Results 61 to 80 of 134
Thread: How to run your LS1 on E85
-
11-11-2006, 02:57 AM #61
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Texas Department of Corrections
- Posts
- 18,128
- Retired Outlaw Sum Bitch
You didn't get no PM's from me...and dont get all butthurt cuz we are having a discussion about E85....Sounds like you agree with the points brought out in this string......you see the difference between the LS1 "tech site" and this one is simple....over there the mods go with the crowd....here we will discuss the technical merits of issues/mods raised like grown ups.....now if your gonna take your marbles and go home because some folks want to discuss both sides of your proposal to tune LS1's for E85 and the pro's and con's associated with E85 then by all means haul ass.....but dont act like it is "our" fault we all didn't just mindlessly jump up and down like 13 year old cheerleaders over your cut and paste post man....your welcome here anytime man.....but be prepared to discuss....and may I suggest next time you post something like this and it is being discussed.....when challenged don't go back and edit your post.....you lose any credibility you may have had....
Last edited by Sarge; 11-11-2006 at 03:11 AM.
-
11-11-2006, 04:56 AM #62
-
11-11-2006, 05:13 AM #63
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Texas Department of Corrections
- Posts
- 18,128
- Retired Outlaw Sum Bitch
Nobody sent him nothing. Just butthurt.
-
11-11-2006, 05:46 AM #64
-
11-11-2006, 05:55 AM #65
Okay, I'd like to address this. When you discussed tuning back and forth, basically you were talking about carrying a laptop and HP Tuners around and constantly tuning. Okay. I agree, that would suck to carry your laptop everywhere and be tuning all the time, but let's be more realistic and then talk about who actually would do such a thing? How many people travel across the country with their LS1 F-bodys? I'd say we're all in agreeance that most miles put your "toy" type vehicles are within a 250 mile radius of your home. "Most" of the time, the altitude isn't going to change that much, and carrying your laptop for tuning wouldn't be an issue. (I think)
Now then, let's say you drag race the car at different altitudes at different tracks across the country. In that case, carrying the laptop wouldn't be a burden.
Maybe I didn't pick up on what your point was on this one......any help?
-
11-11-2006, 06:14 AM #66
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Texas Department of Corrections
- Posts
- 18,128
- Retired Outlaw Sum Bitch
I exaggerated to make my point.....that being if I understand all this......that one would have to retune to match the % of mix that is being pumped into his tank....In other words....a E75 versus a E85 versus straight gasoline....around here I know of zero stations that even offer Eanything...so If I tune for E85 and travel to a place that has no E85...only 93 octane....I am going to have issues...am I not?
Originally Posted by Swedish Fella
-
11-11-2006, 06:18 AM #67
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Thornton, CO
- Posts
- 23,773
Red Tint Jewelcoat- 2008 Trailblazer SS
The 10 percent mix.
Like damn near every station in the US sells.
I discussed this with YoMommaTA a few weeks back. He told me that even the 10% mix will eat your lines. I said that didn't make sense, all the stations around here sell the mix.
At least that is how I read it, I could have been drinking.
Correct me if I am wrong.
-
11-11-2006, 06:23 AM #68
"It is not as harmful to the nature/environment as gasoline or any other petroleum products for that matter. Ethanol is made out of renewable energy resources such as crops and trees to name a few things. The carbon dioxide that an ethanol powered car emits is not contributing to the greenhouse effect, but is taken up by the plants and is being "re-used". The carbon dioxide then goes around in a closed loop. Gasoline on the other hand is made from oil that comes from old dinosaurs , plants and other stuff 100 000 of years ago, and it doesn´t take part in the closed loop but only adds to the amount of greenhouse gasses."
In a word, BULLCRAP!!! My professors would turn over in their graves if they ever saw this. Last I knew, CO2 was CO2, 1 atom of carbon and 2 atoms of oxygen, a colorless odorless gas. Whether you get CO2 from E85, gasoline, good CO2 from beer fermentation, whatever, it's all the same stuff. Nature doesn't differentiate! If I'm wrong, I'll burn my degree in Chemical Engineering.
Also, as Sarge noted, ethanol due to it's natural properties will try to absorb water to dilute itself. It's extremely difficult to get chemically pure, 100% alcohol - the minute you expose it to air, it will absorb any moisture to dilute itself to an azeotropic mixture. The water/alcohol bonds in an azeotropic mixture are extremely strong and hard to break - look it up in your chemistry book. Most fuels on the market are now 10% ethanol - the oil companies haven't loudly announced this fact. They did it because 1) alcohols oxygenate fuels and help them burn more cleanly and 2) it's a cheap way to boost octane, you don't have to refine and distill the petroleum feedstocks as much, i.e. more gallons of gas per barrel of oil. If you hadn't noticed recently from the runup in gas prices, oil companies aren't doing the motoring public any favors by trying to be nice guys - it's all about the dollor and how far they can stretch the barrel of oil. Remember adding drygas (be it methanol or ethanol, both products are sold as drygas) to your gas in the wintertime to prevent fuel line freeze-up? Well, you don't need to do it any more. Alcohols act as a co-solvent with water and oil products - alcohols mix readily with both. The water gets 'diluted' and mixes with the alcohol, which in turn mixes with your gas. This mixure then gets carried into the engine and burned. A 10% mixture of ethanol is far more alcohol than you would ever get when you add a 12 oz. bottle of drygas to the tank. Well, I may be slightly wrong - perhaps I should thank the oil companies for saving me $0.50 per tankful this winter 'cuz I ain't adding drygas no more! 'Nuff said.
-
11-11-2006, 06:25 AM #69
i'm going out to get pics in a few mins,10% efuel for two years with nothing added to help protect the system.
-
11-11-2006, 06:26 AM #70
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Texas Department of Corrections
- Posts
- 18,128
- Retired Outlaw Sum Bitch
I guess we made the Yahoo news fella's...we be famous.....look at today's yahoo home page...
http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center-...ob25kYS1wcm9z-
-
11-11-2006, 06:45 AM #71
-
11-11-2006, 07:09 AM #72
UNFORTUNEATLY the fuel rail which was totally trashed got tossed out<forgot about that.I also suck at taking pics and its very dark cloudy day here.Heres a few to look at,the rest didn't turn out because of the poor lighting.I take some more on a nicer day.look closely at the fuel pump.Also if you look close the stainless steel parts are not touched in anyway.
-
11-11-2006, 07:13 AM #73
i want to get some close ups of the lines,the insides are completely trashed.
-
11-11-2006, 01:49 PM #74
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
- Location
- Indianapolis
- Age
- 62
- Posts
- 5,188
Black- 2000 WS6 6spd Hooker LT
My .02 is, why even bother with E85 in the States? Maybe overseas with the big difference in cost, but not here. Marathon gas is $2.30 a gallon for 93 octane here in Indy. Also, you need a lot of modifications to run E85 in our cars. The GM bulletin is right, only up to 15% is ok for the F-bodies. Go with other things to increase HP or gas mileage.
-
11-12-2006, 01:05 AM #75
It's good government PR, like Bush's other failed policies. In a time of high gas prices and an otherwise failed, non-existant "energy" policy that was written by Cheney with the help of big oil, it makes the government look like they're trying to do something. Need I say more? Ethanol production for fuel use, not human consumption, is currently subsidized by the government. At true market value/cost without subsidies on the ethanol, gas prices would have to increase considerably before an alcohol/gas mix would be economically viable if you look at a real cost per mile comparison.
-
11-13-2006, 06:29 AM #76
-
11-13-2006, 09:00 AM #77
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- LIVONIA,MICHIGAN
- Age
- 59
- Posts
- 786
PEWTER- 2000 CAMARO SS #3821
I would advise all to go to toptiergas.com to see what stations gm recommends with the system they have developed with other manufacturers. It is interesting to see what places are not "TOP TIER" and not approved for gm vehicles. I don't have some of these in MI but at least a couple are. This could help with damaged fuel systems from whatever we are putting in.
-
12-06-2006, 03:06 PM #78
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- sweden
- Posts
- 6
Well burn it....
if you burn ethanol, you will not contribute to the global warming, and why is that? Why will it not contribute to an increase of co2 in the atmosphere??
the whole point with ethanol, is to grow it as fast as you consume it.
Thus leading to, every ethanol gallon u burn, u must produce equal amount of ethanol...
What does plants do when they grow?? They use, sunlight to turn water and co2(from the air) into "glukos", i dunno what to call it on english..
So when u burn ethanol, u grow plants absorbing equal amount of co2. thus there is no increase in co2 in the atmosphere.
The problem with oil is that its been dorment for MANY years.... Your putting dinosaurs into your car...
This high amount of co2 released by oil will eventually go back inte oil, but hey man, geez.. Were turning back the planets evolution a bit far here..
The more discussed problem is the production of ethanol compared to oil refinering etc.
This is a study dated this year, from a group in university of california.
http://rael.berkeley.edu/EBAMM/summary.html
it shows that it actually takes less MJ energy to produce 1MJ ethanol, than 1MJ gasolin... Combining that with that ethanol doesnt contribute to global warming but oil does. Who comes out as the winner.
-
12-13-2006, 06:52 PM #79
-
12-13-2006, 10:12 PM #80
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- sweden
- Posts
- 6
Well, thats bs!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
"In the core, the fastest increase seen was of the order of 30 parts per million (ppm) by volume over a period of roughly 1,000 years.
The last 30 ppm of increase has occurred in just 17 years."
"Ice cores reveal the Earth's natural climate rhythm over the last 800,000 years. When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change."
http://svt.se/svt/jsp/Crosslink.jsp?d=56362&a=663219
Its in Swedish, but I´ll translate the interresting part.
"During a period of 420 000 years, the concentration of carbon dioxide has never been over 280ppm and the concentration of metangas has not been over 750 ppm.
Year 2004 the concentration of carbon dioxide had reached 370ppm and concentration of metangas has reached 1700ppm."
"The changes in temperature and the amount of gases in the atmosphere has a clear connection, the curves(graphs) follow each other."
If carbon dioxide has a faktor 1 on global warming, metan has about 20..
The claim that man-made global warming is a myth, Is utterly bullshit!
Etanol Isnt 100% "global warming free", but to claim that It´s as dirty as oil Is bullshit!
Etanol: produktion contributes, consuming it doesn´t.
Gasoline: Produktion and consuming it, both contributes.
Personally I think hydrogen made by molecular complexes, driven by sunlight is more of the future, but that technology is far away in the future, and we have no time to wait.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks