old_fairmont_wagon Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 So, they've increased the oxegenate content of the fuel, meaning that the raw material for the reaction is increasingly carried in the fuel liquid itself. I wonder what the actual propellant is? If they've increased the oxegenate proportion of the mixture, then the propellant proportion of the mixture must neccessarily be even more volatile than regular gasoline to keep the performance from dropping. Take winter fuels in most areas. They add oxegenates to promote cleaner, more complete burning of the fuel. The byproduct is that there is less actual fuel entering the cylinder per injector cycle. This leads to the lower gas milleage (and preceived power loss) that many experience in the winter with their vehicles. So, this fuel must overcome this effect, and also, to meet its claims, exceed regular gasoline combustion levels for a given unit volume. IT must also be stable enough to be transportable without spontaneuosly combusting, and be stable at temperatures from 50 degrees below zero to 130 degrees in a vehices gas tank without freezing or spontaneously combusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matthewq4b Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Qualification. Not ALL engines have knock sensors. If an engine is designed to uses 87 octane, and 87 octane is the recommended fuel, why have a knock sensor ? Well in a perfect world where you could always get spot on 87 octane and have constant, temperature humidity, and barometric pressure you would not need a knock sensor. But of course we do not live in that perfect world so knock sensors are needed to get maximum performance and economy out of modern engines. So, they've increased the oxegenate content of the fuel, meaning that the raw material for the reaction is increasingly carried in the fuel liquid itself. I wonder what the actual propellant is? If they've increased the oxegenate proportion of the mixture, then the propellant proportion of the mixture must neccessarily be even more volatile than regular gasoline to keep the performance from dropping I wonder if they are cutting the fuel with nitromethane ? That would give you the power increase and Nitro carries part of the oxygen it needs to burn in the fuel it's self. The fuel energy of nitromethane is 2.3 times that of iso-octane gasoline for the same mass of air. Even small percentages of Nitro can yield significant boosts in power. Cutting gasoline with nitro also raises it's octane rating. But burning Nitro yields significant amounts of nitric acid vapour. Any one that been to the strip and seen nitro cars run can recall the acrid smell of the exhaust. The Nitric Acid vapour from nitro combustion would wreak havoc on exhaust emission systems, unless BP has figured a way to get around the Nitric acid problem. Or possibly is cutting the gasoline with anouther oxygen carrying combustible liquid. Matthew Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 Well, its going to have to be a new chemical. There's nothing out there that's established and can be used in such a manner. Nitromethane is a bit touchy to handle, IIRC. I wouldn't want to trust the general public with that, or a derivative. Either way, I can see why it would be that freaking expensive per gallon. My main worry is, how do you deal with the stratospheric combustion temperatures of such a fuel in an engine that was designed for regular gasoline. IT seems to me that this stuff would flat out ruin turbos in short order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 I have always understood, due to a physicists teaching, that a standard auto engine that runs on regular unleaded will get No power bennifit from higher octane unleaded fuel. The higher octane just burns slower, if I recall, thus retarding the burn, which will make a regular unleaded engine that knocks stop knocking due to the advance in timing caused by the fuel. Per se. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_fairmont_wagon Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 We aren't discussing octane any longer. Octane is, for our purposes, just a measure of a fuel's resistance to detonation (or, premature, rapid combustion instead of the measured quick burn that's supposed to happen). I am speculating that, if this fuel is more than just snake oil, it has to have a higher BTU content per unit volume than gasoline. I'm also speculating that, due to this higher BTU content, it must also carry an oxidizing agent (which was confirmed by someone else) due to the restriction on air intake that a stock tune on an engine will have. This will allow more complete combustion allowing the pressures in the cylinder to go higher and more work to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kepfordj Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 dude, i own an auto customizeing shop and I have a dyno and I did a before and after test on my 1987 Ford Bronco II with a 21.9L V6 (with 450,000 miles) On regular fuel 130 hp at the rear wheels On new fuel 228 hb at the rear wheels I did no changes to the endine, After the first test, I emptied the gas tank and filled it back up with the new fuel. I just want to know how you got 21.9 L motor to fit in that thing........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.