95 RON standardized as new high octane?

General engine tech -- Drag Racing to Circle Track

Moderator: Team

David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by David Redszus »

David Redszus wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 12:45 pm
The same is true today when we attempt to use alternative energy sources to reformulate molecules into fuels.
Alternative fuels are very poor sources of energy; costly, unreliable, high maintenance, and require massive
government subsidies in order to exist. And the energy must be used as produced and cannot be stored for
later use, nor can the spigot be turned up to meet increased temporary demand.
Yes e fuel is more expensive to create currently. But everything else you said there is wrong. This is not hydrogen powered cars, it is petrol, diesel, and any other fuel that is hydrocarbon chains. You need to understand this is the same stuff that is in your fuel tank today.
Well sir, I understand far more than you might think. And nothing that I wrote is wrong.
I never suggested e fuels were hydrogen, although as hydrocarbons they certainly contain hydrogen. I merely used the analogy of an inefficient conversion process as an example.
When you use inefficient alternative fuel energy to manufacture e fuels, the supply becomes uncertain and the price goes way up. Where is the advantage? Why not use the most efficient and inexpensive energy sources available? The natural energy sources created by nature called oil, gas, and coal.
In a world where the governments are trying to remove ICE because of global warming a carbon neutral fuel source making all ICE cars cleaner than electric cars whether the owners believe the science or not, is a good thing.
Ah, there's the problem; idiotic governments who do not understand science and statistics and insist on
forcing the public to accept very bad science for political purposes. The solution is to replace very stupid
governments with those who have functioning brain cells. Not Al Gore, lefties, and Greta derivatives.
It means the people who don't believe or don't care can still have their toys and not be forced to visit them in museums. To use e fuel nothing needs to be done to the cars and trucks, even shipping and planes can run on e fuel, the transport system, the storage system, the retail systems all remain as they are today.
Way off the mark. Cars, and trucks, and trains, and planes will survive the looney leftist attempts to rewrite science and economics.
So as car people we can either support the initiative that will save our cars and racing, or give in to the government's desire to destroy ICE cars and go buy an electric scooter.
I am not a car people; I am a car guy. When we allow a government to prevent the use of petroleum products and force the conversion to inefficient alternatives, we become losers. The initiative to be supported is the removal of very
short sighted, foolish people from government. Let the marketplace do it's job. It works very, very well.
User avatar
Rob-bb
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:12 pm
Location:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by Rob-bb »

David Redszus wrote: Thu May 13, 2021 5:36 pm I am not a car people; I am a car guy.
guys are people too :lol:

Whatever happens I hope people like you and me can keep playing with ICE powered cars. Have a nice day David.
GARY C
HotPass
HotPass
Posts: 6301
Joined: Tue May 14, 2013 10:58 pm
Location:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by GARY C »

Quite a few stations in Texas have been offering E15 for years, the problem with E fuels is the more E the fuel contains the less miles per gallon it provides.

Reduce mileage, sale more fuel, make your campaign donors happy. :)
Please Note!
THE ABOVE POST IN NO WAY REFLECTS THE VIEWS OF SPEED TALK OR IT'S MEMBERS AND SHOULD BE VIEWED AS ENTERTAINMENT ONLY...Thanks, The Management!
User avatar
Rob-bb
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:12 pm
Location:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by Rob-bb »

GARY C wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 2:58 am Quite a few stations in Texas have been offering E15 for years, the problem with E fuels is the more E the fuel contains the less miles per gallon it provides.

Reduce mileage, sale more fuel, make your campaign donors happy. :)
A different E to what I was sharing, an unfortunate choice of names. Maybe they don't do ethanol in petrol in europe? the carbon capturer to petrol e-fuel the e stands for electricity used to separate the h2o.

In addition to reduced mileage when adding ethanol to petrol I think adding ethanol to petrol reduces performance unless the engine is tuned for it or has a flex fuel ecu. I am not sure where the tipping point is though for noticeable performance loss in older vehicles. I don't know enough about
naukkis79
Pro
Pro
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:14 am
Location:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by naukkis79 »

Rob-bb wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 3:17 am In addition to reduced mileage when adding ethanol to petrol I think adding ethanol to petrol reduces performance unless the engine is tuned for it or has a flex fuel ecu. I am not sure where the tipping point is though for noticeable performance loss in older vehicles. I don't know enough about
Lambda controlled engines have usually tuning window up to E50. Carbed engines are usually so rich in wot that more ethanol in gas the more performance with lowish E-percentages.

Increasing ethanol to gas is all good for performance - problem is that most cheap ethanol manufacturing is usually bad for environment, they cut rainforest to make land for ethanol production and so on.

But if E85 is available, cheap octane booster for gas directly from pump.....
User avatar
Rob-bb
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:12 pm
Location:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by Rob-bb »

naukkis79 wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:13 am
Lambda controlled engines have usually tuning window up to E50. Carbed engines are usually so rich in wot that more ethanol in gas the more performance with lowish E-percentages.

Increasing ethanol to gas is all good for performance - problem is that most cheap ethanol manufacturing is usually bad for environment, they cut rainforest to make land for ethanol production and so on.

But if E85 is available, cheap octane booster for gas directly from pump.....
I am not sure I understand, do you mean most ECU's can handle upto E50 without much problem? Where I live we can only buy E85 in 200 liter drums, and need a permit to store more than 50 liters of fuel so its not really an option for street cars
naukkis79
Pro
Pro
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 5:14 am
Location:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by naukkis79 »

Rob-bb wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 5:20 am I am not sure I understand, do you mean most ECU's can handle upto E50 without much problem? Where I live we can only buy E85 in 200 liter drums, and need a permit to store more than 50 liters of fuel so its not really an option for street cars
There's trim window build in all lambda-controlled ECM:s, usual trim window is +-20%, which is enough for about E50.

E50 also doesn't need a lot of more cold start enrichment so most engines will start fine with E50 even in cold temperatures.

Even my chainsaw has electronic controlled carb and have trim window up to E25 as stated in manual.

Here in Finland E85 is available everywhere, and thanks to tax it's about 50% cheaper per litre than gas so it's widely used. Mix half and half 95e10 and e85 and got about E50-grade fuel which have octane rate well beyond any other pump gas - about every tuned turbo vehicle either uses E85 or mixed blends. All cars that I have tested are performed just fine without modifications with E50 mix.
n2omike
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:56 pm
Location: West Virginia

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by n2omike »

David Redszus wrote: Sat May 08, 2021 6:41 pm Ethanol produces the same heat energy as gasoline
A gallon of ethanol only has 2/3 the BTU as a gallon of gasoline. Ethanol runs between 7-8 to 1, and gasoline is 14:1.
Everyone knows E85 requires a much larger fuel supply and gets worse mileage than gasoline. So far, EPA testing is done with straight gasoline, as that is what gives the best fuel mileage.

Alcohol contains a lot of oxygen. You are buying a lot of oxygen when you purchase ethanol... which is why you run such a 'rich' air fuel ratio. With gasoline, all your oxygen comes free of charge from the atmosphere.

Adding more alcohol to fuel will NOT make an engine get better fuel mileage.

Forcing fuel suppliers to drop 87 and 89 octane to only sell 'Premium'... (95 RON = 91 Pump)... will only make us all pay more.

You're smarter than this.
User avatar
Rob-bb
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:12 pm
Location:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by Rob-bb »

n2omike wrote: Fri May 14, 2021 1:41 pm A gallon of ethanol only has 2/3 the BTU as a gallon of gasoline. Ethanol runs between 7-8 to 1, and gasoline is 14:1.

Adding more alcohol to fuel will NOT make an engine get better fuel mileage.
That was my understanding, and that if you are not tuning for it and taking advantages of its other properties it's not really helping. How do other petrols that do not use ethanol increase the octane rating? Here we have one company offering an E10 98 Ron, and two others offering 98 Ron and another offering 100 Ron that say they do not use ethanol. I assume they are adding other stuff but I don't know what that might be or how it would affect mileage
David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by David Redszus »

How do other petrols that do not use ethanol increase the octane rating? Here we have one company offering an E10 98 Ron, and two others offering 98 Ron and another offering 100 Ron that say they do not use ethanol. I assume they are adding other stuff but I don't know what that might be or how it would affect mileage
Following is a list of hydrocarbon fuel (non-oxygenate) components that will raise octane and their effect on fuel mileage.
The octane values are shown in MON not RON. RON values which are not meaningful for racing applications are typically 8-10 points higher than MON.

224 TMP........100
223 TMP........ 99.4
234 TMP.........95.6
The above additives will improve fuel economy (Stoich 15+)

Toluene.......109
o xylene.......100.3
m xylene......115
p xylene.......109.6
Indolene.......107
The above additives will reduce fuel economy (Stoich 13.7)
NewbVetteGuy
Expert
Expert
Posts: 779
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2016 4:11 pm
Location:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by NewbVetteGuy »

David Redszus wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 2:15 pm
How do other petrols that do not use ethanol increase the octane rating? Here we have one company offering an E10 98 Ron, and two others offering 98 Ron and another offering 100 Ron that say they do not use ethanol. I assume they are adding other stuff but I don't know what that might be or how it would affect mileage
Following is a list of hydrocarbon fuel (non-oxygenate) components that will raise octane and their effect on fuel mileage.
The octane values are shown in MON not RON. RON values which are not meaningful for racing applications are typically 8-10 points higher than MON.

224 TMP........100
223 TMP........ 99.4
234 TMP.........95.6
The above additives will improve fuel economy (Stoich 15+)

Toluene.......109
o xylene.......100.3
m xylene......115
p xylene.......109.6
Indolene.......107
The above additives will reduce fuel economy (Stoich 13.7)
David, if you compared a fuel containing 10% ethanol and REPLACED that 10% ethanol with 10% Toluene wouldn't you end up with better fuel economy with the 10% Toulene fuel vs. the 10% ethanol fuel, though?

-I'm curious how to understand what fuel components will increase fuel economy; it's not just about the Stoich ratio for each component right? (Toulene is more dense than gasoline, if I remember right so you get more of it per gallon, right?) -How important is the Stoich value, vs. SG vs. BTU provided, assuming you're not octane limited?

Then what about the amount of energy each component provides when burned?
User avatar
Super_Stock
Member
Member
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun May 09, 2021 7:30 am
Location: OverThere

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by Super_Stock »

LOL, you guy's make me laugh sometimes...
The day the last little bit of oil is pumped from the ground or the day it becomes is such short supply that you won't be able to afford it, will be the day that you don't give a crap what you stick in your tank , how it's made or where it comes from.
Like a bunch of drunks drinking cheap beer (cos it's cheap) and when that runs out , your down the hardware store drinking the Metho...
Might be a good thing to stop ingesting "corn syrup" and burn it in an engine instead.
I love Electric and alternate fuel cars....because it's leave more gasoline for me to burn!!!!
One think I will say, the 10% Ethanol blend around here seems to go "off" in the tank if left for a while, compared to the old fuel that didn't have it.
David Redszus
Guru
Guru
Posts: 9633
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 9:27 am
Location: Chicago
Contact:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by David Redszus »

David, if you compared a fuel containing 10% ethanol and REPLACED that 10% ethanol with 10% Toluene wouldn't you end up with better fuel economy with the 10% Toulene fuel vs. the 10% ethanol fuel, though?
Toluene will improve fuel economy compared to ethanol.
-I'm curious how to understand what fuel components will increase fuel economy; it's not just about the Stoich ratio for each component right?
Remember just what the term "Stoich" actually means. It is the pounds of air that can be burned by one pound of fuel. Using ethanol we can burn 8.99 lbs of air for every pound of fuel. Using toluene we can burn 13.50 lbs of air per pound of fuel. So, for a given amount of air, less fuel is burned using toluene.
Ethanol is 34.5% oxygen which is not a fuel; we need to increase the amount of fuel to compensate for the non-fuel
portion of ethanol.

If a fuel contains 10% ethanol, it means that 3.45% oxygen is in the fuel. If we run a fuel ratio of 11%, we increase the
oxygen intake by 0.3795%. 0.10 x 0.345 x 0.11 = 0.003795 or 0.3795%.
(Toulene is more dense than gasoline, if I remember right so you get more of it per gallon, right?)
We actually measure fuel consumption by fuel mass, not by gallon. Toluene has a higher stoich value and weighs more than ethanol, (ethanol SpG =7.94, toluene SpG = 8.72. To accurately understand fuel consumption use the weight of fuel used, not the volume of fuel. But, we buy gasoline by the gallon, not by the pound so that is what we are stuck with.
Race engineers do not use consumption per gallon, they use consumption per pound to allow for mass differences.
-How important is the Stoich value, vs. SG vs. BTU provided, assuming you're not octane limited?
Stoich value will determine fuel consumption on a per pound basis.
Then what about the amount of energy each component provides when burned?
Since we are limited by the amount of air that the engine can ingest, we should consider the fuel energy potential
per pound of air that can be burned. Ethanol will produce 1279 BTUs per lb of air burned. Toluene will produce
1290 BTUs per lb of air burned. But, ethanol has a higher heat of evaporation (41.2 BTU/lb air vs 11.6 BTU/lb air) and will cool the inlet charge thereby increasing air density...providing the ethanol fully evaporates and we increase the fuel
ratio to take advantage of increased air density.

Now the other shoe. Ethanol will absorb its weight in water. Ethanol based fuels will absorb moisture from the
atmosphere; a gain of 5% water is very common and can be much higher. The result is a de facto water injection system and increased exposure to corrosion.
User avatar
Rob-bb
Member
Member
Posts: 148
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:12 pm
Location:

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by Rob-bb »

David Redszus wrote: Mon May 17, 2021 9:33 pm Now the other shoe. Ethanol will absorb its weight in water. Ethanol based fuels will absorb moisture from the
atmosphere; a gain of 5% water is very common and can be much higher. The result is a de facto water injection system and increased exposure to corrosion.
Is that more of a problem in humid environments than dry environments or is it so good at absorbing water that the environment doesn't really matter?
n2omike
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1067
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 10:56 pm
Location: West Virginia

Re: 95 RON standardized as new high octane?

Post by n2omike »

David...

Engines produce power by using combustion heat to expand the nitrogen that gets ingested into the engine. HEAT is what drives things.
One gallon of Ethanol only has 2/3 the amount of BTU as gasoline. It contains less heat, so a gallon of it will NOT drive a car as far as a gallon on gasoline. There is no way around it. Period. There is no way to make up that missing 33% of heat energy.

You can also reply to my last post, as it seems you missed it.

I'd rather get all of my oxygen for free from the atmosphere. I don't want to pay for a bunch of it in my fuel purchase. That is why each gallon of alcohol is lacking so much in BTU... It contains lots of its own oxygen. That's also why it needs to run as such a 'rich' AFR to achieve a similar lambda.

YOU can see this. YOU are smarter than this.

PLUS you think it's a good idea to force everyone to buy premium fuel? You know they will price gouge that idea, even though it only costs pennies more per gallon to produce. (We all remember when stations posted the prices for all fuel grades... Each step was only between $0.05 - $0.10 difference. Now they only price regular, and the price gap has gotten HUGE... with premium sometimes being close to a dollar more than regular) IF they could keep themselves from price gouging it, and only make it cost a dime more, I'd be all for it... but like THAT is going to happen. lol
Post Reply