The project we're working on is aiming to provide similar power figures to the stock engine (I6 in a trailblazer) while having less than 1/2 the displacement.
Just my humble opinion, but I don't really see the point of this. In 1985 you could buy a 5.0 Mustang GT. Or you could buy a turbocharged 2.3 Mustang SVO. The SVO outperformed the GT by at least a little in all performance tests and got a lot better gas mileage. The SVO cost quite a bit more than a GT with not a whole lot more perceived value to the average guy so didn't sell very well.
So you intend to build an "SVO" Trailblazer? Yawn.
What WOULD interest me would be if you built the same size engine as a stock Trailblazer. Optimize its design to make the best possible use of E85 (or E100 even, if you liked). Set it up against the stock SUV. If your custom design can provide either signifigantly better mileage or more power, hopefully both, than the stock gasoline version then you've done something that might impress people. Turboing a smaller engine to produce equilvalent power to that made by a naturally aspirated larger engine is very, very old news.
A 4 cylinder Corvette seems just as silly. What basis do we have for comparison to draw any useful conclusions from such an exercise. Perhaps if another team built a gasoline powered 4 cylinder turbo engine Corvette?
I'm sure all that will be fun, entertaining, and educational. But proving anything much? No.
You don't have to prove alcohol is a viable "high power" fuel. There's been an "alcohol" class of dragracing demonstrating that for many years.
I actually would like to see some sort of concrete comparison work done. I know I'm not alone. Check out this post and read through the responses. Lots of enthusiasm over even minor improvements. The most "views" I've ever seen of a single post over there. And the initial poster didn't even mention any "before" data.
If you guys did a study/project along the same lines I bet you could generate as least as much interest. Provide control data. Document what was changed. Provide experiment results data. Look at the responses in the linked posts. People are interested in useful power, mileage, fuel prices, and even pollution. Do something that will be informative and address these concerns. I will be interested too.
If you are doing anything that compares a turbo'd or supercharged engine against a naturally aspirated one, I could care less. The comparison isn't fair and is pretty pointless. What fuel either vehicle is using makes it not a bit more interesting.
The best two points in E85's favor is that it's a domestic product and that it is high octane. It sure would be nice if somebody could add another point. A moderately scientifically conducted car build could do so. A formally conducted study would be even better, but doesn't really sound like what you guys have in mind. And likely wouldn't be as "interesting" to us average folks.
If your custom design can provide either signifigantly better mileage or more power, hopefully both, than the stock gasoline version then you've done something that might impress people.
That's what we are aiming at doing.
We are also planning to do a before and after performance, fuel mileage, and possibly emissions evaluation, although the engine will not be calibrated for emissions due to time and practicality constraints.
The goal of this project (I am merely a worker, I didn't come up with any of this) is to show the feasibility of a small displacement, high specific output engine running on E85, and to show that it can have comparable performance to the gasoline engines available today.
I admit that the four cylinder vette is silly, but you should have heard the original plan: a European high output diesel - lol.
The objective is not to prove that E85 is better than gasoline, or more powerful or anything like that. The objective is to show that a smaller engine can be used with similar performance characteristics while running on an alternative fuel. I can't say what the outcome of the project will be, nor am I trying to. It will be interesting to see exactly what becomes of the project for both you and I alike.
Whether it will be E85, butanol, biodiesel, H2, LPG, CNG, etc., that will eventually replace gasoline, I also don't know, but at some point, gasoline need to be and will be replaced with a cheaper alternative.
Now your thinking like a congressman... and that's never good.
Replacing one fuel with another doesn't help consumers. Let's assume ethanol production works out. So we require E50 (50 'cause the math is easier) by law, now what happens?
Oil shortage - gas $2 ,ethanol $1, E50 = $1.50
ethanol shortage - gas $1, ethanol $2, E50 = $1.50
Whereas with a well designed flex fuel vehicle...
Oil shortage - gas $2, ethanol $1, choose ethanol, Fuel = $1.00
ethanol shortage - gas $1, ethanol $2, choose gas, Fuel = $1.00
We don't need or want a mandate, we want a choice. The more different types of fuels you can get at the same station, the lower your future fuel expences will be.
__________________
I suggest we solve high gas prices with environmentalists... unfortunately they don't burn well.
1977 F150 400 C6 2wd, 10.2 sec 1/8 mile with 2.75 gears.
1982 Mercedes 300CD, 220K miles
1965 Mustang. Mostly stock...
2001 Ram 2500, cummins, 5spd, 202k miles.(girlfriends)
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. FordŽ is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.
