Recent Topics
weird disclaimer on water heater anode
by friendly_jacek
08/21/14 08:25 PM
The story behind the 427 SOHC (Ford's Cammer)
by OVERKILL
08/21/14 08:22 PM
best brand ac compressor?
by FLORIDA
08/21/14 08:06 PM
Does SAE grad even matter in a splash lubed engine
by fdcg27
08/21/14 07:54 PM
how screwed am I here....
by Spawne32
08/21/14 07:43 PM
The Perfect Answer for OS Evangelists
by javacontour
08/21/14 07:37 PM
Pick or Choose One
by L_Sludger
08/21/14 07:29 PM
Oil grade for a 1981 Honda Civic
by Volv04Life
08/21/14 07:11 PM
Oil level on dipstick?
by Reddy45
08/21/14 07:07 PM
5HP B & S Oil
by lawman1909
08/21/14 06:39 PM
4 Impacted Wisdom Teeth Pulled This Morning
by GumbyJarvis
08/21/14 06:34 PM
suspension parts brand recommendation
by FLORIDA
08/21/14 06:33 PM
Newest Members
geeboss, jerryvang, carguru, Uol, GregU
51038 Registered Users
Who's Online
116 registered (123Saab, 808Soldier, 1SSW, 1 FMF, 77GrandPrix, 901Memphis, 11 invisible), 1846 Guests and 223 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51038 Members
64 Forums
218123 Topics
3438356 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 11 of 14 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 >
Topic Options
#3308955 - 03/12/14 01:18 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: chuck1955]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: chuck1955
Turtlevette I follow ethanol news as often as I can.


I just have to wonder about your motivations. All of your posts here are to campaign against ethanol. You don't want to talk motor oil?
_________________________
08 Mustang 4.0 GC
02 Suburban 5.3 M1 0w-30 AFE
75 Corvette Val 0W-20 syn
79 Trans Am M1 TDT
84 Suburban Castrol Edge Ti 5W-20 syn

Top
#3308961 - 03/12/14 01:43 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Clevy]
TrevorS Offline


Registered: 07/14/13
Posts: 1281
Loc: California
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.

Top
#3308979 - 03/12/14 03:10 AM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TrevorS]
Garak Offline


Registered: 12/05/09
Posts: 11102
Loc: Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: TrevorS
A 20% mpg difference is hard to believe.

In my experience, using the same Mohawk fuel in my old Audi, I had reduced fuel economy. I wouldn't call it 20%, but I would definitely get fewer miles out of every tank of Mohawk than when I used Esso pure gas 91, and that was with some repeatable driving. Of course, whether or not it was actually statistically significant or if I missed other factors is another matter. Closer to 10% would be my guess, but that's getting into the background noise, really.

In any event, I haven't used it often enough in my G (they clobbered the Mohawk CAA rewards program) as I did in my Audi to see if it makes as much of an apparent difference in the G as it seemed to in the Audi.

Maybe I'll run a few tanks and see if I can notice anything. As for your suggestions about the higher octane or a different quality gas, that's certainly possible, too. Not that it matters much, but it's not a Top Tier station up here.

Perhaps Mohawk's 94 octane degrades quickly. Clevy has noticed other problems with it before, and I got one terrible tank in the Audi. It was to the point the car would barely idle. When I had my Lightning, though, I never had an issue nor had any noticeable difference in fuel economy.
_________________________
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
#3309460 - 03/12/14 01:59 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: Garak]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy. Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.

In my experimentation I was able to drive my vette from Boston to Albany on a tank of regular E10. It was real close to empty when I got there. I filled with E85 and drove back and made it.

How do you explain that?

My theory is that it can be run very lean without detonation or piston overheating. It burns much cooler than gas. I had a lean condition. A carb calibrated for gas running ethanol.


Top
#3309466 - 03/12/14 02:04 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7068
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
People keep saying ethanol has 33% or whatever number less energy. Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.

In my experimentation I was able to drive my vette from Boston to Albany on a tank of regular E10. It was real close to empty when I got there. I filled with E85 and drove back and made it.

How do you explain that?

My theory is that it can be run very lean without detonation or piston overheating. It burns much cooler than gas. I had a lean condition. A carb calibrated for gas running ethanol.




Chevette?
Because we've proven your credibility is lacking nothing you write carries any weight.
Take your ball and go home.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309471 - 03/12/14 02:10 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: TrevorS]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7068
Loc: Saskatoon canada
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.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309472 - 03/12/14 02:11 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 2459
Loc: Upper Midwest
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 188K
1996 Honda Accord, 201K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 302K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 223K

Top
#3309474 - 03/12/14 02:12 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: kschachn]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7068
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


Not just this thread.
He's entertaining though,like a 30 car pile up.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309479 - 03/12/14 02:24 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: kschachn]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.

Top
#3309485 - 03/12/14 02:36 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
kschachn Offline


Registered: 12/26/05
Posts: 2459
Loc: Upper Midwest
See, that's actually the problem. I do have a BSME with a minor in chemistry. I also worked for the chairman of the chemistry department for all four years as a lab tech doing assorted grunt work, including teaching a lab on fuels and lubricants.

That's why when I see statements like this it's like a red cape to a bull. I can't help but charge.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.
_________________________
1994 BMW 530i, 188K
1996 Honda Accord, 201K
1999 Toyota Sienna, 302K
2000 Toyota ECHO, 223K

Top
#3309511 - 03/12/14 03:07 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: kschachn]
turtlevette Offline


Registered: 12/24/13
Posts: 685
Loc: Massachusetts
Originally Posted By: kschachn
See, that's actually the problem. I do have a BSME with a minor in chemistry. I also worked for the chairman of the chemistry department for all four years as a lab tech doing assorted grunt work, including teaching a lab on fuels and lubricants.

That's why when I see statements like this it's like a red cape to a bull. I can't help but charge.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.


You don't understand that for a gallon of gasoline some percentage is converted to work, and the rest is waste in the form of incomplete combustion, waste heat, friction, etc? You can't as easily lean gas out to 20/1 or more to get a more efficient burn and resulting more complete conversion of gasoline to energy. A fuel like ethanol might be able to burn much leaner thus converting more of the product to energy. I envision a lean burn mode kicking in when the cruise control is on or something similar.

example

1 gal gas = x btu
1 gal ethanol = .7x btu

if gas conversion is 60% we have .6 btu work
if ethanol conversion is 90$ we have .9*.7 btu = .63 btu

do you understand where I'm headed with this?



Top
#3309527 - 03/12/14 03:17 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7068
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Originally Posted By: kschachn
You have said some doozies in this thread, but that has to take the cake.

Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Do any of you ever consider that if the energy is more efficiently converted its possible to obtain equal mileage to gas? More complete combustion equals less wasted energy.


If you had any engineering or technical background at all, you would understand. That goes for clevy too. I don't know how to take this stuff down to 3rd grade level.






More lies. You arent anything more that wind.
Skyship comes to mind.
Sunkship moved to Massachusetts.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
#3309529 - 03/12/14 03:20 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26267
Loc: a prison island
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.

Top
#3309536 - 03/12/14 03:23 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: turtlevette]
Shannow Online   content


Registered: 12/12/02
Posts: 26267
Loc: a prison island
Originally Posted By: turtlevette

example

1 gal gas = x btu
1 gal ethanol = .7x btu

if gas conversion is 60% we have .6 btu work
if ethanol conversion is 90$ we have .9*.7 btu = .63 btu

do you understand where I'm headed with this?


I rest my case...what's the thermal efficiency of a flying pig ?

That's not science, that's made up rubbish.

Bring actual science, notmade up rubbish.

Demonstrate HOW in both your examples, they can exceed Carnot efficiencies...then why one can be better than the other.

Top
#3309537 - 03/12/14 03:24 PM Re: Pure Gas vs. 10% E [Re: markum]
Clevy Offline


Registered: 11/11/10
Posts: 7068
Loc: Saskatoon canada
Hey turt


Do tell. Where does one buy this more efficient engine that is so much more efficient at turning the crank.
Because here on earth we are limited to what can be purchased,or built.
I've got a geet engine in my garage. I'm trying to make it work with a generator.
But seeing as though I can't go buy one and had to build it where would the masses find this engine that converts fuel to motion so much more effectively.
See where I'm going with this.
_________________________
2006 Charger RT
Miles x 2 per oil filter

Top
Page 11 of 14 < 1 2 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14 >