Engines no image

Published on September 3rd, 2008 | by Nick Chambers

32

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.

[social_buttons]

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:

Image Credit: Ford

Source: Biofuels Digest


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

Not your traditional car guy.



  • Clark

    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.

  • Clark

    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.

  • Jeff Baker

    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!

  • Jeff Baker

    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!

  • Jeff Baker

    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!

  • Ron Wagner

    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.

  • Ron Wagner

    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.

  • Ron Wagner

    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.

  • Jeff Baker

    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.

  • Jeff Baker

    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.

  • http://www.essentiadirect.com jason

    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.

  • http://www.essentiadirect.com jason

    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.

  • http://www.essentiadirect.com jason

    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.

  • Jeff Baker

    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.

  • Jeff Baker

    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.

  • Bill Brand

    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.

  • Bill Brand

    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.

  • Bill Brand

    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.

  • http://www.kflp.net Tony St. James

    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

  • http://www.kflp.net Tony St. James

    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

  • http://www.kflp.net Tony St. James

    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

    • http://Web david

      CNG is a wonderful fuel, as are LPG, ethanol, methanol.
      The engines must be optimised for the fuel, of course.

      In the pantheon of motor fuels, gasoline is actually one of the worst in almost every way.

      Fortunately for gasoline makers, they manage to keep arguments going. So long as everyone is distracted by solar vs wind vs hydrogen vs biofuel vs psychic energy of happy thoughts, the traditional bonds of fossil fuels and politics are not disturbed.

      Therefore, it is imperative the Peepul’s quasi-religious beliefs in causes of CO2, deforestation and starvation are never shaken.

      Insofar as “bridge” fuels, leaded gasoline was originally envisioned as a bridge fuel to higher compression, higher efficiency piston engines, which would eventually, logically, default to alcohol fuel. Look up Charles Kettering, Delco, tetraethyl lead, and DuPont as controlling interest in GM at the time of leaded gasoline development.

      The future? Current trends will have water tables destroyed by fracking and steam extraction of tar sands, to get the last drops of oil from the earth, causing starvation and deforestation as fresh water and arable land disappear.

      A future without petroleum would lean heavily on coal, either directly burned for electricity or as a synfuel feedstock. Either way, coal has pollution and political issues as great as those of oil. Despite what you have heard of ‘clean coal’, it is not.

      A future with neither oil nor coal, dare we dream of such a thing, might use a lot of methane, obtained from natural biological breakdown [landfill gas, sewage gas], as well as reformation of methane and CO2 into methanol, and conversion of other waste products into ethanol.

      Small, self-contained fuel cells could be fueled with either methanol, ethanol, or methane for use in transportation, portable electrical generation [there are already methanol fuel cells on the market for operating laptops, etc.] or home use.

      Envision future homes with no electrical wires from coal-burning power plants, and their own fuel pumps for vehicles. Solar energy during peak times could be stored in the form of methanol, ethanol, methane produced from human waste, animal waste, trash, leaves, grass clippings, etc. Some of this is possible now, some will be in a short time.

      However, as stated before, money buys marketing, which buys people’s minds, which buys political power and the paradigm that anything but fossil fuels are pipe dreams.

      In this day, while we and the internet are both still relatively free, it is imperative that we do our own research into real facts, not marketing, not quasi-religious political dogma.

      If a couple hot-rodding tinkerers with no more than an associates degree between them can come up with engines that produce better mileage and power than OEM engines, on fuel they made themselves, why is everyone waiting for the lawyers who run government and the ginormous businesses that run the media to save us?

      Postscript–Kudos to Lonnie B for saying most of this with less rancor.

  • LonnieB

    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.

  • LonnieB

    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.

  • LonnieB

    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.

  • Jorel

    Please check out this site to learn more about ethanol:

    http://www.permaculture.com/

  • Jorel

    Please check out this site to learn more about ethanol:

    http://www.permaculture.com/

  • Jorel

    Please check out this site to learn more about ethanol:

    http://www.permaculture.com/

  • Pingback: Ford Says EcoBoost With a Straight Face : Gas 2.0

  • Scott R. Hite

    The second tank for the ethanol contains very little ethanol if it only needs to be refilled every couple months. Also, it probably could be something like 99.8% ethanol and 0.2% (or more) water. Doesn’t that make it cheaper to refine the ethanol? Isn’t it most costly to remove the last little bit of water in the process?

  • Scott R. Hite

    The second tank for the ethanol contains very little ethanol if it only needs to be refilled every couple months. Also, it probably could be something like 99.8% ethanol and 0.2% (or more) water. Doesn’t that make it cheaper to refine the ethanol? Isn’t it most costly to remove the last little bit of water in the process?

  • Scott R. Hite

    The second tank for the ethanol contains very little ethanol if it only needs to be refilled every couple months. Also, it probably could be something like 99.8% ethanol and 0.2% (or more) water. Doesn’t that make it cheaper to refine the ethanol? Isn’t it most costly to remove the last little bit of water in the process?

Back to Top ↑