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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 02:51 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 |