Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 94 of 94

E-85 flex fuel who using it????

This is a discussion on E-85 flex fuel who using it???? within the General Help forums, part of the LSx Technical Help Section category; I´ve been running my car on 100% E85 for a long time now.... Tuned with HPTuners. BTW.. It pulls alot ...

  1. #81
    Member Runn_WS7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tranås, Sweden
    Age
    40
    Posts
    211

    Black
    1998 Trans Am WS7

    I´ve been running my car on 100% E85 for a long time now.... Tuned with HPTuners.


    BTW.. It pulls alot harder on E85
    www.ws7.se
    http://www.ls1.com/forums/f69/my-black-ta-modemkiller-1249/
    Running on E85

    Twin Turbo Project Started

    Hello from Sweden.

  2. #82
    Member ericwilloughby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Louisville KY
    Age
    47
    Posts
    178

    Yellow
    2005 GTO

    Yep. I'm going to check the mileage today. It is bad. But there has been no time for the PCM to adjust. I may try to fill up again with 50\50 and check it again. Those cars are not flex fuel cars and they got 1 MPG less on E30. If you can buy the stuf I'd use it. At E30 there would be no worries about the fuel system.

  3. #83
    Member ericwilloughby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Louisville KY
    Age
    47
    Posts
    178

    Yellow
    2005 GTO

    Quote Originally Posted by Runn_WS7
    I´ve been running my car on 100% E85 for a long time now.... Tuned with HPTuners.


    BTW.. It pulls alot harder on E85
    How long is a long time? Any fuel line leaks? What's your MPG change?

  4. #84
    Member ericwilloughby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Louisville KY
    Age
    47
    Posts
    178

    Yellow
    2005 GTO

    Quote Originally Posted by ss~zoso~ss
    we wouldnt be getting the hydrogen from the water for fuel cells, to break the hydrogen bonds in a water molecule would require a huge amount of energy
    Per Modern Marvels "Gas Tech", 95% of all Hydrogen is produced from natural gas. Why do the expense of production when it would be much cheaper to just burn the natural gas. As that pertains to autos. Hydrogen is only benificial to the rocket industry because of the amount of space needed per HP.

  5. #85
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    south chicago burbs
    Posts
    33
    04 srt4 and 99 firebird

    Quote Originally Posted by ericwilloughby
    E-85 is the way to go. Why do water\al injection when you can put 15 gallons in your tank and it be .50 cheaper than gas? I see only 2 scenarios for use with E-85.

    1. TURBO TURBO TURBO. All you have to do is turn up the boost. Especially if in an LS1 where you are starting off with 10.5-1 compression.

    2. If it is cheaper than gas. And the money stays home. US It's only .25 cheaper in Nashville. They are already fucking us here in Louisville, KY. Same price.

    As the other dudes were saying. You can use this stuff and explore the limits of your fuel system but you wont get far up the HP scale without spending some money on the fuel system.

    Given time I wonder how well the PCM would adapt to mix of E85. I'll never know because is a way out of my way to fill up. And I don't know what is going to happen to the fuel lines and seals in the long term. And I don't have a turbo to utilize the stuff.
    Yes this is why I am looking into it I plan on turbo charging my TA soon and currently I own a decently modded SRT-4, CAN YOU SAY CRANK UP THE BOOST??? Hydrogen power I envision being different. Instead of water H2O or HOH on a molecular lever they use electrolosys to change it to HHO. Here is some links:

    http://media.putfile.com/Water-Fuel

    http://hytechapps.com/technology/index.html

    First link is a bad ass video.

  6. #86
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    chicago
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17

    yellow
    2002 collectors edition

    holy cow , you guys heard it first, are energy needs is sovled, I cant believe what I have seen, I always thought thier was a way, to harness energy strait from water.

  7. #87
    Member ericwilloughby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Louisville KY
    Age
    47
    Posts
    178

    Yellow
    2005 GTO

    I hope this is half what it promises to be. I seriously doubt it. electrolysis is not new. His method claims to be. No where was it mentioned how much electricity was being used to create this H gas. There is a reason for that.

  8. #88
    Member ericwilloughby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Louisville KY
    Age
    47
    Posts
    178

    Yellow
    2005 GTO

    Quote Originally Posted by ericwilloughby
    Yep. I'm going to check the mileage today. It is bad. But there has been no time for the PCM to adjust. I may try to fill up again with 50\50 and check it again. Those cars are not flex fuel cars and they got 1 MPG less on E30. If you can buy the stuf I'd use it. At E30 there would be no worries about the fuel system.
    Well I thought it was bad but I was mistaken.
    19.5 MPG. That's down from 20.8. And that's with no tune and no time to adjust fuel trims. Actually, when the trim settles the MPG should go down I presume. Doesn't matter around here because they are screwing me on the E85 at $2.92.

  9. #89
    Crinkle, Crinkle
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    68

    Red
    2001 Camaro SS

    Energy From Water? No!

    Not to throw cold water on all the hope, but .....

    There is nothing magical about the electrolyser or the gas.

    Nickel electrodes, bicarbonate electrolyte, two hydrogen atoms per one oxygen atom.

    Here is a link to the patent for the automotive application:

    http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=E...2004074781&F=0

    Basically, the electrolyser runs off the alternator to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. The gas is injected into the intake manifold. Horsepower improvement and fuel economy improvements are claimed.

    I read this, hoping that the injection of the gas would act like NOS, by carrying not only more oxygen but also more hydrogen to the party, and improving combustion efficiency somehow.

    But, when you get to the very end of the patent application, you can see that he is using an RC circuit to fool the narrow band oxygen sensor into running the engine lean! It is claimed that without doing this, the oxyxgen sensor would detect the addition of oxygen and make the car run too rich.

    Bullshit detector went off right there!

    First, the oxygen sensor will detect extra oxygen only if it is not consumed in the combustion process.

    Second, the gas is being fed into the engine at exactly a stoichiometric ratio. If for some reason it does not get completely burnt and turned back into water, then that would call for more fuel, not less. And then you could get more power. Except you couldn't need more fuel, because the extra hygrogen is already right there, waiting to be burned.

    If any extra oxygen makes it out to the oxygen sensor, it is only because incomplete combustion is taking place. But there is no extra oxgen making it out, only the amount programmed into the car's computer.

    All the power generated in the engine comes from combustion of hydrogen and carbon which is already contained in the gasoline, ie combining them with oxygen and using the energy released to drive the piston. Any improvement in efficiency would come about from more complete combustion, not less.

    So where do the claimed power and economy gains come from?

    They come from the fact that all cars can get power and economy gains from running leaner. They are adjusted that way from the factory in order to meet emissions regulations. When an engine is running at peak efficiency, it makes more nitrogen dioxide. So they run it a little rich to get those numbers down. Under high power conditions, the engine is run a little rich to give a margin of error so that pistons don't get holes melted in them.

    Feeding in a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen should not shift the mixture one bit. By comparison, feeding in NOS brings an extra oxygen atom to the party, this results in a lean condition, so you add more fuel to make up for it and you get more power.

    It appears that what is cloaked as a more efficient combustion process is really just a very low-tech leaning hack.

    The results will be believable when the system is installed on a test engine with a wideband oxygen sensor, set up to run at stoiciometric mixture with and without the gas, and showing more power out than it took to crack the water. This would allow for objective measurement of any efficiency gains. Which might not be there. And then, it has to offset the extra weight of the thing in a vehicle. And then, it has to be worth the money so that there is a payback.

    I would NOT recommend hacking your oxygen sensor signal with a resistor and capacitor. First, you don't know exactly how much you are biasing it. If bias it so the car runs too lean, you run a real risk of blowing a piston.

    If you want to get the horsepower and efficiency gains without building an electrolyser, just check out the forums at hptuner, search for the threads on fuel economy. There are big gains to be had if you aren't worried about nitrogen dioxide emissions. You CAN set up for lean cruise without ruining your engine. And most mail order chips get more dyno power by leaning out wide open throttle mixture, along with some timing changes.

    Bottom line:

    Water is the ash from burning hydrogen. You can't undo the process without putting back the energy that was released when it burned the first time. And you can't do that without all kinds of unavoidable losses along the way. Hydrogen, like electricity, is an energy carrier, not a fuel. Fuel is something that mama nature put the energy into so that you can release it with very little effort. Anything that doesn't fit that description is not a fuel. Wood is fuel, oil is fuel, solar and wind are very weak fuels. Energy carriers are useful to allow us to use real fuel and put the energy to work somewhere else and in the case of portable ones like hydrogen or batteries, at another time. It will always boil down to which energy carrier gets you the energy you want, where you want it, for the least effort (cost). In the beginning it was a raw survival issue (firewood, then coal, then natural gas and oil, and in the future, nuclear power). Nowadays we think that if we tax everyone and subsidize certain energy carriers, we can ignore costs. But you can't, not on a large scale. Because those costs equate to energy wasted along the way, and if you squander enough efficiency, you end up being back to survival mode. I don't want the government screwing with the energy economy to the point where I have to heat my house with hand-hewn firewood, and travel with a grass-fed horse. People in the old days knew full well how expensive low - density forms of energy really are, and how crucial that energy is to our survival.

    If people can be easily fooled about the basics of energy and thermodynamics, charlatans will make easy money off them. But when the lies get enacted into law, our standard of living will fall exactly proportionate to the percentage of waste introduced into the system. Then we will have energy rationing, and you will be told how much energy you can use, by politicians who will decide what you need it for.

    --97T--
    Flames or rebuttals are always welcome!

  10. #90
    Crinkle, Crinkle
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    68

    Red
    2001 Camaro SS

    Runn WS7, did you have to put bigger injectors in? What is the highest duty cycle you are getting on them with E87? How much extra timing were you able to add?

    --97--

  11. #91
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    chicago
    Age
    41
    Posts
    17

    yellow
    2002 collectors edition

    the name on the invention is the same name of the guy who invented the welder. hho, gas can be used if you can store enough of it, it can make heat , thier is a lot of things you can do with heat, IE, tranfer that energy into mechanical , and then tranfer it to electricial.
    Quote Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango
    Not to throw cold water on all the hope, but .....

    There is nothing magical about the electrolyser or the gas.

    Nickel electrodes, bicarbonate electrolyte, two hydrogen atoms per one oxygen atom.

    Here is a link to the patent for the automotive application:

    http://v3.espacenet.com/textdoc?DB=E...2004074781&F=0

    Basically, the electrolyser runs off the alternator to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. The gas is injected into the intake manifold. Horsepower improvement and fuel economy improvements are claimed.

    I read this, hoping that the injection of the gas would act like NOS, by carrying not only more oxygen but also more hydrogen to the party, and improving combustion efficiency somehow.

    But, when you get to the very end of the patent application, you can see that he is using an RC circuit to fool the narrow band oxygen sensor into running the engine lean! It is claimed that without doing this, the oxyxgen sensor would detect the addition of oxygen and make the car run too rich.

    Bullshit detector went off right there!

    First, the oxygen sensor will detect extra oxygen only if it is not consumed in the combustion process.

    Second, the gas is being fed into the engine at exactly a stoichiometric ratio. If for some reason it does not get completely burnt and turned back into water, then that would call for more fuel, not less. And then you could get more power. Except you couldn't need more fuel, because the extra hygrogen is already right there, waiting to be burned.

    If any extra oxygen makes it out to the oxygen sensor, it is only because incomplete combustion is taking place. But there is no extra oxgen making it out, only the amount programmed into the car's computer.

    All the power generated in the engine comes from combustion of hydrogen and carbon which is already contained in the gasoline, ie combining them with oxygen and using the energy released to drive the piston. Any improvement in efficiency would come about from more complete combustion, not less.

    So where do the claimed power and economy gains come from?

    They come from the fact that all cars can get power and economy gains from running leaner. They are adjusted that way from the factory in order to meet emissions regulations. When an engine is running at peak efficiency, it makes more nitrogen dioxide. So they run it a little rich to get those numbers down. Under high power conditions, the engine is run a little rich to give a margin of error so that pistons don't get holes melted in them.

    Feeding in a stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen should not shift the mixture one bit. By comparison, feeding in NOS brings an extra oxygen atom to the party, this results in a lean condition, so you add more fuel to make up for it and you get more power.

    It appears that what is cloaked as a more efficient combustion process is really just a very low-tech leaning hack.

    The results will be believable when the system is installed on a test engine with a wideband oxygen sensor, set up to run at stoiciometric mixture with and without the gas, and showing more power out than it took to crack the water. This would allow for objective measurement of any efficiency gains. Which might not be there. And then, it has to offset the extra weight of the thing in a vehicle. And then, it has to be worth the money so that there is a payback.

    I would NOT recommend hacking your oxygen sensor signal with a resistor and capacitor. First, you don't know exactly how much you are biasing it. If bias it so the car runs too lean, you run a real risk of blowing a piston.

    If you want to get the horsepower and efficiency gains without building an electrolyser, just check out the forums at hptuner, search for the threads on fuel economy. There are big gains to be had if you aren't worried about nitrogen dioxide emissions. You CAN set up for lean cruise without ruining your engine. And most mail order chips get more dyno power by leaning out wide open throttle mixture, along with some timing changes.

    Bottom line:

    Water is the ash from burning hydrogen. You can't undo the process without putting back the energy that was released when it burned the first time. And you can't do that without all kinds of unavoidable losses along the way. Hydrogen, like electricity, is an energy carrier, not a fuel. Fuel is something that mama nature put the energy into so that you can release it with very little effort. Anything that doesn't fit that description is not a fuel. Wood is fuel, oil is fuel, solar and wind are very weak fuels. Energy carriers are useful to allow us to use real fuel and put the energy to work somewhere else and in the case of portable ones like hydrogen or batteries, at another time. It will always boil down to which energy carrier gets you the energy you want, where you want it, for the least effort (cost). In the beginning it was a raw survival issue (firewood, then coal, then natural gas and oil, and in the future, nuclear power). Nowadays we think that if we tax everyone and subsidize certain energy carriers, we can ignore costs. But you can't, not on a large scale. Because those costs equate to energy wasted along the way, and if you squander enough efficiency, you end up being back to survival mode. I don't want the government screwing with the energy economy to the point where I have to heat my house with hand-hewn firewood, and travel with a grass-fed horse. People in the old days knew full well how expensive low - density forms of energy really are, and how crucial that energy is to our survival.

    If people can be easily fooled about the basics of energy and thermodynamics, charlatans will make easy money off them. But when the lies get enacted into law, our standard of living will fall exactly proportionate to the percentage of waste introduced into the system. Then we will have energy rationing, and you will be told how much energy you can use, by politicians who will decide what you need it for.

    --97T--
    Flames or rebuttals are always welcome!

  12. #92
    Crinkle, Crinkle
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Warren, MI
    Posts
    68

    Red
    2001 Camaro SS

    Stage274,

    Yes, you can convert energy from one form to another. With huge losses at each step of the way. That's why it wouldn't make sense to use electricity to crack water, then burn the hydrogen to make water in an engine, then run an alternator off the engine to make electricity to crack water. Or through a fuel cell or whatever. If you got more energy out than you put in, it would be a Bad Thing. Because it would likely melt, taking the earth and the known universe with it.

    Let me know if you plan to start storing a stoichiometric mixture of hygrogen and oxygen in any quantities very soon. I want to make sure I live a good distance away. You might have noticed neither the welder gas source nor the automotive device have any storage tank. There is nothing magical about 'HHO'. It is stable until a spark or other upset sets it off, then BOOM!

    By the way, this HHO gas is the same thing as 'Brown's Gas", which a bunch of wild claims have been made about for quite a few years. It has some interesting properties, none of which has transformed the human condition yet. Here is a link to a pretty interesting page that rounds up a lot of information about it:

    http://freeenergynews.com/Directory/...Gas/index.html

    For some really interesting reading, read the paper by the man who patented it first, a real scientist. On first read, it appears BS-free. (No unsubstatiated claims of magical properties.) In this paper, he measures the explosive potential of the gas, reports an upper bound of 35% efficiency for the electrolyser, and a lot of other interesting things.

    http://www.pureenergysystems.com/aca...gen/index.html

    This doesn't have anything to do with E85, we're going way off topic now. But it does have to do with the same principles that apply to all of this; you can't cheat mother nature when it comes to energy.

    --97T--
    Last edited by NinerSevenTango; 05-26-2006 at 06:00 AM.

  13. #93
    Member 98Z-28Camaro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Age
    31
    Posts
    164

    black
    1998 Z-28 Camaro

    Our engines are not designed for E85. The new LS engines that people are talking about do indeed accept this fuel. Lets keep in mind that the latest camaro or trans am LS1 is now 4 years old. They didn't have mass quantities of this stuff back then so no. Our cars are not compatiable without computer reprogramming. And something else is that gasoline has lubrication properties to it. Gas is designed so that it helps lubricant engine components as they work. Alcohol or Ethanol DO NOT have these properties. They are "extremely dry when compared to gasoline and do more harm to an engine than just gasoline." You will save some on the amount of fuel as far as cost but your repair bill will be much higher. Even with proper tuning and everything in the fuel system coated with teflon, our engine's metallic properties were never designed for this stuff. This is just want my research and my opinion has brought me to believe. I will not run E85. I will run what my car and engine was designed to be ran on. Good old tried and true gasoline. And to the one that said oil funds the war. Hell yeah, I will gladly pay double what I pay now (2.89) so that our troops have proper equipment and supplies. This has been my two cents

  14. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Virgina
    Posts
    224

    Black
    98 Trans Am

    Quote Originally Posted by NinerSevenTango
    Hydrogen is not fuel, and never will be. It is an energy carrier, like electricity. You have to make it somehow (and electrolyis of water is the worst way, unless you have loads of surplus electricity, like maybe at a nuclear power plant during off-peak times). Whatever means you use to make it, it takes more energy to produce it than you can get back out of it. The most efficient way to make it right now is from chemically reforming methane. Which has the dreaded carbon in it anyway. Whatever way you make it, it's like carrying water in a leaky bucket. The best you can do is to move the pollution to someone else's back yard, and end up with terrible efficiency along the way. The 'hydrogen economy' is driven by tax dollars, going from you to the well connected politicians and those who play the game, counting on the fact that they don't teach science in high school any more. Anyone wanna buy a few shares in my hydrogen well?

    Alcohol should be called Taxohol. Alcohol is a fuel, unlike hydrogen. That's because at its root, it gets its energy from the sun. But there are a few problems. The sun shines weakly, energy - wise. So it takes a lot of acres and a lot of time to get enough bio stuff to make very much alcohol. And it takes a bunch of energy to farm the stuff. A bunch more energy for fertilizer. A bunch more energy to brew the soup. And a tremendous amount of energy to distill it. By the time you get done with an honest accounting of the energy, land use, time, and labor it takes to make the stuff, it is dismal on energy return and cost. The only way the propaganda shows like that special on Brazil can tout the benefits of alcohol as a fuel is if they count on the fact that nobody is going to bother to add up all the costs. Ethanol is being promoted with gigantic subsidies of tax dollars in the U.S. With current practices, if you add it all up, it is taking about 7 times as much energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than you get back by burning it.

    The short version is, if there were some magical way to get energy that is cheaper and cleaner, there would be a bunch of people lining up to make their millions on it. Unfortunately, oil comes out of the ground almost free, takes very little conversion to make it very portable and pretty clean, and it carries a tremendous amount of energy in the products gotten from it. Give up any of those advantages and you have to make it back up somewhere else. There is no free lunch when it comes to energy and thermodynamics, unless you own an oil well or a gas well.

    Be aware that your energy consumption has a one to one relationship to your standard of living. If the cost of energy goes up, your standard of living goes down. It takes energy to make any and everything, so increased cost of energy raises the cost of all goods you might want to buy. And if you get restricted in the amount of energy you can buy, then your standard of living will be drastically reduced. The history of the advance of man is a history of more concentrated, safer, and above all less expensive energy, and devices to use that energy. Our econcomy depends on it, and your livelihood depends on it. Your very life depends on it, at least the first ten percent of what you use.

    How many people with normal jobs in Brazil can afford to drive a Camaro SS? What is the standard of living there? How does interference in the economy by the government affect the prices charged for their ethanol? Are there high taxes on other sectors of the economy being used to put huge subsidies to help out their ethanol program? Are the ethanol plants and the farms privately owned? Do the farm laborers have cars too? If the crop isn't subsidized, can the farmers make as much per acre growing sugar cane for ethanol as they could growing any other crop for human consumption?

    The problem the greenies have with oil is that it gives the vulgar peasants access to a much higher standard of living than they think they should have, and it makes way too many millionaires, building cars and other products for them. They look with envy at Europe, where the socialist governments tax energy so high that people ride bicycles to work, and build cities to exclude cars. Just remember that their aim and their strategy is deprivation of energy to the common man. They especially hate the idea of kids having 400 horsepower cars.

    The way they hope to rule us is to get the ignorant masses to believe a pack of lies about global warming. This will give them the excuse for energy rationing = deprivation. Of course, this megalomaniacal scheme will probably never come to full fruition. But along the way, there are huge amounts of money to be skimmed off the gullible taxpayers, with corporations and scientists lining up to tell the Big Lies to get government handouts for research, propaganda, and subsidies. Whoever doesn't repeat the lie will be left out in the cold. The fashionable ones will be made rich off tax dollars. Of course, business as usual will continue, but it will be punitively taxed and roundly denounced. Third world nations will jump on the bandwagon; they love any excuse to keep the masses under their thumb. A people with a miserable standard of living and no access to energy lacks the time and surpluses to resist when they are living hand to mouth. A most excellent scheme to perpetuate their power structure.

    Anyone who likes their muscle cars should educate themselves about the physics of energy so that they can expose the lies and hopefully work to defend the freedom and economy that makes muscle cars available to people that want them. Otherwise, the argument will be about whether you need them. And the answer will be given by somebody else.

    --NinerSevenTango--

    End Of Rant, Thanks for listening.

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •