ethanol for carburated cars?
- Thread starter 79elky454ss
- Start date
- Status
yes you can, not sure what ALL goes into it but i know for sure your need alot bigger jets to let more fuel in, also need to do some other stuff to the fuel system because its hard on rubber lines
You for sure need a complete upgrade of the fuel system as the Ethanol. I think new lines, new gas tank. Fuel Pump and Carb probably have to built for E-85 as well.
My Silverado can run E-85, but my gas mileage gets 20-30% worse than when I am running 87 Octane Gas. I could live with that if the E-85 was cheap enough, but its only about 10-12% cheaper than 87 Octane Gas. Financially it does not make sense to use it.
My Silverado can run E-85, but my gas mileage gets 20-30% worse than when I am running 87 Octane Gas. I could live with that if the E-85 was cheap enough, but its only about 10-12% cheaper than 87 Octane Gas. Financially it does not make sense to use it.
E-85 doesn't do much for your economy unless the engine is built for it. Ethanol works much better at higher compression (i beleive 12:1 min). so, if you have a high performance engine you could use it pretty effectively.
The thing to remember is that ethanol burns at a cooler temperature, and has less BTU's of energy per a given volume of fuel relative to gasoline. This is why higher compression is better as it makes up for some of the inherent power loss when switching from gasoline. To run the car on E85, you would do well to buy a carb that is calibrated for it. Car Craft did an article earlier this year on an E85 engine, so you may wish to see who's carb they used. There is the other alternative fuel you could use: LPG or Propane. A company called Impco makes conversion carbs for this fuel, and it too is clean burning and low in BTU's. It also requires more ignition advance to run properly.
Well.... you could burn methane then....it's renewable. I frankly don't think renewable energy will ever solve our problems. It would take way too much farm land to grow enough corn to replace gasoline. Yeah, you can synthesize alcohol out of sugar ( like Argentina) too, but again... same issue. Biodiesel could work on a limited scale, but hemp is the most efficient crop to use for it and it's illegal to grow it here. Thermal Depolymerization (under development by Changing World Technologies) offers an interesting spin on things, converting biomass garbage into petroleum, but then again it is only being used in a limited capacity at the Butterball plant in Carthage, Tennessee. It supposedly stinks really bad too.
I just want everyone else to drive fuel efficient cars and use less gas. That way, there is more gas left over for me to burn in my less efficient old cars. Sadly, that is as likely to happen as us actually cutting our dependence on foreign oil. Everyone bitched about it in the 70's until the price of oil came down and then it became a non-issue.
As far as energy use goes, it is not just cars and trucks where efficiency can be improved. There are huge areas of unused real estate just waiting to be covered in solar arrays. I am talking about rooftops. Residential homes and businesses alike could all be used to harness the power of the sun. The price has come down substantially in the 30 years it has been available. It is now possible to shingle your roof with solar cells that look like ordinary shingles and use your roof to generate power for your house. The cost is not that bad either, about $3-5k more than the cost of a normal re roof. When you consider the monthly savings, it doesn't seem like a bad investment over the long term. However, the average American will not do it because they would rather spend that money on a down payment for some SUV the size of a bus rather than to ensure their future and long term stability. A few will, yes, but they will continue to be the oddities just like those who use micro-hydro or wind to power their homes. If it ever comes within 10-15% of the cost of an asphalt roof there may be a chance, but I am not going to hold my breath.
The problem is, environmentally sound technologies will never be mass implemented until they become economically viable. This is not to say that people need to be taxed into environmentalism. Rather, the technology needs to become more efficient to manufacture and priced competitively with brown technologies plus offer an operating cost advantage to the end consumer. It also has to be able to become the standard technology that most people use. This means, fuels need to be a standardized commodity like they are today with gasoline and diesel. Running a multitude of different fuel types available on a regional basis does not work because it impedes the flow of commerce and people as they move around the country.
If we wish to grow our own fuels instead of pumping the from the ground, a higher efficiency base stock first needs to be found that both grows faster and gives a higher yield in terms of BTU's for a given volume of plant matter grown. Meaning, you have to be able to use the whole plant and not just the seeds to make your fuel in order to have a higher concentration of energy per given volume of land consumed in production. Plus, growing time must be taken into account as part of production. Additionally, you need something that is efficient to harvest and convert into a marketable energy source without using a high amount of energy to produce. Meaning, you need to take into account the energy used to plant, harvest, distill, make the fertilizer and transport it, etc. when calculating the net energy output of a given fuel source. Ethanol is not very efficient in this regard and as such, is not a good replacement for fossil fuels.
Okay, I'll stop now. As you can see, this is a complex multi-dimensional issue and I could ramble all day about it.
I just want everyone else to drive fuel efficient cars and use less gas. That way, there is more gas left over for me to burn in my less efficient old cars. Sadly, that is as likely to happen as us actually cutting our dependence on foreign oil. Everyone bitched about it in the 70's until the price of oil came down and then it became a non-issue.
As far as energy use goes, it is not just cars and trucks where efficiency can be improved. There are huge areas of unused real estate just waiting to be covered in solar arrays. I am talking about rooftops. Residential homes and businesses alike could all be used to harness the power of the sun. The price has come down substantially in the 30 years it has been available. It is now possible to shingle your roof with solar cells that look like ordinary shingles and use your roof to generate power for your house. The cost is not that bad either, about $3-5k more than the cost of a normal re roof. When you consider the monthly savings, it doesn't seem like a bad investment over the long term. However, the average American will not do it because they would rather spend that money on a down payment for some SUV the size of a bus rather than to ensure their future and long term stability. A few will, yes, but they will continue to be the oddities just like those who use micro-hydro or wind to power their homes. If it ever comes within 10-15% of the cost of an asphalt roof there may be a chance, but I am not going to hold my breath.
The problem is, environmentally sound technologies will never be mass implemented until they become economically viable. This is not to say that people need to be taxed into environmentalism. Rather, the technology needs to become more efficient to manufacture and priced competitively with brown technologies plus offer an operating cost advantage to the end consumer. It also has to be able to become the standard technology that most people use. This means, fuels need to be a standardized commodity like they are today with gasoline and diesel. Running a multitude of different fuel types available on a regional basis does not work because it impedes the flow of commerce and people as they move around the country.
If we wish to grow our own fuels instead of pumping the from the ground, a higher efficiency base stock first needs to be found that both grows faster and gives a higher yield in terms of BTU's for a given volume of plant matter grown. Meaning, you have to be able to use the whole plant and not just the seeds to make your fuel in order to have a higher concentration of energy per given volume of land consumed in production. Plus, growing time must be taken into account as part of production. Additionally, you need something that is efficient to harvest and convert into a marketable energy source without using a high amount of energy to produce. Meaning, you need to take into account the energy used to plant, harvest, distill, make the fertilizer and transport it, etc. when calculating the net energy output of a given fuel source. Ethanol is not very efficient in this regard and as such, is not a good replacement for fossil fuels.
Okay, I'll stop now. As you can see, this is a complex multi-dimensional issue and I could ramble all day about it.
i definately agree with you. i honestly think that we have the necessary solutions, but americans are stupid. we always look for that one big shining answer. unless we develop some sort of "zero point module" or other super sci-fi gadget it won't happen. however, like 85cutlass said, put solar panels on roofs, in lots out in the desert, put windmills on the plains, use geothermal energy etc. use alot of small answers. hell, we pay farmers NOT to grow more wheat!! pay 'em for the wheat (or soybeans, sawgrass) and make biofuel. but most importantly, if the american public wants a change, why do they buy SUV's? at least buy more diesels. they're quieter, have better overall efficiency than a hybrid and now just as clean (the vw's were incredibly clean before but ye the NOX was a higher than a gasser) 
it would also help if the media would stop lying abot nuclear power and we could build a few more plants: high output, high efficiency, safe, steam only emissions, and one radiation release in 40 years.
it would also help if the media would stop lying abot nuclear power and we could build a few more plants: high output, high efficiency, safe, steam only emissions, and one radiation release in 40 years.
I was just looking at it as cheap (relatively) high octane fuel. I wasnt looking to save the planet with my 454 :lol:
79elky454ss said:
That's what I figured and why I offered propane as another possible alternative.
Well, now it's time for another rant. The big problem with biofuels is that they take oil to produce the feed stocks, and are not very energy efficient or low polluting. Sure, the end user does not pollute as much as with petroleum based fuels, but there is plenty of pollution used for it's production. Fertilizers have oil in some of them, tractors use oil, trucks use oil, refining plants are powered by fossil fuels via the electricity they use, plant workers use oil to get to work, etc.
Oil is also used in virtually every product we buy. It's hydrocarbon chains are easily refined to make plastics, paint, dyes, adhesives, etc. So, even if you never burn another drop of fossil derived fuels in your vehicle, you still will be a consumer of oil. In so many ways, it is the basis for our economy, culture, and way of life. Remove oil and our whole civilization will collapse.
So, the problem is much larger than just transportation. We need to find renewable resources that can allow for the production of our every day needs on a massive scale. This is not easy, of course. We have all gotten very comfortable with the things oil can produce. Computers, I Pods, cell phones, clothing, packaging for food to prevent spoilage, paint for our houses, etc. the list goes on and on. We need to replace oil as the base stock for all of these things. Unless we do, we eventually will see our society crash and burn. After all, oil is second only to water in terms of daily needs for our society.
- Status
