Ford Promises 30% Better Mileage Using Ethanol Injection
Ford says the next generation of their Ecoboost engine technology, codenamed Bobcat, will provide 30% more fuel efficiency than a traditional gasoline combustion engine by directly injecting ethanol into the gas/air mixture prior to detonation.
Although Ford’s first generation Ecoboost engines start hitting the market next year — promising a 20% gain in fuel economy over traditional engines — Ford is already tweaking their new Bobcat technology to squeeze out even more fuel efficiency from the direct ethanol injection system.
The technology works by merging a turbocharger with a high compression ratio in the same engine. Combining these two features normally results in an incompatible and disastrous mix which causes premature detonation of the fuel/air mixture — referred to as engine knock.
Ford gets around this incompatibility by injecting a small amount of ethanol into the gas/air mixture before detonation in the combustion chamber. Purportedly, the addition of the ethanol cools the mixture enough that it doesn’t ignite until the engine tells it to, thus preventing the dreaded knock.
The combination of high compression and turbocharging mean that the Bobcat-powered engines will behave more like diesel engines than gas engines by providing huge amounts of torque.
Given that gasoline has been consistently cheaper than diesel over the past several years and the Bobcat engines will cost much less than diesel engines, this could provide a replacement for certain diesel engine applications in the future.
One caveat: the system requires the vehicle to have two separate tanks — one for the ethanol used for direct injection and one for the normal fuel.
Although this may seem like a deal-breaker because of the headache of having to fill two separate tanks with two different fuels, the company that developed the Bobcat technology, an MIT spin-off called Ethanol Boosting Systems, claims that the ethanol tank would only have to be filled up once every few months.
Even so, unless something changes dramatically in the next couple years, I’m still left wondering where people are going to find pure ethanol to fill their Ecoboost tanks. What do you think about this type of technology? Is it worthwhile to pursue, or is it just a distraction from kicking our oil habit completely?
Posts Related to Ecoboost, Ethanol and Other Engine Technologies:
- GM’s Grand Plan For Solving America’s Oil Dependence
- Final Thoughts From The Detroit Auto Show
- Like GM, Ford Decides They’d Better Start Producing Smaller, More Fuel-Efficient Cars
- Low Cost Gas Engine Innovation Doubles Fuel Economy
- Turbine Engine: No Pistons, No Lube, 30% Better Fuel Economy
- Six New Technologies Will Help Manufacturers Reach the 35 MPG Goal (Without Hybrids)
- Scania’s Ethanol Diesel-Engine, Runs On Biodiesel Too
- New Catalyst Lowers Cost of Making Cellulosic Ethanol by 30%
- Cellulosic Ethanol Primer: Let’s Call it “Celluline”
Image Credit: Ford
Source: Biofuels Digest
Great! I love to read about ‘green’ innovation. In general, I think it is important for us, as consumers, to support ‘green business.’ For example, http://www.simplestop.net stops your postal junk mail and benefits the environment.
Ethanol-enhanced Gasoline vs Diesel
I think there are pros and cons to this technology. First the advantages: These new engines will compete with diesel engines, because they produce the high torque of a diesel, for $1 per gallon less. Ethanol-enhanced Gasoline vs Diesel is a technology that could carve out a big niche market for long haul truckers, if their huge fuel bills were cut by one third. That’s going to put thousands of dollars in their pockets every year. Overall this should mean higher fuel efficiency, lower demand for diesel, and lower fuel prices across the board. A benefit for all, but definitely not a cure-all.
I think vehicle owners would be supplied with pure ethanol, initially through the dealer and then through truck stops and gas stations, maybe 2 and 5 gallon jugs of pure ethanol. We’re talking about a very minute amount of ethanol being combined with gasoline, the main fuel. Pure ethanol is available in parts of California, as a popular racing fuel. And as the availability becomes widespread, that will pave the way for pure ethanol pumps and blend your own hydrous ethanol, the big pay-off. So bring it on!
How do you get higher torque, more power and better mileage by adding a small amount of ethanol to the air/fuel intake? Normally, gasoline combustion is incomplete, because it burns too slow. A portion of the fuel goes out the exhaust unburned and causes pollution. In contrast, ethanol has a much faster flame speed and accelerates combustion. In the combustion chamber, the ethanol converts the unburned gasoline residues into additional power and much lower pollution levels. This translates into more efficient torque development, putting it on par with diesel torque.
Now back to higher level thinking: “Is it worthwhile to pursue, or is it just a distraction from kicking our oil habit completely?” For me, it’s both. It’s worth pursuing to save truckers money, to bring the price of diesel down, and to reduce air pollution. The big pay-off is getting pure ethanol into the hands of the public and widely available. This is the stepping stone to Hydrous Ethanol. Imagine if auto makers start producing engines that run on 70% water and 30% pure ethanol. Now that would take us OVER the rainbow!
There is a big push towards blender pumps that enable you to dial up whatever percentage of ethanol you want. That would solve the problem.
Some say that any car can run on 50% or more.
Compressed natural gas (CNG) would be cheaper though, and enhances engine life even more. You would not get the increased torque of the Bobcat design though.
The blender pumps will make a big impact, depending on who gets elected President. Typically blending ethanol with gasoline is done in large quantities by oil companies or fuel distributors. Who ever does the blending gets the 51 cent per gallon tax credit. With the new onsite blender pumps, the retail gas station will get the tax credit. That changes everything. The retailers are expected to pass along most of the blending subsidy to the consumer. Thus, the various blends, E20, E30, E40, E50, E85 will be about 25 to 50 cents a gallon cheaper at the blender pumps. The consumer will get the subsidy instead of the oil industry. One political party wants to eliminate the blending subsidy and take this discount away from you. The other wants you to have it.
Countries are burning the rainforest to grow crops for ethanol.
Ethanol is being pushed by huge Argi business and nobody should be supporting it. bottom line.
Ethanol has Nothing to do with Deforestation
Peter Zuurbier, Associate Professor and Director of the Wageningen UR Latin America Office, says deforestation of rainforest is not caused by ethanol production. He blames “unclear land titles, unscrupulous timber companies, and poor soil conservation practices by cattle ranchers.”
According to Zuurbier’s hands on investigation, the Amazon rain forest is being cut down by illegal logging operations. Next, cattle ranchers come in and burn the leftover forestry residues, in order to create new grassland for their cattle. The land is occupied by nomadic cattle herds for the next 3 to 4 years, until they ruin the soil and then vacate the land. Next the land is squatted on by rogue soybean farmers who inadvertently improve the soil through soy-nitrogen fixation.
Rainforests were being illegally logged, grazed, and soy farmed long before ethanol became popular and widespread in the U.S.. Only 10% of the dry plains land suitable for sugar cane ethanol in Brazil is now being used. There is plenty left and no reason to use rainforest, which is not suitable for sugar cane and ethanol production.
The story is somewhat different in Indonesia. Jatropha and especially palm oil plantations HAVE caused deforestation. This can be attributed to oil and biodeisel production, not ethanol. Another cause of deforestation is clear cutting by Indonesian paper pulp and logging industries. Ethanol has nothing to do with deforestation in Brazil or Indonesia.
Berkeley professors Alex Farrell and Michael O’Hare, who perpetuated the ethanol deforestation myth, are wrong for blaming ethanol when other factors are to blame. Their study was shot down by numerous higher level scientific studies. Furthermore, ethanol crops are also carbon sinks. Replacing grass with a high output corn crop or biomass crop replaces it with a new carbon sink. Most large scale commercial crops have a negative affect on the environment, not just corn. Besides, over 75% of the corn crop goes to feed animals, so why don’t Farrel and O’hare also blame the livestock, poultry and dairy industries – which generate 22 times more green house gas emissions from manure-methane than from ethanol production. If Farrel and O’hare had their way, no corn would be grown, no crops of any kind would be grown, and all land would be covered with grass and trees. Get Real.
I think it is basically a diversion. Jeff Baker is pretty much right on in his comments. The extreme anti-ethanol guys are just giving BIG OIL another bullet. There certainly is room for improvement in ethanol production, but this is not about production, it is about utilization. To restore our economy and regain energy security, we need to give BIG OIL a big kick in the pants. This little sip of ethanol will not be enough or sufficiently timely. Blender pumps providing a range of ethanol blends is the path away from dependence on oil and toward greener vehicles. I blend E30 for my prius and get 54 MPG, a 23% increase over unleaded. Accounting for the lower energy density of ethanol I am getting a 33% increase in thermal efficiency. (and Ford thinks they might get a 50% increase sometime out in the future!) It is a diversion. I can’t do the mole calculations, but think this must be over a 50% reduction in CO2. From a GHG emissions perspective, Ford, I am already there, so give it up to mid grade ethanol. Oh, and by the way, with the wisdom of our Alice in Wonderland Congress and their passage of the Alternative Fuels and Energy Security Act of 2007, it is illegal for me to do this.
Jeff Baker appears to be very well-versed in his comments. From the hip the idea of replacing oil with water is exciting and frightening. I live in an area where water is drying up. Sure we can look to desalinization plants to provide the water, but it’s a bit scary.
I have a radio show where we discuss ethanol often and wonder if Jeff might be willing to point us to more information.
Don’t know how we could make contact, but the radio station is KFLP. Thanks
Ethanol is a “bridge” fuel until other, more efficient fuels can be brought on line.
However, crops other than corn should be exploited. Among them are sugar cane, sugar beets and best of all, Jerusalem artichokes. Thes crops produce much more ethanol per bushel (or acre) than corn.
Infrastructure is currently a problem. Farmers who have tooled up to raise and harvest corn will need to adjust to these alternative crops. THAT is where the government money should go, not corn.
Blender pumps are great, if your engine is set up to run the blend you select. The engine’s compression ratio is what determines the highest efficiency, not ignition timing (which is what the inefficient FlexFuel vehicles rely on). Converting to exclusive ethanol useage is simpler and cheaper than CNG or hydrogen.
CNG actually DOES produce more low end engine torque than gasoline, which is why it makes a good fuel for local delivery fleets that have access to fill stations. Distribution and range make it less than attractive for long haulers, though.
The important thing is to not sit back (like our oh-so-efficient government) and argue endlessly about it, or wait for someone else to solve the problem for us. Don’t rely on the oil companies to solve your fuel issues, either. It isn’t in their best interests to do so, as long as they can pump their revenues out of the ground.
This is a golden opportunity for America to show the world our innovative genius….or our pitiful lack of it.