A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto makers » Mazda
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

35.97 mpg...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old October 26th 10, 07:14 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
Christopher Muto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 306
Default 35.97 mpg...

On 10/26/2010 2:06 PM, XS11E wrote:
> Lanny > wrote:
>
>> In >,
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Corn is best used for moonshine!

>>
>> Well, that and tortillas.

>
> Tortilla chips go well with moonshine.
>


but driving does not

Ads
  #32  
Old October 26th 10, 08:17 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
Tim M.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default 35.97 mpg...

On Oct 25, 6:22*pm, Christopher Muto > 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.
  #33  
Old October 26th 10, 08:51 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
Grant Edwards[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 68
Default 35.97 mpg...

On 2010-10-26, Christopher Muto > wrote:
> On 10/26/2010 2:06 PM, XS11E wrote:
>> Lanny > wrote:
>>> In >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Corn is best used for moonshine!
>>>
>>> Well, that and tortillas.

>>
>> Tortilla chips go well with moonshine.

>
> but driving does not


Depends on whether you're drinkin' it or runnin' it.

--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! The entire CHINESE
at WOMEN'S VOLLEYBALL TEAM all
gmail.com share ONE personality --
and have since BIRTH!!
  #34  
Old October 26th 10, 08:59 PM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
Tim M.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 56
Default 35.97 mpg...

On Oct 26, 3:51*pm, Grant Edwards > wrote:
> On 2010-10-26, Christopher Muto > wrote:
>
> > On 10/26/2010 2:06 PM, XS11E wrote:
> >> Lanny > *wrote:
> >>> In >,
> >>> * > *wrote:

>
> >>>> Corn is best used for moonshine!

>
> >>> Well, that and tortillas.

>
> >> Tortilla chips go well with moonshine.

>
> > but driving does not

>
> Depends on whether you're drinkin' it or runnin' it.


My pappy grew up runnin' tortilla chips across the county line....
  #35  
Old October 27th 10, 12:06 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
XS11E[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 738
Default 35.97 mpg...

Christopher Muto > wrote:

> On 10/26/2010 2:06 PM, XS11E wrote:
>> Lanny > wrote:
>>
>>> In >,
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Corn is best used for moonshine!
>>>
>>> Well, that and tortillas.

>>
>> Tortilla chips go well with moonshine.
>>

>
> but driving does not


Sure it does, drink enough moonshine and you won't be scared of the
traffic, the traffic will be scared of you! <G>



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
  #36  
Old October 27th 10, 01:55 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
Chuck[_13_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default 35.97 mpg...

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.)
  #37  
Old October 27th 10, 03:29 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
Tim M.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default 35.97 mpg...

On Oct 26, 8:55*pm, Chuck > 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.)


As I mentioned earlier, personal observations are anecdotal in nature
and differ from one individual to another. Documented research
indicates that an E10 blend results in approximately a 3% decrease in
fuel mileage in today's cars.

We all have google to help us, the research is publicly available, and
I did look it up before I commented.

However, common sense would seem to indicate that replacing 10 percent
of a volume of gasoline with a substance that has about two thirds of
the energy per unit of volume of gasoline would result in a fuel that
has about 96-97% of the energy of a gallon of unadulterated gasoline.
It would take a poorly designed ecu indeed to reduce the utilization
of that energy by another 6-7%; making a gallon of E10 perform exactly
as if the ethanol had never been added in the first place, or had been
spilt out on the ground, effectively leaving the consumer with 9/10's
of a gallon of gasoline, after all.
  #38  
Old October 27th 10, 03:32 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
Tim M.[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default 35.97 mpg...

On Oct 26, 8:55*pm, Chuck > 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.
  #39  
Old October 27th 10, 04:53 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
Lanny Chambers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default 35.97 mpg...

In article
>,
"Tim M." > wrote:

> "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.


My Miata is a '94, not OBD2 like your '97. Perhaps that's why it takes
the 10% hit. It also used to ping more readily on E10, before the
Randall duct eliminated pinging entirely by reducing intake temperature.

Modern ECUs that have flexible fuel and timing maps and a knock sensor
may indeed see only a 3% drop in mileage.

--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C
  #40  
Old October 27th 10, 06:17 AM posted to rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata
Chuck[_13_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 127
Default 35.97 mpg...

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
41 MPG city Fusion Hybrid more efficient than Camry Hybrid's 33 MPG [email protected] Technology 118 February 11th 09 03:51 PM
MPG GT[_1_] Alfa Romeo 0 July 2nd 07 01:52 PM
MPG? William Warren Chrysler 4 October 4th 05 07:19 PM
AT has better MPG than MT? Bucky Honda 17 June 10th 05 09:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.