BTU per what? You use a lot more of it to get more power. It has a fair amount of oxygen attached to it. You're not just injecting fuel, you injecting part of the oxygen too. Ethanol is very closely related to methanol, which makes more power than gasoline obviously, as seen in formula cars. Ethanol only makes slightly less power than methanol. I think alcohol fuels are a good idea for rotaries because they cool the engine so well and have less carbon build up. Alcohol fuels mix with oil more easily and could wash some of the oil from the internal surfaces, you'd need to run pre-mix though or crank up the OMP.

 

BTU per unit volume. Any unit volume. Formula cars never used methanol, though Indycars did. However, the choice of methanol was not an engineering decision, but rather a result of rules.

 

missed the volume part in the original post...

Methanol makes more power though, i don't think it's really even a disputable statement, right?

Their is a lot of ethanol propaganda out there, like less mpg and less BTU/volume, which don't necessarily mean **** in regards to power output.

 

If im not mistaken aren't ethanol cars (like the ethanol exige) making more power because of ethanols higher resistance to detonation, so they can run leaner and more boost?

 

that's true too. Ethanol has a higher octane and cooling properties.

Think of ethanol like running a little bit of "NOS" all the time. Your increasing the amount of oxygen in the engine's combustion chamber with ethanol C2H5(OH). The limiting factor of an engine is the amount of oxygen that can be in the combustion chamber. Forced Induction, NOS, porting, intake, exhaust, are all about getting more oxygen into the engine.

 

The problem is with our current tank using an alcohol fuel will significantly decrease the range of our cars. Sure more power is nice, but you'll need to tune the engine to specifically run on that fuel to realize the gains. If using a flexfuel system that can run on gasoline in a pinch, then you won't see any of that extra power. Unfortunately mileage will suffer and we're already getting a not great 20 mpg. You might want the extra power, but I'd prefer the extra range.

We used to run E85 on our Formula SAE car in college. The car produced good power, but it was a bitch to start up. The fuel can run a higher compression, but the fuel system needs to be beefed up to run on it.

 

Highly disputable. Methanol has even lower energy density than ethanol.

Lower MPG: Fact.
Lower BTU/volume: Fact.
Lower Power Output: Fact.

Ethanol from corn is a political tool. It is not a feasible long term alternative fuel.

Edit: For all your future energy density questions: Energy Density Comparison.

 

"Energy density" is exactly what screws people up. It has oxygen attached to it, obviously that will lower the "Energy density". You just have to use more.

mpg is useless. btu/volume also useless. Lower Power Output is WRONG. It makes more power! It has to be properly tuned for. I don't mean jacking up compression either. Ethanol and Gasoline require different AFRs.

 

No you haven't! Haven't even gotten close.

BTW: Hydrogen sucks as an ICE fuel.

 

On a naturally aspirated engine no it does not make more power. Keep in mind we are talking about identical motors that are tuned around maximizing the benefits of each fuel.

 

I firmly believe that the added oxygen overcomes the low C:H ratio of ethanol that is responsible for its low BTUs. Why would VP Fuels add ethanol to it's U4(e) fuel if it did not make more power? Oxygenation is where it's at.

 

They add ethanol to that fuel because MBTE (the additive that ethanol has replaced in 10% ethanol gasoline) is banned in some states.

Not because it's better in any way to MBTE.

 

U4e or U4.2?

U4e uses ethanol as it is intended to be used in states where MTBE is not allowed. This is the same reason that ethanol is used in most gasoline now. This gas is 93 octane which is basically nothing more than their own personal version of supreme.

U4.2 is a 102 octane leaded race fuel. Strangely enough BOTH of these are leaded fuels.

Please tell me the use of Ethanol in this fuel is not your sole basis to say it's more powerful! On a naturally aspirated engine, it is definitely not and has been proven so many times. You can specially build an engine with higher compression and more aggressive timing to take advantage of ethanol but even then you are only trying to recover the power you lost. You'll get close. In a straight swap for swap basis, ethanol is not more powerful than gasoline.

 

Our Formula SAE car generally produced one of the top dyno numbers of any competitors, but wasn't a staggering advantage and we were turbo'd and tuned and probably put more work into it than most other competitors most of whom were running naturally aspirated gasoline engines. FSAE cars run restrictor plates to even up the engine field a bit, something street cars don't have to contend with.

 

MTBE is carcinogenic in parts per billion. Nice of California to wait until it had polluted ground and surface water supplies to wake up to that fact.

I enjoy drinking ethanol.

 

MTBE is not classified as a human carcinogen at low exposure levels by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

 

d@mn, another great thread subject ruined with argumentive pointless BS

 

I never said ethanol was better than MBTE. I said it was better than gasoline. I know the standard U4 makes more power with MBTE, but U4 without either MTBE or ethanol would make less power than U4e.

And it is far from my sole reason for liking ethanol, just an example.




anyhow, so yeah that new 16X...

...supposed to run on ethanol?

 

this photo u showed in this post have one engine housing missing thats why every thought its a 4 port. its a 6 port.

 

Some facts may be helpful here...

http://www.drivingethanol.org/motors...teristics.aspx

http://www.vpracingfuels.com/vp_01_fuels.html

 

The illustration shows 3 functional intake ports and a dummy where a tertiary port would go. As I mentioned in a few different places in this thread the 4 port engines can be mistaken for a 6 port due to this port casting. It is a bit different in shape which was the first give-away for me.

Hope that helps.

Paul.

 

QUOTE=Spin9k;2356749]Some facts may be helpful here...

http://www.drivingethanol.org/motors...teristics.aspx

http://www.vpracingfuels.com/vp_01_fuels.html[/QUOTE]

"HORSEPOWER: Because Ethanol contains oxygen, it has a very low power stoichiometric when compared to gasoline fuels (6.5 compared to 12.5). Ethanol must be run at much richer mixtures than gasoline, more than offsetting the lower energy per unit volume. The net energy released per cycle is higher and this results in more horsepower.

For example, if gasoline is run at its preferred max power air fuel mixture of 12.5/1, it will release approximately 19,000 BTU's of energy, where ethanol run at its preferred power stoichiometric of 6.5/1 will release approximately 24,400 BTU's. By comparison, methanol releases slightly more, about 27,650 BTU's. The more ethanol there is in gasoline, the more powerful it is as a motor fuel. Typically, you can expect at least 5% more horsepower at the rear wheels of a vehicle running on E-85 than one burning gasoline only."


Um, does this mean I win?

 

Please start your own 'properties of fuels and their relation to rotary engine' thread if this needs to continue.

Let's keep this a little closer to 16X tech if possible. That can include changes observed in the 09 13B as well as other pertinent topics.

Paul.

 

I'm pretty sure I just ended it, so we're solid.

Is there anymore information on direct injection system being used on the 16X?

 

How did you end it? Did you concede that you're wrong? You are. Ethanol is less efficient and less powerful in naturally aspirated engines. Go find out what anyone who switches from gasoline to E85 reports in mileage. Flex fuel vehicles are a joke and yes they do retune to account for E85. If you honestly believe it's better then I'm sure you'll agree with zoom44 that hydrogen is a great fuel.