbgs351 · 15-10-2009, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Lol seems a waste to mix good [drinking] alcohol with petrol.. haha

Funny you should say that as much of Australia's ethanol is made from fermented and distilled mollases, which is the same process that they use to make rum. So many of the feral utes that have 'rum injected' stickers on them aren't that far from the truth.

AGRO · 15-10-2009, 10:49 PM

Hi guys.
My 2 cents worth.
E85 is the Super fuel.
For N/A, maybe not as much, but for forced induction, it's the only way to go!!!!!
Yes........ you use more, but you gain more, and when it comes to forced induction, it's fuels like this, that make your ride more enjoyable!!!!!!
HP DOES NOT COME FREE, so E85 will have have it's merits to the select few.
Until you actually use it in the flesh, you just won't understand what it is capable of.
Go do your science calc's, but at the same time, go try it (and tune to optium) and then come back here and let us know what you found.

Regards
AGRO.

Yellow_Festiva · 15-10-2009, 10:57 PM

Just a question that I was thinking about this arvo.

Why the jump from E10 to E85? I mean, why not an E20, E50 etc?

My rationale is that most cars that run on regular 91 and 95 premium can stretch their boundaries and run E10 at probably 95+% efficiency, but engines that run E85 need to go the whole hog, and need to be specially tuned and set up to use E85.

**CAT600** · 16-10-2009, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Just a question that I was thinking about this arvo.

Why the jump from E10 to E85? I mean, why not an E20, E50 etc?

My rationale is that most cars that run on regular 91 and 95 premium can stretch their boundaries and run E10 at probably 95+% efficiency, but engines that run E85 need to go the whole hog, and need to be specially tuned and set up to use E85.

Couple of things.

1) E85 is designed to be ETHANOL, with a minor percentage of gasoline to mainly solve a couple of issues: (A)...... Cold start, E100 (E98) straight ethanol is not so good below about 5 degrees celcius so they add some gasoline to increase fuel volatility and atomisation to assist cold starts and (B)...... Fuel stability, Straight Ethanol (E98) really has a hard-on for water, it wants to grab hold of it to basically keep it physically stable. By adding 15% gasoline the fuel no longer wants to absorb water out of the atmosphere which vastly reduces the corrosiveness of the fuel. Methanol is a lot worse and as such can cause very bad corrosion if not maintaned and fuel systems/oil systems kept clean and flushed.

2) E10 is an easy, cheap way for the Government to get this fuel out there for the public to use and accept, and therefore help prop the Ethanol industry and its primary produce in grain/corn/sugar cane etc. As a bonus, the octane rating increase and the substantial knock suppression properties of the fuel add to the appeal of even such a weak ethanol content. The main thing to accept about E10 and why they dont do a "E20" or more, for example, is that any more than 10% of this fuel in a mix of gasoline would cause cars without a change to fuel supply from the injectors to run leaner than they should and therefore may cause serious issues with burnt valves, melted pistons etc. There is a common misconception that Ethanol kills engines...... that could not be further from the truth, its whether the car is recieving enough fuel to NOT run lean that kills the engine. I gave an example somewhere of a car engine that saw 12.8:1 Air fuel ratios at WOT on 91 unleaded, would immediatley see AFR's of 13.3:1 on a tank of E10..... this is beacuse 10% of the fuel mix now burns at 9.0:1 not 14.7:1 and as such the fuel mix approaches stoich at a lower AFR point. 13.3 might not sound that bad but on something like a Focus XR5 turbo, that sees 14.5:1 AFR's (True dat) it would definatley cause issues as the AFR's would be above the EQUIVALENT of 15:1

3) Ethanol can and is mixed in varying ratios. I know of one particular shop over here that has been testing and promoting a "E40" semi-race fuel with exceptional results. A real nice balance between decent power gains and not overloading/overdoing the fuel systems...... Smart guy that tuner I am speaking off..... a real legend

Daniel

xbgs351 · 16-10-2009, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAT600

Couple of things.

2) E10 is an easy, cheap way for the Government to get this fuel out there for the public to use and accept, and therefore help prop the Ethanol industry and its primary produce in grain/corn/sugar cane etc. As a bonus, the octane rating increase and the substantial knock suppression properties of the fuel add to the appeal of even such a weak ethanol content. The main thing to accept about E10 and why they dont do a "E20" or more, for example, is that any more than 10% of this fuel in a mix of gasoline would cause cars without a change to fuel supply from the injectors to run leaner than they should and therefore may cause serious issues with burnt valves, melted pistons etc. There is a common misconception that Ethanol kills engines...... that could not be further from the truth, its whether the car is recieving enough fuel to NOT run lean that kills the engine. I gave an example somewhere of a car engine that saw 12.8:1 Air fuel ratios at WOT on 91 unleaded, would immediatley see AFR's of 13.3:1 on a tank of E10..... this is beacuse 10% of the fuel mix now burns at 9.0:1 not 14.7:1 and as such the fuel mix approaches stoich at a lower AFR point. 13.3 might not sound that bad but on something like a Focus XR5 turbo, that sees 14.5:1 AFR's (True dat) it would definatley cause issues as the AFR's would be above the EQUIVALENT of 15:1

Daniel

Not that cheap for the government as the exise on the ethanol component of the fuel is fully refunded to the tune of 38.143 cent per litre.

**ebxr8240** · 16-10-2009, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xbgs351

Not that cheap for the government as the exise on the ethanol component of the fuel is fully refunded to the tune of 38.143 cent per litre.

Yea but the $$$ stays here.. This is one product that isn't cheaper to produce overseas !! YET !!

burnz · 16-10-2009, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Yea but the $$$ stays here.. This is one product that isn't cheaper to produce overseas !! YET !!

i was reading an artical the other day that brazil runs out of ethanol
because the producers get more money exporting than they do selling local.

sooner or later the price of ethanol with be priced on global demands.

petrol without tax is around 60cpl, ethanol is around $1.25 without subsidy.