Dayum..Can you believe that I was considering some kind of TC or SC somewhere down the road but after trying to wrap my head around this thread that may be out of the question now! DSM do I have to know all this if go that route I wouldn't know my ass from a hole in the ground

 

Not at first, but eventually you will want to learn, eventually you find yourself unchallenged by the basic essentials. You will explore areas like fuel chemistry, standalone tuning, fluid dynamics, etc. just because you want to learn more.

There was a time when I was intimidated by a compressor map.

 

Like Lyon was saying, to have and own a aftermarket turbocharged car, even a stock turbo car.. you don't have to know the heat of vaporization of ethanol or how to tune your own timing curve, or the flame kernel propagation rate of gasoline.

If you are remotely familiar with the basics of an internal combustion engine.."crush, suck, bang & blow" you can just build on it from there with some basics of tuning.

What running rich vs lean means and implies, and eventually you'll know what it smells and sounds like too.

Why and when you would want to run rich vs. lean.

Understand that boost and exhaust pressure are actually a measure of restriction and what that means. The role a higher octane/more stable fuel plays.

In fact you can install a vacuum/boost gauge, a wideband o2 gauge/sensor and a ultragauge for some bling on your ride and get a feel for what they read out depending on how you drive. This will give you a great idea of what's going on before you move on to boosting.

I have a couple books I recommend for people getting started if youre interested.

If you go through my tech thread on the FI forum as well as the absurdly large "what grade of gas" thread on the 2nd gen ECO sub-forum I and others spell it all out and cover a lot of peripheral topics as well as some more advanced stuff.

 

I'm a steam engine and what is this?






You've got a special girl there, most suck before they crush

 

Woo, I'm gone for a few days and you guys really kept this thread going .

With respect, you don't know what you're talking about if you think Static Compression ratio is the only factor in power. A tuned engine on E85 is going to make more power than the same engine tuned on 93 Gasoline. The study I linked showed that the cooling effect of E85 increased air intake density by 2% alone! Add in the increased spark advance and the increase in oxygen and the effect was about +5%.

Thank you! It is very difficult for me to explain some of this things. I am trying to keep this a discussion not a class with me teaching and failing or just reading random quotes either. I might read quite a bit on this subject but I try to remind people that I am no expert and I am very interested in this subject.

And it's strange that you got the most power from 93 Gasoline and that it had Ethanol in it. I've heard that many Premium pumps tend to be Ethanol free. Did you dyno tune or are you talking performance? Did you check Ethanol % content?

Also price per mile is the best way to compare. Comparing Gasoline MPG to Ethanol MPG is about as useful as only claiming the amount of Gasoline in Ethanol 100MPG FTW!

It's true. Brazil gets a FFV Civic, City, and Fit! I know Honda is big on the cellulose and Sugarcane Ethanol but they should be selling them here voluntarily. It's not going to happen here unless there are already people buying cars that can and will run on Ethanol before companies start jumping on the Ethanol bandwagon. I hate that people get stuck on the Corn Ethanol and completely ignore that Ethanol is just a medium, it can be made from many crops and so long as Corn Ethanol is the cheapest/best way of making it then that's all there every will be here.

I'm sorry but I'm not too familiar with engineering terms but aren't you referring to BTU which is energy not power? I'm going to assume that you are and just misspoke as saying E85 cannot make more power than Gasoline is just silly. Even if you meant per BTU, that is not accurate either.

The rumor is that some of the next generation FFVs are getting optimized for Ethanol and they are capable of 85% of the MPG. Even if the maximum MPG was 99%, that's a heck of an improvement in efficiency!

Note that none of the 2011 FFVs get 85% of the combined MPG from E85 as they would on Gasoline. I'm not adverse to believing that it is possible but I don't see it happening for at least a couple more generations.

Methanol has been popular because it's cheap(it's made from Natural Gas although it can be made from tree alcohol) and you're right they compensate by dumping fuel, that's just a fact of life. But Methanol is also mixed with nitromethane in some blends so it's not completely unrelated to the comparison although a bit offtopic since we're talking E85 as in pump gas.

With E85 being cheap and more widely available, compared to methanol, it's not unlikely that it would take it's place in motorsports especially since nothing about methanol is green. E98 is just a step up from that but it is more expensive and you need to buy it in barrels and store it like you would race gas.

Some of the street hotrods are going E85 because it's street legal, cheap, more available than racing fuel, or just that it is better than pump gas. Colorado and Minnesota have some big E85 scenes. I've heard of E85 Evo's and STI's.

E85 only needs +-33% more fuel than regular Gasoline and that is at WOT. If you tuned for +33% across the board it would run poorly. A good tune could reduce the difference in MPG. But only an E85 tuner would know .

A turbo might be more efficient but it's not going to be more fuel efficient. It's not going to give better MPG if you take a factory engine and turbocharge it alone. The best way to make up the MPG difference between Ethanol and Gasoline is to not get stuck trying to play by the rules and fighting thermodynamics and energy density but instead replace the N/A engine with a smaller displacement turbocharged engine. At the same gearing with some steady driving the smaller turbo can actually make up some of that BTU difference. That is the idea behind Ford's Ecoboost/Twinforce, which is also a method of increasing power while improving MPG but that works too.

Honestly that's what I'd like to do someday with a RWD car but I can't really find a 2+2 that I like that isn't too old .

 

Haha.

There you go again putting words in my mouth and talking about things you've heard and a study you've linked to.

Have you ever even tuned a car? If the answer is no you should stop while you are behind.


I have used E85, among myriad other fuels and combinations in several applications. I like the stuff, it has its place as I have stated several times but you come off sounding absolutely clueless.

 

There are a few things going on, Max HP and MPG and then lambda. Then we have Turbo, N/A motors taking about E85,racing fuel, and gasoline. I have found a few things and trying to make sense out of it before I post it. Its about EGR, thermal efficiency and volumetric. Compression has little to do with VE but has thermal efficiencies and then the EGR helps in mpg by leaning.

 

You still said something that was completely irrelevant and inaccurate. Don't get mad simply because I called you out on your error. Compression has nothing to do with E85 making more power or less. It's going to make more power tuned than Premium at 4.5:1 and it's going to make more power at 10.4:1. Get what I'm saying now? I already explained some of it but saying that even an Alcohol blend is inferior to any pump gas is absurd. Maybe you've been tuning it wrong? Just saying .

No I don't tune cars, share some results if you got em! Pics or it didn't happen though.

Lighten up dude. We're not competing for any awards for most intelligent or eloquent person here. And if you think just because you tune you're the only person fit to discuss this, you should just give up and play guitar hero.

 

Do you have anything to add? Coming on here picking fights when there is info to prove or disprove whats being said. I was excited when you came on here because I though you would add info but thats not what your doing.

 

Allch Chcar

So you've never tuned a car? Didn't think so.

That is all I or anyone else needed to know.

And if you don't think compression is relevant to power production and fuel selection that only furthers the notion that nobody should listen to a damn thing you have to say.

Without some serious spark and real high IATs E85 wouldn't even start to light off in a 5:1CR motor you dipshit.

Don't see a whole lot of 10:1CR diesels now do you? Ever wonder why that is? Don't strain something trying to figure it out.

Trust me its pretty clear there is no competition between us.

 

Many local guys are using E85 for high c/r and turbo cars. It hasn't seemed to make any more HP than gas but the higher octane has been a benefit so they don't have to by race fuel that is extremely expensive.

 

Here is some info on ethanol and performance and emissions. http://web.iitd.ac.in/~pmvs/ICengines/paper15.pdf

 

That is great E78 to Hydrous Ethanol comparison...

 

What I have to add isn't tuning experience. I do know where to find people with experience though. I'm correcting myths and errors, I wasn't personally attacking anyone. If anyone was offended by what I have to say I am sorry I didn't mean any offense.

I didn't say Compression ratio was meaningless I only said it wasn't the only factor that matters when you're talking about two different fuels at the same compression ratio. Spark advance affects dynamic compression. I didn't say Compression Ratio was meaningless as Dynamic Compression matters greatly, but it is not accurate to say the Gasoline is more efficient at any Dynamic compression ratio compared to E85.

In a spark ignition engine the spark plug starts the ignition otherwise it would be compressed ignition aka Diesel . Without the spark, the Gasoline wouldn't combust anyway since Gasoline engines run very low compression compared to Diesels. Diesels run on a different scale altogether, cetane. And combustion is from compressing a lean mixture of fuel and air until it heats to the point of detonation.

Looks like you don't know history either. The early ICE engines were less than 4.5:1 and ran on various fuels from Peanut Oil to home-brew Alcohol with water in it and only later did they run on Gasoline. The later Model T used a 4.5:1 compression engine and was designed to run on 160 Proof Alcohol or Gasoline. 160 Alcohol has a greater resistance to detonation than E85 or even regular Gasoline for that matter. The Model T had adjustable Carb Jetting and the distributor was advanced for Ethanol and retarded for Gasoline.

You should know this stuff, DSM.

 

Except you aren't correcting myths or errors. You are talking about things you've read and have no actual hands on experience with.

As far as the model T and other early spark ignition motors being low compression I am quite well aware. But we are talking about E85, not moonshine or peanut oil and they all have different properties.

If you are going to claim I need a history lesson you should look into the hows and whys of Ford's decision to run the T on alcohol.

Do you even know how to start a T? Or what the ignition system was like? Or how to use a manual spark advance/retard dial?

You could be obtuse and go "well moon shine and E85 both have ethanol in it" but that would only further demonstrate that you should go get yourself some practical knowledge instead of parroting things you have read on the interwebz.

You should know when to stop dude, this is getting pathetic.

Resistance to detonation is one small part of a big equation.

My whole point in bringing up diesel, of which I have owned a couple and raced one.. a 12v cummins that made well over 1000rwtq, was to demonstrate how stupid your statement: was.

Are you an ethanol lobbyist or something? In a lower compression motor not only will ethanol be down on power due to lower thermal efficiency, but less of the fuel physically burns resulting in even worse fuel economy. And thats if you can even get the fucker to fire up without a 9 range plug, a huge spark system, hot IATs and/or starting fluid.

Bumping compression from 8:1 to 18:1 on an ethanol fed engine yields nearly 20% TE gain.

Think before you post. Some of us actually know what we are talking about and use the stuff. You look like a clown.

 

 

(My girlfriend still refuses to believe that Red and Andy aren't gay for each other)

I'm some what confused on what anyone is debating. If one wants to take advantage of E85, they go through the same process one goes through when tuning blind (ala me) with E0 or E10. Some applications obviously will allow for greater gains in timing, boost, and/or AFR. E85 just happens to require more pulse width / bigger injectors and supporting fuel mods (pump, wiring, etc.) to find your lambda on the proper side of stoich. You've still got to find your timing and boost to detonation limit and fine tune your AFRs (after you've tabled an acceptable base map) just like you would with E0. Every application would be different. Now if we are bench racing all sorts of stupid things will be said, some would try to claim that E85 is always better and some would calim E0 is alway better. But, as DSM said, practice and theory are completely different things. Having never tuned any E85 application I'm not foolish enough to think I could contribute anything of value here. But, the scientific method is the weapon I wield to understand things I normally couldn't. So objectively speaking, as I stated earlier, It's very clear that E85 is going to benefit every application differently. If a particular engine is not knock limited, plenty of NA applications are not knock limited, E85 would be of virtually no benefit unless compression was significantly increased (especially considering the cost of fuel system upgrades). However, if a particular engine was knock limited, say a turbo GE8 running 14 psi on pump fuel (heh), there are a few ways to deal with that. Now, assuming afr is safely askew of Lambda 1.0 and intake temps are under control, we could utilize... wtf, why am I even typing this, this is retarded, anyone who wanted to learn anything on their own, would...

If one takes pleasure in arguing semantics or topics they will never personaly utilize, perhaps they should choose a less techincal field.


tl;dr
E85 and E0 are pretty damn close in terms of power per stroke in the same engine @ STP @ lambda 1.0. It is the antiknock properties of E85 that make it useful. If you aren't taking advantage of it, you aren't taking advantage of E85.

 

Well we pretty much ran out of anything semi-on topic to bicker over.

I think the only thing we actually agreed upon was that we believe the other person doesn't know crap . No hate here though dude, I know how you feel about me.

@Lyon[Nightroad],
Antiknock properties!? It's all about the oxygen man!

Sooo has anyone tried to convert a Honda Lea series to E85 yet?

 

[QUOTE=Allch Chcar;1001116]

I think the only thing we actually agreed upon was that we believe the other person doesn't know crap . No hate here though dude, I know how you feel about me.


The only person that doesn't get it is you. Yes ethanol makes more power at rpms over 4000. How many times are you in that range. It cost more money to use(just wait until the tax subsidy break goes away) and uses more resources to make. They are raising the ethanol content to 15 percent because of soot problems but most cars cant run it and have problems with miss fires and other problems even the 2007 and newer cars. The volcano eruption in Chile put out more emissions than every car and truck in the world using all the oil in the world. I agree we need alternative energy but ethanol is not the answer.

Cars that use 30/35 percent blends get better mpg only because it leans the car out to the max. Running lean produces more heat and more NO2 which is the emission they are controlling right now. They want to control CO2 emissions and ethanol lowers that but the grass and trees convert that to 02 so take away the CO2 an the trees die.

 

Well, I figured the higher resistance to detonation would be easier to conceptualize than thermal efficency (although the two are very related). But for the sake of entertainment what does oxygen have to do with anything here?

I like threads like this not because of their content but how they unexpalinably cause me to learn about other semi-related things, like Carnot's theorem, which I just wasted the last hour reading a few different articles about. OT: I'm starting to realize how insanely obsolute undergrad education is becoming if you don't plan on going into the postgrad research arm of a University. The information is right out there for free for anybody. It's funny to see all my peers with student loans that are about the same size as my 401k (22% contribution rate w/ match ftw). Which is not even to mention how thoroughly incompetent they can be at life's most basic tasks.