|
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
micmcb@gmail.com wrote:
> 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > It is possible. There are companies out there making conversion kits, add-on computers, etc. There are even some on Ebay now. Of course a lot of these companies are claiming improve mileage, reduced emissions, etc. While all of this is possible, just remember, like any other product, there are quality items and junk items. I can believe the emissions claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. There is even a fuel they are calling diesanol now, which is 98% ethanol and 2% diesel. To me this would have more potential to reduce emissions and increase power since ethanol has a high octane rating and could take advantage of the compression ratio of a diesel engine. The drawback to E85 is that it requires more fuel to make the same amount of power if applied to the same engine. If the engine was specifically built for E85, there are a lot of changes that could be made to increase the power of the engine. the main one being the compression ratio. My suggestion is to do some research on the conversions, look for independent studies (such as colleges), an then weigh the cost of the conversion and a roughly 20-25% loss in fuel economy compared to just continuing to use gasoline. Chris |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
micmcb@gmail.com wrote:
> 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > It is possible. There are companies out there making conversion kits, add-on computers, etc. There are even some on Ebay now. Of course a lot of these companies are claiming improve mileage, reduced emissions, etc. While all of this is possible, just remember, like any other product, there are quality items and junk items. I can believe the emissions claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. There is even a fuel they are calling diesanol now, which is 98% ethanol and 2% diesel. To me this would have more potential to reduce emissions and increase power since ethanol has a high octane rating and could take advantage of the compression ratio of a diesel engine. The drawback to E85 is that it requires more fuel to make the same amount of power if applied to the same engine. If the engine was specifically built for E85, there are a lot of changes that could be made to increase the power of the engine. the main one being the compression ratio. My suggestion is to do some research on the conversions, look for independent studies (such as colleges), an then weigh the cost of the conversion and a roughly 20-25% loss in fuel economy compared to just continuing to use gasoline. Chris |
Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
micmcb@gmail.com wrote:
> 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel > > Anyone out there done the fuel system conversion for this or know if > its even possible? If so please let me know what elements have to be > changed. > > Thanks. > It is possible. There are companies out there making conversion kits, add-on computers, etc. There are even some on Ebay now. Of course a lot of these companies are claiming improve mileage, reduced emissions, etc. While all of this is possible, just remember, like any other product, there are quality items and junk items. I can believe the emissions claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. There is even a fuel they are calling diesanol now, which is 98% ethanol and 2% diesel. To me this would have more potential to reduce emissions and increase power since ethanol has a high octane rating and could take advantage of the compression ratio of a diesel engine. The drawback to E85 is that it requires more fuel to make the same amount of power if applied to the same engine. If the engine was specifically built for E85, there are a lot of changes that could be made to increase the power of the engine. the main one being the compression ratio. My suggestion is to do some research on the conversions, look for independent studies (such as colleges), an then weigh the cost of the conversion and a roughly 20-25% loss in fuel economy compared to just continuing to use gasoline. Chris |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote:
> I can believe the emissions >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass production. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote:
> I can believe the emissions >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass production. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote:
> I can believe the emissions >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass production. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote:
> I can believe the emissions >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass production. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to mean anything. Earle "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > I can believe the emissions > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > production. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to mean anything. Earle "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > I can believe the emissions > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > production. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: 98 Jeep Wrangler and E85 fuel
Don't forget the fuel which is needed to produce ethanol. If you are
counting greenhouse gas emissions, you have to count all of them for it to mean anything. Earle "SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:tgp143hu6144dbecg7ivuvgb7cnnl55v96@4ax.com... > On Tue, 08 May 2007 15:04:48 -0500, c <c@me.org> wrote: > > > I can believe the emissions > >claims much more easy than I believe the mileage claims, but I am sure > >as the technology grows, the mileage will get better. > > > Ethanol has higher CO2 emission than gas by about 50% because the fuel > has a high carbon to energy contant which means more CO2 is produced > doing same work. (the people pushing it never tell you that because > they likely do not believe green house gasses are a issue anyway). > Also, far as techology, it has been around since the 40's, it is > called high compression (like 12 to 1 or better for pure meth or ethyl > alchol) but that will never happen as long as 87 octane is on market > and can be put in a engine designed for E85 or higher because 87 > octane would destroy a high compression motor is short order even with > a knock sensor. Also on diesanol, I fail to see any advantage with it > at all because it would have less than 1/2 the energy of regular > diesel and heat energy drives the engine so economy would suffer > greatly. Strange thing is that the politics that pushes grain based > fuels never thinks about food prices or the fact that it takes more of > it to do same work and produces more CO2 as well. BioButanol may hold > the most promise for a grain or waste product based fuel because in > its pure state it has about 90% of the energy of gas vs pure ethanol > having only about 55% and performs well in todays engines with out > needing to raise CR of them. BioButanol is still several years away as > they search for a cost effective enzyme to make it profitable for mass > production. > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:01 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands