Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
11 hours ago, Ty1 said:

For anyone following this space i messaged united regarding the price increase and this is what they wrote back.

Screenshot_20200413-222418_Messenger.thumb.jpg.4a5ba6a1861e6c4f4a3842dacdf3ada5.jpg

What a load of BS answer. Answer without telling you anything you don't already know. Their rep should be a politician.

  • Like 1

I honestly can't believe they still sell it.i use it, I want it, but the demand would be so low for them.

Don't complain. That answer is pretty fair, if iy was to drop it would only drop on the 15% part thats not ethanol. It is virtually not tied to the oil price, and the price is just set at what the market will pay.

and the market is people with performance cars, the dream of people using it as an environmentally friendly option went pretty poorly for caltex and Holden, so much so that Holden stopped selling the commodores as being flex fuel capable and didn't even mention it and no one cared.

  • Like 1

As we export about 80% of our sugar production there is no profitable marketing reason to manufacturer ethanol for a major fuel source. It will always be a niche market whilst there is more money in export.

Sad, but true.

In saying that, I've been buying 98 for 0.99c over the last week of the apocalypse.

1 hour ago, Ben C34 said:

I honestly can't believe they still sell it

Yeah I would have thought it would've died off ages ago from no mass adoption. We never ended up getting it on pump here, drum E85 shipped up is the only option. Cheapest it ever works out is about $4.50 per litre. Still works out better for a race fuel than what I used to pay when buying VP109 unleaded at $16+ a litre.

I'd kill to have E85 on pump here, but I do think it will be relegated to drum only everywhere eventually.

Dont know why, in Australia, we've never gone down the Butanol path, a direct replacement for the fuel we now use, with out any engine mods and can be made from the vast amount of waste vegetable production that never makes it to market that gets plowed back into the ground cause its to big, wrong colour, wrong shape or has slight blemishes on it. 

3 hours ago, Ben C34 said:

the dream of people using it as an environmentally friendly option went pretty poorly for caltex and Holden

Well the reality is, there's so much upstream pollution with the production of ethanol is it really environmentally friendly?

Sames goes for electric cars in countries such as ours and Fat Yank land where the majority of energy is produced by burning coal.. yeah sure there's no pollution at the vehicle level, but what about all the coal burnt and the inefficiencies of transporting energy from the power station to your wall socket.

 

2 hours ago, PLYNX said:

Dont know why, in Australia, we've never gone down the Butanol path, a direct replacement for the fuel we now use, with out any engine mods and can be made from the vast amount of waste vegetable production that never makes it to market that gets plowed back into the ground cause its to big, wrong colour, wrong shape or has slight blemishes on it. 

isnt butanol heaps thicker than petrol? so wont exactly pump or go through a fuel injector the same? 

 

1 minute ago, Ben C34 said:

isnt butanol heaps thicker than petrol? so wont exactly pump or go through a fuel injector the same? 

 

Nope ! As far as I'm aware, from my dinosaur chemical brain, its about the same as pump gas for viscosity and energy.

Was looking at it many years ago, when I was blending fuels for high performance engines, when they started discontinuing high octane leaded fuels.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...