CARBOB energy content. - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-25-2007, 09:43 AM   #11
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Depending on temperature difference rolling resistance may increase or decrease, and aerodynamic drag would decrease because of lower pressure/density. Pumping losses shouldn't change as long as the percentage of oxygen per other stuff (Nitrogen, etc) doesn't change since the only drop is in pressure, not oxygen content iirc. I'll PM that chem engineer, and keep on looking online.

edited due to idiocy.
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2007, 01:17 PM   #12
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Found a CA gov website that claims CA gasoline has 111,500 Btu per gallon. 0nl1nec0nv3r510n dor c0m says U.S gasoline has ~124,900 Btu per gallon. Which is 12% difference in energy content!

Edit- yup
Quote:
Originally Posted by EIA
1 gallon of gasoline = 124000 Btu
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA gov
A gallon of gasoline in California contains approximately 111,500 Btu
Not only do we have to pay ~30-40 cents more per gallon, we get about 10% less energy! Which translates to about 60-70 cents more per 124000 Btu.
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2007, 01:58 PM   #13
Registered Member
 
zpiloto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,225
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq View Post
Found a CA gov website that claims CA gasoline has 111,500 Btu per gallon. 0nl1nec0nv3r510n dor c0m says U.S gasoline has ~124,900 Btu per gallon. Which is 12% difference in energy content!
EPA website list RFG with ethonal blended fuels at 111,836 so CA not that far off then the rest of the country that has winter blend it just that CA runs it year around right?
zpiloto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-25-2007, 02:28 PM   #14
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroMPG View Post
That would theoretically also improve FE due to reduced throttle (pumping) losses Bill was referring to (assuming you didn't also use lower gears more).

Generally speaking, cars driven at higher altitudes should get better mileage than cars at lower altitudes (all else being equal).
well it is a van (ranger truck frame. engine, and most likely the same trasmission) it is an automatic + mountains = shifting around a bit when goin up hills/mountains but down the hills/mountains we just put it in either 3rd or 2nd and let the engine do the brakeing.
VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 07:24 AM   #15
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by zpiloto View Post
EPA website list RFG with ethonal blended fuels at 111,836 so CA not that far off then the rest of the country that has winter blend it just that CA runs it year around right?
I don't think it's the winter blend since that only varies 1.7% per gallon (Avg energy content per gallon, summer versus winter) for most of the US, but the RFG like you mentioned. It's widely used in CA, but on a county by county, not state basis. It seems like if a driver lives in one of the blue areas they use it.

Winter RFGs/summer RFGs show a respective 3% and 1% drop in relative energy compared to the same conventional gasoline. However, one thing that's still not covered is the difference between CA and federal oxygenated blend... For instance, in CA if 10% (the label on the gas pump states up to this figure) ethanol were used, the energy content would drop by 3.4%. This is required by law in order to get the oxygen content at around 2%, iirc the AQMD is supposed to have the Oxygen at .2% in a few months, so I still have no clue as to what the difference between CA RFG, other RFG, and conventional gasoline is... Talk about a PITA.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 08:00 AM   #16
Registered Member
 
mrmad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 386
Country: United States
I applaud your research, I spent about 1/2 hour on the weekend and the best I could find was a description of the many chemicals that were banned and what they are replacing them with. Reminded me of how much I hated organic chemistry.
mrmad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 09:46 AM   #17
Registered Member
 
zpiloto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,225
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by omgwtfbyobbq View Post
I don't think it's the winter blend since that only varies 1.7% per gallon (Avg energy content per gallon, summer versus winter) for most of the US, but the RFG like you mentioned. It's widely used in CA, but on a county by county, not state basis. It seems like if a driver lives in one of the blue areas they use it.

Winter RFGs/summer RFGs show a respective 3% and 1% drop in relative energy compared to the same conventional gasoline. However, one thing that's still not covered is the difference between CA and federal oxygenated blend... For instance, in CA if 10% (the label on the gas pump states up to this figure) ethanol were used, the energy content would drop by 3.4%. This is required by law in order to get the oxygen content at around 2%, iirc the AQMD is supposed to have the Oxygen at .2% in a few months, so I still have no clue as to what the difference between CA RFG, other RFG, and conventional gasoline is... Talk about a PITA.
I just gave up. What I find interesting is the large swing in the allowable BTU for gasoline that alone can make a difference. From the EPA site:

Energy Content (btu per gallon)



Minimum Maximum Difference



Summer 113,000 117,000 3.4%

Winter 108,500 114,000 4.8%

How many stations get the maximum allowed you think?
Any way good luck on your quest?
zpiloto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-26-2007, 02:11 PM   #18
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Heh, yeah... if there's ~4% difference between stations, who knows? I just think that anecdotal blurb may be onto something... May just be a lark. I'll keep on looking in a bit, I should configure a comp for my uncle. mrmad, thank god ochem wasn't a requirement for me.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-30-2007, 01:40 PM   #19
Registered Member
 
omgwtfbyobbq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,516
Country: United States
Well, the last spike in mileage must have been caused by switching away from the winter blend, since according to this, we switch back to regular CARB gas in March
Quote:
10/1 - 2/291.8% to 2.2% Approved SIP
Course, that's only a .5mpg difference for me, so I'm wondering where the other ~2mpgs came from? Probably the drop in average speed, or it could be the AFM mod? Too bad I can't use this gas tank for a comparison, ~15 minutes of idling at 1000rpm and ~10 minutes of reving to 3000rpm in N should shave at least 10% off of my mileage figures. Shows me for leavin' my truck's parking lights on!

Quote:
California RFG
California implemented Phase II of their RFG program a number of years ago. There are some differences between the California RFG program (referred to as California Cleaner Burning Gasoline or CBG) and the federal program. We frequently receive questions on this topic since details on the differences were not covered in the manual.
The California CBG program is required statewide. The State of California uses their own computer model for compliance. This model, called the “California Predictive Model,” is similar to the federal complex model but does not incorporate evaporative emissions. California’s CBG program attempts to achieve greater emissions reductions than the federal program by placing more stringent requirements on certain gasoline parameters. The California specifications place maximums on aromatic content (22%), olefin content (4%), and sulfur content (30 ppm). In addition the maximum distillation temperature for T50 and T90 are lowered.
__________________

__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by FormulaTwo
I think if i could get that type of FE i would have no problem driving a dildo shaped car.
omgwtfbyobbq is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Looks like the price you entered for a litre of gas is unrealistic. winstona Fuelly Web Support and Community News 6 05-12-2013 11:26 AM
Need help - my trip odometer was reset Keen4Green Fuelly Web Support and Community News 7 09-27-2010 07:27 AM
Fuelly Android App - eehokie Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 07-14-2010 09:59 PM
Civic VX - $2000 tomauto For Sale 4 09-10-2006 10:57 AM
Gaslog suggestion SVOboy General Discussion (Off-Topic) 1 04-29-2006 09:35 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:45 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.