Flex Fuel?

I'm planning a big project with my Auto Club to build a car towards some type of charitable goal. I want to do a green car to get awareness out there for alternative fuels. Long story short, a Mobil 1 is providing E85 to flex fuel cars soon. What kind of engine uses flex fuel? Is there a conversion to build a gasoline/bio diesel/any engine not flex fuel to use E85? What are the requirements a flex fuel car needs? Thanks a lot!

flex fuel means it has to run on multiple fuels. Ford does a lot with those, i'm sure you can find one of their engines and us it.

I personally prefer biodiesel to ethanol. The compression otto cycle is inherently more efficient than that of gasoline, because first of all, those are very high compression motors ranging anywhere from 16:1 up to 22:1 (off the top of my head) and also the fact that since diesel is compression ignition, the air/fuel ratios vary wildly and isn't stuck in a set range as with gasoline or alcohol fired engines. For example, the stoich ratio for gasoline is 14.7:1 A/F, and with ethanol its ~6:1. You could run them leaner, but then they preignite, ping, and damage the engine, whereas a diesel ranges from (again off the top of my head) 8:1 at full load all the way to 80:1 at idle. There you can see that the engine is only using as much fuel as needed. When you see a diesel engine billowing out black smoke, that means that the fuel is not being completely burned in the cylinders. It's quite literally raw diesel coming out the tailpipe mixed with some soot. Now, some people modify their diesels for maximum power where the injectors dump tons and tons of fuel into the cylinders. Of course a lot of it doesn't get burned and henceforth the thing will be laying down a thick black cloud of smoke, but the purpose of running it so rich is that more fuel will be burned, its just that the cylinders don't have time to burn it all.

Anyway, back to the subject of green, i also feel that biodiesel is a much greener fuel source than ethanol production. With algae farm technology on the rise, and the inherent efficincies of the diesel engines, I think this is the best direction for the world to go in for future fuel needs. I don't know if biodiesel is available for you to use for Mobil's sake. In terms of building a car though, converting a regular diesel engine to a biodiesel engine (so long that its a relatively new engine, not something form 1967) is easy - just put in biodiesel in the tank, add some winterizing agent if its cold out, and drive. Heck, there are some diesels out there that run on waste vegetable oil. People quite literally take the used fryolator oil from McDonalds, filter it to get the bits of fries out, and do a couple of small modifications to the fuel injection system and BAM! you're car is running on fryolator oil. Which is free.

So, in the end, you should go do some research on your own into ethanol/biodiesel engines. You can obviously see my bias, so don't take my word as gospel, but keep your mind open. Both systems are viable alternatives, though i honestly believe that biodiesel is the way to go.

There's something I just don't like about using fryoil...I can't put my finger on it, mostly because I've never seen anyone do it before, but it bothers me. I'll research what i can on both alternatives but in the meanwhile, how new do these Ford engines have to be? Any idea of cost?

its waaaay easier to make a butt load of power with E85. The very moment its availible in my area, I'm converting one of my turbo'd bikes to E85 and bumping the boost up to 25 psi :D

fry oil though, has simular limitations to diesel fuel. You can make power with it of course, but not as easily (IE cheaply)

This is a subject of both mass confusion and mass misinformation.... which means Curtis is getting on a soapbox. :iceslolan

I personally LOVE biofuels of any kind. For any emissions they put out, they've first had to clean them from the air which means effectively zero net emissions. That sure beats dragging greasy hydrocarbons from the bowels of the earth and forcing them into the atmosphere. So, I must say, Dyno, a huge thank you for campaigning any vehicle that prevents humans from ignorantly digging hyrdrocarbons from below the ground and callously depositing them in the atmosphere. I fully laugh at how rich-types drive their gas SUVs while criticising the Mercedes biodiesel driver simply because the old Benz makes black smoke. More on that bullsh** below.

Now... you all know that I'm a diesel freak, but I'll try to remain unbiased here. I lean strongly toward the biodiesel for several reasons.

1- diesel is compression ignition which means a stable, safe fuel
2- compression ignition also means the elimination of the entire ignition system on an engine
3- diesel has a higher compression which translates to more BTUs being released from the fuel as BMEP pressure in the cylinder
4- as a result of #3, diesels typically return 30% or more greater MPG
5- biodiesel (or regular diesel for that matter) requires far less byproduct and fewer emissions to produce
6- biofuels could make use of the 34% of the agricultural waste that is normally discarded in the US. The stuff that is unfit for us to eat is prime fodder for two things: harvesting its oil for diesel, and fermenting it for ethanol.

I also have to disagree with UncleBob on one little point... diesel power is often so much cheaper than gas/ethanol. Ethanol is pretty much a wash in street engines. Methanol makes great power in race engines, but the 30% lower BTUs contained in ethanol compared to gasoline is balanced out by the 30% more fuel you have to burn for stoichiometric mixes. The bottom line is that diesel (in any form) has decidedly more BTUs per pound and per gallon than gasoline, methanol, or ethanol. I will agree that in forced induction the added octane equivalent of ethanol is very beneficial, but that opens up the debate of forced induction on spark igntion versus compresson ignition which is like comparing apples to farts. Both sides of the argument are equally valid, but you can't really make a decision on which is better. UncleBob is is wise enthusiast and I respect his knowledge, so I won't argue his apples against my farts... wait, what did I just say???

To convert a gas engine to ethanol takes considerable changes. Converting a diesel to bio requires... (get ready)... putting biodiesel in the tank, period. Its important to note that gasoline is a specifically regulated fuel consisting of federally regulated components. Diesel fuel (by law) is a class of fuels in which any fuel with the same energy and burn characteristics can exist, the government dictates. Kerosene, Jet-A fuel, and heating/fuel oil all have very similar BTU contents and all will operate very similarly in a diesel engine.

I personally feel that if you wish to campaign a mass-appeal embassador vehicle, you have two options:
1- campaign an ethanol/flex fuel vehicle that will appeal to the republican masses but has the lower environmentally beneficial impact. -or-
2- campaign the biodiesel vehicle which will have limited appeal due to americans' misinformation about diesel, but will have the greater environmentally beneficial impact.

I have stacks of factual information about it. If you want to chat, PM me and we'll talk outside of the subjective realm. The fact is, people see black smoke from modified diesels and assume that diesel is bad, but the truth is... that black stuff you see is 94% harmless by weight. Compare that to gasoline in which (as of 2006 EPA numbers) a full 84% of the invisible exhaust has been labeled either dangerous to the environment or to humans directly. The EPA and the CARB have successfully bowed to the dolphin-hugging lobbyists who have falsely ascribed danger to diesel emissions based on their appearance. The smartest bumper sticker I've seen is one that said, "just because you can see my exhaust doesn't make it bad. Just because I can't see yours doesn't make it good." The other fact that uneducated american drivers tend to overlook is that torque is what makes street-driven vehicles fun, but for 70+ years auto manufacturers have forced HP numbers down our throats. HP is an important number, but we are lead to believe that HP is the ultimate number in the retail wars. Diesels excel at torque production, MPG, and reliabillity, yet people buy advertised HP, exclusivity, and warranties. Its a huge factor in the import "horsepower per liter" argument that the young ones like to purport in the tuner scene. While I have the ultimate respect the specific output of any engine, the retail commercialism of the word "horsepower" has skewed the majority of the public who are willing to listen to retail advertisement without researching the actual facts before buying a car.

If you really want to look at specific engine output possibilities, look to diesel. A good comparison can be found in the last issue of Diesel Power Magazine. (http://www.dieselpowermag.com) They put two simiilar-displacement engines (one gas, one diesel, same make, same year) against each other. They spent equal dollar amounts on performance parts for both. After all the modifications the gas engine couldn't even make the same power or torque as the STOCK diesel engine made.

Put it this way. An LB7 Duramax diesel in a Chevy truck with an aftermarket air filter, aftermarket exhaust, and a simple programmer will make just shy of 1000 lb-ft of torque to the rear wheels with 6.6L. Compare that to the torquiest GM gas engine (8.1L) with the same modifications that can only muster about 400 lb-ft at the rear wheels. With the diesel, that's an incredible 250% of the torque with 19% less displacement. I'd say that's significant.

I'm truly dumbfounded by the reluctance of Americans to grasp the benefits of diesel. The new diesels (prepare yourself for a crazy thing..) actually emit cleaner air than they ingest. I'm not kidding. As of 2008 (some of them are already on the road), diesel engines will exhaust air that is cleaner than what they ingest. The EPA has manufacturers successfully jumping through ridiculous hoops to meet [what many feel are] insanely unrealistic emissions goals and STILL americans believe that diesel is a "dirty" fuel.

I challenge you with this, Dyno. If you are up to it, please help the environment and the education of us dumb humans and campaign the biodiesel. Both Ethanol and Biodiesel are pretty much equally friendly from the tailpipe, but biodiesel has such a more widely universal impact from the supply side. Biodiesel is a direct product, either by simply using waste vegetable oil recycled from food service or lubrication recovery, but also as an easy transesterification directly from first-use or recycled agricultural oil. Ethanol requires more processing and waste by-product.

Think of it like this... biodiesel can be made from recycled oil without consequence. Ethanol is a single-purpose fuel. Its made to burn. Biodiesel can be made from a product that has already been used, like the oil in a restaurant's fryer. Two uses with no degradation of the final product. Ethanol must be manufatured with complexity and can only be used once.

I know I get on a huge soapbo, but in all fairness there is equal validity in both alternate fuels. Diesel is what I see as the scientifically logical choice, but you can't grab society by the nuts and drag them to the end. Ethanol is an equally valid and if its a necessary step in the journey I embrace it. I would be ecstatic if every gas and diesel vehicle on the road today were replaced with ethanol and biodiesel... its just that the switch to biodiesel is incredibly simple compared to an entire manufacturing shift required for ethanol.

Ok, I promise... shutting up now. Counterpoints anyone? I'm sure MagicRat has something to say about this... :rofl:

What kind of engine uses flex fuel? Is there a conversion to build a gasoline/bio diesel/any engine not flex fuel to use E85? What are the requirements a flex fuel car needs? Thanks a lot!

To answer the questions (now that I'm off the soapbox :))

Flex fuel usually is a term applied to an engine that burns either gasoline or ethanol. Here is a cut-and-paste from a website I found:


1 U.S. Gallon of gasoline contains 114,132 btu
1 U.S. Gallon of no. 2 diesel fuel contains 138,000 btu
1 U.S. Gallon of ethanol contains 76,000 btu
1 U.S. Gallon of methanol contains 56,800 btu
1 U.S. Gallon of propane contains 84,500 btu
1 U.S. Gallon of compressed natural gas contains 19,800 btu


when switching between gas and ethanol, two basic things need to happen: 1) the computer and sensors need to be capable of calibrating the mixture for both fuels, and capable of knowing which one is present. and 2) the physical components themselves need to be capable of delivering the proper amounts of fuel. Spark-ignition EFI engines are limited in their range of how much gross fuel the injectors can deliver at peak demand versus how accurately they can deliver small pulses of fuel at idle. Flex-fuel vehicles shine when they can deliver the required 30-ish% increase of flow at peak demand on Ethanol while being able to accurately meter small amounts of gasoline flow at idle when it requires precision during short injector pulses. The truth is, every fuel has ideal engine parameters. Designing an engine for two fuels of different BTUs requires compromises so that you have to shoot for the middle. Spark-ignition engines rely on very specific parameters. On the other hand compression ignition (diesel) engines get air and fuel. More air + more fuel = more power regardless of how many BTUs the fuel has. That means that diesel engines operate almost identically without any changes regardless of what fuel they burn. Designing a flex fuel engine requires engineering that even the major manufacturers have just begun to perfect. Designing a biodiesel engine has been done since 1920.. the same diesel engine will burn bio diesel. A spark-ignition flex-fuel engine means re-designing the engine. Making a biodiesel engiine means filling the tank with biodiesel.

So... (back on the soapbox) you could take a random diesel engine, fill the tank with Biodiesel, or a heated tank of corn, soy, hemp, olive, or nearly any other oil and burn it as-is with no sensors or computers since they all have similar BTU contents, and reap the benefits of compression ignition without consequence. Low on fuel? Stop at a fuel station with diesel... or at any grocery store or restaurant with oil to spare and refill your tank.

your point of cost is only important if you are only considering mpg. I was not refering to mpg, but IMO, if you're attempting to make as much power as cheaply as possible, you won't beat E85.

Granted, if you did a cost comparison over 200K miles, I have no doubt the bio-diesel would eventually win. Interesting, but defiinitely not important to me. Although I like to own things for a long time, the realistic time frame for such a toy, is not likely to see that many miles.

your point of cost is only important if you are only considering mpg. I was not refering to mpg, but IMO, if you're attempting to make as much power as cheaply as possible, you won't beat E85.


Respectfully disagree. Let's compare two trucks, both cost $20k. One is an LB7 6.6L duramax with 100k and the other is an 8.1L gas chevy with 50k. Spend $1000 on performance parts for each one; lets say, cold air intake, complete exhaust, and a power programmer. The LB7 will end up with nearly 1000 lb-ft to the wheels, while the 8.1L will probably only make 400 and change. The LB7 will put close to 500 hp to the rear wheels, but the 8.1 closer to 300. Given the same care, I would also venture that the duramax has another 200k in it, while the gas only another 150k at best. You also will get nearly double the MPG in the diesel, plus a higher resale value at the end. Plus you get those incredible gains without altering or affecting daily driving. You aren't altering the cam or flow qualities, so part throttle and idle characteristics remain unchanged.

Making diesel power is super simple and not very expensive. Here's a link to a 5.9L dodge 12v cummins that makes 2131 lb ft to the wheels on a dyno, daily driven. (http://www.dieselperformancemotorsports.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.ShowItem&g2_itemId=368)

Hard to believe, I know but it happens all the time. Many of those smokeless, quiet diesels beside you at the light are concealing 10-second, 7000-lb workhorses capable of towing and racing and you'd never know it.

I do agree with you though... E85 is alot cheaper to build. If I were setting out to build a vehicle that made cheap easy power, the E85 would also be my choice, but if I were campaigning a green ambassador vehicle, biodiesel is the clear winner for me.

not sure what the point of all the torque numbers are, thought we were talking about power.

None of your points address the cost of making a high-hp E85 engine. Although the work is more involved, its quite possible to make 1000+ hp for ~$2000. I bet the 2100+ ft/lb example makes just over 1000hp, and I also bet he has waaaay more into it.

I <3 curtis.

And remember, people buy HP but drive torque!

And making more power, if torque is equal mens that the engine is just turning faster. Lets not forgot who's been winning the LeMans recently

http://www.audiv8.cz/obrazky/novinky/Audi-R10-2.jpg
http://www.autopress.be/Temporaires/REVUE/AUDI%20R10%20TDi%20engine.jpg

awww...steel, you don't want me to beat you up over that again, do you?

They are winning in lemans because the rules were massaged enough so they had a chance. Same with most race sanctions that want to attempt to get even competition when the playing field is uneven. Just like 2 strokes vs 4 strokes, twins vs 4 cylinders, NOS vs forced induction vs NA, etc. There has to be compromises to make it competitive.

I don't know why...because curtis made such good points, but I'm still on the ethanol side. I can't be convinced and I have to decide for myself.

But, Peugeot is running a diesel LMP1 against the Audi, and they're the fastest cars to date in LeMans. Why are they diesels? I can't explain that one. Looks like I need to do more research, but diesel is interesting, but you're right, no one ever really liked it.

There are many valid arguments for both spark ignition and compression ignition, but all I'm trying to do is remove some of the misinformation regarding diesel. Being diesel in America is a lot like being gay in Texas. People assume that is wrong, bad, satan, whatever... but the truth is, if you educate yourself about it, diesel is just as viable an option as any other fuel... and in my opinion since it has higher BTU, easier to make bio, and more simple/reliable construction, diesel is the clear street choice for me.

I can understand the rest of you being reluctant to come to the dark side :)

I like how you dismiss my points by indirectly calling me gay curt. The points I made were quite valid. Diesel definitely has its place. I personally don't think any and every situation demands it. I also think some people hype diesel way beyond reality in some areas

I like how you dismiss my points by indirectly calling me gay curt.

Not at all... I was merely making a comical analogy about how the misinformation purported by the masses leads to prejudice about a topic. I would never refer to an AF member like that :grinno:

Your points are very valid and I always appreciate good discussions. Especially when the other guy is smarter, or at least smart enough to realize that I'm always right :naughty:

I realised my misreading of it after the fact, but didn't have time to edit it. Sorry about that.

I'm not very smart, but I have a pretty good grasp on what makes things accelerate quickly. This constant discussion of torque being the true measuring stick is very tiring.

Reminds me a lot of harley riders. They are always talking about torque and how wonderful it is. some have 150 ft/lb's after tens' of thousands of dollars dumped into them, but then, they can't accelerate as hard as a dead stock sport bike that has half the ft/lb's. A Harley into the 9's in the 1/4 is a very rare thing and takes a hell of a lot of money. They don't seem very "smart" to me either.

If your goal is acceleration, you need hp. If you want a lot of hp, there are definitely easier/cheaper ways to get there. That simple. If you want to be unique, thats fine, but don't pretend you found some newfound holy grail.

OK let me interject here on the torque thing. Wasn't it here when I posted about going into an engineering major that I learned about it? You can dig up the link if you don't remember, but it was because ofpeople calling F1 slow because it had almost no torque compared to HP that I researched that HP is a rating of torque and rpms. Sure the true question would be, what will handle higher rpms greater, engines built for Ethanol or Biodiesel? Think of both the engines that exist today and the engine that can potentially be built.

I'm not building an F1 car but that's not the point is it? I do see that lower rpms = better mileage but for the sake of high performance, let's settle this.

for all out performance, diesels are limited to around 6K RPM's do to the slow rate of burn.

Gas engines can go way way higher than that, but its mainly a question of engine design and longevity. You can make a big block turn 9000 RPM's if you like, but its going to be short lived. Of course, a shorter stroke engine can rev a lot higher than that.

The redline isn't everything though. If your HP peak is half of the redline, then there's little point on going to redline. Diesels, in general, fall out of efficiency long before 6K RPM's.

Thats why my little 1 liter bike engine makes more power than a stock 5.9L diesel. And thats only at 7K RPM's (redline is 12K)

Well everyone (ok, not everoyne, but smart people know) that HP wins races (all else being equal). But, is the start of this topic aobut cleanliness and fuel efficiency, not who can get from point a to b faster?

And i'm curious about what the nerfed in the LeMans rules to give the R10 the advantage (i have a short memory, and i can't stand going though those damn websites to try to find the rules and such).

I was stating WHY I would pick E85 over bio-diesel. I wasn't trying to start another senseless argument on torque vs hp, which always seems to come about when diesels are discussed.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to believe that torque is everything, thats fine. But there's a trade off.

My honest guess, steel? Broader torque curve and more average torque allowed the driver to shift less. Less time shifting means more time accelerating.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to believe that torque is everything, thats fine. But there's a trade off.

Exactly... now, if you can have all that torque AND keep it around at higher RPMs too, now we're talking FUN. :)

Exactly... now, if you can have all that torque AND keep it around at higher RPMs too, now we're talking FUN. :)

thats exactly how I design my street vehicles. My ZRX for example, hits full boost at 5200RPM's, my powerband is over 60% of my rev range. THAT is what makes it so much fun. Focusing on at what RPM peaks are hit isn't nearly as important IMO.

I could put a rediculously large turbo on it and make 400+hp, but it would ruin the powerband.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. If you want to believe that torque is everything, thats fine. But there's a trade off.

Certainly don't. Great for DD and pulling stuff, but for racing i'd rather use something that can turn faster thereby creating more net horsepower.

Which is why i want a Hilux as my DD and (another) RX-7 as my weekend warrior!

How do diesel engines have such a low powerband and make better mpg at the same time? What happens to the engine after say 3k rpms?

it has to do with the design of the engine its self.

as u know, (but probably never really thought about) diesels are compression ingition.

this means that there is no "extra" energy needed to start the reaction.
if you want to relate it to your freshman chemistry class, think of it as having a lower activation energy.

so what this means is that all the engine needs to run is the right amount of fuel, thereby eliminating the throttle.

by eliminating the throttle, there is a) less drag imposed on the engine in the form of pumping losses, and b) less wasted energy.

in a gas engine, the gas is getting injected no matter what. in a diesel, the fuel is getting injected only as needed.

...so...

with less energy required to sustain combustion, the process becomes more efficient.
as any distance bicycler knows, a more efficient bike allows you to ride faster and longer while using less energy.
this all translates into more power.

i'm not too sure about why diesels have such a low power band, but i'm guessing it partly comes back to not having a throttle, and the fact that diesel fuel is more "energetic" than gasoline.

there are plenty of diesels that go above 3K rpms, the reason most dont is that they are engineered to last forever and made as durable as possible. if your average diesel engine was the same weight as your average gas engine, and used all the fancy titanium and magnesium parts, i am confident that it would rev to around 6K easily.
just look at the le mans audi diesels for inspiration.

fact is, however, diesels have to be built that heavy and tough or they wont make it.

Diesel's low powerband is partly due to where the turbo kicks in, but mainly it has to do with the way the fuel burns. With gasoline, you ingest air and fuel, a spark ignites it, and it applies pressure to the piston for approximately 23-27* of crank rotation. Its a fast boom. With diesel, the fuel isn't introduced until ignition, in fact it IS the ignition. Then two things happen which make monster torque. First, the slow burning fuel is continually burning and applying more pressure to the piston for longer durations, and the fuel continutes to be injected for a long period of time. More force applied to the piston translates to more torque at the crank.

Other factors are turbo tuning, higher BTU content of diesel, and higher compression ratios.

also keep in mind, the lemans example, which redlines at 6K RPM's, is using a hybrid fuel to do it. I don't remember the make-up of their "race fuel" but it has a much faster burn than diesel/bio pump fuel. Without that fuel change, it could still rev to 6K, but the power would fall off too early.

I know there are some small diesel engines that rev pretty high on normal diesel fuel, (not that the US gets very many, I'm sure there's a buttload of them in europe) the VW TDI has a 5.4K redline I believe. But I've never seen a dyno on their motors, I'm curious what the curve is doing in the upper R's.

I assume the reason the TDI (and simular engines) has a higher-than-normal redline is because of the very small engine. But I'm just assuming.

And i'm curious about what the nerfed in the LeMans rules to give the R10 the advantage (i have a short memory, and i can't stand going though those damn websites to try to find the rules and such).

small exerp from one article:

"But does this race represent the Fosbury Flop (http://www.muhs.acsu.k12.vt.us/physics/HighJump/fosburyflop.htm) of endurance racing, or was it an artifact of this year's rules? The answer, more than likely, is a bit of both.

The concessions afforded diesel-powered cars at Le Mans this year are numerous. Compared with a turbocharged gasoline-fueled car, the diesels enjoy a 50-percent larger displacement limit, a 52-percent larger intake restrictor, and an absolute boost pressure limit nearly twice as high. Additionally, the diesels are allowed variable nozzle turbines in their turbochargers. It is also rumored that Audi successfully lobbied to raise the minimum weight to accommodate the R10's massive powerplant."

The rest of the article is here:


http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/6/20/212325/307


As you can see, they were given a severe advantage to compete with the gas engines.

Hmm. Well. Ok i'll give you that UncleBob.

Anyway, a big reason that the european TDI's rev higher is because they are short-stroke diesels. Pretty much the same bore and stroke as their gasoline counterparts, just much higher compression. SHorter stroke = lower avg piston speed at x rpm = higher RPM in. The big limiting factors to a diesels RPM limit is the relatively slow burn rate of the fuel itself.

Thats why my little 1 liter bike engine makes more power than a stock 5.9L diesel. And thats only at 7K RPM's (redline is 12K)

Yes but your little 1 litre bike engine can put out that power for how long?

The cummins will do it 24-7 for at least 10,000 hours. Only stopping for oil changes. All while using about 1/7th of the fuel.

Check out www.tdiclub.com for dyno plots of worked up small diesels.

The Japanese build some high revving diesels, my Fathers Toyota Van, with a turbo charged 3.0L winds out to about 5,000rpm, and holds pretty good power all the way there.

Yes but your little 1 litre bike engine can put out that power for how long?

The cummins will do it 24-7 for at least 10,000 hours. Only stopping for oil changes. All while using about 1/7th of the fuel.

Check out www.tdiclub.com (http://www.tdiclub.com) for dyno plots of worked up small diesels.

long enough :icon16:

I only have 120K miles on my wittle 1 liter. I'll get back to you in 10 years.

long enough :icon16:

I only have 120K miles on my wittle 1 liter. I'll get back to you in 10 years.

But not even you would run it at full throttle for that long.:grinyes:

I don't really get the point, you're comparing a motor six times the size, and making the painful connection that it'll last longer?

*shrug* and a motor that was 18 liters making the same power would last 3 times longer than the 5.9L diesel. So what?

how heavy would a bike be with a 18 liter engine, let along a 5.9L engine? Point being, there is more involved than just power vs longevity

I don't really get the point, you're comparing a motor six times the size, and making the painful connection that it'll last longer?

*shrug* and a motor that was 18 liters making the same power would last 3 times longer than the 5.9L diesel. So what?

how heavy would a bike be with a 18 liter engine, let along a 5.9L engine? Point being, there is more involved than just power vs longevity


Ahh.. hmm.. who was it that made the first comparison of a bike engine to a 5.9 cummins, making the painful connection that it makes more power ;)

anyway, Suzuki GSXR 1000 - 152 RWHP
http://www.topspeed.com/motorcycles/suzuki/suzuki-gsxr-1000-ar1858.html
Cummins 5.9 liter (in 1999 dodge trucks) - 215 hp. So that throws THAT right out of the window, eh? http://www.automallusa.net/1999/dodge/ram-1500/reviews.html

Ahh.. hmm.. who was it that made the first comparison of a bike engine to a 5.9 cummins, making the painful connection that it makes more power ;)

anyway, Suzuki GSXR 1000 - 152 RWHP
http://www.topspeed.com/motorcycles/suzuki/suzuki-gsxr-1000-ar1858.html
Cummins 5.9 liter (in 1999 dodge trucks) - 215 hp. So that throws THAT right out of the window, eh? http://www.automallusa.net/1999/dodge/ram-1500/reviews.html

I said *MY* bike. 250hp on pump gas.

*shrug* and a motor that was 18 liters making the same power would last 3 times longer than the 5.9L diesel. So what?

I don't think it would.
When an engine is destressed to the point where high temps and carbon buildup aren't an issue, there's probably no life to be gained by derating it further.

Of course comparing stock engines to completely different modified engines is only an academic exercise.

I don't know, I think a turbo'd engine vs a turbo'd engine is pretty fair. My engine is dead stock otherwise.

Of course, if you remove the turbo from the diesel....it ain't pretty