On 10/26/2010 10:32 PM, Tim M. wrote:
> On Oct 26, 8:55 pm, > wrote:
>> On 10/26/2010 3:17 PM, Tim M. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 25, 6:22 pm, Christopher > wrote:
>>>> On 10/25/2010 5:59 PM, Tim M. wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 23, 1:01 am, Lanny > wrote:
>>>>>> In article
>>>>>> >,
>>>>>> "Tim > wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Furthermore, a 90/10 gasoline/ethanol mixture does not reduce fuel
>>>>>>> economy by 10%
>>
>>>>>> Back when I could still buy real gasoline in neighboring counties, I
>>>>>> watched my mileage bounce between 27 and 30 depending on where I filled
>>>>>> up. This was consistent over years. Looks a lot like 10% to me. I don't
>>>>>> care what Big Agriculture tells you, I have personal experience. 10%
>>>>>> ethanol = 10% power loss/mileage reduction...looks pretty inert from
>>>>>> where I stand. A total crock.
>>
>>>>> Actually, it has nothing to do with what "Big Agriculture" says or
>>>>> does, my comments were simply based on published scientific facts,
>>>>> tests, research, documented results, notwithstanding your personal,
>>>>> anecdotal observations (which, btw, do not even begin to resemble my
>>>>> personal, anecdotal observations, which are no more germane to the
>>>>> conversation than are yours.)
>>
>>>>> Nor did I make any comments wrt the political merits or marketplace
>>>>> efficacy of such fuels.
>>
>>>> i have certainly heard arguments that defy the assertions of corn
>>>> ethanol being green.
>>
>>> No doubt. I was not, have not, and am not discussing that. Which is
>>> the follow-up point I was trying to make, but alas, that, and the
>>> original point seems to have been lost.
>>
>>> The ONLY points I was making are that:
>>
>>> 1. Under normal conditions, a 10% ethanol/gasoline mix will not reduce
>>> a normal ic engine's fuel economy by 10%, and
>>
>>> 2. Ethonal is NOT (as was claimed) an inert substance, and
>>
>>> 3. Observing the above constitutes neither an endorsement nor is it a
>>> condemnation of the efficacy, whether economic or political (or now,
>>> environmental), of utilizing corn (or other botanical products) to
>>> produce ethonal for use in ic engine vehicles.
>>
>>> I apologize if this is somehow all too complex to be understood via
>>> simple text messages.
>>
>> By observation, the E10 blend has lower mileage than the same brand and
>> grade of gasoline. As to the exact reduction--?? 10% seems ballpark.
>> A "flex fuel" car may have different results. A "normal" cars computer
>> is tuned to some agreed upon fuel. When the fuel is changed, the
>> computer has little or no knowledge, and adjusts as if the fuel was what
>> it was programmed for. We had a 96 Chevy Impala a car or so ago. It
>> required a computer program change to run properly with E15, and
>> ideally, even with E10. (Not to mention replacing some parts not
>> designed for E15, that just tolerated E10.
>
> "Normal" cars are, in fact, designed to happily process E10, and have
> been for some time. (Warning: Anecdotal observation follows) I
> know that my 1997 Miata has no problem with it, and certainly doesn't
> get 10% worse fuel economy on it than it does on 100% gasoline.
> Today's cars have MUCH more sophisticated fueling maps than does my 13-
> year-old car.

The ECU has no direct way, (to my knowledge) to determine that E10 or
E15 is in the tank. Even with electronic throttle control, and so forth,
about all it can do is sense the power needed, adjust fuel and air, and
go on. This assumes that the computer does have the ability to sense
power and load. Some cars do have the sensors to directly measure load,
and others do it based upon an indirect method.