 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / January 2007The New Hot Rod Lincoln!
Another car Ford MUST build!! http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070101/AUTO01/701010343/1148 Patrick > Another car Ford MUST build!! > > http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070101/AUTO01/701010343/1148 Trouble is, I don't think I am the only one who has grown weary of ford's way of eventually building the cars. I'll believe ford is serious when they build this and their other ideas such that they actually do have the E85 technology (which first appeared about a decade ago on the super stallion) and aren't built as some limited-edition marketing excerise. >> Another car Ford MUST build!! >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > E85 technology (which first appeared about a decade ago on the super > stallion) and aren't built as some limited-edition marketing excerise. True, but this thing looks great. And face it, alternative fuel is the only way of the future. I'm getting sick or reading daily where the planet is headed. Time for Ford to be a leader again. Brad >>> Another car Ford MUST build!! >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Brad Horrible front end, but that's what people said about the DC 300 when it first appeared. E-85 is nothing more than a marketing thing to make people feel better about not burning gasoline. It's inefficient and expensive. At best, it's a stopgap until makers fully develop true alternate fuel sources. Ford will become a leader again only after they dump unions and get their marketing together. Both are dragging the company to a slow death. > E-85 is nothing more than a marketing thing to make people feel better > about not burning gasoline. It's inefficient and expensive. At best, > it's a stopgap until makers fully develop true alternate fuel sources. It depends on how the ethanol is made. Anything can be made with an inefficient process. However, if the energy used to produce the ethanol doesn't come from oil, it works, even if it turns out be nothing more than a 'battery' for something like wind or nuke power to be used in a car. >> E-85 is nothing more than a marketing thing to make people feel better >> about not burning gasoline. It's inefficient and expensive. At best, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > than a 'battery' for something like wind or nuke power to be used in a > car. The Ethanol Illusion To begin with the facts: Some 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol were produced from corn in the United States in 2005, and sold as a blend with gasoline that accounted for 2.8 percent of total gasoline sales by volume in that year. But here's the rub. Ethanol's energy content is significantly less than gasoline's. You need 1.5 gallons of ethanol to drive the same distance you go on a gallon of gasoline. So on an energy basis, the savings in gasoline associated with U.S. ethanol use in 2005 amounted only to 1.9 percent of total gasoline sales. The wholesale price of gasoline in the United States in the spring of 2006 was about $2.20 a gallon (with retail prices closer to $3.00 a gallon). For ethanol to be competitive economically, it would have to sell for less than $1.50 a gallon. Yet by May 2006, the wholesale price of ethanol had risen to $2.65 a gallon (or in reality $3.16 a gallon, if you allow for the subsidy of 51 cents a gallon authorized by Congress in 2004 to encourage production). The wholesale price of ethanol in corn-producing states such as Illinois was $3.10 a gallon in July 2006; in California, it had increased to $4.00 a gallon. Allowing for the subsidy and the lower energy value of ethanol, this meant that motorists in California were paying more than $6.00 for enough ethanol to obtain the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline! Energy yield from corn ethanol equals approximately 125 percent of the fossil energy used to produce it. Primary sources of fossil energy used in U.S. ethanol production: natural gas and coal; there is significant net savings in terms of oil use. >> It depends on how the ethanol is made. Anything can be made with an >> inefficient process. However, if the energy used to produce the ethanol >> doesn't come from oil, it works, even if it turns out be nothing more >> than a 'battery' for something like wind or nuke power to be used in a >> car. > The Ethanol Illusion Here we go again.... > To begin with the facts: Some 3.9 billion gallons of ethanol were produced > from corn Hint: Corn isn't the only thing you can make ethanol from. > in the United States in 2005, and sold as a blend with gasoline > that accounted for 2.8 percent of total gasoline sales by volume in that > year. But here's the rub. Ethanol's energy content is significantly less > than gasoline's. You need 1.5 gallons of ethanol to drive the same distance > you go on a gallon of gasoline. The problem is the fuels are different, so you can't directly use the rough 66% of the energy per unit volume like this unless one has a rather poorly designed E85 vehicle that acts like it's burning gasoline. Plus, E85 isn't straight ethanol, but 85/15 ethanol/gasoline. > Energy yield from corn ethanol equals approximately 125 percent of the > fossil energy used to produce it. Primary sources of fossil energy used in > U.S. ethanol production: natural gas and coal; there is significant net > savings in terms of oil use. And if oil isn't used, and there is no reason to use oil to produce ethanol, then it's all a net gain over oil. >>> It depends on how the ethanol is made. Anything can be made with an >>> inefficient process. However, if the energy used to produce the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Hint: Corn isn't the only thing you can make ethanol from. Right. They're fighting down here with the sugar growers to try to use sugar cane for it. >> in the United States in 2005, and sold as a blend with gasoline >> that accounted for 2.8 percent of total gasoline sales by volume in [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > gasoline. Plus, E85 isn't straight ethanol, but 85/15 > ethanol/gasoline. No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than straight gasoline. >> Energy yield from corn ethanol equals approximately 125 percent of >> the fossil energy used to produce it. Primary sources of fossil [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And if oil isn't used, and there is no reason to use oil to produce > ethanol, then it's all a net gain over oil. Bottom line: it's more expensive to run your vehicle on E-85 than gasoline. As I've already said, all this "technology" (e.g., E-85 and hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is developed. >>>> It depends on how the ethanol is made. Anything can be made with an >>>> inefficient process. However, if the energy used to produce the [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is > developed. The internal combustion engine is inherently a poor choice as a power plant. It simply releases too much energy as hot exhaust gases through the tail pipe. If we want to really look at shaking things up then fuel cell technology or some other non-combustion process is the way to go. Basically eliminate the moving parts of the energy producing part of the engine should be the goal. We would be better off with this type of technology even if we used oil to create the fuel (i.e. hydrogen etc.) for it. At least we would be getting more usable energy from every barrel of oil and with far less pollution. As for using our food production resources for energy production, I think it is a bad habit to get into. The logistics of generating an amount of alcohol based fuel to make a difference would require an extensive infrastructure and probably consume more energy than it is worth. I could also see the impact on the environment to be very bad if ethanol production is done on an industrial scale. IMO, the economic development China will drive us to a solution for energy production. There just isn't enough oil, or production capacity, to support two 800 lb. oil consuming gorillas and we are the only one of the two that can make the move to alternative fuels. So the good news is that development of alternative, clean energy will happen eventually but we may not live to see it. >>>>> It depends on how the ethanol is made. Anything can be made with an >>>>> inefficient process. However, if the energy used to produce the [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] > is that development of alternative, clean energy will happen eventually > but we may not live to see it. I haven't read all the other stuff yet, but IMO electric and/or hydrogen is the future. >>>>>> It depends on how the ethanol is made. Anything can be made with > an [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > I haven't read all the other stuff yet, but IMO electric and/or hydrogen > is the future. I agree. Electricity stored in batteries and/or electricity generated by fuel cell technology or some similar. > No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than > straight gasoline. No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline. >>> Energy yield from corn ethanol equals approximately 125 percent of >>> the fossil energy used to produce it. Primary sources of fossil >>> energy used in U.S. ethanol production: natural gas and coal; there >>> is significant net savings in terms of oil use. >> And if oil isn't used, and there is no reason to use oil to produce >> ethanol, then it's all a net gain over oil. > Bottom line: it's more expensive to run your vehicle on E-85 than > gasoline. The analysis provided ignores various factors to arrive at that desired conclusion. > As I've already said, all this "technology" (e.g., E-85 and > hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is > developed. Would you rather have a 400hp E85 engine powered mustang or electric mustang with little power and/or little range? >> No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than >> straight gasoline. > > No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those > made for pump gasoline. And who blew that smoke up your you know where? Please cite source references to E85 engines being more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline. I contend, all current E85 engines have no more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline. >>>> Energy yield from corn ethanol equals approximately 125 percent of >>>> the fossil energy used to produce it. Primary sources of fossil [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Would you rather have a 400hp E85 engine powered mustang or electric > mustang with little power and/or little range? Electric, no power? You do realize how most all modern trains (hint diesel/electric) are moved, don't you? >>> No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than >>> straight gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > And who blew that smoke up your you know where? Two semesters of thermodynamics, a semester of heat and mass transfer, and basic knowledge of 4 stroke internal combustion engines. > Please cite source references to E85 engines being more thermally efficient > than those made for pump gasoline. It's basic knowledge, it's not my fault you're ignorant and aggrogant about it at the same time. E85 has higher octane, octane is a measure of resistance to preignition. The more resistant to preignition the fuel is, the higher the compression can be. The higher the compression, the greater the thermal efficiency. > I contend, all current E85 engines have no more thermally efficient than > those made for pump gasoline. And of course you have no cite, nor anything else. However, any decent flex fuel vehicle on the market today will at least advance the timing. Of course there is much more that can be done with forced induction, as found in a number of proposed ford vehicles over the years and some that are on the road from other manufacturers. (saab I believe) >>> As I've already said, all this "technology" (e.g., E-85 and >>> hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is >>> developed. >> Would you rather have a 400hp E85 engine powered mustang or electric >> mustang with little power and/or little range? > Electric, no power? You do realize how most all modern trains (hint > diesel/electric) are moved, don't you? Having trouble reading? Sure, you can make a fast electric, good luck having a enough juice to get home after a couple dragstrip runs though. That's why it reads with little power and/or range. Electric motors aren't the problem, it's the energy storage and delivery. Now by the time you overcome those problems with a hybrid set up as in your locomotive example, you have something that is so big, it's only suitible for locomotives, city buses, and other vehicles that weigh a lot and are quite large. And because of that size and weight, rather slow on the acceleration numbers. >>>> No matter how you cut it, it's significantly less efficient than >>>> straight gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Two semesters of thermodynamics, a semester of heat and mass transfer, > and basic knowledge of 4 stroke internal combustion engines. I'm not trying to pick a fight here but the engineer in me wants to know what exactly makes an FFV engine more thermally efficient? I thought the ethanol capable engines basically had components that were compatible with the alcohol in the fuel. Some tubing, seals etc. can corrode or deteriorate in the presence of alcohol so the designation was developed to differentiate the component upgrades to burn alcohol. >> Please cite source references to E85 engines being more thermally efficient >> than those made for pump gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The more resistant to preignition the fuel is, the higher the compression > can be. The higher the compression, the greater the thermal efficiency. You are talking about programing differences I presume. I have never heard of any alternative fuel engines that can vary the CR depending on the fuel used. Last I heard was that these dual fuel engines also can run straight gasoline so the higher compression you presume these engines have would cause problems with 100% 87 octane gasoline. FFV vehicles >> I contend, all current E85 engines have no more thermally efficient than >> those made for pump gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > found in a number of proposed ford vehicles over the years and some that > are on the road from other manufacturers. (saab I believe) FFV vehicles can detect the amount of alcohol in the fuel and adjust the tune accordingly. This does not change the CR at all and since they must also run on 100% 87 octane I would assume the FFV engines have the same CR as their non-FFV counterparts. >>>> As I've already said, all this "technology" (e.g., E-85 and >>>> hybrids) are only a feel-good stopgap until the real solution is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > quite large. And because of that size and weight, rather slow on the > acceleration numbers. Check this out: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php > I'm not trying to pick a fight here but the engineer in me wants to know > what exactly makes an FFV engine more thermally efficient? E85 is more resistant to preignition. Take advantage of it just like one would racing gasoline. > I thought > the ethanol capable engines basically had components that were > compatible with the alcohol in the fuel. Some tubing, seals etc. can > corrode or deteriorate in the presence of alcohol so the designation was > developed to differentiate the component upgrades to burn alcohol. They do, but control systems can take advantage of E85's properties too. >> E85 has higher octane, octane is a measure of resistance to preignition. >> The more resistant to preignition the fuel is, the higher the compression >> can be. The higher the compression, the greater the thermal efficiency. > You are talking about programing differences I presume. I have never > heard of any alternative fuel engines that can vary the CR depending on > the fuel used. They advance timing and/or increase the pressure of forced induction. > Last I heard was that these dual fuel engines also can > run straight gasoline so the higher compression you presume these > engines have would cause problems with 100% 87 octane gasoline. That's why one does CR changes with the turbo or supercharger rather than with the combustion chamber volume. >> And of course you have no cite, nor anything else. However, any decent >> flex fuel vehicle on the market today will at least advance the timing. >> Of course there is much more that can be done with forced induction, as >> found in a number of proposed ford vehicles over the years and some that >> are on the road from other manufacturers. (saab I believe) > FFV vehicles can detect the amount of alcohol in the fuel and adjust the > tune accordingly. This does not change the CR at all and since they > must also run on 100% 87 octane I would assume the FFV engines have the > same CR as their non-FFV counterparts. I did not say it changed the CR. Read again where I specifically write "advance the timing". > Check this out: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php Keep in mind you don't get 250 mile range with the accleration. You get one or the other, exactly what I stated previously. Another deception is that they compare the weight of the original engine to the electric motors alone. This is unfair, as the new configuration also requires batteries/capacitors and an ICE (for the hybrid part), which are far heavier than the orignal engine's fuel tank. Also I wasn't talking hybrids, I was talking pure electrics. but hey, it's usenet, subject changes are all part of the game. >> I'm not trying to pick a fight here but the engineer in me wants to know >> what exactly makes an FFV engine more thermally efficient? > > E85 is more resistant to preignition. Take advantage of it just like one > would racing gasoline. IF the CR is basically the same for an FFV and a normal engine how is the FFV engine more thermally efficient? >> I thought >> the ethanol capable engines basically had components that were [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > They advance timing and/or increase the pressure of forced induction. The higher boost in needed just for the E85 fuel to produce as much hp as 100% gasoline. I found that it was better for me to use 100% gasoline and inject 100% water (verses an H2O/alcohol mix) on my supercharged Mustang. I made more hp this way and still ran 16 psi of boost. Even Ford's website admits that the mileage of their FFV engines using E85 is lower than the same engine using 100% gasoline. The only real benefit of FFV engines is lower overall emissions according to them. >> Last I heard was that these dual fuel engines also can >> run straight gasoline so the higher compression you presume these >> engines have would cause problems with 100% 87 octane gasoline. > > That's why one does CR changes with the turbo or supercharger rather than > with the combustion chamber volume. I'm not sure turbo/supercharging is very relavent to this discussion. Most FFV vehicles are not high performance models. >>> And of course you have no cite, nor anything else. However, any decent >>> flex fuel vehicle on the market today will at least advance the timing. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I did not say it changed the CR. Read again where I specifically write > "advance the timing". You said FFV engines are more thermally efficient. Then said this was because the FFV engines have a higher CR. I'm just trying to find out why FFV engines are more thermally efficient. >> Check this out: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php > > Keep in mind you don't get 250 mile range with the accleration. You get > one or the other, exactly what I stated previously. And exactly what mileage does a gasoline engine get while busting through the 1/4 mile? I can tell you that there are times with my '89 LX that I was lucky to see 80-100 miles from a tank (14.5 gallons). BTW, this hybrid does 0-60mph in the same time as my Mustang. Did you see the total range of this car? It was over 900 miles for the electric and gasoline capacity. It gets up to 80 mpg AND does 0-60mph in 4.5 seconds. Read the entire article. The car is quite impressive, IMHO. > Another deception is that they compare the weight of the original engine > to the electric motors alone. This is unfair, as the new configuration > also requires batteries/capacitors and an ICE (for the hybrid part), which > are far heavier than the orignal engine's fuel tank. It can't be THAT heavy if it gets 80 mpg and does 0-60mph in 4.5 seconds. Did you see where the wheels have no conventional brakes? It switches the motors in the wheels to generator mode and uses the braking energy to charge the batteries. I can't imagine the performance to had from this type of drive train. Each wheel can be controlled independently and in a very precise manner. I like it! > Also I wasn't talking hybrids, I was talking pure electrics. but hey, > it's usenet, subject changes are all part of the game. Since the gasoline engine in the car is a 250cc two cylinder four stroke I doubt it contributes much to the car's 4.5 0-60mph time. From what I read it runs this time mostly on the batteries. A 200-250 mile all-electric range isn't too shabby and would suffice for most daily driving needs. Also, it can be recharged through an external electrical connection so the on-board engine doesn't have to be used at all. >> E85 is more resistant to preignition. Take advantage of it just like one >> would racing gasoline. > IF the CR is basically the same for an FFV and a normal engine how is > the FFV engine more thermally efficient? You keep wanting to mix and match. Where I say E85 only you say FFV. Where I say FFV you say gasoline... where I say electric you say hybrid. But in any case. Figure it out from the ford and other manufacturers' press releases because I am running out of ways to say the same thing over and over and over and over and over again. Advance the timing, increase the boost as octane (ie %ethanol) allows. That's about as simple as I can put it. >> They advance timing and/or increase the pressure of forced induction. > The higher boost in needed just for the E85 fuel to produce as much hp > as 100% gasoline. NO! CITE? You produce the same amount of horsepower by injecting more fuel. That's all you need to do. (alcohol has O2 in it) > I found that it was better for me to use 100% > gasoline and inject 100% water (verses an H2O/alcohol mix) on my > supercharged Mustang. I made more hp this way and still ran 16 psi of > boost. Even Ford's website admits that the mileage of their FFV engines > using E85 is lower than the same engine using 100% gasoline. The only > real benefit of FFV engines is lower overall emissions according to them. MPG != thermal effeciency! The former is distance per unit volume of fuel, the later is energy vs useful work out. >>> Last I heard was that these dual fuel engines also can >>> run straight gasoline so the higher compression you presume these >>> engines have would cause problems with 100% 87 octane gasoline. >> That's why one does CR changes with the turbo or supercharger rather than >> with the combustion chamber volume. > I'm not sure turbo/supercharging is very relavent to this discussion. > Most FFV vehicles are not high performance models. Fine, you are against ethanol, great. I don't care. You asked how it's done, I told you and you don't like the answer so you are digging for reasons to call it irrelevant. You're mind is made up so this pointless. >> I did not say it changed the CR. Read again where I specifically write >> "advance the timing". > You said FFV engines are more thermally efficient. I said they can be. > Then said this was > because the FFV engines have a higher CR. I'm just trying to find out > why FFV engines are more thermally efficient. No, you're mixing and matching and confusing things as you slice either through ignorance or on purpose and I don't care which. It's pretty clear your mind is made up on the subject. And no, I didn't say FFV. I said E85. As in something designed for E85 can increase the static compression ratio. FFV vehicles at the very least advance timing, some mess around with forced induction as well. >>> Check this out: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php >> Keep in mind you don't get 250 mile range with the accleration. You get >> one or the other, exactly what I stated previously. > And exactly what mileage does a gasoline engine get while busting > through the 1/4 mile? I can tell you that there are times with my '89 > LX that I was lucky to see 80-100 miles from a tank (14.5 gallons). Your mustang doesn't eek out it's range by very gentle acceleration the way an electric does. Do a couple of those runs and the battery is going to be flat if it's anything like other electrics. Given the fact it's using capacitors it's going for fast discharge. > BTW, this hybrid does 0-60mph in the same time as my Mustang. Did you > see the total range of this car? It was over 900 miles for the electric > and gasoline capacity. It gets up to 80 mpg AND does 0-60mph in 4.5 > seconds. Read the entire article. The car is quite impressive, IMHO. Disprove my statement about electrics with a hybrid... disprove my statements about E85 vehicles with FFVs. How about I introduce the grey's flying saucers? This isn't some 500hp monster, it's just a light weight little car. When you want a lot of power on demand without storage as per the locomotive concept that was introduced, things get big. This doesn't fit the statement on locomotive style hybrids either because it uses energy storage. >> Another deception is that they compare the weight of the original engine >> to the electric motors alone. This is unfair, as the new configuration >> also requires batteries/capacitors and an ICE (for the hybrid part), which >> are far heavier than the orignal engine's fuel tank. > It can't be THAT heavy if it gets 80 mpg and does 0-60mph in 4.5 > seconds. I stated it's heavier than stock when they were trying to make it seem like it would be lighter. That's all, heavier... weighs more than. Like a GT500 mustang weighs more than GT. > Did you see where the wheels have no conventional brakes? It > switches the motors in the wheels to generator mode and uses the braking > energy to charge the batteries. I can't imagine the performance to had > from this type of drive train. Each wheel can be controlled > independently and in a very precise manner. I like it! There is nothing other than maybe the capacitors here that wasn't done a decade ago. >> Also I wasn't talking hybrids, I was talking pure electrics. but hey, >> it's usenet, subject changes are all part of the game. > Since the gasoline engine in the car is a 250cc two cylinder four stroke > I doubt it contributes much to the car's 4.5 0-60mph time. You're great at assigning me arguments I didn't make. If it's got electrics on the wheels it probably has no mechanical connection between the ICE and the wheels anyway. >>> E85 is more resistant to preignition. Take advantage of it just like one >>> would racing gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 122 lines] > electrics on the wheels it probably has no mechanical connection between > the ICE and the wheels anyway. Brent, Are you now back peddling? You emphatically stated that "engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline." Now you state "MPG != thermal effeciency! The former is distance per unit volume of fuel, the later is energy vs useful work out." Which seems to directly contradict your "engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline." statement. Since Ford's own website says that the mileage of their current E85 engines is lower than that of their same engines using 100% gasoline. You might need to separate you optimism about the future possibilities of E85 engines from the current reality. > Are you now back peddling? You emphatically stated that "engines made to > exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline." There is no back peddling what so ever. If it isn't exploiting E85's anti-knock characteristics it's not more thermally efficient. > Now you state "MPG != thermal effeciency! The former is distance per unit > volume of fuel, the later is energy vs useful work out." Which seems to > directly contradict your "engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally > efficient than those made for pump gasoline." statement. No, your statement above means you don't what thermal effeciency is. > Since Ford's own > website says that the mileage of their current E85 engines is lower than > that of their same engines using 100% gasoline. MPG IS NOT THERMAL EFFECIENCY! MPG is really an economic measure of effeciency not an energy one. > You might need to separate you optimism about the future possibilities of > E85 engines from the current reality. You might want to take some time to learn basics. Try picking up a thermal dynamics textbook. >>> E85 is more resistant to preignition. Take advantage of it just like one >>> would racing gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Advance the timing, increase the boost as octane (ie %ethanol) allows. > That's about as simple as I can put it. Increase boost? Ford doesn't offer an FFV engine with forced induction as it is with the overwhelming majority of FFV engines from all auto makers. There is no free lunch with E85 fuel. It takes more volume of E85 fuel to perform the same work as 100% gasoline. The reason is the specific energy of gasoline is higher than alcohol. FFV engines get BETTER mileage using gasoline than E85 fuel. E85 might be cheaper but since more fuel is burned per mile traveled is ends up being LESS efficient than burning gasoline. >>> They advance timing and/or increase the pressure of forced induction. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > NO! CITE? You produce the same amount of horsepower by injecting more > fuel. That's all you need to do. (alcohol has O2 in it) I don't have to cite anything. Alcohol has a lower specific energy than gasoline. Why do you think an FFV engine gets HIGHER mileage with 100% gasoline than with E85? This is the case even with the advanced timing allowed from the 15% alcohol in the mix. Thermal efficiency has nothing to do with it. It is the higher specific energy of gasoline. The same happens in normal engines and to a greater degree because the timing isn't advanced for the E85 fuel. >> I found that it was better for me to use 100% >> gasoline and inject 100% water (verses an H2O/alcohol mix) on my [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > MPG != thermal effeciency! The former is distance per unit volume of > fuel, the later is energy vs useful work out. MPG is a good indicator of overall vehicle efficiency. Higher MPG means more useful work was extracted from a given volume of fuel. >>>> Last I heard was that these dual fuel engines also can >>>> run straight gasoline so the higher compression you presume these [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > done, I told you and you don't like the answer so you are digging for > reasons to call it irrelevant. You're mind is made up so this pointless. Ethanol isn't our saving grace for energy independence. I suspect it is being pushed by people that stand to gain financially. IMO, there are far better solutions to energy independence than depleting our top soil just to fill up a gas tank. Believe me, I'm no tree hugger but even I have a limit as to what makes sense. To me, eating is more important than driving. >>> I did not say it changed the CR. Read again where I specifically write >>> "advance the timing". > >> You said FFV engines are more thermally efficient. > > I said they can be. .... but you haven't given any reason why they can be. You seem to want to claim that alcohol allows more boost in FI engines and therefore they are more thermally efficient. Not matter what fuel you use the air-fuel ratio is optimal at 14.7:1 and this is true under N/A or FI conditions. Most FI engines run lower A/R because of the need to keep combustion temperatures down (there goes thermal efficiency out the window). Also consider that no, I repeat NO, engine in any vehicle sold by the major automakers operates under boost for normal driving conditions. They operate as N/A engines and the boost is only for enhanced hp numbers. If running under boost was more thermally efficient then we would be buying cars that operate under continuous boost. Just because you get higher hp numbers doesn't mean the engine is more thermally efficient. >> Then said this was >> because the FFV engines have a higher CR. I'm just trying to find out [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > ratio. FFV vehicles at the very least advance timing, some mess around > with forced induction as well. Here is your statement that made me respond to your previous post: "No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline." I still waiting for an answer to my original question... "Why is an FFV engine more thermally efficient than a non-FFV engine?" Remember, FFV engines are supposed to exploit E85 fuels. >>>> Check this out: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid_mini.php > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > to be flat if it's anything like other electrics. Given the fact it's > using capacitors it's going for fast discharge. You missed my point all together. It was that ANY VEHICLE has reduced range when driven hard. Don't just make this fact a fault of the electric Mini. It is inherent with ALL types of vehicles. >> BTW, this hybrid does 0-60mph in the same time as my Mustang. Did you >> see the total range of this car? It was over 900 miles for the electric [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fit the statement on locomotive style hybrids either because it uses > energy storage. Come back to the reservation. You're wondering far afield. ;) >>> Another deception is that they compare the weight of the original engine >>> to the electric motors alone. This is unfair, as the new configuration [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > like it would be lighter. That's all, heavier... weighs more than. Like a > GT500 mustang weighs more than GT. I'm sure it is heavier than a regular Mini and maybe even on par with a GT500. The thing does 0-60mph in 4.5 seconds AND get 80 MPG!!! Forget the weight, it performs great at both ends of the spectrum. Also, it is a prototype vehicle so I would expect the weight to be high. The batteries are lithium based, the electric motors are light weight and the ICE weighs under 40 pounds. The electronics probably weight the car down more than anything. With some design refinement it could probably be relatively light weight and have even better acceleration and mpg numbers. >> Did you see where the wheels have no conventional brakes? It >> switches the motors in the wheels to generator mode and uses the braking [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > There is nothing other than maybe the capacitors here that wasn't done a > decade ago. Forgetting the electronics, aren't we? >>> Also I wasn't talking hybrids, I was talking pure electrics. but hey, >>> it's usenet, subject changes are all part of the game. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You're great at assigning me arguments I didn't make. Here is your original post: "Having trouble reading? Sure, you can make a fast electric, good luck having a enough juice to get home after a couple drag strip runs though. That's why it reads with little power and/or range. Electric motors aren't the problem, it's the energy storage and delivery. Now by the time you overcome those problems with a hybrid set up as in your locomotive example, you have something that is so big, it's only suitable for locomotives, city buses, and other vehicles that weigh a lot and are quite large. And because of that size and weight, rather slow on the acceleration numbers." YOU brought up electric and hybrid vehicles. I merely showed you an example of a car that is fast, has fantastic range (even all electric) and is in a small form factor. You made the above statement and I just replied. > If it's got > electrics on the wheels it probably has no mechanical connection between > the ICE and the wheels anyway. Not sure how this is relavent to this discussion. It doesn't need a mechanical connection beyond wiring to convey electricity to, and from, the electric motors and transfer electronic control signals. >> Advance the timing, increase the boost as octane (ie %ethanol) allows. >> That's about as simple as I can put it. > Increase boost? Ford doesn't offer an FFV engine with forced induction > as it is with the overwhelming majority of FFV engines from all auto > makers. I am getting sick of this circular nonsense. I tell you what can be done, you whine it's not commonplace and therefore not valid. I understand you don't like E85 and are grasping at straws to dismiss what I've stated, but your usenet games are getting tiresome really fast. > There is no free lunch with E85 fuel. Strawman. > It takes more volume of > E85 fuel to perform the same work as 100% gasoline. Depends on the thermal effecicency of the engines being compared and thusly not universally true. > The reason is the specific energy of gasoline is higher than alcohol. Which is neither here nor there for thermal efficency and of value for MPG. > FFV engines get BETTER mileage using gasoline than E85 fuel. MPG is not the same as work out / energy > E85 might be cheaper but > since more fuel is burned per mile traveled is ends up being LESS > efficient than burning gasoline. Here you go mixing things up again. >>>> They advance timing and/or increase the pressure of forced induction. >>> The higher boost in needed just for the E85 fuel to produce as much hp >>> as 100% gasoline. >> NO! CITE? You produce the same amount of horsepower by injecting more >> fuel. That's all you need to do. (alcohol has O2 in it) > I don't have to cite anything. But I always have to... typical sh.t. years and years I put up and others never do sh.t but pull it out of their a.s. > Alcohol has a lower specific energy than > gasoline. No sh.t sherlock, you want a gold star for that? > Why do you think an FFV engine gets HIGHER mileage with 100% > gasoline than with E85? This is the case even with the advanced timing > allowed from the 15% alcohol in the mix. Thermal efficiency has nothing > to do with it. It is the higher specific energy of gasoline. The same > happens in normal engines and to a greater degree because the timing > isn't advanced for the E85 fuel. Make an argument for me and knock it down. I _NEVER_ claimed higher MPG for E85. Good job with the strawman. >>> I found that it was better for me to use 100% >>> gasoline and inject 100% water (verses an H2O/alcohol mix) on my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> MPG != thermal effeciency! The former is distance per unit volume of >> fuel, the later is energy vs useful work out. > MPG is a good indicator of overall vehicle efficiency. Higher MPG means > more useful work was extracted from a given volume of fuel. MPG is an economic cost to operate indicator. One can have a very energy efficent engine that needs to run WOT throttle making full power to be that way but when put in a car doesn't fare well going to the grocery store and back in terms of MPG. As per the cite I made for the other guy, thermal effeciency for E85 equal to that of a diesel ends up with an MPG close to that of a gasoline powered car. Comparing MPG of two different fuels is nonsense, it doesn't tell you which engine fuel combo is more effecient, it tells you which one will cost less to operate if you know the fuel costs, but it says nothing of which one has the greater thermal effeciency unless you bust out the specific energies at get busy with a calculator. >>> I'm not sure turbo/supercharging is very relavent to this discussion. >>> Most FFV vehicles are not high performance models. >> Fine, you are against ethanol, great. I don't care. You asked how it's >> done, I told you and you don't like the answer so you are digging for >> reasons to call it irrelevant. You're mind is made up so this pointless. > Ethanol isn't our saving grace for energy independence. Strawman. > I suspect it is > being pushed by people that stand to gain financially. And oil depedency and oil wars aren't? > IMO, there are > far better solutions to energy independence than depleting our top soil > just to fill up a gas tank. Believe me, I'm no tree hugger but even I > have a limit as to what makes sense. To me, eating is more important > than driving. Could use the less profitable oil sources in the americas, but big oil doesn't want to, so it isn't done. Instead the taxpayers and federal borrowing from china is being done to try and control the unstable middle east. There are a lot of solutions and since we don't have a free market situation when it comes to oil and gasoline, no new players can just open up and start undercutting something else needs to be done. >>>> I did not say it changed the CR. Read again where I specifically write >>>> "advance the timing". [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > .... but you haven't given any reason why they can be. I did, several times over. > You seem to want > to claim that alcohol allows more boost in FI engines and therefore they > are more thermally efficient. Not matter what fuel you use the air-fuel > ratio is optimal at 14.7:1 and this is true under N/A or FI conditions. > Most FI engines run lower A/R because of the need to keep combustion > temperatures down (there goes thermal efficiency out the window). Now you are confusing things even further. Go crack open that thermodynamics textbook you must have had at some point and review. > Also consider that no, I repeat NO, engine in any vehicle sold by the > major automakers operates under boost for normal driving conditions. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you get higher hp numbers doesn't mean the engine is more thermally > efficient. Nice strawman coupled with igorance. Read the wikipedia cite I made in the other post. Just read it, it's obvious I can't get through to you and you just want to make stuff up and then assign it to me and knock it down. I told you how it is achieved in a flex fuel situation. If E85 was widely available the static compression ratio would just be increased for maximum benefit. >>> Then said this was >>> because the FFV engines have a higher CR. I'm just trying to find out [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> ratio. FFV vehicles at the very least advance timing, some mess around >> with forced induction as well. > Here is your statement that made me respond to your previous post: > "No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those > made for pump gasoline." > I still waiting for an answer to my original question... "Why is an FFV > engine more thermally efficient than a non-FFV engine?" Remember, FFV > engines are supposed to exploit E85 fuels. Some might exploit the benefits of E85, others might just run on it. Of course I made that statement under the context of exploiting the characteristics of E85 but you now want to change the meaning for your own purposes. >>> And exactly what mileage does a gasoline engine get while busting >>> through the 1/4 mile? I can tell you that there are times with my '89 >>> LX that I was lucky to see 80-100 miles from a tank (14.5 gallons). >> Your mustang doesn't eek out it's range by very gentle acceleration the >> way an electric does. Do a couple of those runs and the battery is going >> to be flat if it's anything like other electrics. Given the fact it's >> using capacitors it's going for fast discharge. > You missed my point all together. It was that ANY VEHICLE has reduced > range when driven hard. Don't just make this fact a fault of the > electric Mini. It is inherent with ALL types of vehicles. Yes it is. Thank you captain obvious. However the reduced range with an electric is much more severe. That 250 miles will drop to 50 or 60. That 250 mile range is eeked out with careful acceleration, your mustang's range isn't. That is my point. Your mustang will still have range to get you home, an electric, well you'll be staying overnight while it recharges. >>> BTW, this hybrid does 0-60mph in the same time as my Mustang. Did you >>> see the total range of this car? It was over 900 miles for the electric >>> and gasoline capacity. It gets up to 80 mpg AND does 0-60mph in 4.5 >>> seconds. Read the entire article. The car is quite impressive, IMHO. >> Disprove my statement about electrics with a hybrid... disprove my >> statements about E85 vehicles with FFVs. How about I introduce the grey's [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> fit the statement on locomotive style hybrids either because it uses >> energy storage. > Come back to the reservation. You're wondering far afield. ;) You like the usenet games. >>>> Another deception is that they compare the weight of the original engine >>>> to the electric motors alone. This is unfair, as the new configuration >>>> also requires batteries/capacitors and an ICE (for the hybrid part), which >>>> are far heavier than the orignal engine's fuel tank. >>> It can't be THAT heavy if it gets 80 mpg and does 0-60mph in 4.5 >>> seconds. >> I stated it's heavier than stock when they were trying to make it seem >> like it would be lighter. That's all, heavier... weighs more than. Like a >> GT500 mustang weighs more than GT. > I'm sure it is heavier than a regular Mini Then you have no argument. >> There is nothing other than maybe the capacitors here that wasn't done a >> decade ago. > Forgetting the electronics, aren't we? I didn't notice anything special skimming the article. regenerative braking, management of the charging yadda yadda... I didn't catch any new and special thing... maybe you can point it out? >>>> Also I wasn't talking hybrids, I was talking pure electrics. but hey, >>>> it's usenet, subject changes are all part of the game. >>> Since the gasoline engine in the car is a 250cc two cylinder four stroke >>> I doubt it contributes much to the car's 4.5 0-60mph time. >> You're great at assigning me arguments I didn't make. > Here is your original post: > "Having trouble reading? Sure, you can make a fast electric, good luck > having a enough juice to get home after a couple drag strip runs though. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > lot and are quite large. And because of that size and weight, rather > slow on the acceleration numbers." > YOU brought up electric and hybrid vehicles. Read the post I was responding to, mr usenet games. > I merely showed you an > example of a car that is fast, has fantastic range (even all electric) > and is in a small form factor. You made the above statement and I just > replied. You showed me something that isn't particularly new written up in the usual biased way so it looks great to someone ignorant of the details. >> If it's got >> electrics on the wheels it probably has no mechanical connection between >> the ICE and the wheels anyway. > Not sure how this is relavent to this discussion. It doesn't need a > mechanical connection beyond wiring to convey electricity to, and from, > the electric motors and transfer electronic control signals. You just mentioned the ICE helping acceleration, parallel hybrids do that with a mechanical connection to the wheels. Series hyrbids run a generator which charges batteries or powers the electrics. The ICE of a series hybrid that is used to charge batteries is too small to help acceleration and generally won't provide the motors with juice directly, always through the batteries. You are really a piece of work. You make a statement that you can't back up and then proceed to bend the subject matter all over the place to cover your misstatement on the topic at hand. Then you have to gonads to say we are the ones responsible for the deviation when asking you for clarification. Whatever your problem is, it warrants you seeing a therapist. Do you have the same problem in your real life that you have here in ramfm or are we the only ones that get your "I am always right" attitude? I'm not angry with you, I feel sorry for you because what happened in this thread occurs way too often for you. Ever wonder why that is? May peace find you. > You are really a piece of work. You make a statement that you can't > back up and then proceed to bend the subject matter all over the place > to cover your misstatement on the topic at hand. Projection. I am the only to produce any cites backing up views, as usual. You ran the discussion in circles. > Then you have to > gonads to say we are the ones responsible for the deviation when asking > you for clarification. Whatever your problem is, it warrants you seeing > a therapist. I gave you the clairification. Go make your appointment. > Do you have the same problem in your real life that you have here in > ramfm or are we the only ones that get your "I am always right" > attitude? I'm not angry with you, I feel sorry for you because what > happened in this thread occurs way too often for you. Ever wonder why > that is? May peace find you. Yes, this does happen a lot. Some arse, in his own ignorance decides that I must be wrong. He argues in circles, mixes stuff up, makes strawmen and demands that I cite my facts. (of course he doesn't cite his) When I dig up the cites and then the opponent who had been demanding that I do the leg work, saying I am wrong, writes up an insulting post like the one I am now responding to in order to save face. You boys didn't want to admit being wrong. You pushed and pushed, so I produced support, and you both caved. So I ask you, am I the only one who get's you're projection and "I am always right" attitude, or do you do that in real life too? I'm sorry, but I try to post only what I know to be correct, that's why the cites to back it up are not more than a google search away. Now, do you have some cites of your own to show me wrong, or just feel like going the usenet games and insult route? Brent, Are you truly that thick? Your cites actually refute your position, try reading your own cites before you present them. We require no cites of our own, the cites you presented reinforce our position quite well all by themselves. Please read over your last few days of IDIOCY before you respond and make yourself look even more ignorant than you already have... >> You are really a piece of work. You make a statement that you can't >> back up and then proceed to bend the subject matter all over the place >> to cover your misstatement on the topic at hand. > > Projection. I am the only to produce any cites backing up views, as > usual. You ran the discussion in circles. > I'm sorry, but I try to post only what I know to be correct, that's why > the cites to back it up are not more than a google search away. > > Now, do you have some cites of your own to show me wrong, or just feel > like going the usenet games and insult route? > Brent, > Are you truly that thick? Your cites actually refute your position, try > reading your own cites before you present them. They refute the position you assigned me. Trouble is those are not the arguments I made, but merely the ones you could create to knock down. > We require no cites of our own, the cites you presented reinforce our > position quite well all by themselves. Then you should have no problem citing the relevant sections. Yet, you don't. You prefer insult and creative editing. > Please read over your last few days of IDIOCY before you respond and make > yourself look even more ignorant than you already have... You haven't the first clue and are still trying to mask it with insult as you did days ago when I believe it was you, who said something about something being blown up my a.s. >> Brent, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > They refute the position you assigned me. Trouble is those are not the > arguments I made, but merely the ones you could create to knock down. They refute your erroneous statement. No amount of circling and flip flopping on your part is going to change that. >> We require no cites of our own, the cites you presented reinforce our >> position quite well all by themselves. > > Then you should have no problem citing the relevant sections. Yet, you > don't. You prefer insult and creative editing. I already did, read my last post. And for crying out loud, for your own good do try and stop acting like such an imbecile. >> Please read over your last few days of IDIOCY before you respond and make >> yourself look even more ignorant than you already have... > > You haven't the first clue and are still trying to mask it with insult as > you did days ago when I believe it was you, who said something about > something being blown up my a.s. Well, if your going to continue this, you better check and be sure, rather than just relying on your proven faulty recollection. > They refute your erroneous statement. No amount of circling and flip > flopping on your part is going to change that. Nice projection. Cite the revelant sections. >> Then you should have no problem citing the relevant sections. Yet, you >> don't. You prefer insult and creative editing. > I already did, read my last post. Lie. You cited nothing. I cited something and then like everything else you didn't grasp it because you lack the background info. You however seem to think 'no significant use' means no use what so ever. Which is of course wrong. Some ethanol optimizing is used, and that is all I ever claimed. That's why the author used the word signifcant as compared to his example rather than the word 'none'. I am sorry this is so difficult for you comprehend. > And for crying out loud, for your own > good do try and stop acting like such an imbecile. More projection and advice you ought to follow. Let me know when you have some cited facts. >> They refute your erroneous statement. No amount of circling and flip >> flopping on your part is going to change that. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Let me know when you have some cited facts. Sheesh, Brent - just give it up. Michael and Nobody already shut you down three times over. > Sheesh, Brent - just give it up. Michael and Nobody already shut you > down three times over. With what? insults... sure... facts, knowledge... nope. Unless you want to step in and provide some cited facts for them. For the sake of your sanity just walk away! > For the sake of your sanity just walk away! Another cite that backs up what I stated: http://www.hybridcars.com/component/option,com_joomblog/Itemid,0/joomblog_task,b log_view/joomblog_contentid,12019/ thermal effeciency isn't MPG: "Gasoline has a heating value of about 124,800 Btu per gallon, compared to ethanol which has a heating value of about 84,100 Btu per gallon. The difference in those values suggests that to accomplish the same amount of work, you.d need to burn more ethanol than gasoline. That's why current flex-fuel vehicles consume more E85 than gasoline, resulting in a decrease in fuel economy. However, ethanol has another property that could offset its disadvantage of a lower heating value: its higher octane rating. Octane ratings measure a fuel's ability to resist premature ignition of the compressed fuel-air mixture. An engine with a higher compression ratio can produce more mechanical energy from its fuel. If the compression is too high, however, a fuel charge can ignite prematurely (knock). Higher octane fuels thus allow the use of engines with higher compression ratios." Increased thermal efficiency of ethanol or E85 engines: "By contrast, EPA engineers tested 100\% ethanol (E100) in an engine with a whopping 19.5:1 compression ratio and found that the engine demonstrated a thermal efficiency of more than 40\%--much higher than a gasoline engine of the same size. A dedicated E100--or even dedicated E85--engine could thus be far more efficient than a gasoline engine. A flex-fuel engine, however, is not an optimized ethanol engine. " FFV's aren't exploiting E85 to it's full potentional: "The current state of production flex-fuel engines in the US basically take the gasoline engine and adapt it to handle ethanol blends, but without optimization." But, FFV's are getting some of it: Saab: http://www.saab.com/main/GLOBAL/en/pressreleases/15/index.xml ""The engine management system automatically adjusts for the type of fuel so, if there is no ethanol available, the customer can simply run on gasoline at any time," says Kjell ac Bergstrüm, President and CEO of Saab Automobile Powertrain AB. "Turbocharged engines are particularly well-suited to exploiting the benefits of ethanol and our work with this engine indicates there is a great deal of development potential for this fuel."" http://www.askaprice.com/torque-article.asp?article=Saab_release_second_new_flex -fuel_car&item=2385 (just to show the car did go on sale) Ford: http://www.ford.com/en/vehicles/specialtyVehicles/environmental/ethanol.htm "Ford FFVs automatically adjust to any mixture of E85 and gasoline. Onboard sensors and computers monitor the fuel mixture to optimize performance." Delphi engine management systems for FFV vehicles: "With the Delphi Multi Fuel System for two fuels (also known as flex fuel), a vehicle in Brazil can be powered with 100 percent gasoline, 100 percent ethanol or a blend of gasoline and ethanol.with little or no change to the engine management system (EMS). Every time the driver fills the fuel tank, EMS sensors send feedback to an electronic control module (ECM). This feedback allows the ECM to precisely calculate the ethanol percentage immediately after combustion.without any injection delays. Once calculated, EMS parameters, such as the amount of fuel injected, spark timing, and cold startup conditions, adjust automatically." There is what I stated, all supported by cite. If you think differently, put up or shut up. > In article <3KedndYWNtSN5wHYnZ2dnUVZ_szinZ2d@giganews.com>, Michael > Johnson, PE wrote: [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > There is what I stated, all supported by cite. If you think > differently, put up or shut up. You can take all your theory and your citations and put them where the sun don't shine. Here's the part where _you_ put up or shut up: Assuming these two _existing_ vehicles are similar in most aspects, drive whatever powered-by-ethanol vehicle you want over a specific path for a specific time under specific conditions, then drive whatever powered-by-gasoline vehicle you want over the same specific path for the same specific time under the same specific conditions. Can't wait to see the results. Welcome to reality. > tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in <cited back up deleted> > You can take all your theory and your citations and put them where the > sun don't shine. Here's the part where _you_ put up or shut up: Which means of course you have nothing to disprove anything I claimed, no cites to show me wrong, in other words, you have nothing. There was no theory in those cites by the way. All were about existing vehicles and results of testing that has been done. All are fact, not theory. > Assuming these two _existing_ vehicles are similar in most aspects, > drive whatever powered-by-ethanol vehicle you want over a specific path > for a specific time under specific conditions, then drive whatever > powered-by-gasoline vehicle you want over the same specific path for the > same specific time under the same specific conditions. Can't wait to > see the results. Welcome to reality. The old raise the requirement.... now I have to go out and buy two indentical cars and run costly enginering experiments for you. Laugh. I don't have to. I can take the word of the engineers at Ford, Nissan, Saab, Delphi, Bosch, and the federal government instead, as cited or that you can find on your own time. You all are real pieces of work. Just keep raising the bar of proof for me, but never offering anything yourselves but what you pull from your a.ses and fling. When you have some facts, let me know. >> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > When you have some facts, let me know. I don't need to cite or prove anything. The facts are already out there just waiting for you to see them as others have already pointed out in full detail. >>> tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote in >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > just waiting for you to see them as others have already pointed out in > full detail. Those others say the same thing, they don't have to cite or prove anything. Trouble for the lot of you is that I have cited and proven what I say to be true. When you have some facts, let me know. >> For the sake of your sanity just walk away! > > Another cite that backs up what I stated: > > http://www.hybridcars.com/component/option,com_joomblog/Itemid,0/joomblog_task,b log_view/joomblog_contentid,12019/ Uh, BRENT, we were talking about: BRENT: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:36 PM "engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline." But since you were so kind as to supply my cite for me, I'll post the relevant part of your cite that directly refutes your position, yet again. 11/14. By Van By Guest - Saturday, August 05 2006 Website "Lets run the numbers one more time. Let's mix 80\% gasoline with 20\% ethanol, which results in the blend having an energy content of 116,600 BTU per gallon, or about a 9\% drop in energy content. Now if we raise the compression we get a 2\% improvement in thermal efficiency. And if Direct injection can push the thermal efficiency up another 5\%, we have a blended fuel engine getting higher mileage than a low compression gasoline engine. However if we are talking about a E100 engine, 45\% of 84,100 (37845) is still less than 38\% of 124,800 (47424). Or so it seems to me." http://www.hybridcars.com/component/option,com_joomblog/Itemid,0/joomblog_task,b log_view/joomblog_contentid,12019/ <Brent's changing the subject again senseless dribble snipped> > Uh, BRENT, we were talking about: > BRENT: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:36 PM > "engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made > for pump gasoline." Exploit, as in use the qualities of E85. > But since you were so kind as to supply my cite for me, I'll post the > relevant part of your cite that directly refutes your position, yet again. > 11/14. By Van > By Guest - Saturday, August 05 2006 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > still less than 38\% of 124,800 (47424). Or so it seems to me." > http://www.hybridcars.com/component/option,com_joomblog/Itemid,0/joomblog_task,b log_view/joomblog_contentid,12019/ That's some comment posted by some guy... not an article. It's like citing a usenet post that has no backup. All I see are numbers pulled out of his a.s. Let me know when you actually have something, you know, a real cite, not some half assed comment. Oh, and btw, why don't you read the part where he's stating that exploiting ethanol's characteristics result in a higher thermal efficiency? Which is *gasp* what I wrote. Thanks for playing. Don't let the door hit you in the a.s on the way out. Brent, it has been truly amazing to watch you dance around and convince yourself that once again you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Even when faced with your own conflicting statements you can still ignore obvious logic and delude yourself into thinking you are right. That is one scary talent you have. > Brent, it has been truly amazing to watch you dance around and convince > yourself that once again you are right and the rest of the world is > wrong. Even when faced with your own conflicting statements you can > still ignore obvious logic and delude yourself into thinking you are > right. That is one scary talent you have. It's amazing how you can continue to just be insulting when you have yet to produce a single fact, an single cite on ethanol, or even take a part an actual argument I made. Sure, you got strawmen and insults working for you... but that's all you have. It's amazing that you'd rather play like a child instead of coming forth with facts. >> Brent, it has been truly amazing to watch you dance around and convince >> yourself that once again you are right and the rest of the world is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you... but that's all you have. It's amazing that you'd rather play like > a child instead of coming forth with facts. LOL! You are a trip! I think the last strawman I helped construct was the one in our garden when I was maybe six years old. I'm not insulting you. I'm just stating the obvious. How can I argue with you when are zinging around from topic to topic spouting non sequiturs like candy popping out of a Pez dispenser on crank? You have some kind of twisted thought process that allows you to reform the laws of physics and conventional logic to make you really believe the stuff rattling around in your head. Hell, there's no way I can overcome that mess and make you see the light. It is entertaining to watch you maneuver from one statement to another with total disregard for any logical flow of thought. You must be a buzz kill when playing Trivial Pursuit. When it comes to creating an alternate reality... you rock dude! >>> Brent, it has been truly amazing to watch you dance around and convince >>> yourself that once again you are right and the rest of the world is [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > When it comes to creating an alternate reality... you rock dude! I second that! Brent, when you escape from your Bizarro World alternate reality let us know, maybe we can continue this conversation then. Sheesh... > I second that! Brent, when you escape from your Bizarro World alternate > reality let us know, maybe we can continue this conversation then. > Sheesh... Let me know when you want to discuss facts instead of what you pulled out of your a.s. It's clear that you ran out of knowledge some time ago. >> I second that! Brent, when you escape from your Bizarro World alternate >> reality let us know, maybe we can continue this conversation then. >> Sheesh... > > Let me know when you want to discuss facts instead of what you pulled out > of your a.s. It's clear that you ran out of knowledge some time ago. Well, do I see a couple of insults here? I believe I do! > LOL! You are a trip! I think the last strawman I helped construct was > the one in our garden when I was maybe six years old. I'm not insulting > you. I'm just stating the obvious. > How can I argue with you when are > zinging around from topic to topic spouting non sequiturs like candy > popping out of a Pez dispenser on crank? Projection. > You have some kind of twisted > thought process that allows you to reform the laws of physics and > conventional logic to make you really believe the stuff rattling around > in your head. Projection & insult. > Hell, there's no way I can overcome that mess and make > you see the light. It is entertaining to watch you maneuver from one > statement to another with total disregard for any logical flow of > thought. You must be a buzz kill when playing Trivial Pursuit. Insult. > When it comes to creating an alternate reality... you rock dude! Insult. Where's your content, Mike? Did you pick up that PE license from the factory in china that makes the forged UL labels? Wow, you just keep them coming. Will you be here all week? >> I'm not trying to pick a fight here but the engineer in me wants to know >> what exactly makes an FFV engine more thermally efficient? [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Also I wasn't talking hybrids, I was talking pure electrics. but hey, > it's usenet, subject changes are all part of the game. So is this your attempt at slipping in a back door so you can avoid backing up your somewhat silly original statement? You stated "No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline." You may believe that it would be nice if E85 engines were more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline, but the truth is they are the same engines, with the same thermally efficiency. You have provided not one shred of information to back up your somewhat silly contention. It is beginning to appear that this is a misguided fantasy that exists only in your own mind. When Michael pokes a few holes in your "I took two semesters of thermodynamics" defense, you accuse him of changing the subject. I STILL contend, all current E85 engines have no more thermally efficient than those currently made for pump gasoline (because again, they are the same engines). Brent, can you show us where anyone else involved the automobile industry contends that any current E85 engines have more thermally efficiency than those currently made exclusively for pump gasoline. > So is this your attempt at slipping in a back door so you can avoid backing > up your somewhat silly original statement? No such thing. Why are you writing two posts with no trimming and requoting to say the same damn thing? > You stated "No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient > than those made for pump gasoline." > You may believe that it would be nice if E85 engines were more thermally > efficient than those made for pump gasoline, but the truth is they are the > same engines, with the same thermally efficiency. If they are the same engine, it hasn't been made to exploit E85!!!!!! > You have provided not one shred of information to back up your somewhat > silly contention. It is beginning to appear that this is a misguided > fantasy that exists only in your own mind. I certainly have provided the information. It's not my fault you're too much of dumbass to understand it. > When Michael pokes a few holes in your "I took two semesters of > thermodynamics" defense, you accuse him of changing the subject. He didn't poke holes in jack or sh.t, merely displayed his own ignorance. > I STILL contend, all current E85 engines have no more thermally efficient > than those currently made for pump gasoline (because again, they are the > same engines). 1) All are not the same engines. 2) Many have control systems which work to exploit E85's anti-knock benefits to some degree. > Brent, can you show us where anyone else involved the automobile industry > contends that any current E85 engines have more thermally efficiency than > those currently made exclusively for pump gasoline. Can you show that they burn E85 under the same parameters as gasoline? No. As usual, I'm,the one who has to dig up the cites, do the leg work. I think that over the years I've proved it enough not to need to do it every fing time, especially with an old and tired topic as this. The fact that this lincoln and the superstallion and other ford prototype mentioned in this group recently get their maximum power output supports the claim of thermal effeciency. As those who don't like E85 are so quick to point out, it has a lower energy density than gasoline. So that's less energy in, more work out. That's higher thermal effeciency and your manufacture claim of such right there. It's not my fault you need to educate yourself nor my duty to step in and do it for you. And gee... I google it... first match is wikipedia's entry on Ethanol fuel... "Some researchers are working to increase fuel efficiency by optimizing engines for ethanol-based fuels. Ethanol's higher octane allows an increase of an engine's compression ratio for increased thermal efficiency.[30]In one study, complex engine controls and increased exhaust gas recirculation allowed a compression ratio of 19.5 with fuels ranging from neat ethanol to E50. Thermal efficiency up to approximately that for a diesel was achieved.[31] This would result in the MPG of a dedicated ethanol vehicle to be about the same as one burning gasoline. There are currently no commercially-available vehicles that make significant use of ethanol-optimizing technologies, but this may change in the future." Note: 'significant use' meaning to the degree mentioned in the paragraph. Note: How thermal efficiency has to be higher to achive the same MPG because they are not the same thing. Here is an engine that exploits some of E85's benefits: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2004/08/saab_flex_fuel_.html " Whilst fuel economy over the official EU city and mixed cycles is unlikely to show an improvement, testing indicates that a useful 15 per cent gain can be expected at higher speeds because fuel enrichment for engine cooling is no longer necessary. In [the] Saab turbo, the high 104 RON octane rating of E85 fuel...also produces a significant 20 per cent increase in maximum engine power, up from 150 to 180 bhp." Higher thermal effeciency for more power. Happy now? OK here we go! <Big snip of Brent's senseless circular drivel> BRENT'S original senseless statement "No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline." My original rebuttal. "I contend, all current E85 engines have no more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline." BRENT'S second notable contradictory statement. "MPG != thermal effeciency! The former is distance per unit volume of fuel, the later is energy vs useful work out." BRENT'S Third & Forth contradictory statements. "MPG IS NOT THERMAL EFFICIENCY! MPG is really an economic measure of efficiency not an energy one" "Note: How thermal efficiency has to be higher to achive the same MPG because they are not the same thing." BRENT'S information, that totally contradicts his original senseless statement and proves exactly what I (and Michael) have being to get into Brent's thick skull. "This would result in the MPG of a dedicated ethanol vehicle to be about the same as one burning gasoline. There are currently no commercially-available vehicles that make significant use of ethanol-optimizing technologies, but this may change in the future." BRENT, do yourself and all of us a big favor, take a damn breath and read what you yourself have written. Are you so arrogant that you can't even consider that you may have misspoken? You said "No, engines made to exploit E85 are more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline." I said "I contend, all current E85 engines have no more thermally efficient than those made for pump gasoline." You immediately jumped on your high horse, started calling names, attempting to flex your imagined "superior" (smirk) education and proceeded to generally make a fool of yourself. > And gee... I google it... first match is wikipedia's entry on Ethanol > fuel... [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Note: How thermal efficiency has to be higher to achive the same MPG > because they are not the same thing. <Big snip of Brent's senseless circular drivel> Now with this post You have proven that you were WRONG, and conversely that I was correct. Now, do you have enough intellect and integrity to admit when you are wrong??? > OK here we go! > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > I was correct. Now, do you have enough intellect and integrity to admit > when you are wrong??? On the same FFV engine the efficiency (measured by mpg) is clearly better for gasoline compared to E85. Now total energy consumed is probably nearly the same for each fuel type. Burning less gasoline @ a higher specific energy verses burning more E85 f |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message