The New Hot Rod Lincoln!

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Michael
> Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> 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...ybrid_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.


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.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
news
> In article >, Michael
> Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>> 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...ybrid_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.
>

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.

In article <DGJmh.1844$oW4.964@trndny05>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> 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.

In article <hsJmh.2529$925.1325@trndny04>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:

> 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 ****, 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...lex_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?

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>>> 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.

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.
>
>> 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. 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
>> 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.

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
>>>> 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.

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
>> 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.

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...ybrid_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.

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
>> 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.

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
>>> 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 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
>> 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.

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.
>
>> 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.
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.

In article >, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

>> 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 ****. years and years I put up and others
never do **** but pull it out of their ass.

> Alcohol has a lower specific energy than
> gasoline.

No **** 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
>>> 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.

> 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".
>>
>>> You said FFV engines are more thermally efficient.
>>
>> I said they can be.
>
> .... 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.
> 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.

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
>>> 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.

> 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
>> 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.

> 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.
> 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.

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.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
. ..
> In article <hsJmh.2529$925.1325@trndny04>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>

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...
> "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.

<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???

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.

My Name Is Nobody wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> In article <hsJmh.2529$925.1325@trndny04>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:
>>
>
> 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...
>> "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.
>
> <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???

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 fuel at a lower specific
energy. The net effect is burning the same amount of energy.

There is very little real world benefit, economically speaking, from
burning E85 fuel over gasoline. There are minimal improvements in
exhaust gas emissions with E85 but even that is minuscule. Especially
considering the high energy consumption needed to produce a gallon of
ethanol. At least with oil Mother Nature has done the "shaking and
baking" and all we do is transport it. In the end, mining oil might be
more environmentally friendly than the industrial scale production of
ethanol.

In article <FUUmh.14527$Ap5.6543@trnddc04>, My Name Is Nobody wrote:

> OK here we go!

Usenet games.

><Big snip of Brent's senseless circular drivel>

You're the boys running this around in circles.

> 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."

And here you have you're own reorg of statement to suit your purpose. I
am sorry you don't have the background knowledge, that's not my problem. Go
play on the freeway.... without a motor vehicle.

<snip unread>