Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser

jim > wrote in
:

>
>
> Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>> jim > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Dave C." wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > > that is why running hi-test in a car designed to use regular
>> >> > > is a waste of money.
>> >> >
>> >> > It may or may not be a waste of money (the only way to
>> >> > find
>> >> > out for sure is to try it). The EPA specifies higher octane fuel
>> >> > for its fuel economy tests - so it would stand to reason that
>> >> > some cars designed for regular fuel would get slightly better
>> >> > mileage with increased octane.
>> >> >
>> >> > -jim
>> >>
>> >> You've got that exactly backwards. Octane is a measure of the
>> >> fuel's resistance to pre-ignition (knock). This means higher
>> >> octane fuel doesn't burn as easily.
>> >
>> > Octane is measured by experimentation with a standard test engine (
>> > incidentally, that standard engine was designed in 1909).
>>
>> > It has nothing to do with burning easily (whatever you imagine
>> > that to mean).
>>
>> the above is wrong. octane is a measure of a fuel's ignition
>> characteristics.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
>
> That article in the wikipedia was written by an ignorant amateur. The
> length of stroke has nothing to do with compression ratio of an
> engine. There are high and low compression versions of the same engine
> (in case you don't know what that means - they both have the same
> stroke length).
> And there is no direct relation ship between how fast a fuel
> burns and
> detonation. Hydrogen burns faster than gasoline (the combustion
> spreads faster), yet it also has a much higher octane rating.
>
>>
>> from answers.com;
>> octane number n. A numerical representation of the antiknock
>> properties of motor fuel, compared with a standard reference fuel,
>> such as isooctane,
>
>
> Yeah, so how does that statement support your mistaken beliefs?
>
>>
>> > Hydrogen and methane seem to burn plenty easily as far as I can
>> > tell. How easily do kerosene and diesel fuel burn?. Which of those
>> > fuels has higher octane rating?
>> >
>> >> Thus, if you put high octane fuel in a car
>> >> designed to run on regular (like U.S. 87) then your fuel economy
>> >> is likely to DECREASE slightly.
>> >
>> > That is your belief...
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> While this isn't technically correct, you could think of high
>> >> octane fuel as having less potential energy.
>> >
>> > I could think that if I wanted to be wrong some of the time.
>> >
>> >
>> >> The reason high octane fuel does
>> >> OK (mileage wise) in a car designed to used high octane fuel is
>> >> that high octane engines tend to be high compression. Thus, the
>> >> engine gets more energy out of the fuel.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > The EPA Fuel economy test uses 91 octane fuel. For a few years
>> > after the Car
>> > manufacturers started using knock sensors the EPA considered an
>> > administrative rule that a manufacturer could not make an engine
>> > that which got better mileage on 91 octane if the manufacturers
>> > recommendation for the car was to use regular fuel. This was
>> > because it was understood by everyone that with the presence of a
>> > knock sensor the engine management system could now be designed to
>> > learn to accommodate to the fuel octane. After some debate about
>> > whether the EPA should be requiring auto-makers to derate the
>> > potential gas mileage of their engines, they quietly dropped the
>> > idea. The current EPA policy on whether regular rated engines get
>> > better mileage on premium fuel is 'don't ask don't tell'.
>> > The EPA and the engine designers do not hold the same beliefs you
>> > do.
>>
>> > There is
>> > a significant financial incentive for car manufacturers to design
>> > engines that get better mileage on 91 octane than they do on
>> > regular gasoline.
>> >
>> > -jim
>> >
>>
>> Oh? What is that "financial incentive"? cites,please.
>
>
>
> Did you just crawl out of the cardboard box you have been living
> in the last 40
> years? You want me to prove to you that the car manufacturers have a
> financial stake in the fuel economy numbers they put on every new car
> they sell?
>
> Do your own research.

UseNet convention says if you make a claim,YOU back it up with facts;cites.
you CANT support your claim;
>> > There is
>> > a significant financial incentive for car manufacturers to design
>> > engines that get better mileage on 91 octane than they do on
>> > regular gasoline.
>> >
>> > -jim

I fail to see how getting better mileage on higher octanes than specified
would gain auto makers any financial gain.It's an UNKNOWN,as you stated,and
thus people would not have that "fact" to influence their purchases.
It doesn't make sense.

You lose.
>
>>
>> It seems to me that manufacturers have a greater financial incentive
>> to design cars for regular grade fuel.
>>
>> would you get enough of a mileage increase using premium to offset
>> the added cost of premium fuel?
>
> I didn't say you will get any better mileage. Some cars do some don't.

IOW,you just stated gibberish,unsupportable nonsense.

> One things for sure - You won't find out if your car does get better
> mileage by asking on usenet.
>
> -jim
>

We won't find out anything from your worthless statements.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

dsi1 > wrote in :

> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's what I was thinking. I wonder how much alcohol they are
>> allowed to put in basic gasoline. Maybe the main difference between
>> regular and premium these days is the amount of alcohol they put in
>> it.
>
> In our town, they can put up to 10% ethanol in the gas. I think it's
> some kind of scam the state is taking part in but that's the brakes.
> There is a slight drop in gas mileage but the good news is that I can
> use the lowest grade of gas in my cars without knocking. Previously, the
> cars had to use mid-grade.
>

Gas suppliers HAVE to add some oxygenate to meet emissions specs,and
alcohol was the replacement for MBTE which was polluting the environment.

I believe non-flex-fuel vehicles cannot reliably tolerate much more than
10% alcohol without modification.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Nov 3, 8:32*am, Jim Yanik > wrote:
>
> UseNet convention says if you make a claim,YOU back it up with facts;cites.

Cite...?

> you CANT support your claim;

Duh.

> We won't find out anything from your worthless statements.

So refute, you ****ing moron.
-----

- gpsman

Jim Yanik wrote:

>
> UseNet convention says if you make a claim,YOU back it up with facts;cites.
> you CANT support your claim;

My claim is that car companies have a financial interest in getting the
best possible fuel economy rating. What kind of idiot would ask for
evidence to support that statement?

> >> > There is
> >> > a significant financial incentive for car manufacturers to design
> >> > engines that get better mileage on 91 octane than they do on
> >> > regular gasoline.
> >> >
> >> > -jim
>
> I fail to see how getting better mileage on higher octanes than specified
> would gain auto makers any financial gain.It's an UNKNOWN,as you stated,and
> thus people would not have that "fact" to influence their purchases.
> It doesn't make sense.

The fuel economy test is conducted with higher octane fuel. If the
engine gets better mileage with the fuel used in the test, it will get a
better fuel economy rating.

>
> You lose.
> >

You demonstrate incompetence.

> >>
> >> It seems to me that manufacturers have a greater financial incentive
> >> to design cars for regular grade fuel.
> >>
> >> would you get enough of a mileage increase using premium to offset
> >> the added cost of premium fuel?
> >
> > I didn't say you will get any better mileage. Some cars do some don't.
>
> IOW,you just stated gibberish,unsupportable nonsense.

Probably would sound like gibberish to a salamander also.

-jim


>
> > One things for sure - You won't find out if your car does get better
> > mileage by asking on usenet.
> >
> > -jim
> >
>
> We won't find out anything from your worthless statements.




>
> --
> Jim Yanik
> jyanik
> at
> localnet
> dot com

Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:16:06 -0600, Don Stauffer
> > wrote:
>
>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect
>>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I
>>> filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's too
>>> early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down 2 mpg
>>> over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought I'd
>>> test it out.
>>
>> I had a Neon RT. I did an extensive milage test early on. I did ten
>> tankfuls of regular, then ten of premium, figuring the variance of each
>> set. The milage with premium was down a little, but less than one mpg.
>> However, the variance in each set of runs was over 1.5 mpg, so I had
>> to conclude it made no difference.
>>
>> I think the Neon engine was very similar to that in the PT (though mine
>> had the DOHC heads).
>
>
> My preliminary assessment is that it's down at least 2 mpg and
> possibly as much as 3 or 4.


That is a lot! How many tankfuls and what is the variance of the test?

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-11-02, C. E. White > wrote:
>>
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2009-11-02, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to
>>>> expect
>>>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when
>>>> I
>>>> filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's
>>>> too
>>>> early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down
>>>> 2
>>>> mpg
>>>> over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought
>>>> I'd
>>>> test it out.
>>>
>>> It should be down a little. Premium has less energy per unit
>>> volume.
>>
>> That used to be true (say 30 years ago), but these days it is not
>> ture.
>
> If higher octane ratings are achieved through oxygenates it
> certainly
> will be lower because those high octane oxygenates have less
> energy/volume. I think it is highly unlikely that higher octane
> ratings
> would be achieved through aromatics these days for fuels one can buy
> at
> regular gas station.
>
> http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon.htm
> http://books.google.com/books?id=J_A...olines&f=false
>

http://www.chevron.com/products/ourf..._enrgycon.aspx

From
http://www.chevron.com/products/ourf...h%20Review.pdf :

"Conventional fuels always have varied in heating value. One cause is
the formulation differences among batches and among refiners. A survey
of 1990-1991 conventional gasolines found that the heating value of
summer gasolines varied over an 8 percent range. Heating value also
varies by grade and by season. On average, the heating value of
premium-grade gasoline is about 0.7 percent higher than regular grade
because premium grade, in general, contains more aromatic
hydrocarbons, the class of hydrocarbons with the highest densities.
The heating value of winter gasoline is about 1.5 percent lower than
summer gasoline because winter gasoline contains more volatile, less
dense hydrocarbons.

"Oxygenated gasolines (see page 53) have lower heating values because
the heating values of the oxygenate components are lower than those of
the hydrocarbons they displace. The percentage decrease in heating
value is close to the mass percent oxygen in the gasoline. For
example, in keeping with federal regulations, gasoline in carbon
monoxide nonattainment areas in the U.S. is oxygenated to a minimum of
2.7 mass percent oxygen during four or five winter months. The heating
value of the oxygenated product is about 2.7 mass percent lower than
that of conventional gasoline. In addition, federal RFG and California
Phase 3 RFG in federal RFG areas are typically oxygenated year-round
to an average oxygen content of about 2 mass percent. The resulting
heating values are about 2 percent lower than that of conventional
gasoline. California Phase 3 RFG also has limits on distillation
temperatures and aromatics content, which has the secondary effect of
lowering the density of the fuel. These limits reduce heating value by
about another 1 percent.

"The gasolines that produced the results displayed in Figure 1.3 were
specially formulated to span a wide range of compositions. The
compositional variations were much greater than those separating
conventional and reformulated commercial gasolines. Thus, the results
provide solid evidence that RFG does not exert an unusual effect on
fuel economy. Individual drivers have reported decreases of 10
percent, 15 percent, and even 20 percent in fuel economy when they
began using RFG. Not surprisingly, many of the claims are anecdotal.
Most drivers do not keep continuous fuel-economy records, so they don't
have a meaningful fuel-economy baseline for the gasoline they
previously used. Even with a baseline, a fuel-economy value based on
the consumption of a single tank of gasoline can
be misleading. Drivers interested in fuel economy should average
results over several tanks of gasoline or, better yet, over several
months of driving."

From http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasol...ine-octane.cfm :

"Gasoline with a higher heating value (energy content) provides better
fuel economy. Traditionally, premium gasoline has had a slightly
higher heating value than regular, and, thus, provides slightly better
fuel economy, but it is difficult to detect in normal driving. There
can be even larger differences in heating value between batches of
gasoline from the same refinery, between summer and winter volatility
classes, or between brands of gasoline from different refineries
because of compositional differences. The differences are small and
there is no practical way for the consumer to identify gasoline with a
higher-than-average heating value."

On 2009-11-03, C. E. White > wrote:
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2009-11-02, C. E. White > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 2009-11-02, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to
>>>>> expect
>>>>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when
>>>>> I
>>>>> filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's
>>>>> too
>>>>> early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down
>>>>> 2
>>>>> mpg
>>>>> over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought
>>>>> I'd
>>>>> test it out.
>>>>
>>>> It should be down a little. Premium has less energy per unit
>>>> volume.
>>>
>>> That used to be true (say 30 years ago), but these days it is not
>>> ture.
>>
>> If higher octane ratings are achieved through oxygenates it
>> certainly
>> will be lower because those high octane oxygenates have less
>> energy/volume. I think it is highly unlikely that higher octane
>> ratings
>> would be achieved through aromatics these days for fuels one can buy
>> at
>> regular gas station.
>>
>> http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon.htm
>> http://books.google.com/books?id=J_A...olines&f=false
>>
>
> http://www.chevron.com/products/ourf..._enrgycon.aspx
>
> From
> http://www.chevron.com/products/ourf...h%20Review.pdf :
>
> "Conventional fuels always have varied in heating value. One cause is
> the formulation differences among batches and among refiners. A survey
> of 1990-1991 conventional gasolines found that the heating value of
> summer gasolines varied over an 8 percent range. Heating value also
> varies by grade and by season. On average, the heating value of
> premium-grade gasoline is about 0.7 percent higher than regular grade
> because premium grade, in general, contains more aromatic
> hydrocarbons, the class of hydrocarbons with the highest densities.
> The heating value of winter gasoline is about 1.5 percent lower than
> summer gasoline because winter gasoline contains more volatile, less
> dense hydrocarbons.
>
> "Oxygenated gasolines (see page 53) have lower heating values because
> the heating values of the oxygenate components are lower than those of
> the hydrocarbons they displace. The percentage decrease in heating
> value is close to the mass percent oxygen in the gasoline. For
> example, in keeping with federal regulations, gasoline in carbon
> monoxide nonattainment areas in the U.S. is oxygenated to a minimum of
> 2.7 mass percent oxygen during four or five winter months. The heating
> value of the oxygenated product is about 2.7 mass percent lower than
> that of conventional gasoline. In addition, federal RFG and California
> Phase 3 RFG in federal RFG areas are typically oxygenated year-round
> to an average oxygen content of about 2 mass percent. The resulting
> heating values are about 2 percent lower than that of conventional
> gasoline. California Phase 3 RFG also has limits on distillation
> temperatures and aromatics content, which has the secondary effect of
> lowering the density of the fuel. These limits reduce heating value by
> about another 1 percent.
>
> "The gasolines that produced the results displayed in Figure 1.3 were
> specially formulated to span a wide range of compositions. The
> compositional variations were much greater than those separating
> conventional and reformulated commercial gasolines. Thus, the results
> provide solid evidence that RFG does not exert an unusual effect on
> fuel economy. Individual drivers have reported decreases of 10
> percent, 15 percent, and even 20 percent in fuel economy when they
> began using RFG. Not surprisingly, many of the claims are anecdotal.
> Most drivers do not keep continuous fuel-economy records, so they don't
> have a meaningful fuel-economy baseline for the gasoline they
> previously used. Even with a baseline, a fuel-economy value based on
> the consumption of a single tank of gasoline can
> be misleading. Drivers interested in fuel economy should average
> results over several tanks of gasoline or, better yet, over several
> months of driving."
>
> From http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasol...ine-octane.cfm :
>
> "Gasoline with a higher heating value (energy content) provides better
> fuel economy. Traditionally, premium gasoline has had a slightly
> higher heating value than regular, and, thus, provides slightly better
> fuel economy, but it is difficult to detect in normal driving. There
> can be even larger differences in heating value between batches of
> gasoline from the same refinery, between summer and winter volatility
> classes, or between brands of gasoline from different refineries
> because of compositional differences. The differences are small and
> there is no practical way for the consumer to identify gasoline with a
> higher-than-average heating value."

I saw some of that on my own. it's just longer ways of saying the same
thing and some additional detail. RFG has been around for 14 years now.
Even when I've been out in the middle of no where, well outside the RFG
mandated areas ( http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg/whereyoulive.htm ) the
fuels have at the very least contained ethanol if not fully RFG
compliant. Do any refineries make anything else now? (I thought ethanol
was a federal requirement anyway)

Once adding that stuff the easier way to higher octane is just putting
in more of it.

Jim Yanik wrote:
> dsi1 > wrote in :
>
>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>
>>> That's what I was thinking. I wonder how much alcohol they are
>>> allowed to put in basic gasoline. Maybe the main difference between
>>> regular and premium these days is the amount of alcohol they put in
>>> it.
>> In our town, they can put up to 10% ethanol in the gas. I think it's
>> some kind of scam the state is taking part in but that's the brakes.
>> There is a slight drop in gas mileage but the good news is that I can
>> use the lowest grade of gas in my cars without knocking. Previously, the
>> cars had to use mid-grade.
>>
>
> Gas suppliers HAVE to add some oxygenate to meet emissions specs,and
> alcohol was the replacement for MBTE which was polluting the environment.

The gas here in Hawaii works fine with alcohol. I don't recall the
reason for going through all that trouble to ship the stuff in from the
mainland but I reckon that somebody's getting rich off of this nutty
scheme. It might make a little more sense if we were making alcohol from
sugar cane or pineapples locally. :-)

>
> I believe non-flex-fuel vehicles cannot reliably tolerate much more than
> 10% alcohol without modification.
>

Back in the 80's the reason for this was that the fuel lines would be
damaged by alcohol. Gee - is this still true?

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:35:50 -0600, Jim Yanik >
wrote:

>dsi1 > wrote in :
>
>> Ashton Crusher wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That's what I was thinking. I wonder how much alcohol they are
>>> allowed to put in basic gasoline. Maybe the main difference between
>>> regular and premium these days is the amount of alcohol they put in
>>> it.
>>
>> In our town, they can put up to 10% ethanol in the gas. I think it's
>> some kind of scam the state is taking part in but that's the brakes.
>> There is a slight drop in gas mileage but the good news is that I can
>> use the lowest grade of gas in my cars without knocking. Previously, the
>> cars had to use mid-grade.
>>
>
>Gas suppliers HAVE to add some oxygenate to meet emissions specs,and
>alcohol was the replacement for MBTE which was polluting the environment.
>

True. But it's been years since the addition was actually needed
because the emissions controls are now good enough that you don't need
oxygenated gas anymore. But the scam to benefit corn growers
continues. And we pay for it in higher taxes, higher gas prices, and
lowered gas mileage.


>I believe non-flex-fuel vehicles cannot reliably tolerate much more than
>10% alcohol without modification.

On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:18:09 -0500, elmer > wrote:

>Ashton Crusher wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:25:45 -0500, elmer > wrote:
>>
>>> Brent wrote:
>>>> On 2009-11-02, Ashton Crusher > wrote:
>>>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect
>>>>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I
>>>>> filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's too
>>>>> early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down 2 mpg
>>>>> over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought I'd
>>>>> test it out.
>>>> It should be down a little. Premium has less energy per unit volume.
>>>>
>>> High Octane has the same energy. It has a higher OCTANE and is wasted or
>>> may not be burned as completly in a low compression motor or with
>>> retarded or less advance in the timing of ignition. It burns slower and
>>> does not detonate under heat of compression as easily as regular.
>>> Fuel that uses more ethanol to increase octane has less energy. Regular
>>> fuel with ethanol has less energy.
>>> A 12 to 1 compression or even 14 to 1 compression motor burning 105
>>> octane or higher will get better mileage and torque if the ignition
>>> curve etc are right.
>>> Just like diesel the motor has to be built for the stress.
>>> What we have now and for a long time is junk engines designed to be
>>> built as cheaply as possible and to run on junk fuel as per EPA or
>>> California really. The electronics are good at getting the most from
>>> junk. Just imagine what great engine structure and electronics would do
>>> with great fuel.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand you claims of "junk" engines. Today's engines are
>> far better in pretty much every way then everything that came before
>> them including durability. That's a general statement, there will
>> always be a few bad designs. Up until the mid/late sixties, engines
>> were so weak that it was common for them to need valve jobs before
>> 100K and for many of them they needed both rings and valves befor
>> that point. There used to be a thriving industry doing ring and valve
>> jobs there was such a demand for it.
>Remember the Hemi of the late 60s, not the mid sixties. It put out an
>honest 800 hp and 860 ft lbs according to modern testing a year or so ago.
>They came apart because that much power and trying to rev past 8000 rpm.
>If you kept it at 7000 or below everytime it stayed together. However
>the head block gasket would seep a little bit of oil, if constantly
>stressed.
>Name me one engine that puts out that torque that you can afford. I've
>got one of the modern high hp jobs. It revs like crazy but hasn't got
>any torque. Next time you get a chance ride in a 70 442 w 410 gears, or
>a Hemi Cuda properly tuned. A 429 Cobra Jet or a 428 for that Matter, or
>a high winding 427 or a bunch more.
>The new engines don't come apart becaause they don't put out power that
>will break them. you 3.3 mph per second regulated electronic throttle is
>a wuse. A hemi with modern developments could probably push 900 hp.
>Street Rod Standards are now in the 1000 hp range. Try that with a
>Mercedes engine short of 6.3 twin turbo. None of them will survive.
>The reason the don't run 186 mph or above is rear gearing and no
>overdrives in the gearbox. A 440 or hemi and a number of others would do
>155 at 8000 but don't expect it to live.
>Ride in a 427 Vette and wish it had the gearing etc box of the new
>Vette. The technology is far more developed today but it is not applied
>but who "needs" a 250 mph 900-1000 hp Hemi.
>The new Hemi is more a Polsphere head It has an unfinished area to hold
>heat and twin plugs to burn junk fuel.


Now you're just being silly. Talking about 800 hp engines the
comprised 0.002% of the market is meaningless. In the 60's your
primary engines were the Chevy and ford 6's and small block v8s and
similar in the upscale cars like Buick, Lincoln, etc. Not only the
engines but the cars themselves were often worn out within 10
years/100K miles. If you want to talk about power, consider that back
in the day a typical 6.6+ Liter muscle car might do 0-60 in 6.6
seconds, I forget their quarter mile numbers. My 99 GT with 4.6L
motor can do the same 6.6 and quarter, more or less. And instead of
getting 13 mpg I can get 18 mpg or better. Heck, people with new
Corvettes that will blow the doors off the Corvettes from back in the
day, have reported 30 mpg on trips. You are living on some other
planet if you believe what you are writing.