Jim, Donna, Erin, and Brian wrote:
>
> >Heh... I concur. If those Luminas are fast, it's due to something
> >other than ethanol; ethanol has a lower enthalpy rating than
> >gasoline, so you have to burn more of it to generate the same
> >amount of energy. Hence, the MPG and HP drop you're experiencing
> >(all other things being equal in your case).
> >
> >Those Luminas had a little extra work done, I'm sure :-).
> >
>
> What about that Rustang Ford made that runs on ethanol? They say 585
> supercharged horses on ethanol, and less on straight gasoline. Or are all
> the extra horses on ethanol due to the fact it was built specifically to
> haul ass on ethanol and gasoline was an afterthought?
>
> Brian
Yep :-). Like I said, you gotta burn more of it to generate
the same amount of energy. Those vehicles are set up to
run ethanol, plain and simple.
Keep in mind that I never said you _couldn't_ haul ass
running ethanol, just that, if all other things stay the
same, you won't get the power and MPG out of ethanol
that you would out of gasoline; gasoline has higher
energy potential. That's why in the "regular" world
of day-to-day driving and stock vehicles, ethanol is
gonna suck wind compared to gas.
Ya gotta take a holistic view to total engine performance.
Ethanol isn't the "Marvel's Mystery Oil" of fuels, there's
an overall design that goes into making a kick-ass
everclear burner :-).
Have fun,
--
John Bell johnb@pswtech.com http://www.psw.com
"You're not foolin' anyone, y'know..." - Monty Python
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:09:20 EDT