Turbo-charging with 30% ethanol gets better efficiency than gas only powered engine - EPA study

[JohnWxy]

Economical, High Efficiency Engine Technologies for Alcohol Fuels -U.S. EPA , National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory

Page 7. " The full engine efficiency map with E30, given below in Figure 6, demonstrates in greater detail the extent of the higher-efficiency operating range, with peak levels exceeding that of even the most efficient production gasoline engines."

"Combined with an optimized conventional drivetrain, the efficiency gain shown in Figure 6 for E30 should yield an estimated 10% to 12% gain in fuel econmoy.."


This is not the Ethanol Direct Injection Engine developed by the MIT professors and bought by Ford. THis is a turbo-charged Volkswagen diesel engine.

as I have said before, if the auto manufacturers wanted to they could sell Flexible fuel cars that get as good or beter mpg than a gasoline only powered engine.

[leveymg]

1. E-30 fuel milage is normally 25-30 percent worse than unleaded regular gas.

Even the 10 percent ethanol in "reformulated regular" yields significant fuel mileage losses in engines not tuned to run it.

[skepticscott]

2. All very spiffy looking

but none of the testing is on actual fuels in actual vehicles in actual driving. I'll reserve judgement until they can show significant improvement in fuel economy under actual conditions, especially since the people posting the study have a strong bias.

In any event, the total energy equivalent of a gallon of ethanol (not what you get out in an IC engine) is at best only slightly greater (if at all) than the energy required to produce it. Until cellulose-based ethanol becomes economical on a large scale, ethanol as a vehicle fuel is a boondoggle, and nothing but a government handout for corn-producing states.

[JohnWxy]

16. Virtually all the commercially operated trucks hauling freight on the highways are turbo-charged.

In the freight hauling business every penny of fuel cost per mile saved is significant. The operators run very tight margins.


I was talking to someone in the trucking business and he said you would have "a hard time finding any diesel trucks on the road today that weren't turbo-charged".


Actually achieving better fuel efficiency with turbo-charging is hardly "news". This is well known to engine designers. It's just that when gas was cheaper nobody really cared about getting better fuel economy. The only people who were interested in super-charging or turbo-charging were guys wanting more POWER and performance --- in terms of acceleration).


For automotive applications here is some more info:

Eaton Supercharger-Turbocharger Increases Power and Efficiency; New System Improves 2006 VW Golf GT Fuel Efficiency by 20%

Unveiled at the International Motor Show (IAA) in Frankfurt and dubbed the "twincharger" by VW, the system combines a half-size, Eaton Roots-type supercharger with a single-stage turbocharger on VW's new TSI 1.4-liter gasoline engine, which replaces the FSI engine previously available on the Golf in Europe. The system boosts the four-cylinder engine to 168 horsepower and 177 lb-feet of torque at an impressive fuel consumption average of 39.2 mpg.


For Volvo's S80 Luxury Sedan, BorgWarner's Turbo Technology Creates a Dynamic Driving Experience with the Added Pleasure of Passing the Pump


AUBURN HILLS, Mich., March 17, 2009: BorgWarner's regulated two-stage (R2S(R)) turbocharging system enhances performance and improves the fuel economy of Volvo's new 2.4-liter D5 diesel engine, which powers the recently launched S80 luxury sedan. Working with Volvo engineers, BorgWarner's award-winning R2S(R) turbo technology helped beat fuel economy targets while significantly improving driving dynamics. Volvo's new D5 diesel engine produces 205 horsepower with 420 Nm of torque but consumes only 6.2 liters/100 km of fuel (nearly 38 mpg), a significant improvement over the 185 horsepower, 400 Nm of torque and 7.1 liters/100 km of fuel consumption (33 mpg) delivered by previous D5 diesel engines.

(38 mpg is a 15% improvement over 33 mpg __JW)


comparison of BMW, Honda and Mercedes Benz models


"Thanks to this increased air density from the intercooler, a larger amount of fuel can be used while maintaining the same air-fuel ratio, which results in more power and increased efficiency from a smaller engine with lower levels of SMOG forming and GHG emissions. The turbocharger now becomes a fundamental emissions control addition, notably for NOx reduction. Turbocharging coupled with high pressure fuel injection and advanced combustion solutions makes combustion not only more thorough and fuel efficient, but also cleaner.

Turbo Diesels allow a 20 - 40% increase in fuel economy over conventional gasoline powered vehicles, and turbo gasoline engines can allow a 10 - 20% increase in fuel economy over similarly sized, non-boosted engines with equivalent performance. In the US, we can expect to see a noticeable increase in the number of turbo diesels with markedly higher fuel economy and lower CO2 emissions."

excerpts from charts providing much more data:

models..............BMW 328i vs. 330d..delta
US-mpg combined.. 32.7* .......38.6* +18%


models..............BMW X5 vs. X5d..delta
US-mpg combined.. 23.1* .....29* . +26%

models..............Honda Civic vs. Civic iCDTi..delta
US-mpg combined.. 36.8* .........46.1* ... +25%


models..............MB 350 vs. 320 CDI Blutec..delta
US-mpg combined.. 24.2* ..... 32.2* ..... +33%



By 2020, it’s predicted that 70 percent of the entire light vehicles worldwide will be boosted by turbo technology, enabling millions of drivers to enjoy the benefits of impressive driveability, cost-effective emissions control and improved fuel efficiency.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Doesn't Turbo Charging get better efficiency - Period

I know my 7.3 litter Turbo Diesel Truck gets 20 mpg

[leveymg]

4. The one I rented last year got 11.

You must drive on glass.

[FreakinDJ]

5. You would be LYING

as in LIAR, BULL SHIT, PROPAGANDA

This what makes all Greeners look like FOOLS and LIARS.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT AMERICA IS THAT GULLABLE

[kristopher]

6. 11 MPG sounds about right for the 7.3

Based on my own experience with my brother-in-law's I'd have said 12-14, but I certainly wouldn't say that 11mpg is out of the bounds of normal. 20mpg however, sounds better than report I've ever heard.

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=actual+mpg+ford%27s+7.3+turbo&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi=

[FreakinDJ]

7. Sounds right compared to a 100,000 people who drive them ?

The needle on the intellegence meter still hasn't moved.

You would think these people would at least "Google" http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=7.3+liter+Turbo+Diesle+MPG&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=&aqi= ">7.3 liter Turbo Diesle MPG

I drive one - I speak from experience

Ford 3/4 Truck 7.3 liter turbo diesel 20 mpg

[kristopher]

8. Your link has mileages all over the map.

And I wouldn't peg 20 as being anywhere near average. Anyone that buys one for the normal reasons people buy such a truck and engine combination shouldn't expect that kind of mileage or they are very probably going to be disappointed.

[FreakinDJ]

9. None of which are nearly as low as 11 mpg

the lowest - 16 mpg for a 7.3 liter Turbo Charged Diesel in a 4 x 4, automatic transmission 1 Ton truck.

So whats the point - the OP says E85 Turbo charged gets 30% better mileage. My point ANY engine Turbo Charged is vastly more efficient.

And more importantly - What are people to think when Greeners play "Fast and Loose" with the facts. Are they to trust you when you say we need Carbon Taxes to reduce Global Warming.

Case in Point: The "Scientist" at UC Davis who wrote the new diesel emission regulations for the State of California was found to have committed Fraud when he wrote his resume. As a result the New Regulations are being Tossed Out.

See - there are unintended consequences for "Playing Fast and Loose with the Facts"

[kristopher]

10. 11 mpg is well within the operating range of that truck.

I don't know where you came up with 16 as being the lowest, but you are obviously "playing fast and loose with the facts" as you put it. The advantage of the turbo for the average driver isn't mileage; it is performance. Instead of the plodding response of most diesels the turbo has a "peppy" response similar to a gasoline engine.

I've known a lot of people over the years who've owned that engine and 14mpg is a realistic all around performance. Someone using it as a cowboy cadillac might squeeze 20 out of it going downhill with the wind at their back, but a hell of a lot more people get closer to 11 than they do 20.

[FreakinDJ]

12. NOPE - 12 mpg towing 10,000 lb payload

and a GVW of 8,500 lbs to make the combined total of 18,500 lbs.



If anyone had a F250 with a Turbo Diesel getting the kind of mileage you are attempting to describe it would running on less then 8 cylinders and be in serious need of repair.

The NA (naturally aspirated) gasoline engines IE:460 cu in normally did get 8 - 11 mpg. But then again that would not be the topic of discussion as in Turbo Charge / MPG efficiency.

Which leads to a greater topic of importance - why are Greeners deliberately attempting to spread disinformation.

That is by far the biggest obstacles to the reforms Greeners are so desperately attempting to shove down the throats of the DEM party. How ever given the Greeners track record of using disinformation and deliberate attempts to deceive the voters, the majority of voters think they are delusional freaks

Good going - Keep up the nice work

on edit - What's that sound I hear ? - Some one panting feverishly scrambling for the "Moral High Ground"

Nice Try - thanks for playing

[kristopher]

13. Or it would be driven by a 25 y/o small business owner

worried about getting his crew and all their gear to a job site; then sending a flunky running to pick up lumber/pipe/steel/concrete and telling him/her to get their ass back as quick as possible.

What the vehicle gets when someone is attempting to establish a benchmark - whether outside companies or manufacturers - and what the average driver using the vehicle as it is marketed (the turbo is a performance option that tends induce leadfoot) are well known to be different measures.

You called a poster a liar (and other foul terms) for saying they rented a 7.3 and got 11mpg. You didn't ask how they used it, you didn't even consider that some rentals, particularly work vehicles, might be poorly maintained. In short, you didn't have nearly enough information to hurl the accusations you did.

Now you are down to admitting that 12mpg is a functional performance standard for the truck. Yes, it is under a load, but with a truck geared to pull that type of load and an engine tweaked for quick acceleration, 11 MGP is, as I said, perfectly feasible.

My assertion of 12-14 as a reasonable range of what is delivered stands.

Your assertion of 20 mpg as a *norm* for this type of vehicle is pure hogwash.

[FreakinDJ]

14. 20 mpg is the NORM for Turbo Deisel

You have to place the truck under EXTREME Load as in the Maximum allowed load of 10,000 lbs to decrease the milage and still it out performs the 11 mpg you suggested

[kristopher]

15. Those truck are NORMally driven hard and under extreme loads.

And 12-14mpg is what they deliver under normal use.

[madokie]

11. I think ford has the right idea with their eco boost engines and direct injection

forced induction with direct injection so as to not have to worry with the pre-ignition issues which is the reason for having to lower the compression ratio in a turbo or supercharged engine. If you don't have fuel in the combustion chamber until it's time to ignite it there is no problem with the pre-ignition that compressing already fueled combustion chamber causes so you can keep the compression ratio up where you produce more power. All things being equal the higher compression ratio engine will out perform the lower compression ratio engine.


for a while we owned a turbo charged vehicle and let me tell you that if you haven't driven one you are in for a treat, that is if you like that feeling of power. It would put you back in the seat and hold you there way past the speed I wanted to be going. Loved driving the car but it was such a piece otherwise though. Strong engine but that was about it.

[JohnWxy]

17. You are right. Ford's Ethanol direct injection engine goes beyond the engine in the O.P.

I just posted that research on a simple case of turbo-charging an ICE to show that the auto manufacturers COULD be selling FFVs which get just as good as mpg as gasoline-only engines but they just choose not to (they could even make the turbo-charged downsized engine an option). Nobody seems to be taking Global Warming very seriously. They think we have all kinds of time to do something about it.

Here is some more on Ford's Ethanol enabled direct injection engine which gets 30% BETTER mileage than a comparable powered gasoline engine (while using only 5% ethanol and 95% gasoline), enjoy:


http://www.autoblog.com/2009/06/09/update-on-fords-new-bobcat-ethanol-injected-turbocharged-v8/


"The beauty of this particular ethanol boosting is that it can potentially offer better-than-diesel performance and efficiency without the expensive particulate filter and urea injection systems. If the concept can be scaled down effectively to smaller displacement engines, it could be the next step beyond the Ecoboost engines coming over the next couple of years."

[Kolesar]

18. This 2010 Chevrolet Cruze will have a 1.3 liter turbocharged ICE

43 mpg highway, IIRC