Ethanol H2's

[nmu98]

Originally Posted by johndjmix1

Kills power? Ethanol makes MORE power than gas! What i am worried about is corosion on the metal parts in the fuel system. I am interested in this and will be emailing them.

--John

Ethanol has a higher octane than pump gas, but by no means does it have the power of pump gas.....It has about 70 percent of the BTU's that pump gas does.

IRA51 is 100 percent correct....

[BlueHUMMERH2]

E85 would be great, but it's too expensive! I would just like a diesel in the H2.

[Hummer Aficionado_VT]

I second that!

[johndjmix1]

Bluehummer: I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E85

"E85 has been repeatedly shown to produce more power than a comparable gasoline fuel, especially in engines that need high octane fuels to avoid early detonation.[3] Ford Motor Company found that power typically increased approximately 5% with the switch to E85"


Look anywhere on the web, even GM says E85 makes more power.

--John

[Captain of the Titanic]

With E85 a dual fuel Tahoe gets 200 miles per tank instead of 300 miles per tank.

Power, blah, blah blah... I am not paying 88% of the price of gas for 67% of the mileage. It's expensive enough to drive a Hummer.

Also, If I was that worried about the environment, I would drive a POS prius, not a Hummer.

I produce as much pollution just STARTING my mustang as my Hummer makes in a year....

And guess what? I start it anyway. f*ck the tree huggers....

[mdoyle]

Don't confuse "power" with mileage, in other words, while E85 and other variants of ethanol are higher octane and will tolerate higher mechanical compression ratios (that's where power comes in), their BTU yield is lower than gasoline.

Without modifying the compression ratio, you'll see less power and lower mileage. If you were to swap pistons to achieve something like a 10:1 ratio, you'd get more power, but the mileage would still suffer from the lower BTU yield of what you were burning.

You can't break the laws of thermodynamics, less BTU's = less total output.

When someone says "we saw a 5% increase in output" without telling the whole story, they're misleading you. Sure, they saw a 5% increase in output but they burned about 28% more fuel to get it.

All the pro-ethanol people should consider what they're doing to the food markets, the price of beef and even beer has already risen due to the shift in crop demand. The impact on the environment from irrigation alone just to support E85 production should be enough to shut up the leaf lickers, but it doesn't.

The E85 bandwagon should have it's wheels knocked off, it yields less, it cost more to produce and still requires subsidation; lastly, it negatively impacts the food supply and environment.

It is not the answer to independence from foreign oil, flex fuel turbine / electric designs are (but they don't have the huge lobby E85 does).

[IRA51]

I have heard that Ethanol is a health problem with it's exaust emissions.