Ethanol and Internal Combustion Engines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah...

Let's see, who should I trust for engine longevity, the Liquid Sun Energy or the CARB, or the wording in my owners manual that prohibits the use of fuel with greater than 10% ethanol...

Think the Liquid Sun Energy or the CARB cares about what happens to my engine?

Think they've done the testing, or have the engineers, that Mercedes has?
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Astro14
Yeah...

Let's see, who should I trust for engine longevity, the Liquid Sun Energy or the CARB, or the wording in my owners manual that prohibits the use of fuel with greater than 10% ethanol...

Think the Liquid Sun Energy or the CARB cares about what happens to my engine?

Think they've done the testing, or have the engineers, that Mercedes has?


Whatever hairbrained idea the EPA and CARB come up with is what is law, unfortunately.

The agricultural engine in my Jeep isn't going to like the 15% either.
frown.gif
 
While I think it is stupid to burn foodstuff in a car, I doubt that running alcohol in an engine will reduce its longevity.
 
The pope hates A/C also, well he hates us using A/C, his jet, vatican have cool A/C.
 
This is hugely bogus.

The projected environmental benefit is a fraud. The model they use for pollution was developed and set in stone in the 1970s. It can't (won't) be updated, because comparisons with historical values couldn't be easily made.

The problem is that in 1970s, most vehicles used carburetors. If you take a carburetor engine tuned for maximum performance at sea level then dilute the fuel with 10% alcohol, you'll see far lower emissions. If you dilute the fuel with 15% alcohol you'll see even lower emissions, especially with a full-choke cold start.

The flaw is that in the real world essentially all vehicles (excepting motorcycles) are fuel injected. When they are closed-loop, they don't run rich. They produce pretty much the same pollution, regardless of running E0, E10 or E15.
 
Originally Posted By: djb
This is hugely bogus.

The projected environmental benefit is a fraud. The model they use for pollution was developed and set in stone in the 1970s. It can't (won't) be updated, because comparisons with historical values couldn't be easily made.

The problem is that in 1970s, most vehicles used carburetors. If you take a carburetor engine tuned for maximum performance at sea level then dilute the fuel with 10% alcohol, you'll see far lower emissions. If you dilute the fuel with 15% alcohol you'll see even lower emissions, especially with a full-choke cold start.

The flaw is that in the real world essentially all vehicles (excepting motorcycles) are fuel injected. When they are closed-loop, they don't run rich. They produce pretty much the same pollution, regardless of running E0, E10 or E15.



That would not be true. Ethanol is a hydrocarbon at C2H6O molecular composition. So it will produce water and carbon dioxide in a proper combustion. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant but won't cause acid rain or smog.

The main criticism of ethanol should be about using food as fuel, and lower energy density than gasoline (21 megajoules per liter versus 35 megajoules per liter of gasoline).
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Originally Posted By: djb
This is hugely bogus.

The projected environmental benefit is a fraud. The model they use for pollution was developed and set in stone in the 1970s. It can't (won't) be updated, because comparisons with historical values couldn't be easily made.

The problem is that in 1970s, most vehicles used carburetors. If you take a carburetor engine tuned for maximum performance at sea level then dilute the fuel with 10% alcohol, you'll see far lower emissions. If you dilute the fuel with 15% alcohol you'll see even lower emissions, especially with a full-choke cold start.

The flaw is that in the real world essentially all vehicles (excepting motorcycles) are fuel injected. When they are closed-loop, they don't run rich. They produce pretty much the same pollution, regardless of running E0, E10 or E15.



That would not be true. Ethanol is a hydrocarbon at C2H6O molecular composition. So it will produce water and carbon dioxide in a proper combustion. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant but won't cause acid rain or smog.

The main criticism of ethanol should be about using food as fuel, and lower energy density than gasoline (21 megajoules per liter versus 35 megajoules per liter of gasoline).
I like carbon dioxoide, Dilutes oxygens oxidising effects and plants grow better.
 
Originally Posted By: zach1900
The pope hates A/C also, well he hates us using A/C, his jet, vatican have cool A/C.


Hates Capitalism also!
 
Originally Posted By: Vern_in_IL
Originally Posted By: zach1900
The pope hates A/C also, well he hates us using A/C, his jet, vatican have cool A/C.


Hates Capitalism also!


Hates everything, including women.
crackmeup2.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Originally Posted By: djb
This is hugely bogus.

The projected environmental benefit is a fraud. The model they use for pollution was developed and set in stone in the 1970s. It can't (won't) be updated, because comparisons with historical values couldn't be easily made.

The problem is that in 1970s, most vehicles used carburetors. If you take a carburetor engine tuned for maximum performance at sea level then dilute the fuel with 10% alcohol, you'll see far lower emissions. If you dilute the fuel with 15% alcohol you'll see even lower emissions, especially with a full-choke cold start.

The flaw is that in the real world essentially all vehicles (excepting motorcycles) are fuel injected. When they are closed-loop, they don't run rich. They produce pretty much the same pollution, regardless of running E0, E10 or E15.



That would not be true. Ethanol is a hydrocarbon at C2H6O molecular composition. So it will produce water and carbon dioxide in a proper combustion. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant but won't cause acid rain or smog.

The main criticism of ethanol should be about using food as fuel, and lower energy density than gasoline (21 megajoules per liter versus 35 megajoules per liter of gasoline).


Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it untrue.

The carb thing is exactly why oxygentes got their gig.

The carb has liquid fuel running down the floor of the manifold, and significant mixture distribution differences from cylinder to cylinder...it has to be rich enough that the leanest cylinder gets to burn...it's typically set rich.

Under the choke start, the fuel is further enriched as there's limited heat for vaporisation to take place.

Under either of those modes, normal and on choke, the excess fuel produced HC and CO, in addition to CO2 and H2O...(these, and NOX, are formed normally under "proper combustion", as high temperature stoichiometry favours some of these fast forward reactions).

Anyway, adding oxygenates was a means of reducing the emissions of HC and CO that were part of carbed engine operation.

That's where they got the gig, and that's where they should have stayed.

There's no engineering reason for them these days with injection systems, and closed loop operation, it's all political, and feelgood greenhouse issues.
 
Originally Posted By: CT8
I like carbon dioxoide, Dilutes oxygens oxidising effects and plants grow better.


If it did the former, your car wouldn't run, and people's thinking would be slow, fuzzy and incorrect.

As to the latter, clearly the plants improved growth rate isn't keeping up with our emissions, or there would be no change in concentration.
 
Originally Posted By: zach1900
The pope hates A/C also, well he hates us using A/C, his jet, vatican have cool A/C.
The only church in my town with AC is "His".
 
Originally Posted By: zach1900
The pope hates A/C also, well he hates us using A/C, his jet, vatican have cool A/C.
His church was a little rough on astronomers who thought the earth was round a while back. Real "science" fans.
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Originally Posted By: djb
This is hugely bogus.

The projected environmental benefit is a fraud. The model they use for pollution was developed and set in stone in the 1970s. It can't (won't) be updated, because comparisons with historical values couldn't be easily made.

The problem is that in 1970s, most vehicles used carburetors. If you take a carburetor engine tuned for maximum performance at sea level then dilute the fuel with 10% alcohol, you'll see far lower emissions. If you dilute the fuel with 15% alcohol you'll see even lower emissions, especially with a full-choke cold start.

The flaw is that in the real world essentially all vehicles (excepting motorcycles) are fuel injected. When they are closed-loop, they don't run rich. They produce pretty much the same pollution, regardless of running E0, E10 or E15.



That would not be true. Ethanol is a hydrocarbon at C2H6O molecular composition. So it will produce water and carbon dioxide in a proper combustion. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant but won't cause acid rain or smog.

The main criticism of ethanol should be about using food as fuel, and lower energy density than gasoline (21 megajoules per liter versus 35 megajoules per liter of gasoline).


Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it untrue.

The carb thing is exactly why oxygentes got their gig.

The carb has liquid fuel running down the floor of the manifold, and significant mixture distribution differences from cylinder to cylinder...it has to be rich enough that the leanest cylinder gets to burn...it's typically set rich.

Under the choke start, the fuel is further enriched as there's limited heat for vaporisation to take place.

Under either of those modes, normal and on choke, the excess fuel produced HC and CO, in addition to CO2 and H2O...(these, and NOX, are formed normally under "proper combustion", as high temperature stoichiometry favours some of these fast forward reactions).

Anyway, adding oxygenates was a means of reducing the emissions of HC and CO that were part of carbed engine operation.

That's where they got the gig, and that's where they should have stayed.

There's no engineering reason for them these days with injection systems, and closed loop operation, it's all political, and feelgood greenhouse issues.
I recall when Chrysler "slant sixes" with carbs sold here had different heat range plugs to compensate for the length of the manifold runners. Doesn't matter with FI
 
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
While I think it is stupid to burn foodstuff in a car, I doubt that running alcohol in an engine will reduce its longevity.


Thought only winos and alcoholics considered ethanol a food source.

There has been E15 available in my area since last winter. The pumps are clearly marked, as well as a label on the nozzle handle that states the it is intended only for flex fuel vehicles to regular vehicles made after 2001. They are really trying to market it in this area and the price is darn good. Used it in my 2015 Chevy 2500 for a few months to try it out. Couldn't tell the difference between regular, E10, or even the E15 on performance and fuel economy. Now using E85 for a while, and definite 2 mpg hit, but the price is good enough that it is still cheaper to use than the others on a cost per mile basis. I have run UOA's on running E85 in my previous vehicle and there was no changes from running regular fuel UOA's. Lost any concerns I had with ethanol years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top