Ethanol fuel

It is still worth it, considering the reduced reliance on mullahs and less pollution. In fact Australia is one of the few countries capable of producing enough ethanol to embrace E85 solution.

Hi George

We probably are ultimately better off to diversify our soucre of supply
, but I don't see an easy or clear arguement in favour.

Locally here (melbourne its 134.5/130.5 ULP/E10 so its
revenue neutral with the less economy which is hardly an incentive.

Studies I have show its hard to find enough suitable land to grow crops
without intensive farming that uses more net resources.

Considering the price of bannna's you'd be worried about a big blow
thru the sugar cane.

Where'as we overproduce gas which is an almost 100% replacement fuel.

Robin Miller

Hi Robin,
IMHO the arguments are quite simple, even if we had to pay slightly more (for the time being) for ethanol based fuel and even with reduced economy it would still be worth it. In any case it is a moot point as eventually we will be forced to seek alternatives anyway. The bananas are not really comparable, sugar cane fields in the tropics around the world have on occasions been heavily damaged by forces of nature with little impact on the price and availability of sugar. I also fully support gas as an alternative (why not give incentives to manufactures of gas only vehicles?) but I believe that with very simple anticorrosive measures (already implemented in many American cars) we could run E85 without any modifications and without potential risks associated with gas.
Cheers

Hi George

Articles like the following government document are why I think its not so clear cut.

Robin Miller

Site Link

Couple of things that none of the statistics would show, we could triple sugar cane output on the east coast alone plus the possible Ord River scheme revival and eventually the process of producing ethanol from wood and waste products will become feasible.

I would dispute the 3% worse fuel economy.

The United brand ehtanol blend is 95 RON and costs 5c less than 91 RON unleaded. I haven't noticed any difference around town, HOWEVER, I find towing with the 95 RON ethanol blend gives greater power, especially up hills and also gives better economy.

First hand experience, not theory.

Hi Jimbo

Yes I remember reading your post along those lines to.

However it isn't a disputeable fact.
Ethanol has around 66% of the energy of petrol and the more
you add the more power you loose.

The loss is simply that 30% less diluted to 1/10 = 3%

The increased octane further reduces power as it retards timing
until the engine retunes itself over time, if indeed it can at all.

A reason for your effect could be that something was not optimum in the engine - could even be as simple as being accidently well over advanced, or that it was running on a poor fuel previously and the ecu had detuned itself to compensate. (assume your engine is meant for 91 unleaded).

Robin Miller

Interesting stuff Robin. I wasn't aware of the 66% thing.

I do however dispute your theory that higher octane fuel reduces power. Higher octane fuels allow a motor to run further advanced timing and hence greater power and economy. Racing cars run high octane fuel, always have.

High octane fuels burn less explosively, thus allowing the spark to be set off earlier and a more even, gradual burn. That is why engines ping when run on low octane fuel; the spark goes off too early causing the piston to slap around in the bore causing the pinging sound.

High octane fuel does not retard timing, rather it allows you to run greater advance.

Cheers,

Jim.

Hi Jimbo

Octane is a measure of the evenness of a fuel , no more ,no less , and is not related to power.

Looking at your words " rather it allows you to run greater advance."

There is an optimum point to explode the fuel in an engine.
The reason you run greater advance is because the fuel takes longer to burn hence you have to advance it just to make it work as good as it was before.
I.E. It needs more time to start burning and go bang at the best point in the cycle.
High octane is hence retarded by definition, and delivers less power unless compensated for.

The reason racing engines use high octane , is because the fuel (a very complex mixture) is more even and little bits don't ignite earlier than others hence allowing use of a higher compression ratio.

It is higher compression ratio that delivers more power by around 4% per point.

Assuming engines are tuned correctly , unless you raise compression ratio there is no benefit, and sometimes a loss. This is the basic science behind all that advice that says you are no better off and also why fuel companies revert to the " it runs cleaner hence better stuff" cause they know there got no where to run with a direct power claim due to high octane in engines not so designed.

The goverment doc I referred to earlier is not specific to this follow ups point
but is worth checking out as it goes to the basic issue of less power, and less range by using Ethanol.

Robin Miller

Robin,

Have you ever read the book "The high performance internal combustion engine" by Riccardo and Glyde? It's a great read. It announced principles 70 years ago that still dominate engine tuning today. The basics of the internal combustion engine have not changed.

I don't want to argue with you, but some of your points around high octane fuel just don't wash.

Higher compression will benefit from high octane fuel, but so will advanced timing and different camshaft profiles. As will ignition timing ie advance or retard.

Anyway, a good exchange.

Cheers,

Jim.

Hi Jimbo

You will have to tell another time then which ones don't wash - maybe thats why I didn't get 100% on that exam.

I will leave you with an on-line reference (part 1 of 4) which covers the basic point and that others reading this thread may like to follow.

Below the reference I pasted a key paragraph.

Robin Miller

Site Link

If you are already using the proper octane fuel, you will not obtain more
power from higher octane fuels. The engine will be already operating at
optimum settings, and a higher octane should have no effect on the management
system. Your driveability and fuel economy will remain the same. The higher
octane fuel costs more, so you are just throwing money away. If you are
already using a fuel with an octane rating slightly below the optimum, then
using a higher octane fuel will cause the engine management system to move to
the optimum settings, possibly resulting in both increased power and improved
fuel economy. You may be able to change octanes between seasons ( reduce
octane in winter ) to obtain the most cost-effective fuel without loss of
driveability.

Robin where did you find the 3% from? I am running my truck on the ethanol blend and I have done 4 tanks now and I am getting nearly extra 50km out of it....?

Hi Troll

You probably cheated and fitted a Fitch ! , or better still like my mate whose didn't do much so he fitted a second one , and now it does'nt do much twice.

The links to documents posted above show how it has less energy, similar to gas.

But don't worry think of those on E85 , they have to get 30% bigger fuel tanks to get the same range.

Robin Miller

Robin,

I agree entirely that running high octane juice in an engine not set up for it is a waste of money. A while back I ran my XR8 on Optimax for quite a long period and kept records. 1 Fuel economy did not change at all, despite it being touted as a "high density fuel". 2 it was no quicker against the stop watch.

My Terracan, in normal driving, is no better on high octane. However, as said before, when towing, the performance and economy are both improved. Could it be that the ECU operated differently when the engine is under load? I don't know, but can only communicate the outcome.

We had a 2.6L Magna a while back that quoted different power on torque figures for high octane fuel in the handbook. Again, when towing I ran premium ULP and the improvement up hills was worth every cent. If you've ever tried towing a 17 foot boat with a 2.6 Magna you would understand that every bit of power helps LOL.

Cheers,

Jim.

Not interested in ethonal in tthe slightest. It would be at least as environmentally unfreindly as fossil fuels but probablly more.
The suger industry in the East has already been linked to the destruction of the barrier reef from fertiliser runoff. And if anyone thinks the clearing of further land in the Kimberly to grow monoculture and all the pesticides and fertiliser neccessary to grow in the tropics is a good thing for australia well............

Hi Again Jimbo - Frustrating stuff hey !

You have experienced a real effect , the science is correct but doesn't seem to support what you feel. Happens a lot , and it can be fun pursuing the answer.

It could be as simple as that your engine is real suitable for higher octane and that various rules or local emissions requirements meant it was expedient for the importers to spec it otherwise.

Am running thru my own frustrating measurements at the moment , as I am trying to decide if a UniChip actually does anything. On one side I have a lovely curve , the result of 3 dyno runs showing broadband power increase of 12%.

Yet I set out to seperately verify this without a dyno , wherein I have a process which tends to eliminate all variables with timed GPS based runs over 2 weeks using same everthing including fuel , the averaged and then normalized runs have produced lovely curves so close that you can pick no difference.

So where is my 12% ?
Its no wonder that some believe in much less soundly based miracle solutions.

Robin Miller

HI Forumites, Just had to add this one--FITCH has been tested in USA and still returned a 15% fuel savings with 85% ethanol content.Remember when diesel was cheaper than petrol???? then as diesel became more popular the price went UP,to dearer than petrol I wonder why?. Not hard to work out this gov is smarter than the average person and realises where their income comes from in revenue or excise.What do you think will happen when they rope all in with their GAS offer
you guessed it up the price YAHOO they win again.Here I am offering you all an extra up to 100 klms further on each tank of fuel for life and, you dont believe me,work it out your self who is stitching you up happy days ahead. By the way the testing by motoring authoritys is moving closer, IE NRMA and AAA all will then be revealed.

Regards BILLS

Bill,
I understand that what you are saying is Fitches are now cheap because most people don't use them. But the more fitches you sell the more you will put the price up.

Marty.