Recent Topics
Which HeatPump Is Best?
by Silverado12
Today at 04:56 AM
Thunder Pig no more
by GreeCguy
Today at 03:57 AM
2009 Nissan Navara D40 2.5L /Redline 5W30 11.089KM
by tgiannak
Today at 03:39 AM
Video: Hit & Killed by Lightning after Robbery
by aa1986
Today at 01:18 AM
Another massacre in Oz, this time children.
by Shannow
Today at 12:49 AM
I Have Pennzoil 5qt.Jugs And None Are Exactly Full
by crazyoildude
Today at 12:26 AM
Reason for GTX Synblend Clearance
by aa1986
Today at 12:20 AM
Interesting Valveless Axial Engine -- New Zealand
by Y_K
Yesterday at 11:53 PM
Tribute top-end 'refresh' with pics
by addyguy
Yesterday at 10:42 PM
Castrol GTX SynBlend - Any Good?
by Nick1994
Yesterday at 09:50 PM
extended interval oil filters
by dothedrew1202
Yesterday at 09:34 PM
'05 Scion Xa
by womcat
Yesterday at 06:57 PM
Newest Members
StevenOs, caferacer, Blearyeye, AggiePreacher, novcz
52232 Registered Users
Who's Online
53 registered (BISCUT, andyd, ArtDart, aa1986, Al, Atlantis, 4 invisible), 798 Guests and 225 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
52232 Members
66 Forums
223678 Topics
3546874 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG
Page 12 of 14 < 1 2 ... 10 11 12 13 14 >
Topic Options
#3309539 - 03/12/14 03:26 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7881
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Trolltlevette, you claim to be an engineer, but display no knowledge whatsoever of thermodynamic processes (efficiency limits), high temperature stoichiometry (your ctalyst statements), or even simple combustion (wick in glass bell experiments).

Anyone who does bring science to the table you belittle, call names, and dismiss as having an agenda.

Please demonstrate your argument, thermodynamicaly, and it doesn't have to be down to third grade level...bring it up to YOUR level of intelligence and training, and let the rest of us try to keep up.

Break out the thermodynamics texts, chemical texts, fast forward NOx production, flame propagation theory...bring it all.

Obama and Bush aren't scientists, they don't impress engineers (well most engineers)...you are.

Crack out the science, not rhetoric, and demonstrate to the best of your ability your understanding of actual science.

I promise to try to keep up, I'm OK at thermo and mechanical systems, and I'm sure kschachn can help me on the chemistry side.




And I'll keep watch on the bovine excrement side.
I got my backhoe warming up
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309606 - 03/12/14 04:21 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Clevy
[
I got my backhoe warming up


yes, please stick to digging ditches. I am a firm believer that people should stick to what they understand.

An example is exactly that an example. Cut the assumed efficiencies in half if you must nitpick. None of you have used any detailed explanations in your posts. Just insults and throwing in various technical terms like carnot cycle without putting it in context of an explanation.

Bottom line, if we can get ethanol to burn leaner we'll get more mileage out of it. It may or may not approach the work output of gasoline but there is wiggle room.

Top
#3309647 - 03/12/14 05:03 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
chuck1955 Offline


Registered: 02/11/12
Posts: 59
Loc: minnesota
Turlevette having fun! It seems to always happen when you have a corn ethanol lobbyist pushed into a corner they start talking about engines that don't exist. My agenda is help get the truth about corn ethanol to the surface. You have yet to give me a response about California on the reason they get theirs from Brazil. It's a shame main stream media doesn't get the news out on the scam corn ethanol is. We have to remember their the ones that helped get Obama reelected.

Top
#3309653 - 03/12/14 05:07 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
I heard that there are plans to produce ethanol in the CA Imperial Valley where they expect a higher return due to Colorado river water supplies and all year round growing.

Top
#3309655 - 03/12/14 05:11 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Clevy
IFor example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.


A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

Are you sure it was because of the ethanol? Could it be the higher octane rating? Could it be gas quality from a different brand? Could it be because its hard to replicates driving pattern?

Ethanol has 33% less energy so E10 provides 3.33% less energy IF it has the full 10% of Ethanol.


I drive the same all the time. Set cruise at 70mph and go. If rive less than 10% of my miles in the city. I get to work,coming off the highway and park.
I used the 94 octane for 3 tanks and averaged them out so I could rule out any anomalies in the fuel and driving habits.
I don't care one way or the other if ethanol is in my fuel,I care about miles per tank and cost per mile. Due to the fact ethanol high test is the same price as pure gas 91 octane I use 91.
I ran my tank dry never getting more than 310 miles with Mohawk 94 octane. I routinely get 380 with 91 octane shell fuel.
I will say this though my Harley doesn't even have a hint of pinging with Mohawk 94.


Not at all doubting methodology. More about attributing everything to ethanol rather than brand and octane level.

It is known that higher octane gas has less energy. And plenty of people have reported poor gas from certain brands. Hyper milers also report certain sweet spot speeds apparently related to torque.

So your 20% might be due to multiple factors not just ethanol.

Top
#3309657 - 03/12/14 05:14 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 27291
Loc: a prisoner island
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
An example is exactly that an example. Cut the assumed efficiencies in half if you must nitpick. None of you have used any detailed explanations in your posts. Just insults and throwing in various technical terms like carnot cycle without putting it in context of an explanation.


An example is only an example, particularly in a scientific discussion, if it factual, provable, and most importantly...not made up on the spot.

Halving made up numbers isn't nitpicking science, it's halving made up numbers...that you made up on the spot, to attempt to validate your ideas.

Now you are a scientist who has been struggling to dumb it down to third grade level.

Lash out, with science, with science that you clearly have mastery of, and blind us with it.

As I promised, we'll all try to keep up.

When talking efficiency, Carnot is one of the most basic of "technical" terms, one that most of us engineers would get if you used it, so don't be afraid of it.

Top
#3309669 - 03/12/14 05:33 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TrevorS]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7881
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
Originally Posted By: Clevy
IFor example my charger. When I fill up with shell 91 octane pure gas I get 27mpg if there is no wind,with winter fuel.
When I fill up with Mohawk 94 octane with 10% ethanol that same drive will not get any better than 22mpg.


A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

Are you sure it was because of the ethanol? Could it be the higher octane rating? Could it be gas quality from a different brand? Could it be because its hard to replicates driving pattern?

Ethanol has 33% less energy so E10 provides 3.33% less energy IF it has the full 10% of Ethanol.


I drive the same all the time. Set cruise at 70mph and go. If rive less than 10% of my miles in the city. I get to work,coming off the highway and park.
I used the 94 octane for 3 tanks and averaged them out so I could rule out any anomalies in the fuel and driving habits.
I don't care one way or the other if ethanol is in my fuel,I care about miles per tank and cost per mile. Due to the fact ethanol high test is the same price as pure gas 91 octane I use 91.
I ran my tank dry never getting more than 310 miles with Mohawk 94 octane. I routinely get 380 with 91 octane shell fuel.
I will say this though my Harley doesn't even have a hint of pinging with Mohawk 94.


Not at all doubting methodology. More about attributing everything to ethanol rather than brand and octane level.

It is known that higher octane gas has less energy. And plenty of people have reported poor gas from certain brands. Hyper milers also report certain sweet spot speeds apparently related to torque.

So your 20% might be due to multiple factors not just ethanol.



I am not blaming ethanol as a whole. I'm merely stating my experiences using it.
My mustangs don't see as much of a mileage drop however the ecu isn't as sophisticated as my charger.
I will say with certainty that on 94 octane the car is more responsive at light throttle inputs.
WOT doesn't feel any different over premium gasoline however there might be a small increase in pull.
I've re-tuned the ecu with a tuner,the tune is the same on both fuels.
So yeah there could be more than just ethanol affecting the mpg however because I know that a single tank doesn't mean much I ran 3 full tanks before making any judgements.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309676 - 03/12/14 05:37 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Shannow]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts

Top
#3309685 - 03/12/14 05:43 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7881
Loc: Saskatoon canada


Mr copy and paste.
Got anything you did yourself or do you just regurgitate fluff pieces written up by lobby groups.
And I don't dig ditches there sweetie. I own/operate the largest non-union construction company in the city. 50 men depend on me and my money for their way of life.
So once you become a hotshot and come out of your moms basement then maybe I'd let you stand in my shadow,til then though your nothing but a little man with an agenda and no parts to implement it.
So enjoy your virtual credentials and your pretend corvette, I'll keep on keeping on here in the real world.
K
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3310119 - 03/13/14 01:56 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11782
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy.

All I was pointing out was that vehicle got fewer miles per tank on a certain brand of fuel. It may have been the ethanol, it may have been garbage fuel to begin with. It may have been within the background noise. Clevy has noticed peculiarities with a specific brand of fuel, and I've noticed similar peculiarities. He's had reduced fuel economy. So have I. He's gotten a bad batch or two (if I recall correctly). I got a bad batch, too.
_________________________
Plain, simple Garak.

2008 Infiniti G37 coupe - Mobil Delvac 1 ESP 5w-40, Hastings LF113
1984 F-150 4.9L six - Quaker State GB 10w-30, Wix 51515

Top
#3310143 - 03/13/14 03:50 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Marco620 Offline


Registered: 02/25/14
Posts: 277
Loc: Midwest, Rural KS
Out here in kansas I can still buy regular gasoline and its worth the premium. I own a Direct injection car and it run so much better on it. There is a rumor that 91 octane doesn't have any ethanol but it hasn't got warm enough here to warrant buying that expensive jungle juice just to avoid ethanol. Its horrible in the winter too. I used to managed a Sherwin Williams and when I was there many people were buying toloulene to boost octane and mileage. Also had a bunch of druggies trying to buy it to make meth. I can honestly say that just plain fuel idled better and worked better all around. If E10 or whatever was better why in the 80's/90's were nissan sentra and honda crx getting almost 50mpg no problem. I dont think E10 was around then and nobody was unhappy. If its not broke don't fix it. Bring back pure petoleum and all the missing corncobs from the ethanol grab lol.

Top
#3311084 - 03/13/14 09:02 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Marco620]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Marco620
and all the missing corncobs lol.


I think I got an idea where they are.

Top
#3311175 - 03/13/14 09:58 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Garak]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7881
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy.

All I was pointing out was that vehicle got fewer miles per tank on a certain brand of fuel. It may have been the ethanol, it may have been garbage fuel to begin with. It may have been within the background noise. Clevy has noticed peculiarities with a specific brand of fuel, and I've noticed similar peculiarities. He's had reduced fuel economy. So have I. He's gotten a bad batch or two (if I recall correctly). I got a bad batch, too.



2 people sharing similar experiences running the same brand and grade fuel in 2 different cities.
Imagine that.

Like I've said many times,ethanol per say doesn't bother me. Getting less miles per tank on the same dollar does. That's my only motivator and the single most important reason I use shell premium,petro Canada premium or co-op premium.
those brands of fuel give me nearly identical fuel consumption numbers with a very slight(barely perceptible,possibly just noise)edge going to shell fuels for total miles per tank calculated by how much volume was replaced into the tank.
So for me,because I have a choice,and the cost is the same,I buy ethanol free fuel. Its simple math,dollars and nickels(no more pennies here).
It wouldn't even be a big deal if it wasn't for the fact my total commute is a combined 100 miles a day. So even 40 extra miles per tank is significant because its almost half my daily mileage.
So if I multiply that over a week its 1 extra days commute,then 4 extra days a month,which is almost a whole extra week of getting to work and back.
Then multiply that over a year and its a month and a half of round trips that I lose if I run ethanol flavoured premium.
Doing the math at 85 dollars a tank,a tank lasts 3 days if running ethanol so that's 15 tanks of fuel in that month and a half of work days now just cost me an extra 1400 a year in fuel by running 94 octane 10% ethanol blended fuel vs premium pure gas.
That's a weeks pay extra,just in fuel if I used ethanol blended fuel so in my case only a retard would use it,unless I just want to burn money.
Not to mention the extra pollution those 15 tanks put into the air,even if ethanol pollutes less because I'm burning more of it where exactly is the environmental benefit.
There isn't any. Only a fool would use that stuff if there was a choice,unless the cost was lower which means cost per mile would need to be established then a decision made based on the fiscal realities.
If ethanol cost me less,and by the time a cost per mile was figured out I'd be happy to use the stuff if my cost per mile was less than gasoline however here ethanol blended premium and pure gasoline cost the same,so the ethanol costs more per mile to use.
Which means only a retard would use it. It's just that simple.
Make it cheaper per mile and I'll gladly use it.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3311180 - 03/13/14 10:01 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Garak]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7881
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy.

All I was pointing out was that vehicle got fewer miles per tank on a certain brand of fuel. It may have been the ethanol, it may have been garbage fuel to begin with. It may have been within the background noise. Clevy has noticed peculiarities with a specific brand of fuel, and I've noticed similar peculiarities. He's had reduced fuel economy. So have I. He's gotten a bad batch or two (if I recall correctly). I got a bad batch, too.



What. You claim to be some kind of engineer or authority on ethanol yet you don't know the BTU difference between ethanol and gasoline.
The make up and big red nose suit you.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3311306 - 03/14/14 12:48 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: Clevy
The make up and big red nose suit you.



Originally Posted By: Marco620

and all the missing corncobs lol.


I think I got an idea where they are.

Top
Page 12 of 14 < 1 2 ... 10 11 12 13 14 >