club.liberty.asn.au

Would more advance and retard be possible in the AVCS if the fuel doesnt detonate and is a slower cooler burn??

Anyone tried this??

coyote wrote:On a technical note, United consistently tests at over 90% up here ... so EFlex won't be missed much.

If your testing the United and getting over 90% then you must be using a test tube, I have found that when electronically tested the e-flex is around 71% and the United is around 85%, exactly what both companies state their fuel is.

I send them an email in regards to their summer / winter blends and according to Caltex they have never sold a summer blend and only made 1 seasonal change from 70% to 71%, whether this is true or not who knows but I have been using it for over 2 years and AFR's have not changed.

I am a big fan of both fuels but really like the e-flex, it starts easier in the cold and I get more klms per tank, so it makes it more cost effective for me.

I for one will be very sad to see it go.

One positive is that United have stepped up their game and are rolling out E85 to more and more servos so at least people have an alternative.

Just need to play with your cranking lambda to get it to start in the cold. You will also make more torque / power on United.

BUDDAH wrote:3. Reduce our emissions footprint


BULL SHIT you must be a Greens voter

E85 when burnt generates Ozone... Please verify your claim

jslayz wrote:Would more advance and retard be possible in the AVCS if the fuel doesnt detonate and is a slower cooler burn??

Anyone tried this??

Since most people fit larger injectors, the Injector start time relative to crank cycle does not change thus the injection pulse is shorter due to bigger injectors so in some cases your squirting more fuel while there is valve overlap. Cool thing is if you get the start of the injection pulse timing right on E85, you can squirt the fuel and use it as a chemical intercooler and effectively have more air in the chamber during a combustion event thus more power on less boost

KiDo_Tuning wrote:

jslayz wrote:Would more advance and retard be possible in the AVCS if the fuel doesnt detonate and is a slower cooler burn??

Anyone tried this??

Since most people fit larger injectors, the Injector start time relative to crank cycle does not change thus the injection pulse is shorter due to bigger injectors so in some cases your squirting more fuel while there is valve overlap. Cool thing is if you get the start of the injection pulse timing right on E85, you can squirt the fuel and use it as a chemical intercooler and effectively have more air in the chamber during a combustion event thus more power on less boost

Yep I understand the cooling effect.

Interesting but you didnt address the subject quoted..

I'm talking about opening the intake valve earlier and opening the exhaust later than you can with petrol.
May only be a few degrees but my theory is that it should help boost torque and extract more out of the slower burning fuel ie increase efficiency....
Have you tried this?

KiDo_Tuning wrote:

BUDDAH wrote:3. Reduce our emissions footprint


BULL SHIT you must be a Greens voter

E85 when burnt generates Ozone... Please verify your claim

Have a read and think about the footprint

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/03 ... 20316.html

BUDDAH wrote:

KiDo_Tuning wrote:

BUDDAH wrote:3. Reduce our emissions footprint


BULL SHIT you must be a Greens voter

E85 when burnt generates Ozone... Please verify your claim

Have a read and think about the footprint

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2012/03 ... 20316.html

Dipshit - instead of polluting my thread with misinfo, go do something productive like, I dunno, find a way to keep your fingers from typing and mouth from moving

Corn ethanol has nothing to do with Australian based ethanol fuels.

Now get the fk out of my thread

You make me laugh

Corporate Banking Manager

BUDDAH wrote:You make me laugh

Corporate Banking Manager

Please go start a Hippy Commune and remove yourself from the internet... CSR Sugarcane sourced Ethanol > your tin foil hat conspiracies

Buddah, please stop fucking up this thread with your inane bullshit.

Yes we get it, you are a mis-understood genius, stamping your little foot for attention, but hush down a little sweetie, the adults are talking.

KiDo_Tuning wrote:

BUDDAH wrote:You make me laugh

Corporate Banking Manager

Please go start a Hippy Commune and remove yourself from the internet... CSR Sugarcane sourced Ethanol > your tin foil hat conspiracies

Sugar cane ethanol biofuel produces 10 times the pollution of gasoline and diesel
Indur Goklany calculated that biofuels policies killed nearly 200,000 people  in 2010 alone. That was before this study showed things may be worse than we suspected.
Brazil is the largest sugar cane ethanol producer in the world, but people are burning four times the area of sugar cane plantations than previously realized, and it’s producing far more pollution than they thought. For every unit of energy generated, the ethanol-biofuel use produces a lot less CO2 (plant fertilizer) but more volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), more carbon monoxide, more nitrous oxides, as well as more sulphur dioxides. (See Graph b below).
Compared to gasoline and diesel, over its whole life cycle, every unit of energy produced with sugar cane produces 10 times as much volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), carbon monoxide,  and nitrous oxides.  The amount PM10′s and PM2.5′s produced with ethanol fuels is even higher. Most of the pollution comes from burning fields of sugar cane (see graph a). Hence the people suffering the most from ethanol production will be villagers and rural farmers living near areas of sugar cane production. While there have been efforts to encourage farmers to produce cane without burning fields, over half of sugar-cane crop loads continue to be burned. Presumably there is a cost to producing sugar cane without burning. Perhaps sugar-cane production is viable and competitive without burning but this study does not discuss the reasons farmers prefer to burn fields.
If you care about pollution, and want less of it, and you care about the health of people in developing countries then clearly we should encourage gasoline and diesel use, and discourage production of ethanol that involves burning sugar cane-fields.
Likewise, to promote growth in the Amazon (by increasing CO2 levels), we ought to be burning fossil fuels and not fields of cane.
 If global policies devalue concentrated energy underground and prize diffuse photosynthetic sources of energy above ground, will we protect and retain dirty rocks deep below the surface at the expense of biodiversity and health of plants and people? It seems so.

[img]
http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/source/b ... brazil.gif[/img]

^^ It says that only half the ethanol uses the burning of fields. So it's fine if we just fill up half a tank each time.

alexeiwoody wrote:^^ It says that only half the ethanol uses the burning of fields. So it's fine if we just fill up half a tank each time.

No, fill the whole tank.

The sugar cane derived ethanol in your E85 is not the primary product of the cane, that would be ... err ... sugar.

The sugar industry goes on as it always did, it just becomes more profitable because it has another use for the molasses that is a by product of production. I've not yet seen E85 driving up the price of Bundy Rum, but I'll be keeping a close eye on it.

If they stopped producing ethanol, there would still be fires to harvest the cane, except ... err ... Australia farmers stopped burning (with a few exceptions in FNQ) years ago and now sell the waste as garden mulch or bagasse. Again, doh.

Sorry Mick, I know you wanted to keep this thread on topic. I'd suggest the only way to achieve that is for Ric to ban the idiot who keeps posting rubbish.

Agreed tony

coyote wrote:
Sorry Mick, I know you wanted to keep this thread on topic. I'd suggest the only way to achieve that is for Ric to ban the idiot who keeps posting rubbish.

Hallelujah.