Other Methanol?
- Thread starter bmock50
- Start date
Cannibal
Tasty Human
- Location
- Summit Lake, WA
I work in a facility that handles methanol. At any given time we have about 8million gallons on hand with a max capacity of just over 12m. Our tanks and pipes are steel, as long as the product is pure, it will not rust steel. Our load out arms are aluminum, no corrosion there either. The only issue with the stuff, you need to use buna n (nitrile) seals, orings, gaskets.
Also, methanol's stoichiometric is around 7:1 (gas is 14.7:1), so you burn twice as much methanol as you do gas.
Being hygroscopic is another concern. Same as ethanol, and there is a reason we don't want to run e10 in our skis.
Also, methanol's stoichiometric is around 7:1 (gas is 14.7:1), so you burn twice as much methanol as you do gas.
Being hygroscopic is another concern. Same as ethanol, and there is a reason we don't want to run e10 in our skis.
Dustin Mustangs
uʍop ǝpıs dn
- Location
- Holland, MI
How about methanol injection? Maybe a way to cheat a bit more compression out of your fuel of choice???
Snow Performance
Snow Performance
- Location
- Sweet Valley, pa
burn a mix or 80% methanol to 20% nitro methane if you really want to wake that baby up
- Location
- Sweet Valley, pa
yes, my dad used to run 30% nitro to 70% methanol in an outboard drag boat for years....had to be religious about flushing the motor it would corrode in a matter of a few days
jetski9010
Team RTYD
- Location
- Lancaster PA
Just run E85 ethanol it's 105 octane and it's cheap. Still will want to do the post ride flush on the engine like you would with methanol but I dont think it's as bad as methanol. I use to have a dirt sprint car that ran on methanol and if you missed one day of flushing the carb when you were done that stuff would leave a mess. stoch on E85 is 9.7:1 so you get a little more out of a tank also. I have it running on my stroker and I am very happy how long of use I can get out of a stock tank.
How does that work? A stochiometric ratio of 9.7 for E85 is lower than that for regular gasoline (14.x:1), meaning it is less efficient. E85 also has a lower heating value.
Indeed, gas mileage of E85 is much lower than regular gasoline in a vehicle that can run both.
So how are you getting better economy out of a fuel that runs much richer and far less efficient than regular gasoline?
Cannibal
Tasty Human
- Location
- Summit Lake, WA
Both methanol and ethanol have about half of the BTUs that gasoline does, so half the power potential. You gain a little of that back by running up your compression and timing. But yes, unless it's basically half the cost of gas, it's a big waste of time and effort.
Cha ching!
WFO Speedracer
A lifetime ban is like a lifetime warranty !
- Location
- Alabama
But I can brew this stuff up in my backyard, ooops, ummmmmm never mind, carry on , nothing to see here
RoTAxGreNade
X-
- Location
- Port St. Loozer
Flapjack - We call that a "circle jerk" around here !!! lol
and we want to run something through our ski's and boats that attract water like a sponge... on the water?????
and we want to run something through our ski's and boats that attract water like a sponge... on the water?????
jetski9010
Team RTYD
- Location
- Lancaster PA
E85 has a BTU rating of 82,000 while regular gas is around 114,000 so it's a little more then half of the BTU's. Also just because a fuel has a certain BTU rating does not mean you are using all of them. Internal combustion engines are only about 16-18% efficient. Now with a fuel like ethanol that has a higher octane rating you can build an engine that can burn the fuel more completely and there for use a higher % of the BTU content of the fuel so you cant just get stuck on number.
Yes the flex fuel engine out there right now are crap, all they do it dump a lot more ethanol into an engine that is deisiged to run on 87 octane and make it "work" on e85 and this setup they are doing right now is giving ethanol a bad name. It only cost the auto makers less then $100 to make a car or truck a flex fuel car at the factory so this is why they are doing this. They already have engines out that are flex fuel variable displacement motor's that use the ethanol to it's fullest and in most cases get the same MPG on e85 then they do on regular fuel. These motor's can up the compression to very high and also are programmed where they can give it a lot of timing, much more then you standard car now. They also have turbo setup's that push out the normal 6 psi of boosts on gas and climb up to around 25 psi on ethanol. This is also a great setup because even if these motor's are in a F-150 or a mustang, when the owner fills up on E85 over gas there is a 50-75 HP gain so this boost the consumer to buy ethanol. These engines are invented and out there right now it's just between the economy the way it is now and this massive hate towards ethanol in america, auto makers are not going to fork up the money to change their lines over to these.
As far as fuel milage in my ski goes I dont have any special tools to measure fuel burn or anything like that. All I know is Art built me a 4mm big bore stroker, it's got 220 compression and timing and is still in the safe zone to be a rec ski and run WOT all day. Right now I am only running Art's 38 blackjacks out of the stock carb and a stock airbox. I know this help's get more distance out of the ski on fuel but I am willing to bet if any of you guys rode my ski you would be shocked when I poped the hood and had 38's on there. I have rode 5mm storkers before built by pro jet ski shops that are setup for pump gas with the normal 180 psi compression and 44's and mine hit's all the same if not harder then some of theirs do. I know I can ride with my group with everything from 701's with B pipes up to the same size engine as mine and my ski is never the first to get low on fuel so that is what I am saying about it doesnt drink the fuel twice as fast. My jetting is 90 low with a 150 high on 38 blackjacks with the cross over filled. Art had even told me I could drop the main jet down another size and still be safe but I think they thing is perfect as is and I would rather it be a little richer.
I dont understand why there are so many haters when it comes to this subject but I am just trying to share my experienece. I have run E85 in ski's now for the last 3 years and currently have my $5500 + engine setup running on it with now problems. Yes I do an extra 2 mins of flushing the carbs when I get back to the house to be safe but that is more then worth it. I am paying right around $3.00 a gal for 105 octane fuel in CA and you just cant beat that.
Yes the flex fuel engine out there right now are crap, all they do it dump a lot more ethanol into an engine that is deisiged to run on 87 octane and make it "work" on e85 and this setup they are doing right now is giving ethanol a bad name. It only cost the auto makers less then $100 to make a car or truck a flex fuel car at the factory so this is why they are doing this. They already have engines out that are flex fuel variable displacement motor's that use the ethanol to it's fullest and in most cases get the same MPG on e85 then they do on regular fuel. These motor's can up the compression to very high and also are programmed where they can give it a lot of timing, much more then you standard car now. They also have turbo setup's that push out the normal 6 psi of boosts on gas and climb up to around 25 psi on ethanol. This is also a great setup because even if these motor's are in a F-150 or a mustang, when the owner fills up on E85 over gas there is a 50-75 HP gain so this boost the consumer to buy ethanol. These engines are invented and out there right now it's just between the economy the way it is now and this massive hate towards ethanol in america, auto makers are not going to fork up the money to change their lines over to these.
As far as fuel milage in my ski goes I dont have any special tools to measure fuel burn or anything like that. All I know is Art built me a 4mm big bore stroker, it's got 220 compression and timing and is still in the safe zone to be a rec ski and run WOT all day. Right now I am only running Art's 38 blackjacks out of the stock carb and a stock airbox. I know this help's get more distance out of the ski on fuel but I am willing to bet if any of you guys rode my ski you would be shocked when I poped the hood and had 38's on there. I have rode 5mm storkers before built by pro jet ski shops that are setup for pump gas with the normal 180 psi compression and 44's and mine hit's all the same if not harder then some of theirs do. I know I can ride with my group with everything from 701's with B pipes up to the same size engine as mine and my ski is never the first to get low on fuel so that is what I am saying about it doesnt drink the fuel twice as fast. My jetting is 90 low with a 150 high on 38 blackjacks with the cross over filled. Art had even told me I could drop the main jet down another size and still be safe but I think they thing is perfect as is and I would rather it be a little richer.
I dont understand why there are so many haters when it comes to this subject but I am just trying to share my experienece. I have run E85 in ski's now for the last 3 years and currently have my $5500 + engine setup running on it with now problems. Yes I do an extra 2 mins of flushing the carbs when I get back to the house to be safe but that is more then worth it. I am paying right around $3.00 a gal for 105 octane fuel in CA and you just cant beat that.