?

Log in

No account? Create an account
April 2017   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
newdefault

for innocentchild

Posted on 2006.01.04 at 13:24
see? even the drift king f***s up once in a while :P

---

and just because i'm feeling on an automotive bent this morning-

i learned about E85 from some bmw boost-heads in sweden last year. the cliff's notes are "it's 15% gasoline and the rest is your grandpappy's moonshine". the swedish power addicts love it because it has an effective octane rating about the same as the $5 leaded race gas you occasionally see those guys with the skinny tires on the front of their cars filling up with.

it's good for us because we make it here already (byproduct of corn farming, which removes pollutants from the atmosphere, unlike refining oil), it burns cleaner than gas, and we don't line the pockets of the saudi royal family when we fill up with it.

so HOW good is it? good enough that this fuel alone takes a saab station wagon's power output from BMW 3-series territory on pump gas to turning up one's nose at the WRX STI's output... 310hp & 325ft/lb of torque on E85.

saab? gimme!

on a final note, think where we might be if we had spent the past few years' worth of Occupying Iraq money on E85 distribution infrastructure- anyone wanna guess what we'd be paying at the pump to say "FY OPEC, i wanna go faster"...?

Comments:


Nick Rubenstein
nrubenstein at 2006-01-04 21:33 (UTC) (Link)
The downer is that it won't really help N/A engines much (I've watched Evos and STis gain 10MPH bone stock down the main straight at Summit Point raceway just by fueling up with 100 octane. That's goign from 130-140MPH at the braking zone.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2006-01-04 21:59 (UTC) (Link)
The downer is that it won't really help N/A engines much

if you're going with a pump-gas crate motor, i'd agree-

build for E85, though, and i'd think there could be good results. 11 or 12:1 CR sounds nice to me...
Nick Rubenstein
nrubenstein at 2006-01-04 22:08 (UTC) (Link)
Speaking as someone with an 11.5:1 engine, I can tell you it ain't all it's cracked up to be. :p Especially after it spends 9 weeks at a dealer. Built S54 race engines aren't seeing all that much more power on higher octane fuel. vs. 93.
Colonel Angus
scosol at 2006-01-05 00:45 (UTC) (Link)
huh- octane is octane, and a motor built to take advantage of that specific level of detonation-resistance will show the same gains per unit of input mixture, forced-induction or not-
the only reason STIs gain instant power and you don't is because the turbo can easily shove more air in if the mixture can take it-
in your S54, the only thing the computer can play with is the ignition advance, because the compression ratio can not change-
i don't know what you mean by a "built race engine" but i seem to recall 105 octane being capable of supporting 15:1 compression ratios, but i might be wrong there-

Nick Rubenstein
nrubenstein at 2006-01-05 01:00 (UTC) (Link)
By built race engine, I mean lots of internal work (crank/rods/pistons/valves/springs/cams/etcetera), combined with MoTec engine management and a custom tune. There are very real gains with serious octane increases - the S54 actually gains 5hp going from 93 to 96 octane bone stock, but you just aren't going to see the sorts of gains you'd get from an FI car.
Nick Rubenstein
nrubenstein at 2006-01-05 01:30 (UTC) (Link)
I should note that I tend to think in BMW centric terms. It's what I know. American iron seems to LOVE high octane.
betternewthings at 2006-01-05 01:33 (UTC) (Link)
You can get 12.8:1 on pump gas on a new R6.

betternewthings at 2006-01-04 22:34 (UTC) (Link)
it's good for us because we make it here already (byproduct of corn farming, which removes pollutants from the atmosphere, unlike refining oil), it burns cleaner than gas, and we don't line the pockets of the saudi royal family when we fill up with it.

Not really. Corn neither takes in nor removes "pollutants". It does fix atmospheric CO2, but not all carbon comes from the atmosphere. Further, the (extremely high) processing costs cause a decent amount of pollution. It costs an order of magnitude more energy to turn corn into ethanol than it does to pump oil out of the ground. In the end, we still burn it and put the CO2 right back in the air.

Given that the atmospheric carbon fixing is balanced by the processing costs, you're probably pretty close to carbon-netural, compared to dino oil.

That's not to say I dislike bioethanol. It's renewable and it means we don't have to give any money the Saudis.
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2006-01-04 22:55 (UTC) (Link)
K, i can always count on you to correct me whenever i simplify stuff enough that non-geeks won't get glossy eyes while reading it :P

betternewthings at 2006-01-05 01:36 (UTC) (Link)
nerds are a superior life form
Colonel Angus
scosol at 2006-01-05 00:25 (UTC) (Link)
there's something wrong with ethanol as a primary fuel (in the midwest normal gasoline is already cut with it) but i can't remember what it is... energy/acre density i think
betternewthings at 2006-01-05 01:34 (UTC) (Link)
that's more for biodiesel than for ethanol. field-to-tank, biodiesel is energy-negative.
Colonel Angus
scosol at 2006-01-05 01:55 (UTC) (Link)
naw- you were claiming that the energy cost to get biodiesel from a field is more than the energy provided by the biodiesel obtained from that field-
to which i then linked you to the alge studies- but i'm not getting in to that argument again-

i recall ethanol having a simple area problem, not a processing-energy problem- as in- (forgetting about subsidies) the only reason ethanol is remotely affordable is because it's a byproduct of our already-huge corn industry-
i think that for all of the US's petroleum needs to be met by that 85/15 blend, it required something like 3 United States' worth of land, all covered in corn- hahahah
Generation Y's Howard Beale
dk at 2006-01-05 20:50 (UTC) (Link)
i think that for all of the US's petroleum needs to be met by that 85/15 blend, it required something like 3 United States' worth of land, all covered in corn- hahahah

well there is of course more than one variable in that equation- no point conjecturing HOW much consumption would drop if millions upon millions weren't driving excursions and suburbans and etc, but the fact remains...
Previous Entry  Next Entry