New thread on 'Top Tier' gasoline...

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article >,
> Vic Smith > wrote:
>
>> I would trust this method more than any onboard car fuel metering
>> device,
>
> yeah. The engine computer has absolutely NO idea how much fuel is going
> through the injectors.
>
> Dumb computer.


The computer knows how long it leaves the injectors open, then it
assumes things about the rates of flow through the nozzles and about the
fuel pressure. The correctness of those assumptions might change as the
car ages? Other stuff like fuel viscosity might affect it too?

On Mon, 04 Aug 2008 23:36:13 -0500, Matt
> wrote:

>Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> If I do the same trip next year in the same car it should be close to
>> the same, so I pretty much know my gas costs.
>
>In that case you could just write down the number of gallons.
>
>Same trip => same number of miles. :-)

Sure, but my tolerance for jotting down a number every time I gas up
is limited.
What happens is I do the @2500 miles check the first year I take the
car on the trip. The second year I usually check when I get to
Florida - @1100 miles - and always see it's real close to the same
highway mpg I got the previous year. Then I never bother checking it
again.
Why bother? I keep my cars tuned and always junk them because
of body rust. The engines are still running well.
A few mpg's difference isn't going to change anything I do.
If I had the onboard trip mileage readout - never had that - I would
probably do the same jotting down of the gallons on the first trip,
just to see how far off the onboard readout is.
I see many complaints about them, but that might be because people
aren't accurately measuring how much gas they are putting in the tank.
A long trip jotting down the actual gallons of gas I paid for at the
pump satisfies my curiosity.
The onboard readouts might clue in a leadfoot about how his foot is
affecting their mileage, but I'm not a leadfoot.
Last trip I did the first few tanks at 65 and noticed a couple mpg
drop when I kicked it up it 75-80 for the rest of the trip.
Doubt if an onboard was telling me the same thing would have slowed me
down. Already knew that.

--Vic

"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
> The onboard readouts might clue in a leadfoot about how his foot is
> affecting their mileage, but I'm not a leadfoot.
> Last trip I did the first few tanks at 65 and noticed a couple mpg
> drop when I kicked it up it 75-80 for the rest of the trip.
> Doubt if an onboard was telling me the same thing would have slowed me
> down. Already knew that.
>
> --Vic

Given the price of gas, I've eliminated a few trips here and there, but I've
not slowed down even 1 mph. The onboard computer tells me that I get better
mileage at slower speeds, but I just can't bring myself to do 55 or 60 on
the interstate.

About a year ago I did some testing at different speeds on the same stretch
of highway to see what the difference was. At 60, I was holding up traffic.
At 55, I was too scared to keep at that speed as it was downright dangerous.
I prefer to cruise at 70 and avoid both getting rear-ended and speeding
tickets. At 60 versus 70, I can get 3 mpg more.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Ray O" <rokigawaATtristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
>> "Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >,
>> > Vic Smith > wrote:
>> >
>> >> I would trust this method more than any onboard car fuel metering
>> >> device,
>> >
>> > yeah. The engine computer has absolutely NO idea how much fuel is
>> > going
>> > through the injectors.
>> >
>> > Dumb computer.
>>
>> Sure it does; otherwise, it would not be able to adjust the fuel mixture
>> properly.
>
> (pssssst--that was my point...)

Got it (now) ;-)
--

Ray O
(correct punctuation to reply)

On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:43:15 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:
>
>About a year ago I did some testing at different speeds on the same stretch
>of highway to see what the difference was. At 60, I was holding up traffic.
>At 55, I was too scared to keep at that speed as it was downright dangerous.
>I prefer to cruise at 70 and avoid both getting rear-ended and speeding
>tickets. At 60 versus 70, I can get 3 mpg more.
>
Yeah, I stay pretty much with the flow. Some places 65 works.
I57 from Chicago to Kentucky is one. Must be a lot of HP enforcing
the truck speed there. My main goal is just staying out of packs and
finding the speed that does it.

--Vic

On Aug 1, 3:30*pm, Vic Smith > wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:00:55 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>
> > wrote:
> >In article > ,
> > "Art" > wrote:
>
> >> My understanding is the top tier gas just refers to additives which may help
> >> keep the engine cleaner. *There would be no impact on mpg
>
> >Other than the impact of a clean fuel and combustion system vs. a dirty
> >fuel and combustion system.
>
> >Dirty injectors, dirty valves, etc--all that will cause lower mileage. *
> >Keep everything clean, get better mileage.
>
> Anybody know how additives are put in the truck tankers?
> A fellow in another group says a number of gas companies
> all get their gas from the same Hess depot near his home, all the gas
> coming through the same pipeline from the same ship.
> Says it's all the same gas going to Texaco, Chevron, etc, and
> the additive claims are BS.
> The only answer I can think of is they put the additives in at the
> Hess depot, but I don't know.
> .
> --Vic

in the way back days, i used to live near a refinery; the tankers for
the different companies would all fill up there. there was a big
separate tank of "tcp" (remember that?) near the gate where the texaco
trucks would stop and get a shot.

z wrote:
> On Aug 1, 3:30 pm, Vic Smith > wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Aug 2008 07:00:55 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> In article > ,
>>> "Art" > wrote:
>>>> My understanding is the top tier gas just refers to additives which may help
>>>> keep the engine cleaner. There would be no impact on mpg
>>> Other than the impact of a clean fuel and combustion system vs. a dirty
>>> fuel and combustion system.
>>> Dirty injectors, dirty valves, etc--all that will cause lower mileage.
>>> Keep everything clean, get better mileage.
>> Anybody know how additives are put in the truck tankers?
>> A fellow in another group says a number of gas companies
>> all get their gas from the same Hess depot near his home, all the gas
>> coming through the same pipeline from the same ship.
>> Says it's all the same gas going to Texaco, Chevron, etc, and
>> the additive claims are BS.
>> The only answer I can think of is they put the additives in at the
>> Hess depot, but I don't know.
>> .
>> --Vic
>
> in the way back days, i used to live near a refinery; the tankers for
> the different companies would all fill up there. there was a big
> separate tank of "tcp" (remember that?) near the gate where the texaco
> trucks would stop and get a shot.


Most of the smaller companies do buy gas at the same refinery depots.
However most of those tankers are NOT empty when they pull in there.

They already have the additive package in the tank for each grade of
fuel. The exception is Ethanol, that gets added last to the mix in the
tank. WHY? because the Ethanol starts sucking up water as soon as it
gets exposed to the air. By adding it last they can top off the tank and
keep as much air out as possible.

--
Steve W.

"Steve W." > wrote in :


>
> Most of the smaller companies do buy gas at the same refinery depots.
> However most of those tankers are NOT empty when they pull in there.
>
> They already have the additive package in the tank for each grade of
> fuel. The exception is Ethanol, that gets added last to the mix in the
> tank. WHY? because the Ethanol starts sucking up water as soon as it
> gets exposed to the air. By adding it last they can top off the tank
> and keep as much air out as possible.
>


That's not quite what I'm given to understand.

Though the highly hygroscopic nature of ethanol is a major problem with
ethanol, it's not the worst problem in and of itself. The worst problem is
the after-effect of that hygroscopic natu corrosion.

Since ethanol is already partially oxidized, it is already very corrosive,
and any additonal oxygen (as from water) only makes the problem worse. It's
therefore better to store the relatively small bulk of ethanol on its own
in a non-corrosive vessel, then mix it in with the much larger bulk of
gasoline at the last second, just before it hits retail.

Much of retail is out of the refiner's control. Though most of it will get
sold and burnt in a few hours, which is preferable, some of the fuel may
sit there for days or weeks or months. Or years. Soaking up even more
oxygen as it goes. Who wants the fallout from that?

Ethanol mandates are primarily a sugar tit for the farm lobby. A tit that
beggars 99% of the population in order to enrich the other 1%. The squeaky
wheel gets the grease, eh?

--
Tegger