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.
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.
No such thing. Why are you writing two posts with no trimming and requoting to say the same damn thing?
If they are the same engine, it hasn't been made to exploit E85!!!!!!
I certainly have provided the information. It's not my fault you're too much of dumbass to understand it.
He didn't poke holes in jack or shit, merely displayed his own ignorance.
1) All are not the same engines.
2) Many have control systems which work to exploit E85's anti-knock benefits to some degree.
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:
formatting link
" 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."
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.
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.
MPG is a good indicator of overall vehicle efficiency. Higher MPG means more useful work was extracted from a given volume of fuel.
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.
.... 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.
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.
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.
Come back to the reservation. You're wondering far afield. ;)
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.
Forgetting the electronics, aren't we?
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.
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.
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.
Strawman.
Depends on the thermal effecicency of the engines being compared and thusly not universally true.
Which is neither here nor there for thermal efficency and of value for MPG.
MPG is not the same as work out / energy
Here you go mixing things up again.
But I always have to... typical shit. years and years I put up and others never do shit but pull it out of their ass.
No shit sherlock, you want a gold star for that?
Make an argument for me and knock it down. I _NEVER_ claimed higher MPG for E85. Good job with the strawman.
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.
Strawman.
And oil depedency and oil wars aren't?
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, several times over.
Now you are confusing things even further. Go crack open that thermodynamics textbook you must have had at some point and review.
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.
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.
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.
You like the usenet games.
Then you have no argument.
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?
Read the post I was responding to, mr usenet games.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Projection. I am the only to produce any cites backing up views, as usual. You ran the discussion in circles.
I gave you the clairification. Go make your appointment.
Yes, this does happen a lot. Some arse, in his own ignorance decides that I must be wrong. He argues in circles, mixes stuff up, makes strawmen and demands that I cite my facts. (of course he doesn't cite his)
When I dig up the cites and then the opponent who had been demanding that I do the leg work, saying I am wrong, writes up an insulting post like the one I am now responding to in order to save face. You boys didn't want to admit being wrong. You pushed and pushed, so I produced support, and you both caved.
So I ask you, am I the only one who get's you're projection and "I am always right" attitude, or do you do that in real life too?
I'm sorry, but I try to post only what I know to be correct, that's why the cites to back it up are not more than a google search away.
Now, do you have some cites of your own to show me wrong, or just feel like going the usenet games and insult route?
They refute the position you assigned me. Trouble is those are not the arguments I made, but merely the ones you could create to knock down.
Then you should have no problem citing the relevant sections. Yet, you don't. You prefer insult and creative editing.
You haven't the first clue and are still trying to mask it with insult as you did days ago when I believe it was you, who said something about something being blown up my ass.
Lie. You cited nothing. I cited something and then like everything else you didn't grasp it because you lack the background info.
You however seem to think 'no significant use' means no use what so ever. Which is of course wrong. Some ethanol optimizing is used, and that is all I ever claimed. That's why the author used the word signifcant as compared to his example rather than the word 'none'. I am sorry this is so difficult for you comprehend.
Brent, it has been truly amazing to watch you dance around and convince yourself that once again you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Even when faced with your own conflicting statements you can still ignore obvious logic and delude yourself into thinking you are right. That is one scary talent you have.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.