Boulard83
Active member
J'ai un gain au 91 mais ce gain n'est pas financièrement viable. C'est du cas par cas mais ça demeure possible d'y gagner. C'est faux de dire "aucune voiture y gagnera"
Envoyé de mon Pixel en utilisant Tapatalk
Why Low Octane Gas in Canada?
- Thread starter Rekkless
- Start date
Envoyé de mon Pixel en utilisant Tapatalk
Snail
Banned
en tant que timing, je pourrais croire ça (donc peut-être t'as des gains en hp que j'aurai jamais) mais en tant que densité énergétique, 1L de 91 pur brûle à 14:1 donc 14L d'air pour 1L d'essence. Du 87 brûle à 0.85x 14:1 + 0.15x 9:1 = 13.25L d'air pour 1L d'essence. Le 91 pur est 1.05x plus efficace que le 87 en densité mais est environ 15-20% plus cher. C'est plate mais ça ne vaut pas la peine.
tekzou
Active member
This is half-true.
The heat of combustion of ethanol is lower than gasoline. That's a fact. So you need more fuel to run the engine if running on straight e100. The engine won't produce less BTU ; it always be a fixed amount to run the thermodynamic cycle and fuel mass wil vary to compensate for that.
Big variable that everybody forget is that alcohol molecules have OXYGEN atoms in them
Indeed, alcohol are OXYGENATES that HELP the combustion. SO, the combustion process is more efficient! That means that, for the same mass of fuel, ethanol blended-gas vs gas the difference is almost non-existant...
Snail
Banned
This is half-true.
The heat of combustion of ethanol is lower than gasoline. That's a fact. So you need more fuel to run the engine if running on straight e100. The engine won't produce less BTU ; it always be a fixed amount to run the thermodynamic cycle and fuel mass wil vary to compensate for that.
Big variable that everybody forget is that alcohol molecules have OXYGEN atoms in them
SO, the combustion process is more efficient! That means that, for the same mass of fuel, ethanol blended-gas vs gas the difference is almost non-existant...
interesting. probably why I saw absolutely no difference between running on 87 and 91.
Wally West
Well-known member
This is half-true.
The heat of combustion of ethanol is lower than gasoline. That's a fact. So you need more fuel to run the engine if running on straight e100. The engine won't produce less BTU ; it always be a fixed amount to run the thermodynamic cycle and fuel mass wil vary to compensate for that.
Big variable that everybody forget is that alcohol molecules have OXYGEN atoms in them
SO, the combustion process is more efficient! That means that, for the same mass of fuel, ethanol blended-gas vs gas the difference is almost non-existant...
Donc t'es entrain de dire qu'on paie pour de l'air haha /s
NorthernDriver
Member
This is half-true.
The heat of combustion of ethanol is lower than gasoline. That's a fact. So you need more fuel to run the engine if running on straight e100. The engine won't produce less BTU ; it always be a fixed amount to run the thermodynamic cycle and fuel mass wil vary to compensate for that.
Big variable that everybody forget is that alcohol molecules have OXYGEN atoms in them
SO, the combustion process is more efficient! That means that, for the same mass of fuel, ethanol blended-gas vs gas the difference is almost non-existant...
Bringing back my memories of enthalpies and Cantera simulations .... I think I'm out of this thread now
Scooter
Premium
You don't have to find any source, is just logic and chemistry.
You are taking it as if is destroying your car. Yes it does, but I don't have the measurements / nor I have said that it takes 5 or 10 , 15 , or 20 years to destroy it. Imagine ( le\t's imagine hypothetically) every time you switch from Shell 91 to Any other gas...100-150 ml of water accumulates in your tank. Will it harm your car? If one day you fill Shell 91 and then any other one, and so on , one tank on one tank off, then yes...you will have acumulation. But chances of this happening are minimal I think. People use to fuel from same stations 99% of the time I think. Then randomly ...sometimes they could change because there is no Shell in the area. REMEMEBER , AGAIN, this only creates "dammages" one way. Shell 91 to any other gas. Let me tell you that I strongly BELIEVE WHOEVER USES Shell 91 ...tends to always use it. And not go to Ultramar, or Esso 91 just like that , but exceptionally. So...by the 1-2-3 times a year they MIGHT Do This...the water will evaporate in between the fuel ups. So dammage ? Almost none or maybe let's call it 1 %.
NOW, let's say you do Shell 91 to Ultramar 91 , then Shell 91 then Ultramar and so on ...water will continue to accumulate....and then yes, there could be damage. An even there...slightly. Hence why you have filters, to save stupid asses.
DEPOSITS : same story as before. if you do this one and off , one fill one not, with Shell 91 and the rest yes, you will get built up and deposits, that ( again maybe can harm your engine). And of course is different from car to car because if you get your car new, lease it for 3 years , is not the same as buying a used car with 100 000 km that has huge amounts of deposits already. And by fueling suddenly with E10 or E15 ( if previous owner only did Shell 91 for example ) will create the dissolution of this deposits.
Ok, I must have repeated myself 20 times.
Furthermore....See...exactly what I was saying. People talk without reading ...your own example. Why the heck in this world would you use 91 in a car optimized to run 87 ? Why ? Do you think that by giving a 300 kg person, vitamins and proteins and wthaever , will run faster than he can run ?
Duhhhh
Ohhhh...feel the love in the air !! Feel it , feel it !!
Just like the Covid.
You go finally and answer your own question...but you still wasted money.
This is half-true.
The heat of combustion of ethanol is lower than gasoline. That's a fact. So you need more fuel to run the engine if running on straight e100. The engine won't produce less BTU ; it always be a fixed amount to run the thermodynamic cycle and fuel mass wil vary to compensate for that.
Big variable that everybody forget is that alcohol molecules have OXYGEN atoms in them
SO, the combustion process is more efficient! That means that, for the same mass of fuel, ethanol blended-gas vs gas the difference is almost non-existant...
Dude !!!
Really???? tell me you are joking !! Or you are a ....
We are not talking about engine planes in here.
We are talking about Mazda engines, best case scenario a Porsche engine.
Those engines they are made to run up to E15 ...! It stops there . NOT IF IF IF IF ....my mom had a donkey !! Will Porsche have better fuel efficiency on Shell 91 ( no ethanol) , compared to any other 91 ( because there will be ethanol) in Canada ? Yes .
Why are you talking about E 100?
Ethanol can actually increase engine efficiency. And when your engine is more efficient, you get better fuel economy. YES ! Ethanol has an octane rating of 113. And I can find you 100 reasons of ethanol being better than gas.
But engine efficiency can be achieved through higher compression ratios; although compression ratios are currently limited, because gasoline can auto-ignite or "knock" in high compression ratio engines. The way to get around this is by using a high-octane fuel.
The reason why we aren't experience such fuel economy improvements at the moment is because the engines in most of the regular cars, aren't tuned to a high compression ratio to maximize ethanol's benefits. They are made to give you the best of wtv the fuck you put in there. Pretty smart those engine, hein ?
And they won't be tuned for more ethanol as long as oil remains the dominant fuel in the world and the industry resists opportunities to increase ethanol content in gasoline.
Ethanol beats gasoline any day because you can get more power on the racetrack or in the performance world. Fuels with alcohol are far superior because they are oxygenated, they are cooler, they are fast burning and because of the extra volume you use over gasoline, you carry the equivalent to or more Btu than gasoline. It makes more horsepower and again is because it has a superior octane rating. There’s less wear and tear on your engine, you’re reducing the carbon deposits. It’s more economical.
But not for a Mazda 3 engine, nor for a regular Porsche engine.
I Have to immitate NorthernDriver
I'm sorry...I'm out here.
Had enough .
Snail
Banned
yeah that's pretty much what i thought.
the only deposits you're going to get is with physical contaminants entering the tank via the nozzle (humidity, particulates). It will have nothing to do with the presence of absence of ethanol.
the only reason you can't cite a source is because it was factually incorrect (I'll be happy to be proven wrong btw) but what I hate most is when people try to spread misinformation and then tell people they can't read when they're called out. Hey, if it's so logical, so mathematical, so obvious...you don't need to cite a source. It's easy to just tell people they're dumb and can't read.
Last edited:
fbodyfanatic
New member
Lol, Hector runs 105 octane. He went legit for the NIRA circuit. No more pump gas, holmes.
