Methyl Hydrate

Raymond J. Henry wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:58:49 -0500, "*" > wrote:
> >
> >You are definitely the exception to the rule......
> >
> >Everybody else in North America experiences a drop in fuel mileage when the
> >winter blends - containing higher percentages of alcohol, thus fewer BTU -
> >are introduced.
> >
> >If your "K-Car" fuel mileage IMPROVES on an alcohol/gasoline blend over
> >straight gasoline, then you need some serious tuning work.
> >
>
> Uh, no.... Funny thing about it is the difference between using it on
> your own and having the gov't enforce it. See, we've had it available
> here since the early 80's by one station. And hundreds of thousands of
> drivers have experienced EXACTLY the same benefits that I have.
> Primarily those with high performance engines.

Hi, I live in Vancouver, Canada. I tried Mohawk gas for a while, less
than a year ago. My car is a 1998 Civic DX Hatch (definitely /not/ a
high performance engine). It's a smooth-running, well-maintained car,
with timing set up (by ear) to run on 87 octane gas without pinging.
Mohawk gas was consumed at at a rate of about 8.3 l/100 km in this car,
which compares unfavorably to Shell or Esso, from which I consistently
get about around 7.4 (both city mileages). Under pure highway driving,
I see a consumption of 5.6 of normal gasoline, but I have no data about
Mohawk. After my trial, I basically just said: no mo', no hawk. (Not
to me, anyway).

On 25 Jun 2006 19:14:54 -0700, "Kaz Kylheku" >
wrote:

>
>Hi, I live in Vancouver, Canada. I tried Mohawk gas for a while, less
>than a year ago. My car is a 1998 Civic DX Hatch (definitely /not/ a
>high performance engine). It's a smooth-running, well-maintained car,
>with timing set up (by ear) to run on 87 octane gas without pinging.
>Mohawk gas was consumed at at a rate of about 8.3 l/100 km in this car,
>which compares unfavorably to Shell or Esso, from which I consistently
>get about around 7.4 (both city mileages). Under pure highway driving,
>I see a consumption of 5.6 of normal gasoline, but I have no data about
>Mohawk. After my trial, I basically just said: no mo', no hawk. (Not
>to me, anyway).

So what you're saying is that Mohawk (now Husky) fuel may not perform
well in an unprofessionally tuned engine. I can buy that theory.

Raymond J. Henry wrote:
> On 25 Jun 2006 19:14:54 -0700, "Kaz Kylheku" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi, I live in Vancouver, Canada. I tried Mohawk gas for a while, less
> >than a year ago. My car is a 1998 Civic DX Hatch (definitely /not/ a
> >high performance engine). It's a smooth-running, well-maintained car,
> >with timing set up (by ear) to run on 87 octane gas without pinging.
> >Mohawk gas was consumed at at a rate of about 8.3 l/100 km in this car,
> >which compares unfavorably to Shell or Esso, from which I consistently
> >get about around 7.4 (both city mileages). Under pure highway driving,
> >I see a consumption of 5.6 of normal gasoline, but I have no data about
> >Mohawk. After my trial, I basically just said: no mo', no hawk. (Not
> >to me, anyway).
>
> So what you're saying is that Mohawk (now Husky) fuel may not perform
> well in an unprofessionally tuned engine.

''Not professionally tuned'' isn't the same thing as ``badly'' tuned.
My car runs silky smooth now and gets terrific mileage on normal
gasoline. In city driving, it gets around the same figure, 32 mpg, that
is cited at www.fueleconomy.gov (and note I don't have a particularly
fuel-efficient driving style, either; I /can/ push that consumption
lower with a more conservative style). On the highway, I've gotten an
amazing 42 mpg. www.fueleconomy.gov cites the highway economy of this
car as 37 mpg. I've read a few reports from owners getting 40.
Therefore, while it may be unprofessionally tuned (no trained
professionals were paid during the tuning of this vehicle), based on
these observations, nothing needs to be done to this car.

The same car, as I bought it, did have a little bit of pinging during
acceleration and hill climbing. That was when I experimented with
different fuels and timings. Even if I'm too incompetent to find the
perfect, "professional" setting, I would have passed through that value
in probing through the range. I'm not too incompetent not to know how
to probe through a range of values, and connect the dots. I was not
able to find an ignition timing for which Mohawk gas performed
favorably compared to 87 gas from Shell or Esso. Not even close. In
fact, no base timing setting produced fuel economy out of Mohawk better
than around 8.3 liters per 100 km. That was the 89 octane stuff, by the
way, too.

The professional engine tuner can only set that timing somewhere
between the most advanced and the least advanced. Now maybe there is
some magic value in that range that I missed: perhaps the consumption
of Mohawk gasoline sharply drops at some particular timing that must be
identified within a small fraction of a degree by a Real Pro! Even so,
that would indicate that maybe the fuel is way too sensitive to engine
tuning to make it practical for real world use.

There is another thing: Mohawk (now Husky) stations tend to be pretty
run down, badly maintained little dives around here; dirty and dimly
lit at night. Maybe that is changing with the change to Husky; I
woudn't know, and don't care. My final experience with Mohawk ended
with fuel spilled on the ground: the nozzle's venturi shutoff wasn't
working! The employees manning the station acknowledged that they knew
about it, yet they hadn't marked the pump out of order! I drove by
there later that same evening and that pump was still open! Prior to
that, at a different Mohawk, a pump was filling excruciatingly slowly.
Something like 1 liter per minute! The employees manning /that/ station
didn't do anything either; they just let frustrated customers pay for a
few drops of fuel and drive off or move to a different pump, allowing
new customers to to drive up and give it a try.

Good grief.

Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> My final experience with Mohawk ended
> with fuel spilled on the ground: the nozzle's venturi shutoff wasn't
> working! The employees manning the station acknowledged that they knew
> about it, yet they hadn't marked the pump out of order!

Yes I have found pumping the gas onto the pavement can definitely impact
negatively on fuel economy.

-jim

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

jim wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > My final experience with Mohawk ended
> > with fuel spilled on the ground: the nozzle's venturi shutoff wasn't
> > working! The employees manning the station acknowledged that they knew
> > about it, yet they hadn't marked the pump out of order!
>
> Yes I have found pumping the gas onto the pavement can definitely impact
> negatively on fuel economy.

Keep in mind that when that happens, it invalidates the measurement you
were trying to make of the capacity of the /previous/ tankful that was
just consumed.

On 25 Jun 2006 23:10:25 -0700, "Kaz Kylheku" >
wrote:

Fuel on the road doesn't equate to good mileage...

Anyways, trip out of town Sunday with my Aries resulted in round trip
mileage of 34.76 MPG running 105 to 120 KPH on an engine with over
260,000 KMs.

Speaks for itself, I'm sure. BTW, I'm probably within the top 10% of
accelerating drivers off the line, so it's not like I baby this wreck
myself....