|
IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
On a jeep cherokee xj (1990)
|
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
"tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > Do you mean just put e85 fuel into your stock cherokee? No. It needs to be an engine specifically designed to handle that fuel. Or, do you mean put a flex fuel engine into a cherokee? If so, why would you want to? e85 has so much less BTU capability than regular gasoline and your fuel mileage goes down accordingly. So you need to put in more fuel to go the same distance, and are therefore putting MORE polutants in the air, not less. True, it is lessening our dependance on foreign oil, but IMO the bigger problem is polution. Go diesel--it's the fuel of the foreseeable future, or at least it should be--again IMO. Pete |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
"tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > Do you mean just put e85 fuel into your stock cherokee? No. It needs to be an engine specifically designed to handle that fuel. Or, do you mean put a flex fuel engine into a cherokee? If so, why would you want to? e85 has so much less BTU capability than regular gasoline and your fuel mileage goes down accordingly. So you need to put in more fuel to go the same distance, and are therefore putting MORE polutants in the air, not less. True, it is lessening our dependance on foreign oil, but IMO the bigger problem is polution. Go diesel--it's the fuel of the foreseeable future, or at least it should be--again IMO. Pete |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
"tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > Do you mean just put e85 fuel into your stock cherokee? No. It needs to be an engine specifically designed to handle that fuel. Or, do you mean put a flex fuel engine into a cherokee? If so, why would you want to? e85 has so much less BTU capability than regular gasoline and your fuel mileage goes down accordingly. So you need to put in more fuel to go the same distance, and are therefore putting MORE polutants in the air, not less. True, it is lessening our dependance on foreign oil, but IMO the bigger problem is polution. Go diesel--it's the fuel of the foreseeable future, or at least it should be--again IMO. Pete |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
"tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > Do you mean just put e85 fuel into your stock cherokee? No. It needs to be an engine specifically designed to handle that fuel. Or, do you mean put a flex fuel engine into a cherokee? If so, why would you want to? e85 has so much less BTU capability than regular gasoline and your fuel mileage goes down accordingly. So you need to put in more fuel to go the same distance, and are therefore putting MORE polutants in the air, not less. True, it is lessening our dependance on foreign oil, but IMO the bigger problem is polution. Go diesel--it's the fuel of the foreseeable future, or at least it should be--again IMO. Pete |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
tyq wrote:
> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > > > > Nope! On the Renix (up to 91 I believe) XJ Jeeps as far as I know, you cannot use 'any' alcohol or wood alcohol mix of any kind in it. The owners manual for them warns that occasional use of up to 10% alcohol will 'only' result in 'significant fuel system corrosion' and may cause driveability issues. The CJ7's owners manual forbids it totally. You are only supposed to put in enough to get to real gas if you have to. Any alcohol mix in the 258's makes them run like pigs too so the YJ 258's up to 91 are the same. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
tyq wrote:
> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > > > > Nope! On the Renix (up to 91 I believe) XJ Jeeps as far as I know, you cannot use 'any' alcohol or wood alcohol mix of any kind in it. The owners manual for them warns that occasional use of up to 10% alcohol will 'only' result in 'significant fuel system corrosion' and may cause driveability issues. The CJ7's owners manual forbids it totally. You are only supposed to put in enough to get to real gas if you have to. Any alcohol mix in the 258's makes them run like pigs too so the YJ 258's up to 91 are the same. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
tyq wrote:
> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > > > > Nope! On the Renix (up to 91 I believe) XJ Jeeps as far as I know, you cannot use 'any' alcohol or wood alcohol mix of any kind in it. The owners manual for them warns that occasional use of up to 10% alcohol will 'only' result in 'significant fuel system corrosion' and may cause driveability issues. The CJ7's owners manual forbids it totally. You are only supposed to put in enough to get to real gas if you have to. Any alcohol mix in the 258's makes them run like pigs too so the YJ 258's up to 91 are the same. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
tyq wrote:
> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > > > > Nope! On the Renix (up to 91 I believe) XJ Jeeps as far as I know, you cannot use 'any' alcohol or wood alcohol mix of any kind in it. The owners manual for them warns that occasional use of up to 10% alcohol will 'only' result in 'significant fuel system corrosion' and may cause driveability issues. The CJ7's owners manual forbids it totally. You are only supposed to put in enough to get to real gas if you have to. Any alcohol mix in the 258's makes them run like pigs too so the YJ 258's up to 91 are the same. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
tyq wrote:
> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) Possible, yes. Advisable, no. In the stock xj it can eat away a lot of the plastic and rubber fuel system. Plus the engine is not set up for the correct timing and compression required to efficiently use ethanol fuel. To do this your looking at changing out the fuel system, different injectors, highly advanced timing and even increasing compression (stroking) the engine. Keep in mind that E85 is no good at all in cold weather. You will need gasoline to start and warm the engine up. That's why some E85 vehicles have a small 1/2 gal gas tank. Now, think about the prior paragraph. Increased timing and compression plus gasoline = *paff* so the computer has to be able to detect what the engine is running to keep from grenadeine. There is a discussion here. http://www.jeepsunlimited.com/forums...d.php?t=819380 The key item is E-85 reduces your economy by about 25% i.e. rather than getting 20mpg you will get 15mpg. So any cost savings in $/gal are wiped out. Long story short. Ethanol belongs in the pub, not the pump. :) -- DougW |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
tyq wrote:
> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) Possible, yes. Advisable, no. In the stock xj it can eat away a lot of the plastic and rubber fuel system. Plus the engine is not set up for the correct timing and compression required to efficiently use ethanol fuel. To do this your looking at changing out the fuel system, different injectors, highly advanced timing and even increasing compression (stroking) the engine. Keep in mind that E85 is no good at all in cold weather. You will need gasoline to start and warm the engine up. That's why some E85 vehicles have a small 1/2 gal gas tank. Now, think about the prior paragraph. Increased timing and compression plus gasoline = *paff* so the computer has to be able to detect what the engine is running to keep from grenadeine. There is a discussion here. http://www.jeepsunlimited.com/forums...d.php?t=819380 The key item is E-85 reduces your economy by about 25% i.e. rather than getting 20mpg you will get 15mpg. So any cost savings in $/gal are wiped out. Long story short. Ethanol belongs in the pub, not the pump. :) -- DougW |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
tyq wrote:
> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) Possible, yes. Advisable, no. In the stock xj it can eat away a lot of the plastic and rubber fuel system. Plus the engine is not set up for the correct timing and compression required to efficiently use ethanol fuel. To do this your looking at changing out the fuel system, different injectors, highly advanced timing and even increasing compression (stroking) the engine. Keep in mind that E85 is no good at all in cold weather. You will need gasoline to start and warm the engine up. That's why some E85 vehicles have a small 1/2 gal gas tank. Now, think about the prior paragraph. Increased timing and compression plus gasoline = *paff* so the computer has to be able to detect what the engine is running to keep from grenadeine. There is a discussion here. http://www.jeepsunlimited.com/forums...d.php?t=819380 The key item is E-85 reduces your economy by about 25% i.e. rather than getting 20mpg you will get 15mpg. So any cost savings in $/gal are wiped out. Long story short. Ethanol belongs in the pub, not the pump. :) -- DougW |
Re: IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT E-85 FLEX-FUEL
tyq wrote:
> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) Possible, yes. Advisable, no. In the stock xj it can eat away a lot of the plastic and rubber fuel system. Plus the engine is not set up for the correct timing and compression required to efficiently use ethanol fuel. To do this your looking at changing out the fuel system, different injectors, highly advanced timing and even increasing compression (stroking) the engine. Keep in mind that E85 is no good at all in cold weather. You will need gasoline to start and warm the engine up. That's why some E85 vehicles have a small 1/2 gal gas tank. Now, think about the prior paragraph. Increased timing and compression plus gasoline = *paff* so the computer has to be able to detect what the engine is running to keep from grenadeine. There is a discussion here. http://www.jeepsunlimited.com/forums...d.php?t=819380 The key item is E-85 reduces your economy by about 25% i.e. rather than getting 20mpg you will get 15mpg. So any cost savings in $/gal are wiped out. Long story short. Ethanol belongs in the pub, not the pump. :) -- DougW |
Re: Related Question, but different
If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to all of
the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only fuel available? "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > > > > |
Re: Related Question, but different
If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to all of
the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only fuel available? "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > > > > |
Re: Related Question, but different
If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to all of
the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only fuel available? "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > > > > |
Re: Related Question, but different
If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to all of
the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only fuel available? "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) > > > > |
Re: Related Question, but different
Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. |
Re: Related Question, but different
Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. |
Re: Related Question, but different
Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. |
Re: Related Question, but different
Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. |
Re: Related Question, but different
I guess you would see a bunch more LPG kits on the market then eh?
Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) Jeff Strickland wrote: > If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > > I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to > meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but > eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the > legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers > have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would > defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. > > So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of > vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only > fuel available? > > > > > > > > "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... >> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) >> >> >> >> > |
Re: Related Question, but different
I guess you would see a bunch more LPG kits on the market then eh?
Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) Jeff Strickland wrote: > If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > > I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to > meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but > eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the > legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers > have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would > defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. > > So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of > vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only > fuel available? > > > > > > > > "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... >> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) >> >> >> >> > |
Re: Related Question, but different
I guess you would see a bunch more LPG kits on the market then eh?
Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) Jeff Strickland wrote: > If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > > I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to > meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but > eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the > legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers > have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would > defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. > > So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of > vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only > fuel available? > > > > > > > > "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... >> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) >> >> >> >> > |
Re: Related Question, but different
I guess you would see a bunch more LPG kits on the market then eh?
Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile... Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) Jeff Strickland wrote: > If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > > I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to > meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but > eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the > legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers > have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would > defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. > > So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of > vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only > fuel available? > > > > > > > > "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... >> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) >> >> >> >> > |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote: >Jeff Strickland proclaimed: > >> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > >Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. > >For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Biobutanol is the one to watch out for in future as it has about 90% of BTU's of gas and will run in any car made in last 30 years or so with basically no mods. The reason it is nt in usage today is that while it is made off same stock of eyth is, they have not found a cost effective process (right enzyme yet) to p[roduce it. Eyth is but a political pipe dream as a long term solution. If you converter the entire US grain crop to eyth, it would only meet about 1/3 of daily demand and with nothing less to eat and when you start using food to power your car it is time to consider other optiuons. We use over 800 million gallons of gas a day and you are not going to make any big dent in that long term with any eyth produce as it is a bandaid at best.. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote: >Jeff Strickland proclaimed: > >> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > >Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. > >For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Biobutanol is the one to watch out for in future as it has about 90% of BTU's of gas and will run in any car made in last 30 years or so with basically no mods. The reason it is nt in usage today is that while it is made off same stock of eyth is, they have not found a cost effective process (right enzyme yet) to p[roduce it. Eyth is but a political pipe dream as a long term solution. If you converter the entire US grain crop to eyth, it would only meet about 1/3 of daily demand and with nothing less to eat and when you start using food to power your car it is time to consider other optiuons. We use over 800 million gallons of gas a day and you are not going to make any big dent in that long term with any eyth produce as it is a bandaid at best.. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote: >Jeff Strickland proclaimed: > >> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > >Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. > >For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Biobutanol is the one to watch out for in future as it has about 90% of BTU's of gas and will run in any car made in last 30 years or so with basically no mods. The reason it is nt in usage today is that while it is made off same stock of eyth is, they have not found a cost effective process (right enzyme yet) to p[roduce it. Eyth is but a political pipe dream as a long term solution. If you converter the entire US grain crop to eyth, it would only meet about 1/3 of daily demand and with nothing less to eat and when you start using food to power your car it is time to consider other optiuons. We use over 800 million gallons of gas a day and you are not going to make any big dent in that long term with any eyth produce as it is a bandaid at best.. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote: >Jeff Strickland proclaimed: > >> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > >Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. > >For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Biobutanol is the one to watch out for in future as it has about 90% of BTU's of gas and will run in any car made in last 30 years or so with basically no mods. The reason it is nt in usage today is that while it is made off same stock of eyth is, they have not found a cost effective process (right enzyme yet) to p[roduce it. Eyth is but a political pipe dream as a long term solution. If you converter the entire US grain crop to eyth, it would only meet about 1/3 of daily demand and with nothing less to eat and when you start using food to power your car it is time to consider other optiuons. We use over 800 million gallons of gas a day and you are not going to make any big dent in that long term with any eyth produce as it is a bandaid at best.. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com... > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> > wrote: > >>Jeff Strickland proclaimed: >> >>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? >> >>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. >> >>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. > > > The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel > lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different > carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it > has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of > it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as > they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about > 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is > considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for > the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here. |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com... > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> > wrote: > >>Jeff Strickland proclaimed: >> >>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? >> >>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. >> >>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. > > > The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel > lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different > carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it > has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of > it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as > they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about > 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is > considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for > the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here. |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com... > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> > wrote: > >>Jeff Strickland proclaimed: >> >>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? >> >>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. >> >>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. > > > The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel > lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different > carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it > has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of > it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as > they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about > 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is > considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for > the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here. |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com... > On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net> > wrote: > >>Jeff Strickland proclaimed: >> >>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to >>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? >> >>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed >>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In >>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it. >>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes. >> >>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected >>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their >>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as >>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles, >>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore. > > > The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel > lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different > carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it > has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of > it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as > they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about > 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is > considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for > the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, we are looking at some serious issues here. |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad > thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? > > If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same > amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact > that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me > that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is > 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. > > Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to > flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, > we are looking at some serious issues here. > > Jeff, Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense? Pete |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad > thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? > > If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same > amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact > that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me > that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is > 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. > > Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to > flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, > we are looking at some serious issues here. > > Jeff, Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense? Pete |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad > thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? > > If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same > amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact > that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me > that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is > 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. > > Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to > flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, > we are looking at some serious issues here. > > Jeff, Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense? Pete |
Re: Re: Related Question, but different
> Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
> suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad > thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem? > > If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same > amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact > that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me > that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is > 1.) an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions. > > Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to > flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply, > we are looking at some serious issues here. > > Jeff, Exactly the point I was trying to make, except stated in a much more cohesive and organized way. And to add to your point, it takes about one gallon of diesel fuel (used by farmers) to produce one gallon of ethanol. This stuff is supposed to make sense? Pete |
Re: Related Question, but different
You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x
increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production. What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix. Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes. Jeff Strickland wrote: > If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > > I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to > meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but > eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the > legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers > have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would > defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. > > So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of > vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only > fuel available? > > > > > > > > "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > >> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) >> >> >> >> > |
Re: Related Question, but different
You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x
increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production. What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix. Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes. Jeff Strickland wrote: > If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > > I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to > meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but > eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the > legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers > have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would > defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. > > So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of > vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only > fuel available? > > > > > > > > "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > >> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) >> >> >> >> > |
Re: Related Question, but different
You are unlikely to see mandated E-85, it would take about a 10x
increase in alcohol production, we are already running into supply shortages of the corn currently used for alcohol production. What you will see is a mandated 10% (up to perhaps 20%) alcohol mix. Some of the farm states have had that mandate for years. California banned MTBE (?) due to ground water contamination, you will be getting the 10% alky shortly. Most states with the 10% mandate make it real tough to get the straight gas you old vehicle likes. Jeff Strickland wrote: > If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to > all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated? > > I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to > meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but > eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the > legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers > have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would > defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place. > > So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of > vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only > fuel available? > > > > > > > > "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message > news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net... > >> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990) >> >> >> >> > |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:50 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands