If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular
Awl --
As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases with higher compression. But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher cost of high test gas? My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not by a long shot. Opinions? Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off much earlier in the fractionating column)?? -- EA |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:40:27 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> wrote: >Awl -- > >As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases with >higher compression. >But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression >increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher cost of >high test gas? > >My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not by a >long shot. >Opinions? > >Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more expensive >than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off much earlier in the >fractionating column)?? Supply and demand. My industry sources told me that during much of writing of new articles about refinery capacity shortages and oil shortages there was actually a glut of gasoline relative to other oil products. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular
On Jan 27, 4:40*pm, "Existential Angst" > wrote:
> Awl -- > > As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases with > higher compression. > But high test can cost 10% more than regular. *Does high compression > increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher cost of > high test gas? > > My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not by a > long shot. > Opinions? > > Somewhat related: * WTF decided to make diesel more so much more expensive > than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off much earlier in the > fractionating column)?? > -- > EA It burns hotter,but is not worth the extra money. 87 octane is what my Dodge Van is made to run on. Its possible high test is better in the very cold. Good to put dry gas mix in to get rid of gas tank water. TreBert |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 16:40:27 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> wrote: <snip> > WTF decided to make diesel more so much more expensive >than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off much earlier in the >fractionating column)?? <snip> Short Answer: The public is getting hosed [again] Longer answer: A large portion of the cost difference is in taxes, in part justified in the bureaucratic mind by the extra mileage per gallon which reduces tax revenue. The rest is due to legislation requiring ultra-low sulfur which costs extra to produce using orthodox production methods. FWIW – ultra low sulfur and ultra low wax diesel and JP4 jet fuel can be produced by existing G/CTL [gas/ coal to liquid] technology using the abundant (cheap) shale gas as feed stock. There is two cost savings. The production cost of the ultra-low sulfur/wax fuel is cheaper than that produced by existing technology from petroleum feedstock, and it is a totally domestic product with domestic employment, eliminating a major portion of the current accounts trade deficit. Naturally, we can't do it as this might upset the major political campaign donors like the existing [tax evading] oil companies, banks, and commodity speculators, and upset the need for continuing wars in the Mid-East and Africa. http://www.synfuels.com/GTL.html http://www.chemsystems.com/about/cs/...20Ethylene.cfm http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/conf/pdf/cornitius.pdf http://www.cleantechinvestor.com/por...hnologies.html and a whole bunch more. -- Unka' George "Gold is the money of kings, silver is the money of gentlemen, barter is the money of peasants, but debt is the money of slaves" -Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium" |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular
"Existential Angst" > wrote in message
... > Awl -- > > As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases > with higher compression. > But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression > increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher > cost of high test gas? > > My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not > by a long shot. > Opinions? > > Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more > expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off > much earlier in the fractionating column)?? > -- > EA If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark until it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the maximum advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load conditions allow, and does improve the performance when you put in hi-test. You'd have to make measurements to see if the gain is worth the added cost. Buick introduced the sensor on the 1978 Turbo V-6. The company I worked for built the test station for the sensors. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel "ULSD has a lower energy content due to the heavy processing required to remove large amounts of sulfur from oil, leading to lower fuel economy. Using it requires more costly oil." jsw |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular
"G=EMC^2" > wrote in message
... On Jan 27, 4:40 pm, "Existential Angst" > wrote: > Awl -- > > As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases with > higher compression. > But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression > increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher cost > of > high test gas? > > My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not by a > long shot. > Opinions? > > Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more expensive > than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off much earlier in the > fractionating column)?? > -- > EA It burns hotter,but is not worth the extra money. 87 octane is what my Dodge Van is made to run on. Its possible high test is better in the very cold. Good to put dry gas mix in to get rid of gas tank water. TreBert ================================================== ====== Dry gas, fwiw, is absolute alcohol -- or near absolute (200 proof, very hygroscopic, bad for the skin) Heh, and a litttle known fact-let: The actual heat content of regular gas is higher than that of high test!! So that right there may offset whatever advantages there are to high test/high compression, at least in streetable cars. The reason, btw, is due to the higher degree of branching of alkyl chains in high test, rendering a more stable carbo-cation intermediate, ergo a lower net release of energy. Organic Chem 101. So I just added sci.chem.... haven't seen any rants from Uncle Al lately.... LOL -- EA. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular
"Jim Wilkins" > wrote in message
... > "Existential Angst" > wrote in message > ... >> Awl -- >> >> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases with >> higher compression. >> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression >> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher cost >> of high test gas? >> >> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not by a >> long shot. >> Opinions? >> >> Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more >> expensive than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off much >> earlier in the fractionating column)?? >> -- >> EA > > If your engine has a knock sensor it will slowly advance the spark until > it senses knock, then back off and try again. This gives the maximum > advance that the fuel, temperature, humidity and load conditions allow, > and does improve the performance when you put in hi-test. You'd have to > make measurements to see if the gain is worth the added cost. Yeah, anti-knock is a super-cool feature. One can also mix regular and high test, should regular gas be outside of the engine's ability to compensate. fwiu, 89 octane is in fact just mixed 87+ high-test, approx 50/50. So an aware driver may find that for every 10 gals of fuel, 9 gal of regular + 1 gal of premium would do him good. -- EA > > Buick introduced the sensor on the 1978 Turbo V-6. The company I worked > for built the test station for the sensors. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low-sulfur_diesel > "ULSD has a lower energy content due to the heavy processing required to > remove large amounts of sulfur from oil, leading to lower fuel economy. > Using it requires more costly oil." > jsw > > |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular
"Existential Angst" > wrote in message
... > Awl -- > > As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases with > higher compression. > But high test can cost 10% more than regular. Does high compression > increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher cost > of high test gas? > > My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not by a > long shot. Correction: The Carnot efficiency just BARELY keeps up with compression ratio, but it IS close -- or closer than I thought. But still proly futile. Here's how it works. Carnot Eff = 1 - Tlow/Thot Going from a compression ratio of, say, 7 to 9, gas laws will predict a temp rise of the same ratio. Using temp ratios that give an approx effic for IC engines of 67%, use 1 - 1/3. Now increase Thot by about 30% (like the CR increase), and your effic goes up to .75, for a 8% improvement in efficiency. But, considering that, in thermo, nothing EVER turns out in your favor, it is almost a guar-own-tee that the payoff for high test does not keep up with the expense. Combine that with the fact-let that I posted to Jim, that regular gas ALREADY has more energy content than high-test, and f'sure (well, almost f'sure) itsa losing proposition. Along these same lines, #6 heating oil has RADICALLY more heat content than #2 heating oil, AND is substantially cheaper. So the home-moaner gets effed butt again..... -- EA > Opinions? > > Somewhat related: WTF decided to make diesel more so much more expensive > than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off much earlier in the > fractionating column)?? > -- > EA > > |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:08:55 -0800 (PST), "G=EMC^2"
> wrote: >On Jan 27, 4:40*pm, "Existential Angst" > wrote: >> Awl -- >> >> As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases with >> higher compression. >> But high test can cost 10% more than regular. *Does high compression >> increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher cost of >> high test gas? >> >> My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not by a >> long shot. >> Opinions? >> >> Somewhat related: * WTF decided to make diesel more so much more expensive >> than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off much earlier in the >> fractionating column)?? >> -- >> EA > >It burns hotter,but is not worth the extra money. 87 octane is what my >Dodge Van is made to run on. Its possible high test is better in the >very cold. Good to put dry gas mix in to get rid of gas tank water. >TreBert Lower octane = higher volatility, and is therefore better in cold weather. Higher octane fuel can cause hard starting. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
$ per mile: high compression/high test vs. low compression/regular
On Jan 27, 2:40*pm, "Existential Angst" > wrote:
> Awl -- > > As all usenet thermodynamicists know, engine efficiency increases with > higher compression. > But high test can cost 10% more than regular. *Does high compression > increase engine efficiency by at least 10% to account for the higher cost of > high test gas? > > My crude PV=nRT calcs + Carnot's law indicate that it does not, not by a > long shot. > Opinions? > > Somewhat related: * WTF decided to make diesel more so much more expensive > than gas, when it's much cheaper to produce (comes off much earlier in the > fractionating column)?? > -- > EA Your engine's compression ratio is fixed and anything with an engine management system(like in the last 3 decades) is going to adapt to whatever you stick in there. Your compression ratio is designed for the lowest common denominator and the timing is adjusted automatically so it doesn't ping. My old van had a built-in mileage computer, 91 octane didn't do any better than 85. Alcohol-free gas got like 10-15% better mileage, though. Now the air-cooled VW is a different deal, only has an open-loop injection system and needs the extra octane to keep from getting holes in pistons from knock. Runs like crap with the ignition retarded. Sulfur is the reason on the diesel, EPA decided to mandate a much lower sulfur content. Sulfur gets removed anyway in processing, just that below a certain point it starts costing a LOT extra to do. Some diesels relied on that sulfur to keep injection parts from galling and binding, I can remember guys with VW Rabbits haunting the boneyards looking for pumps after the changeover. On the other hand, you aren't breathing as much sulfuric acid in urban areas. Stan |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Repost for new members: 1924 Chrysler B-70 'High Compression' Six Cylinder Engine Right svl (WPC Museum) F.jpg 231021 bytes | HEMI-Powered@[email protected] | Auto Photos | 0 | April 9th 08 12:01 AM |
Repost for new members: 1924 Chrysler B-70 'High Compression' Six Cylinder Engine Right svl (WPC Museum) 2 F.jpg 209752 bytes | HEMI-Powered@[email protected] | Auto Photos | 0 | April 9th 08 12:00 AM |
Repost - 2001 pictures: 1924 Chrysler B-70 'High Compression' Six Cylinder Engine Right svl (WPC Museum) F.jpg 231021 bytes | HEMI-Powered @ [email protected] | Auto Photos | 0 | March 18th 07 11:28 AM |
Regular vs High Test | Gary | Mazda | 2 | September 24th 05 01:41 AM |
1991 Toyota Tercel - Compression test too high | Daniel Beardsley | Technology | 11 | May 4th 05 04:44 PM |