Comments on: E85 Boondoggle of the Day: “Extreme Bentley”

By: no_slushbox

no_slushbox — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 23:02:22 +0000

Sutures:

Your comparison, on the other hand, is misleading because the base Jetta comes with an outdated inline-5 tractor engine.

Compare the Jetta TDI with the unfortunately Euro only Jetta 1.4 TSI to get a more accurate comparison of how a modern petrol engine can compare to a diesel.

I am quite certain the TSI has lower carbon output.

Also, the TSI, while much more advanced than the I5, is still less expensive than the TDI.

By: magoo

magoo — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:14:40 +0000

Exactly. If you are into extreme horsepower on the street, E85 is a godsend. Its RON is 105 so you can run boost and compression levels that are just not attainable with ordinary pump gasoline (94 AKI max). The only way you can get comparable octane is with race gas at six bucks a gallon — and it’s not road legal. E85 is cheaper than regular (87 AKI) and makes more power than anything you can buy at the pump.

By: cretinx

cretinx — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:38:56 +0000

Actually I’d imagine this thing will pack way more than 600 hp.

Remember, Ethanol is higher octane. More knock resistance = more boost. More boost = MORE POWER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By: Sutures

Sutures — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:11:03 +0000

“no_slushbox :

Gasoline carbon content per gallon: 2,421 grams
Diesel carbon content per gallon: 2,778 grams”

That is both accurate and misleading. Factor in the miles per gallon a vehicle would get with either motor and diesel motors come out cleaner than gas…

edit to add some numbers:
Let’s look at the VW Jetta…
Best gas milage: Jetta S (the base model)
= 21 mgp city / 30 mgp highway
==> carbon per mile = 115.3g/m city / 80.7 g/m highway
Diesel Jetta TDI (that has all of the options of the Jetta SEL)
= 30 mgp city / 41 mgp highway
==> carbon per mile = 92.6 g/m city / 67.8 g/m highway

The diesel “looks” cleaner to me…

By: no_slushbox

no_slushbox — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:15:20 +0000

Jack Baruth:

I am looking forward to manufacturers of turbocharged cars utilizing the fact that E85 is subsidized race fuel, with over 100 octane.

GM was supposed to be making a version of the turbo Ecotec that would do over 300 hp on E85.

By: DimaK

DimaK — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:45:57 +0000

Anyone who can afford a $150-250K car does not care about mileage or price of fuel. They pay cash for these cars and their wives have $2K Lois Vuitton purses. So, their cars are worth more than your home, and the wife’s purse more than your weekly pay. E85? Most people have no idea how wealthy Bently buyers are. They have full time chefs, own hair stylists, and personal assistants. The staff alone costs $100-200K per year. The house maint and property taxes are in the $300K to $1M per year. Their pet chiuahuas have diamonds worth more than a new 528i. MPG? Did you say MPG? What is that? I’ll take 15 of them please, each for my staff and two as a gift for the gardener. That was fun, where is my Lear Jet?

By: HarveyBirdman

HarveyBirdman — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:32:03 +0000

Jack Baruth, you just made my day. Only on TTAC could you expect to find a reference to the Haber-Bosch process. My formal training as an agronomist has finally become relevant after all these years.

As far as the Bentley goes, like so many greenwashed products, it’s only meant to give warm save-the-polar-bears feelings to its buyers and nothing more. I still don’t think the owner of an E85 Bentley could get away with driving it to the Sundance Film Festival.

By: qfrog

qfrog — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:47:55 +0000

WOW… sorry guys I’m just not awake yet… I meant to quote the part about dirty etc not the CO2 output… I can only imagine that the cumulative mass a CO2 trap would collect would be well… See Futurama… nibbler’s poo (it powers dark matter reactor on the ship)… Back to work with me.

By: Robert Farago

Robert Farago — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:41:07 +0000

Jack Baruth :

Tyop. I mean typo. Text amended.

By: vww12

vww12 — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:39:23 +0000

Truly beggars belief.

Are silly people going to run around cities on 9 to 11 MPG 4WD 12 cylinder 3-ton monsters full of exotic wood and dead cows and somehow fool themselves that they are running a “green” product?

This is just as stupid as someone getting off of their Gulfstream 550 and into some sort of Prius thing. They delude no-one but themselves.

By: Jack Baruth

Jack Baruth — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:31:51 +0000

qfrog: Particulate filters don’t trap CO2, which is what Euroweenies mean by “carbon”.

RF: It’s well-to-wheel basis, not wheel-to-wheel. In other words, E85 requires that less petroleum be pulled from the ground. This is only really true if you assume that your corn was grown without benefit of the Haber-Bosch process.

One thing about E85: you can turn up the boost, which should allow the twin-turbo W12 to reach for the thousand-horsepower sky.

By: no_slushbox

no_slushbox — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:31:02 +0000

qfrog:

Gasoline carbon content per gallon: 2,421 grams
Diesel carbon content per gallon: 2,778 grams

http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm

Particulate filters trap some of the diesel “dirt”, but have no effect on CO2 output.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_particulate_filter

By: qfrog

qfrog — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 16:11:01 +0000

no_slushbox: “since diesel has more carbon output per gallon than petrol) is considered.” is that with or without a particulate filter?

By: no_slushbox

no_slushbox — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:44:11 +0000

I’m generally not a fan of any diesel, since it is bad for peoples’ health, makes cities dirty, and is not better than turbo, direct injection petrol when carbon output (as opposed to gallons burned, since diesel has more carbon output per gallon than petrol) is considered.

However, for large trucks, like Bentleys, diesel is still appropriate. Possibly a diesel electric locomotive powertrain can be adapted.

By: SherbornSean

SherbornSean — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 15:37:33 +0000

How many trees do you need to plant to offset the carbon released from opening just a single can of whoop-ass?