Gasohol - Page 2

Posted by Steve on November 16, 2008, 11:33 pm

> Steve wrote:

>>> I presume you kept track of fuel usage, miles, mileage, and so on?

>> As a matter of fact, I did, and the 275 engine horsepower was from the
>> dyno with all of the factory smog equipment removed. The emissions were
>> negligable... they barely registered on the machine.
>> The stock engine only put out 105hp, only got 18 - 20mpg(maybe) on the
>> interstate, and barely passed the emissions test.

> What are you smoking? From 105 HP to 275 HP.. The only way that corn can
> do that is if the driver drinks that alcohol product derived from it.

Pay attention Don, I never said the engine was stock. It had a lot of work
done on the heads, cam and valvetrain, and was running direct port induction
with 2bbl Weber carbs among other things.

Posted by Don Ocean on November 17, 2008, 12:10 am

Steve wrote:

>> Steve wrote:

>>>> I presume you kept track of fuel usage, miles, mileage, and so on?
>>> As a matter of fact, I did, and the 275 engine horsepower was from the
>>> dyno with all of the factory smog equipment removed. The emissions were
>>> negligable... they barely registered on the machine.
>>> The stock engine only put out 105hp, only got 18 - 20mpg(maybe) on the
>>> interstate, and barely passed the emissions test.

>> What are you smoking? From 105 HP to 275 HP.. The only way that corn can
>> do that is if the driver drinks that alcohol product derived from it.

>
> Pay attention Don, I never said the engine was stock. It had a lot of work
> done on the heads, cam and valvetrain, and was running direct port induction
> with 2bbl Weber carbs among other things.

You implied that all happened from the use of Gasohol. I just wanted to
know if you used it for fuel or drank it. ;-p I once had a Pontiac that
had a 429 cu that dyno'ed at the Lions in Long Beach at 395 HP without
all that stuff. Got 14 mpg on High test. It could pass everything except
a gas station.

>
>

Posted by Steve on November 17, 2008, 6:45 am

> Steve wrote:

>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> I presume you kept track of fuel usage, miles, mileage, and so on?
>>>> As a matter of fact, I did, and the 275 engine horsepower was from the
>>>> dyno with all of the factory smog equipment removed. The emissions were
>>>> negligable... they barely registered on the machine.
>>>> The stock engine only put out 105hp, only got 18 - 20mpg(maybe) on the
>>>> interstate, and barely passed the emissions test.
>>> What are you smoking? From 105 HP to 275 HP.. The only way that corn can
>>> do that is if the driver drinks that alcohol product derived from it.

>> Pay attention Don, I never said the engine was stock. It had a lot of
>> work done on the heads, cam and valvetrain, and was running direct port
>> induction with 2bbl Weber carbs among other things.

> You implied that all happened from the use of Gasohol. I just wanted to
> know if you used it for fuel or drank it. ;-p I once had a Pontiac that
> had a 429 cu that dyno'ed at the Lions in Long Beach at 395 HP without all
> that stuff. Got 14 mpg on High test. It could pass everything except a gas
> station.

Its all about efficiency... the more efficient the engine is, the more
horsepower its going to make, and the less fuel its going to take to do the
job, and the less emissions it will have.

Posted by Don Ocean on November 17, 2008, 10:10 pm

Steve wrote:

>> Steve wrote:

>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>> I presume you kept track of fuel usage, miles, mileage, and so on?
>>>>> As a matter of fact, I did, and the 275 engine horsepower was from the
>>>>> dyno with all of the factory smog equipment removed. The emissions were
>>>>> negligible... they barely registered on the machine.
>>>>> The stock engine only put out 105hp, only got 18 - 20mpg(maybe) on the
>>>>> interstate, and barely passed the emissions test.
>>>> What are you smoking? From 105 HP to 275 HP.. The only way that corn can
>>>> do that is if the driver drinks that alcohol product derived from it.
>>> Pay attention Don, I never said the engine was stock. It had a lot of
>>> work done on the heads, cam and valvetrain, and was running direct port
>>> induction with 2bbl Weber carbs among other things.

>> You implied that all happened from the use of Gasohol. I just wanted to
>> know if you used it for fuel or drank it. ;-p I once had a Pontiac that
>> had a 429 cu that dyno'ed at the Lions in Long Beach at 395 HP without all
>> that stuff. Got 14 mpg on High test. It could pass everything except a gas
>> station.

>
>
> Its all about efficiency... the more efficient the engine is, the more
> horsepower its going to make, and the less fuel its going to take to do the
> job, and the less emissions it will have.

Actually the efficiency ratio is predicated to changing 100% of the
fuels BTUH to 100% work. Horsepower actually can be a waste if it is
more then you need to economically transport mass at the most efficient
speed. A high horsepower engine running at high speed is absolutely not
efficient. One of the most efficient Engines was the Sterling Engine.
Chrysler tried to produce a Gas turbine in 1962-63 that supposedly was
fuel efficient. it was actually worse then a standard internal
combustion engine, Was an expensive maintenance nightmare and was
expensive to produce. Chrysler pulled them off the streets In 1965? and
shredded every one of them. They didn't even save one for the Museum.
As for emmissions..They cannot be avoided as much of that is created by
additives that don't totally burn. Its the old adage of energy cannot be
destroyed only changed in form.

>
>

Posted by Noon-Air on November 18, 2008, 7:57 am

> Steve wrote:

>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>> Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> I presume you kept track of fuel usage, miles, mileage, and so on?
>>>>>> As a matter of fact, I did, and the 275 engine horsepower was from
>>>>>> the dyno with all of the factory smog equipment removed. The
>>>>>> emissions were negligible... they barely registered on the machine.
>>>>>> The stock engine only put out 105hp, only got 18 - 20mpg(maybe) on
>>>>>> the interstate, and barely passed the emissions test.
>>>>> What are you smoking? From 105 HP to 275 HP.. The only way that corn
>>>>> can do that is if the driver drinks that alcohol product derived from
>>>>> it.
>>>> Pay attention Don, I never said the engine was stock. It had a lot of
>>>> work done on the heads, cam and valvetrain, and was running direct port
>>>> induction with 2bbl Weber carbs among other things.
>>> You implied that all happened from the use of Gasohol. I just wanted to
>>> know if you used it for fuel or drank it. ;-p I once had a Pontiac that
>>> had a 429 cu that dyno'ed at the Lions in Long Beach at 395 HP without
>>> all that stuff. Got 14 mpg on High test. It could pass everything except
>>> a gas station.

>> Its all about efficiency... the more efficient the engine is, the more
>> horsepower its going to make, and the less fuel its going to take to do
>> the job, and the less emissions it will have.

> Actually the efficiency ratio is predicated to changing 100% of the fuels
> BTUH to 100% work. Horsepower actually can be a waste if it is more then
> you need to economically transport mass at the most efficient speed. A
> high horsepower engine running at high speed is absolutely not efficient.
> One of the most efficient Engines was the Sterling Engine.
> Chrysler tried to produce a Gas turbine in 1962-63 that supposedly was
> fuel efficient. it was actually worse then a standard internal combustion
> engine, Was an expensive maintenance nightmare and was expensive to
> produce. Chrysler pulled them off the streets In 1965? and
> shredded every one of them. They didn't even save one for the Museum.
> As for emmissions..They cannot be avoided as much of that is created by
> additives that don't totally burn. Its the old adage of energy cannot be
> destroyed only changed in form.

Not too many places to run the engine wide open, let alone run wide open all
the time.

Page 2 of 8 < 1 2 3 > last >>