ZOMG! Racer friendly sustainable/renewable/alternative fuel
#21
What about cars that need to run 87???
Hmmm
Anyone get the idea that it would be simple and inexpensive to mix this 'new' stuff with a bit of regualr gasoline to bring the octane rating down and still cost less then regular gasoline? Is the concept that hard? Really? Even if it brings it down to 93/95, a "normal" car would run just fine.
But im sure with the newer cars, mfgs. could reflash the ECU with a tune for the higher octane gas. As for older cars...just bump the timing way up on your next tune-up. All problems solved.
Hmmm
Anyone get the idea that it would be simple and inexpensive to mix this 'new' stuff with a bit of regualr gasoline to bring the octane rating down and still cost less then regular gasoline? Is the concept that hard? Really? Even if it brings it down to 93/95, a "normal" car would run just fine.
But im sure with the newer cars, mfgs. could reflash the ECU with a tune for the higher octane gas. As for older cars...just bump the timing way up on your next tune-up. All problems solved.
#23
Junior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 394
Total Cats: 6
That's why its a waste to buy premium (higher octane) fuel for a car that's not tuned for it. It doesn't break the car you just don't get any extra benefit.
#24
Junior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 394
Total Cats: 6
What about cars that need to run 87???
Hmmm
Anyone get the idea that it would be simple and inexpensive to mix this 'new' stuff with a bit of regualr gasoline to bring the octane rating down and still cost less then regular gasoline? Is the concept that hard? Really? Even if it brings it down to 93/95, a "normal" car would run just fine.
But im sure with the newer cars, mfgs. could reflash the ECU with a tune for the higher octane gas. As for older cars...just bump the timing way up on your next tune-up. All problems solved.
Hmmm
Anyone get the idea that it would be simple and inexpensive to mix this 'new' stuff with a bit of regualr gasoline to bring the octane rating down and still cost less then regular gasoline? Is the concept that hard? Really? Even if it brings it down to 93/95, a "normal" car would run just fine.
But im sure with the newer cars, mfgs. could reflash the ECU with a tune for the higher octane gas. As for older cars...just bump the timing way up on your next tune-up. All problems solved.
High octane (within limits) is not a problem. It's low octane that's harmful.
Sure you could blend it, but from the info provided there is no reason to. Blending this fuel would raise the cost and you would get fewer miles per gallon.
#25
The higher octane won't do anything. Cars "meant to run on 87" means nothing. it just means they won't detonate on 87.
Bottom line...so this is clear to everyone. The 104 Octane isn't enough to make the Spark Plugs ineffective...so it will still burn, and burn just the same as 87 for cars not taking "advantage"
Bottom line...so this is clear to everyone. The 104 Octane isn't enough to make the Spark Plugs ineffective...so it will still burn, and burn just the same as 87 for cars not taking "advantage"
#26
It's called SwiftFuel. I think this is the real deal guys. I'm not seeing any 'gotchas' with this one.
How does this sound? 104 Octane, higher energy density than gasoline, net zero carbon footprint, cheaper than gasoline, and currently in FAA trials as an aviation fuel!
How does this sound? 104 Octane, higher energy density than gasoline, net zero carbon footprint, cheaper than gasoline, and currently in FAA trials as an aviation fuel!
#27
Junior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 394
Total Cats: 6
I skimmed the article, but the processes involved in the making and distribution of ethanol pretty much cancel out any "green" factor gained. Add to that the fact that it further encourages people to cut down forest to grow corn because it's value will go up and it will definitely have a negative effect on the environment. Even beyond that problem it also will increase hunger across the world as the price of their food is going up because it's now a fuel. It's a bad idea that is the brain child of the agricultural industry's lobbyists.
"The Ruseks claim that sorghum, which isn't a typical U.S. crop, can produce six times the ethanol per acre of corn, turning on its head the argument that ethanol production consumes more energy than it produces."
Not to mention that ethanol can be produced from other source (such as switchgrass) which grows on land not suitable for food crops.
#29
Junior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 394
Total Cats: 6
Sounds like a problem that can be legislated. Besides all human activity that requires land encourages people to cut down trees.
My point is, it does not require people to cut down trees. You can physically stop people from cutting down trees and still mass produce ethanol.
My point is, it does not require people to cut down trees. You can physically stop people from cutting down trees and still mass produce ethanol.
#30
Sounds like a problem that can be legislated. Besides all human activity that requires land encourages people to cut down trees.
My point is, it does not require people to cut down trees. You can physically stop people from cutting down trees and still mass produce ethanol.
My point is, it does not require people to cut down trees. You can physically stop people from cutting down trees and still mass produce ethanol.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post