ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Bikes > GSpot > GS Boxers
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-25-2013, 01:49 AM   #61
jwest
Adventurer
 
jwest's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: Seattle & Raleigh
Oddometer: 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anorak View Post
How is it that people claim 15 percent increases in fuel consumption when they use E10? If the additive had no energy value, it would only cause a 10 percent reduction.
It's more likely these "people" aren't so good at math or accuracy of the basic information.

I've been using pure gas from several different locations in the north west in 3 different vehicles and basically see 10% difference between pure and E10.

This is a welcomed benefit of pure 92 in my land rover which on E10 does well to get 16-18 mpg. I now see 18-20. It's almost tolerable! ;)

It seems that on a GSA, you'd have a fuel range difference of almost 50 miles but my rover has 2 tanks for a total of 50 gallons so my fuel range difference is almost 100 miles.

A BMW sales person told me the E10 causes some issues when a bike sits too long...
jwest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 05:00 AM   #62
TuefelHunden
Studly Adventurer
 
TuefelHunden's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Oddometer: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger 04 rt View Post
Pure gas has a little over 3% more energy per gallon than E10, whereas gasoline has about 2% more energy per gallon than gas with 10% MTBE.
I don't know where the 3% comes from but lots of numbers are doctored to prove invalid points. My numbers were gallon of pure gas to gallon of pure alcohol. Gas has more energy than alcohol period. I get about 10% better mileage every time I use it. After a whole bunch of chem labs in college I know how to run an experiment and come up with apples to apples. I didn't mention this before but I get way better throttle response too.
__________________
Old, but not Dead
TuefelHunden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 06:46 AM   #63
roger 04 rt
Beastly Adventurer
 
roger 04 rt's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Oddometer: 2,149
You're correct that gasoline has a higher energy content per gallon. You can look it up and it's a matter of fact. In a 10% blend, gasoline with mtbe has 2% less energy per gallon and gas with ethanol has 3% less energy per gallon.

To get the appropriate amount of fuel for a given amount of air, the injection times need to be 4% longer for 10% ethanol or the fuel pressure needs to be about 8% higher.

Obviously, I can't speak to what you get in your vehicle.
roger 04 rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 10:14 AM   #64
abruzzi
Studly Adventurer
 
abruzzi's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2007
Location: The New Mexico Desert
Oddometer: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuefelHunden View Post
I don't know where the 3% comes from but lots of numbers are doctored to prove invalid points. My numbers were gallon of pure gas to gallon of pure alcohol. Gas has more energy than alcohol period. I get about 10% better mileage every time I use it. After a whole bunch of chem labs in college I know how to run an experiment and come up with apples to apples. I didn't mention this before but I get way better throttle response too.
Here is a good starting point.

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_chart.pdf

If you look at page 2 you can see that gasoline has 124,340 BTUs per gallon. E100 (pure ethanol) has 84,530 BTU/Gal. So E10 is (.9*124,340)+(.1*84,530)=120,359 BTU/Gal.. Then to see the % difference: 124340 / 120359 = 1.03307. So 124.3k is about 3.3% more energy than 120.3k.

Now I don't want to claim more knowledge than I have. Its very possible that due to many things such as ignition point, burn speed, etc, that an engine designed for gasoline can't effectively utilize all those BTUs. Some ethanol may not burn completely, or it may burn in the exhaust providing heat but not power. But the above is where the 3% number comes from.

EDIT: I just noticed that that chart has a "lower heating value" and "higher heating value". I honestly don't know what that means, but if you do the same calc with the lower numbers you get a 3.5% difference, so the same basic ballpark.
Geof
__________________
--
http://tigertriple.com/

abruzzi screwed with this post 06-25-2013 at 10:21 AM
abruzzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 07:42 PM   #65
justinallen03
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: greenville, sc
Oddometer: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by abruzzi View Post
Here is a good starting point.

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fue...ison_chart.pdf

If you look at page 2 you can see that gasoline has 124,340 BTUs per gallon. E100 (pure ethanol) has 84,530 BTU/Gal. So E10 is (.9*124,340)+(.1*84,530)=120,359 BTU/Gal.. Then to see the % difference: 124340 / 120359 = 1.03307. So 124.3k is about 3.3% more energy than 120.3k.

Now I don't want to claim more knowledge than I have. Its very possible that due to many things such as ignition point, burn speed, etc, that an engine designed for gasoline can't effectively utilize all those BTUs. Some ethanol may not burn completely, or it may burn in the exhaust providing heat but not power. But the above is where the 3% number comes from.

EDIT: I just noticed that that chart has a "lower heating value" and "higher heating value". I honestly don't know what that means, but if you do the same calc with the lower numbers you get a 3.5% difference, so the same basic ballpark.
Geof

agree...there are a lot more variables that go into the heat extracted from the fuel in an IC engine cycle than just LHV (or HHV) of a fuel...valve timing, fuel flow, ignition timing, engine speed, flame speed, etc.

As an example, that chart shows a 113% increase in heating value of diesel compared to pure gas, but we all know how well that works in a gas engine

Im assuming there is a reason that top-fuel dragsters run alcohol based fuels instead of pump gas.
justinallen03 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-25-2013, 07:56 PM   #66
roger 04 rt
Beastly Adventurer
 
roger 04 rt's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2011
Location: Massachusetts
Oddometer: 2,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinallen03 View Post
...

Im assuming there is a reason that top-fuel dragsters run alcohol based fuels instead of pump gas.
One reason is its higher octane rating ...
roger 04 rt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 05:20 AM   #67
TuefelHunden
Studly Adventurer
 
TuefelHunden's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2008
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Oddometer: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by justinallen03 View Post
agree...there are a lot more variables that go into the heat extracted from the fuel in an IC engine cycle than just LHV (or HHV) of a fuel...valve timing, fuel flow, ignition timing, engine speed, flame speed, etc.

As an example, that chart shows a 113% increase in heating value of diesel compared to pure gas, but we all know how well that works in a gas engine

Im assuming there is a reason that top-fuel dragsters run alcohol based fuels instead of pump gas.
I totally agree with you about the variables. Back in the muscle car days when you hit 10:1 compression ratio you had to go to premium or it detonated. Head design made 10:1 and higher run on regular, depending on the engine. For a long while 1 HP per Cu In seemed like a rock wall, no more. A lot of that had to do with studying flame fronts in the combustion chamber. Gas and ethanol burn differently. Size of valves, number of valves, valve shape, head shape, etc, etc all affect the flame front.

If this conversation is to mean anything you have to talk apples to apples. To get there, despite the basic numbers, you need to take stock bikes and put them on a dyno and compare graphs of gas against E10 / Exx. Then do mileage tests over the same course and conditions. Until that happens, my assdyno says gas runs better than E-whatever, but only for driveability. Mileage, every time, straight gas gets better mileage.

Last thought, the Brazilians have done a lot of work using Triumph Tigers, probably because they are easy to remap for both A/F and ignition. They had to remap from idle to redline for various mixtures of ethanol. I used several of those maps. What they all had in common was mileage went down significantly.
__________________
Old, but not Dead
TuefelHunden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 06:07 AM   #68
Wolfgang55
Beastly Adventurer
 
Wolfgang55's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Next to Rio Bravo
Oddometer: 3,372
Miles per DOLLAR

We go out of our way in this house to use the ''pure gas''. Every vehicle is has a log about its oil & filters, tires & mpg tell quickly when some is about to go wrong . Across the wide range of different vehicles the MPG have increased.

Some as high as 16%. The lowest is STILL in the J-20 Jeep truck.

We pay about the same cost as the high test fuel. Sometimes pennies more a gallon. The vehicles that sit up for weeks w/o being ran around never NOW have a starting issue. We never use a fuel additive, anymore. Fuel additives are not free & when factored into the cost of a tank of fuel the miles per dollar drop.

All vehicle tanks are kept full when not used.
Wolfgang55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2013, 09:07 AM   #69
Anorak
Woolf Barnato
 
Anorak's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: OAK
Oddometer: 33,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger 04 rt View Post
One reason is its higher octane rating ...
Top Fuel uses a fuel that is 85% nitromethane.

Quote:
According to Gene Adams, if you consider high-octane racing gasoline as the baseline fuel, replacing it with methanol-the best alcohol fuel-is worth a 5-to-10-percent power gain. But 80-to-90-percent nitro is worth two to three times the power of the alky.

What's the secret? Nitromethane carries its own oxygen, so it needs much less atmospheric oxygen to burn. The theoretical ideal or stoichiometric air/fuel ratio for gasoline is 14.7:1. That means, 14.7 pounds of air are needed to burn 1 pound of gas. Methanol, which also carries oxygen, has a stoichiometric ratio of 6.45:1. But with 100 percent nitro, the ratio is 1.7:1! Because the displacement of an engine cylinder is fixed, this means-assuming 100 percent volumetric efficiency (VE)-8.7 times more nitromethane than gasoline can be burned during one combustion cycle.

On paper, gasoline has about four times more heating value than nitromethane: at least 19,000 Btu/lb for gas compared with just 4,850 Btu/lb for nitro. But that doesn't take into account the fuel's specific energy (SE) value, which is derived by dividing the heat value by the air/fuel ratio (Btu/lb A/F), telling us how much heat energy is delivered per pound of air into the motor. At stoichiometric air/fuel ratios, the nitro's SE value is around 2.2 times greater than gasoline!

Racing nitro motors run far richer than the theoretical 1.7:1 ratio, and Adams says it's possible to dump nitro at ratios approaching 0.5:1. "At 80 percent nitro and above, the optimum air fuel/ratio no longer exists and the power output becomes well related to the actual amount of fuel fed into the engine by weight," adds Ray Hall Turbo. At 0.5:1, the SE potential of nitro could be six times greater than gas.



Read more: http://www.hotrod.com/feature_storie...#ixzz2XKqN3ugb
__________________
'Gonna get me a six pack...push people off the highway!'

"they live off the carrion of our mutual distrust and bribe us with symbols that equate hatred with manhood."

"I mean at the end of the day, I was addicted to Starting Fluid for Christ's sake!"

"Yeah, that guy sure is terrible at touching moms"
Anorak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 05:13 AM   #70
KSBEERHUNTER
Gnarly Adventurer
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Location: sedgwick county
Oddometer: 352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anorak View Post
Oxygenated fuel has lower energy density because of the oxygen molecules displacing the hydrocarbons. The advantage is it brings more oxygen into the engine than it would be able to through the usual path. It's like a small form of forced induction. This is why racers use it. It requires retuning the engine to increase the fuel flow.
Like Shell gasoline, oxgenated. Oxygenated = ethanol!. Read up on it.
KSBEERHUNTER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2013, 10:34 AM   #71
Anorak
Woolf Barnato
 
Anorak's Avatar
 
Joined: Jul 2004
Location: OAK
Oddometer: 33,372
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSBEERHUNTER View Post
Like Shell gasoline, oxgenated. Oxygenated = ethanol!. Read up on it.
Oh really? I had no idea.
__________________
'Gonna get me a six pack...push people off the highway!'

"they live off the carrion of our mutual distrust and bribe us with symbols that equate hatred with manhood."

"I mean at the end of the day, I was addicted to Starting Fluid for Christ's sake!"

"Yeah, that guy sure is terrible at touching moms"
Anorak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-2013, 11:06 AM   #72
pizzaboy
retiring tomorrow
 
pizzaboy's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2010
Location: Aledo, Texas
Oddometer: 1,041
Here's a article that Cycleworld just put out on the subject :

http://www.cycleworld.com/2013/07/05...thing-you-need
__________________
Indecision always goes to the left...

'09 BMW R1200GSA
'09 KTM 950SER Erz
'14 KTM 1190 Adventure R
pizzaboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 05:20 PM   #73
WindSailor
Studly Adventurer
 
WindSailor's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Location: Somewhere out West
Oddometer: 635
Garmin's latest software update for the POI Loader broke the proximity alerts option for custom POIs in case your wondering why it no longer works. Garmin 665 in my case and Windows 7 - 64 bit.

I habitually return to Pure-gas.org to get their latest POI file and update my Garmin 665 with it. That way if I go out of my area I can get a heads up on non ethanol stations which I try and hit if I can while on a ride.

Anyway I just spent a good hour and a half with support and their software team is aware of it - they took a sample csv file for testing and hopefully will get a fix in shortly.

In the mean time you can call Garmin to get their previous version of the POI Loader program if you need the proximity alerts enabled again. It's around 12 megs. I have it (windows version) but I don't have a big file share site or program... and I'm not sure if regular email will handle that... really doubt it. Garmin will set up a remote sharing to get the file.
WindSailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2014, 10:51 PM   #74
runnerhiker
Adventurer
 
Joined: Dec 2013
Location: Niwot, CO
Oddometer: 28
Ethanol is a great example of government giving (mandating) people what they don't want.
runnerhiker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2014, 06:42 AM   #75
Smoke Eater 3
Studly Adventurer
 
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: Lincolnville,Maine
Oddometer: 625
At the fire station we use it for our small engines, fans, pumps, chainsaws, etc. They run great on it but if the fuel system isn't airtight i.e. vented caps, the pure gas evaporates very quickly for some reason. A full tank in a pump can be half full in a month. I don't know why this is but it happens.
__________________
'14 GSW
'02 Aprilia Mille
'66 R50/2 with hack
Smoke Eater 3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

.
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 10:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014