Reports on Use of Ethanol in C5's

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> On or about Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:11:17 -0400, "Dad"
> > wrote or did cause to be written:
>
> <snip>
>>I'd sure like to read more about that, do you have a site that would
>>give some more facts about the tax breaks?
>
> Google is your friend. http://zfacts.com/p/35.html is just one
> admittedly biased source but I post it because it has lots of other
> inconvenient facts. To Google the tax breaks yourself, you might
> want
> to include ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) the largest producer of
> ethanol in your search criteria. Both the states and the feds give
> large breaks to producers of ethanol (ADM).

I can see by the zfacts that we are at the opposite ends of this issue
so I'll try not to belabor the point.

It is also apparent that you jumped in here from soc.culture.usa
alt.politics.immigration alt.mexico alt.california to push a political
inspired position and not a factual use of ethanol.

First off Google is not my friend and is very much to the left. Every
notice the don't change their logo on Veterans day as they do on most
other holidays?

You need to get used to the fact that large tax breaks are given to
large companies, (money), by your elected officials as you have
instructed them to do by voting for them.

Second the bill that started all of the subsidies you refer to was
signed into effect by Jimmy Carter in 1979. More than enough time for
something to be done about it if you feel strongly against its use.
>
>>> Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline so expect a
>>> decrease in mileage. It will also do an excellent job of cleaning
>>> your fuel
>>> system. If you haven't been using it regularly expect to need to
>>> replace your fuel filter within a hundred miles after your first
>>> tank.
>
>>Didn't see that happen on my '78 or my '72 when I started using
>>gasoline with ethanol. I'll sure be on guard when I fire up the '50
>>this next week.
>
> I assume your complaint is with the changing fuel filter part and
> not
> the mileage. (Your mileage concerns are addressed below.)
> http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/rem/rem-26.htm is a state
> sponsored site that is directed at station owners and not users but
> it
> contains the following statement - "The ethanol in an ethanol-blend
> gasoline acts as a solvent and may dissolve and/or loosen materials
> such as bottom sludge and some wall coatings on petroleum storage
> tanks. The loosened materials will be suspended in the gasoline and
> may cause pump filters and vehicle fuel lines to clog." Again,
> Google
> it yourself and you will find lots of confirmation that ethanol will
> quickly remove deposits from tank walls and suspend it in the fuel.

The site I posted clearly states that the accumulated varnish and
trash will be dislodged by ethanol. It also states that that has not
happened to cars to any extent for many years. The above site is for
the cleaning of bulk tanks and its transfer systems to eliminate the
contamination from being pumped into an automobile. It also states
that if they don't it will cause users to take action for the dirty
fuel. Nothing was said about it moving varnish or trash that could
have already been in the car in question. Maybe you should try to read
the posted material instead of pushing a moot point.
>
> <snip>
>>Quick question, how do you get condensation in a closed loop fuel
>>system? Isn't the void air still drawn in through a moisture trap
>>they
>>started using in the late '70s?
>
> Yes, when they sealed the fuel system in the 70's it did greatly
> reduce the breathing of the system. But it isn't prefect and air
> still
> escapes from the system to be replaced later when the tank cools. I
> don't know what you mean by a "moisture trap". Air is drawn in
> through
> a block valve in the gas cap but no moisture is removed.

Again, had you read the posted site you would see that the moisture
problem is a thing of the past because of the closed loop fuel system.
Clearly stated that moisture is a rare event in the current fuel
systems. Not so rare if the bulk tanks leak and that was also
addressed in your site recommendation.
>
>>> Personally I would gladly pay a 10% premium (30 cents/gallon
>>> extra)
>>> NOT to have ethanol because my mileage suffers almost that much
>>> with
>>> it. When I'm traveling and can get a tank of "real" gas, it seems
>>> to
>>> make a noticeable difference in performance also. On the other
>>> hand,
>>> I haven't had a fuel line problem in many years because it does
>>> keep
>>> the system clean.
>
>>Both the C5 and my C6 average 28/32 MPG and how I drive it makes
>>more
>>difference than the fuel with ethanol. Yet you say they should drop
>>to
>>20/26 MPG? The only time I've ever seen that was at the track,
>>although it ran about there before it was broke in.
>
> I said I ALMOST lost 10% in mileage. A 10% loss would turn 28/32
> into
> 25.2/28.8 not 20/26. I totally agree that the way the car is driven
> can have a much larger effect. Even with the awesome drag
> coefficient
> of a Corvette, the difference between a strong head wind and a
> strong
> tail wind can be almost this much. But your driving style and other
> factors are all based on the same difference in fuel. If you got
> 28mpg
> on real gas on the highway at 65 but only 25 at 90, then you might
> get
> 25.2 at 65 and 22.5 at 90. The fact that you get better mileage on
> ethanol at 65 than on real gas at 90mph is very misleading.
>
> There are 2 factors than make ethanol give worse mileage. First is
> the
> lower BTU/gallon (77KBTU/gal vs. 110KBTU/Gal). Next, because ethanol
> has a higher octane rating (it burns slower), when it is mixed with
> gasoline they use a lower quality gas to get back to the same total
> octane rating.

My bad, I did read the 30 cents a gallon as a 30% lose in mileage. I
still strongly doubt that you can differentiate between driving
habits, weather, different fuel suppliers, accurate calculations,
formulations, traffic flow, and ethanol to determine a percentage of
significant change in fuel mileage. Now if it were a controlled test
as the fuel companies do, and they do report less mileage but much
less than 10%, then your percentage would be believable.
>
>>> It won't hurt the car if you use it regularly. You'll just get
>>> lower
>>> mileage and less performance. Just make sure you have a spare fuel
>>> filter and the tools to change one on the side of the road when
>>> you
>>> first start using it.
>
>>Oops there Kemosahbee, the fuel filter on the late C5s and the C6
>>and
>>a number of GM cars are on the fuel pump and that's inside the gas
>>tank. Not really a wrench job as they are stab-loc fittings prior to
>>that and I'll not drop a fuel tank beside the road. You could wrench
>>one on the early C5s but you need to drop the left exhaust pipe
>>also.
>
> I'll grant that the newest Corvettes do not have an easily
> replaceable
> fuel filter. A C6 would also not have had enough time to have formed
> a
> significant amount of corrosion in the tank. So if you have a C6
> ethanol would not significantly clean the system so it should be no
> problem. A '97 C5 is another story.

No, it would be the same story, no filter change required unless
something has contaminated the fuel system like improper or dirty
fuel. Maybe a '77 but not a '97 and then only if it sits for years as
some Corvettes do.

> BTW, I was being facetious when I discussed changing a filter on the
> side of the road. That is what towing insurance is for.

By the way I was poking fun at your suggestion to be prepared to
change a filter by the side of the road unless you just took the car
out of a five year storage.

>>Personally I look forward to the day to arrive that the technology
>>is
>>in place to allow us to run 100% ethanol. I'd much rather deal with
>>our farmers than I do the mid-east.
>
> How about them Canadians. We buy more oil from Canada than any other
> country. And them evil Mexicans are right there next in line. The
> Saudi's come in 3rd. Then there's Venezuela, and Nigeria. If we add
> up
> all our imports down to Chad, then we import less than 25% of our
> crude oil from the Mid-East and more than 75% from those "unknown"
> countries who charge the same amount for a barrel of oil as the
> Arabs.

Oil is bid on, sellers don't charge anybody, it is bid off on the open
market (?) which has become impossible to know where it came from in
some cases after it has traveled through many brokers books. The
figures you cite have many flaws and are dated but probably as close
as they will every get due to all the special interest manipulation.

> Remember, drinking and driving don't mix. Drink ethanol but don't
> drive with it.
>
That's just a little silly, I'm sure you told Patrick that, but then
you can do what you like such as spread slanted information about the
horror stories of ethanol fuel. We have been using it in the Midwest
for years and there are few if any that I've seen suffer for its use
as you suggest. It's here to stay and recommended by the automobile
companies for what every that does for you.

Enjoy your Corvette if you every have one,

--
Dad
05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51
72 Shark Black/Black/4spd

"Tom in Missouri" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Dad" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> That ethanol is actually an octane boost of 3 points and the rest
>> is what
>> I already believed. Certainly not the 30% mileage drop of some
>> thinking
>> nor the filter problems of the 70s. I did have to rebuild the
>> carburetor
>> in my '65 Mustang to get it to run well.
>>
>
> Well, this is really a bit misleading. The ethanol may boost the
> octane 3
> points, but then the gasoline manufacturers simply drop the other
> additives
> that they would put in to boost octane. Thus 87 is still 87, 93 is
> still
> 93, and so on, whether it is regular gasoline or the ethanol mix.
> You are
> not getting higher octane gas for your car.
>
Agreed, you read that correctly, but it is not a cause of lost power
as was suggested, the blending is pretty equal. It is also stated in
the sites noted that the older elastomembers, 60s and early 70s, would
fail as I eluded to on my Mustang. It also stated that leaking
injectors were prone to calcify if they leaked and leak more, that
design injector is no longer made.

It is a non issue as far as the driving public is concerned and a
Chicken Little type of attitude by some.

--
IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual
addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is
confidential privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons
with low
self-esteem, no sense of humor or irrational religious beliefs. If you
are
not the intended recipient any dissemination, distribution or copying
of
this email is not authorized (either explicitly or implicitly) and
constitutes an irritating social faux pas.

Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context
somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or
grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the
transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on
borrowed time, let me tell you.

"Dad" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "Dale" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On or about Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:11:17 -0400, "Dad"
> > > wrote or did cause to be written:
> >
> > <snip>
> >>I'd sure like to read more about that, do you have a site that would
> >>give some more facts about the tax breaks?
> >
> > Google is your friend. http://zfacts.com/p/35.html is just one
> > admittedly biased source but I post it because it has lots of other
> > inconvenient facts. To Google the tax breaks yourself, you might
> > want
> > to include ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) the largest producer of
> > ethanol in your search criteria. Both the states and the feds give
> > large breaks to producers of ethanol (ADM).
>
> I can see by the zfacts that we are at the opposite ends of this issue
> so I'll try not to belabor the point.
>
(snip)
For information relative to ethanol as well as other alternative fuels and
fuel types, there is information available at this site, which is a site
called "Who Killed The Electric Car" and is sponsored by SONY:
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokille.../electric.html

Mileage? I have not seen any particular mpg difference in Non-ethanol
vs. 10% ethanol in our vehicles but perhaps in your case you should have
your injectors checked/cleaned as that is likely the cause of the 10% drop.

FWIW
http://www.ethanol.org/documents/ACE...onomyStudy.pdf

Dale wrote:
> On or about Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:11:17 -0400, "Dad"
> > wrote or did cause to be written:
>
> <snip>
>
>>I'd sure like to read more about that, do you have a site that would
>>give some more facts about the tax breaks?
>
>
> Google is your friend. http://zfacts.com/p/35.html is just one
> admittedly biased source but I post it because it has lots of other
> inconvenient facts. To Google the tax breaks yourself, you might want
> to include ADM (Archer Daniels Midland) the largest producer of
> ethanol in your search criteria. Both the states and the feds give
> large breaks to producers of ethanol (ADM).
>
>
>>>Ethanol has less energy per gallon than gasoline so expect a
>>>decrease in mileage. It will also do an excellent job of cleaning your fuel
>>>system. If you haven't been using it regularly expect to need to
>>>replace your fuel filter within a hundred miles after your first
>>>tank.
>
>
>>Didn't see that happen on my '78 or my '72 when I started using
>>gasoline with ethanol. I'll sure be on guard when I fire up the '50
>>this next week.
>
>
> I assume your complaint is with the changing fuel filter part and not
> the mileage. (Your mileage concerns are addressed below.)
> http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/rem/rem-26.htm is a state
> sponsored site that is directed at station owners and not users but it
> contains the following statement - "The ethanol in an ethanol-blend
> gasoline acts as a solvent and may dissolve and/or loosen materials
> such as bottom sludge and some wall coatings on petroleum storage
> tanks. The loosened materials will be suspended in the gasoline and
> may cause pump filters and vehicle fuel lines to clog." Again, Google
> it yourself and you will find lots of confirmation that ethanol will
> quickly remove deposits from tank walls and suspend it in the fuel.
>
> <snip>
>
>>Quick question, how do you get condensation in a closed loop fuel
>>system? Isn't the void air still drawn in through a moisture trap they
>>started using in the late '70s?
>
>
> Yes, when they sealed the fuel system in the 70's it did greatly
> reduce the breathing of the system. But it isn't prefect and air still
> escapes from the system to be replaced later when the tank cools. I
> don't know what you mean by a "moisture trap". Air is drawn in through
> a block valve in the gas cap but no moisture is removed.
>
>
>>>Personally I would gladly pay a 10% premium (30 cents/gallon extra)
>>>NOT to have ethanol because my mileage suffers almost that much with
>>>it. When I'm traveling and can get a tank of "real" gas, it seems to
>>>make a noticeable difference in performance also. On the other hand,
>>>I haven't had a fuel line problem in many years because it does keep
>>>the system clean.
>
>
>>Both the C5 and my C6 average 28/32 MPG and how I drive it makes more
>>difference than the fuel with ethanol. Yet you say they should drop to
>>20/26 MPG? The only time I've ever seen that was at the track,
>>although it ran about there before it was broke in.
>
>
> I said I ALMOST lost 10% in mileage. A 10% loss would turn 28/32 into
> 25.2/28.8 not 20/26. I totally agree that the way the car is driven
> can have a much larger effect. Even with the awesome drag coefficient
> of a Corvette, the difference between a strong head wind and a strong
> tail wind can be almost this much. But your driving style and other
> factors are all based on the same difference in fuel. If you got 28mpg
> on real gas on the highway at 65 but only 25 at 90, then you might get
> 25.2 at 65 and 22.5 at 90. The fact that you get better mileage on
> ethanol at 65 than on real gas at 90mph is very misleading.
>
> There are 2 factors than make ethanol give worse mileage. First is the
> lower BTU/gallon (77KBTU/gal vs. 110KBTU/Gal). Next, because ethanol
> has a higher octane rating (it burns slower), when it is mixed with
> gasoline they use a lower quality gas to get back to the same total
> octane rating.
>
>
>>>It won't hurt the car if you use it regularly. You'll just get lower
>>>mileage and less performance. Just make sure you have a spare fuel
>>>filter and the tools to change one on the side of the road when you
>>>first start using it.
>
>
>>Oops there Kemosahbee, the fuel filter on the late C5s and the C6 and
>>a number of GM cars are on the fuel pump and that's inside the gas
>>tank. Not really a wrench job as they are stab-loc fittings prior to
>>that and I'll not drop a fuel tank beside the road. You could wrench
>>one on the early C5s but you need to drop the left exhaust pipe also.
>
>
> I'll grant that the newest Corvettes do not have an easily replaceable
> fuel filter. A C6 would also not have had enough time to have formed a
> significant amount of corrosion in the tank. So if you have a C6
> ethanol would not significantly clean the system so it should be no
> problem. A '97 C5 is another story.
>
> BTW, I was being facetious when I discussed changing a filter on the
> side of the road. That is what towing insurance is for.
>
>
>>Personally I look forward to the day to arrive that the technology is
>>in place to allow us to run 100% ethanol. I'd much rather deal with
>>our farmers than I do the mid-east.
>
>
> How about them Canadians. We buy more oil from Canada than any other
> country. And them evil Mexicans are right there next in line. The
> Saudi's come in 3rd. Then there's Venezuela, and Nigeria. If we add up
> all our imports down to Chad, then we import less than 25% of our
> crude oil from the Mid-East and more than 75% from those "unknown"
> countries who charge the same amount for a barrel of oil as the Arabs.
>
> Remember, drinking and driving don't mix. Drink ethanol but don't
> drive with it.
>

"Dad" > wrote in message
...
>
> Agreed, you read that correctly, but it is not a cause of lost power as
> was suggested, the blending is pretty equal. It is also stated in the
> sites noted that the older elastomembers, 60s and early 70s, would fail as
> I eluded to on my Mustang. It also stated that leaking injectors were
> prone to calcify if they leaked and leak more, that design injector is no
> longer made.
>
> It is a non issue as far as the driving public is concerned and a Chicken
> Little type of attitude by some.
>

I didn't mean any of this as criticism of you, just a commentary on the
website statements. Many reading comments here won't go to the website. As
such, they will draw wrong or incomplete conclusions. Reading the website
and remembering the audience is essential.

Most is for current day cars since about 1995 when this was being written.

There is a section on classic cars and needs to be studied by those owners.

Overall, impact is minimal to most drivers. The classic car guys may need
to swap filters as varnish goes out on beginning usage, and they may have to
do carb work, if it hasn't been done in the last 20 years (doubtful).
People still running the older FI injector design may have problems. People
with Rochester Ramjet mechanical fuel injection may have problems. One place
to check is Jerry Bramlett in Alabama as he is a no-nonsense guy on FI.

Other than that, the sky is falling, the sky is falling.

On or about Fri, 16 Jun 2006 11:52:41 -0400, "Dad"
> wrote or did cause to be written:

>I can see by the zfacts that we are at the opposite ends of this issue
>so I'll try not to belabor the point.

>It is also apparent that you jumped in here from soc.culture.usa
>alt.politics.immigration alt.mexico alt.california to push a political
>inspired position and not a factual use of ethanol.

Nope. Never been there. I have read this and a couple of other groups
for the past 12 years. But this one has been a daily read for many
years. Read between the lines. I thought Reagan was far too liberal
when he caved on the tax increase.

>First off Google is not my friend and is very much to the left. Every
>notice the don't change their logo on Veterans day as they do on most
>other holidays?

Good point. But sometimes we have to read what others write to find
out how wrong they are. I found many years ago that you don't convince
someone by feeding them the facts. They have to discover those facts
on their own. If you don't like Google, choose another tool.

>You need to get used to the fact that large tax breaks are given to
>large companies, (money), by your elected officials as you have
>instructed them to do by voting for them.

I'd rather everyone paid their own share and a much lower rate. If
ethanol is a viable product, let's see if compete fairly rather than
have the government giving it an unfair advantage in the market.

>Second the bill that started all of the subsidies you refer to was
>signed into effect by Jimmy Carter in 1979. More than enough time for
>something to be done about it if you feel strongly against its use.

Yep. Ethanol might have needed a subsidy to get started 20 years ago
but do we have to keep paying forever? Why do I have to pay for your
gas? Why do you have to pay for someone else's food? Why don't we all
just pay for our own stuff and let charities pick up the slack?

>> I assume your complaint is with the changing fuel filter part and
>> not the mileage. (Your mileage concerns are addressed below.)
>> http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/rem/rem-26.htm is a state
>> sponsored site that is directed at station owners and not users but
>> it contains the following statement - "The ethanol in an ethanol-blend
>> gasoline acts as a solvent and may dissolve and/or loosen materials
>> such as bottom sludge and some wall coatings on petroleum storage
>> tanks. The loosened materials will be suspended in the gasoline and
>> may cause pump filters and vehicle fuel lines to clog." Again,
>> Google it yourself and you will find lots of confirmation that ethanol will
>> quickly remove deposits from tank walls and suspend it in the fuel.

>The site I posted clearly states that the accumulated varnish and
>trash will be dislodged by ethanol.

If you mean the Iowa Corn site, then we are in agreement. Ethanol is a
very good solvent.

>It also states that that has not happened to cars to any extent for many years.

Yes, it does. But why isn't it a problem. It isn't a current problem
because every car in Iowa runs on ethanol and has for many years.
Ethanol is a very good solvent. It only takes one tank to clean the
system. That's the problem if you have an older car that has never
used ethanol.

>The above site is for the cleaning of bulk tanks and its transfer systems to eliminate
>the contamination from being pumped into an automobile. It also states that if they
>don't it will cause users to take action for the dirty fuel. Nothing was said about
>it moving varnish or trash that could have already been in the car in question.

You really think ethanol is smart enough to know the difference
between contamination in a big storage tank and contamination in a
small storage tank?

>>>Quick question, how do you get condensation in a closed loop fuel
>>>system? Isn't the void air still drawn in through a moisture trap
>>>they started using in the late '70s?

>> Yes, when they sealed the fuel system in the 70's it did greatly
>> reduce the breathing of the system. But it isn't prefect and air
>> still escapes from the system to be replaced later when the tank
>> cools. I don't know what you mean by a "moisture trap". Air is drawn in
>> through a block valve in the gas cap but no moisture is removed.

>Again, had you read the posted site you would see that the moisture
>problem is a thing of the past because of the closed loop fuel system.
>Clearly stated that moisture is a rare event in the current fuel
>systems. Not so rare if the bulk tanks leak and that was also
>addressed in your site recommendation.

As in other places, it is talking about a brand new car. So you really
think your tank seals are perfect? Not everyone believes that.
http://www.timesrecord.com/website/a...arCare/CarCare So
here's your chance to educate me. What year did the Corvette add the
check engine warning for a loose gas cap? It still doesn't solve the
problem since air is drawn into the tank whenever it cools, but it
helps keep the pressure up while driving so there is less air coming
in. Think about this, though. What happens between a full tank and an
empty tank on a humid day in a totally closed perfectly sealed system?

>I still strongly doubt that you can differentiate between driving
>habits, weather, different fuel suppliers, accurate calculations,
>formulations, traffic flow, and ethanol to determine a percentage of
>significant change in fuel mileage. Now if it were a controlled test
>as the fuel companies do, and they do report less mileage but much
>less than 10%, then your percentage would be believable.

Iowa (trying to sell corn and ethanol) even admits 2% lower mileage. I
base my opinions on a regular 850 mile one day trip in an 85 Corvette.
You can monitor average mileage on each tank very easily. When I would
leave Illinois I was running ethanol which was sometimes not the
freshest. As soon as I would fill up out of state the mileage
increased at least 10%. That could be attributed to bad gas EXCEPT, on
the return trip, if I filled up with ethanol blend, by the end of that
tank the mileage would drop at least 5%. Do that several times a year
in summer and winter and pretty soon you see a pattern.

>>>Personally I look forward to the day to arrive that the technology
>>>is in place to allow us to run 100% ethanol. I'd much rather deal with
>>>our farmers than I do the mid-east.
>>
>> How about them Canadians. We buy more oil from Canada than any other
>> country. And them evil Mexicans are right there next in line. The
>> Saudi's come in 3rd. Then there's Venezuela, and Nigeria. If we add
>> up all our imports down to Chad, then we import less than 25% of our
>> crude oil from the Mid-East and more than 75% from those "unknown"
>> countries who charge the same amount for a barrel of oil as the
>> Arabs.

>Oil is bid on, sellers don't charge anybody, it is bid off on the open
>market (?) which has become impossible to know where it came from in
>some cases after it has traveled through many brokers books. The
>figures you cite have many flaws and are dated but probably as close
>as they will every get due to all the special interest manipulation.

My numbers came from the Department of Energy April 2006 report.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

>> Remember, drinking and driving don't mix. Drink ethanol but don't
>> drive with it.
>>
>That's just a little silly, I'm sure you told Patrick that, but then
>you can do what you like such as spread slanted information about the
>horror stories of ethanol fuel. We have been using it in the Midwest
>for years and there are few if any that I've seen suffer for its use
>as you suggest. It's here to stay and recommended by the automobile
>companies for what every that does for you.

I haven't spoken to Patrick since he broke the knob off the radio.
Let's see, I said "It won't hurt the car if you use it regularly.
You'll just get lower mileage and less performance." Your Iowa Corn
site said "The most current information derived from controlled
environmental testing is that on fuel injected vehicles, fuel mileage
may decrease by approximately 2%." which would translate into slightly
poorer performance. The BTU values of both fuels would indicate that
it should be more like 3.5% less for a 10% blend. My experience is
that it is between 5% and 10% worse.

I'm from Illinois even though for the past few years I've spent a lot
of time out of state. I drive back at least 6 times a year. I've been
using ethanol for years also because you can't get anything else in
most of the Midwest. It's ok. It's FAR better than an MTBE mix. It
just isn't as good as "real" gas. And that first step can sometimes be
a big one.

>Enjoy your Corvette if you every have one,

You do the same. (By the way, if you want to research my previous
posts, add "85 Silver" to your advanced search criteria.)

Here's wavin' at ya'
Dale

"Dale" > wrote in message ...
snip
> You do the same. (By the way, if you want to research my previous
> posts, add "85 Silver" to your advanced search criteria.)
>
> Here's wavin' at ya'
> Dale

My Mom always said not to talk to strangers, needed to try to know you better. Actually on groups in
Google it shows every post you make and it includes those you cross posted.

Can you relate to the group people you know that have had problems from using ethanol and what they
were?

--
Dad
05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51
72 Shark Black/Black/4spd

On or about Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:30:03 -0400, "Dad"
> wrote or did cause to be written:
>My Mom always said not to talk to strangers, needed to try to know you better. Actually on groups in
>Google it shows every post you make and it includes those you cross posted.

I thought you didn't like Google. Yes, theoretically you can find
every post. Unfortunately I don't always use the 85 Silver sig so it
becomes harder. My "email" is useless without further qualification.
There's some real wackos out there using uter Never thought
about that. Probably need to change to something a little less common.

I have never intentionally cross posted.

>Can you relate to the group people you know that have had problems from using ethanol and what they
>were?

Everyone I know who uses ethanol gets worse mileage than they would if
they used real gas. That's just physics already confirmed by the site
you gave in support of your position. Although it is harder to
document, physics also says that if mileage is worse, performance
should also be worse. You can only get so much fuel into an engine at
WOT. If it takes more fuel to get the same energy out (energy to
travel 30 miles) then you are limiting the energy you can get out at
WOT. But I have no data to support this. In fact I have found data to
refute it. http://www.usc.edu/CSSF//Current/Projects/S0210.pdf Using a
dynamometer, ethanol increased the HP output 128%. So if you want a
1200 HP firebreathing dragon, just get an '07 Z06 and fill the tank
with ethanol. More scientifically rigorous tests indicate that
ethanol can actually increase HP under proper conditions.
http://aaae.okstate.edu/proceedings/...ticles/556.pdf Further
research gave a reasoning that ethanol being an oxygenate needs less
air for proper combustion. Therefore, if the injectors can handle the
larger fuel needs (up to 35% more fuel per revolution), you can get a
larger charge into each cylinder and therefore more power.

So, I'll drop the decreased performance claim but I still know what my
butt feels. Gonna have to teach my butt to Google. But there is
no doubt at all as to the reduced fuel economy. The last site shows
that even with increased power output, the cost to operate a lawn
mower engine on E85 was almost twice as much.

As to the ability of ethanol to loosen crud, everyone I know went
through the test many years ago. It is only a problem on the first
tank or so if you continue to use ethanol. But when someone asks about
the first time, it has to be a consideration.

Have we beat this subject to death yet? I'll be glad to give you the
last word if you want it.

Still wavin'

"Dale" > wrote in message ...
> On or about Sat, 17 Jun 2006 22:30:03 -0400, "Dad"
> > wrote or did cause to be written:
>>My Mom always said not to talk to strangers, needed to try to know you better. Actually on groups
>>in
>>Google it shows every post you make and it includes those you cross posted.
>
> I thought you didn't like Google. Yes, theoretically you can find
> every post. Unfortunately I don't always use the 85 Silver sig so it
> becomes harder. My "email" is useless without further qualification.
> There's some real wackos out there using uter Never thought
> about that. Probably need to change to something a little less common.

You need to pay attention or comprehend better, I said Google is not my friend, not that I didn't
use it. I don't like taxes but I still use them.

If you read all of the sites I posted there is some proof that there is more power in the 10% blend
as some would have you to believe. Beside I ask for any problems that people were having not the
perceived minuscule seat of the pants power drop.

Still a moot point and not as problematic as some would like you to believe.

Now I have a fresh tank of gasoline and I'm going to drive that out and fill up with 10% and see if
there is any difference, hard to find it here but need to confirm past usage.

--
Dad
05 C6 Silver/Red 6spd Z51
72 Shark Black/Black/4spd