 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / January 200810% Ethanol in Gas
I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year round. One of the gas stations in my little town even has a bunch of "100% REAL GAS - NO ETHANOL" signs up all over the place. With all the whining and crying about "people putting water in the gas[sic]", I've honestly never noticed a difference in operation or efficiency. My guess is that Ethanol earned a bad reputation (1970s, maybe?) when cars used to be carbureted and timing advanced with mechanical weights and such. However, modern cars with EFI and its associated arsenal of sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True? > My guess is that Ethanol earned a bad reputation (1970s, maybe?) when > cars used to be carbureted and timing advanced with mechanical weights My car still uses a carb and mechanical timing control. However, I have not noticed any particular problem with ethanol-laced fuel. The real problem is that the benefits of ethanol are dubious, and the conversion of crops to fuel production is causing food prices to go up.  SignatureRoger Blake (Subtract 10s for email.) > I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to > gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people > are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True? I'm not anti or pro ethanol. Here's what I know/read/been told as to why some people like/don't like it: You know how some cars just don't like certain brands of spark plugs? Some cars just don't seem to like ethanol. Ethanol has a higher octane rating, so, in theory, you could make more power from it. Ethanol has less energy per unit volume than gasoline, so, in theory, you get worse fuel economy, but not always: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:kxYYXxNR684J:www.ethanol.org/pdf/contentmgmt /ACEFuelEconomyStudy_001.pdf+ethanol+fuel+economy&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca&clien t=firefox-a I liken it to comparing vodka and rum. They're both alcohols you drink, but they're definitely not the same thing. Ethanol is NOT gasoline, so running a car designed for gas on ethanol may or may not work out 100% perfectly. Lastly, the production of ethanol has caused the prices of corn to rise due to increased demand. There's just not enough land to grow it. I looked into this a couple of years ago, and IIRC I needed to grow either 2 or 20 acres of corn just to provide enough ethanol for my own use. Even if it's only 2 acres per person, that's 600 million acres of land for 300 million people worth of ethanol. Ray news <rollingviolation@domain.invalid.com> wrote in article <O0maj.21349$Tx.5194@pd7urf3no>... > I'm not anti or pro ethanol. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ethanol has a higher octane rating, so, in theory, you could make more > power from it. Only if you increase the engine's compression to take advantage of the octane - or resistance to detonation......that's what is done in race cars that run alcohol-based fuels. > Ethanol has less energy per unit volume than gasoline, so, in theory, > you get worse fuel economy, but not always: That's a true statement that stands on its own. Ethanol and methanol both produce fewer BTUs than gasoline when burned, thus put out less horsepower-per-gallon - requiring larger quantities to put out the same power as gasoline. Most race cars using alcohol-based fuels run approximately twice the volume of alcohol as they would gasoline. > I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to > gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people > are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True? My car gets 10% less mileage on 10% ethanol. Paul wrote: > My car gets 10% less mileage on 10% ethanol. Funny you should say. "They" say that won't happen, and yet the same thing happens in my case with two cars. Haven't had real gasoline in the third car yet. so can't say if it's unanimous. SignatureDec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year. > Paul wrote: > > My car gets 10% less mileage on 10% ethanol. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause > as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year. Well, of course it ought to. maybe not 10% less, but 5% less. Certainly, people who use 85% ethanol report about a 33% drop in mileage, which is what you'd expect from 85% of your fuel suddenly giving you half as much energy. > I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to > gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people > are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True? I notice a slight decrease in mileage but ethanol sucks for numerous reasons. It is an irrational approach to energy independence which puts the burden on the tax payer and lines the pockets of agribusiness. > I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to > gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people > are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True? The largest negative for me is my motorcycle does not have closed-loop mixture control, so at 10% ethanol its jetted too lean, stalls, and generally runs like crap. I can rejet to adjust, but if I get gasohol at one gas stop, and 'pure' gas at another, its never going to be right. Dave >I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to >gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year >round. One of the gas stations in my little town even has a bunch of >"100% REAL GAS - NO ETHANOL" signs up all over the place. With all >the whining and crying about "people putting water in the gas[sic]", >I've honestly never noticed a difference in operation or efficiency. 10% ethanol is good. Yes, it slightly reduces the total energy of combustion a little, but it prevents knocking and it's much less hazardous than the other popular anti-knock additives like MTBE and lead. >My guess is that Ethanol earned a bad reputation (1970s, maybe?) when >cars used to be carbureted and timing advanced with mechanical weights >and such. However, modern cars with EFI and its associated arsenal of >sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people >are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True? Also, realize that ethanol dissolves a lot of rubber formulations. Run pure ethanol in your car and you'll find hoses and seals going bad right and left. A lot of people had that experience trying pure ethanol back in the seventies, too. Of course, back then it wasn't quite so bad since there weren't anywhere near as many hoses and seals to replace.... --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > >I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to > >gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > combustion a little, but it prevents knocking and it's much less > hazardous than the other popular anti-knock additives like MTBE and lead. Yes and that is pretty much the only reason that the politicians are behind ethanol. The other additives are cheaper but having additives that poison children or give people headaches don't make politicians popular. -jim > >My guess is that Ethanol earned a bad reputation (1970s, maybe?) when > >cars used to be carbureted and timing advanced with mechanical weights [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > >I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to > >gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > -- > "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Not to mention the fuel pump diaphragm, if you still have a mechanical fuel pump. Other comments about having to rejet the carb are correct, and even so there will still be a slight drop in MPG. I also am not sold on ethanol, at least corn-based ethanol, being an eventual renewable replacement for gasoline. nate (however, when served over ice, certain forms of corn-based ethanol can be downright tasty.) >> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > (however, when served over ice, certain forms of corn-based ethanol > can be downright tasty.) When they forced 10% on us here, stations were closing down to clean out their tanks as it is a better solvent and might have brought junk from the tanks into our tanks ;( Frank > > >I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to > > >gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > ethanol, at least corn-based ethanol, being an eventual renewable > replacement for gasoline. Well, for one thing, we can't possibly make nearly enough of it. >> Other comments about having to rejet the carb are correct, and even so >> there will still be a slight drop in MPG. I also am not sold on >> ethanol, at least corn-based ethanol, being an eventual renewable >> replacement for gasoline. > > Well, for one thing, we can't possibly make nearly enough of it. Sure we can. We just can't possibly make enough of it and still eat. SignatureDec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year. > I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to > gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people > are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True? Ethanol is more corrosive than gasoline, and can dissolve some plastics used in gaskets and O-rings. Really old cars with copper seals and cork gaskets were okay, as well as newer cars that have ethanol-safe components in fuel system. I think the problem was in sixties and seventies vintage cars. To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy to make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a negligible improvement in greenhouse emissions. There ARE process fuels other than petroleum that CAN be used to make ethanol. To me those tax breaks should be predicated on using non- petroleum process fuel. >To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy to >make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it >doesn't save petroleum imports by that much. It has only a negligible >improvement in greenhouse emissions. Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It just doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it. But ethanol is a hell of a good petroleum _additive_ and a big improvement over other octane improvers. >there are process fuels other than petroleum that CAN be used to make >ethanol. To me those tax breaks should be predicated on using non- >petroleum process fuel. Folks are working on that, but there's no commercial production. But I would agree with you. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It > just > doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it. Not true. See Brazil. And even if you use corn (not as cost effective as sugar cane), most people who say it doesn't provide a net energy benefit ignore the fact that the residue left over after you make ethanol is a high quality animal feed, in some way superior to the original corn. And if/when a process for making ethanol from grass / wood chips / whatever is commercialized, ethanol will be relatively inexpensive. Ed White >>Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It >>just >>doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it. > > Not true. See Brazil. Not applicable. The US is at a different latitude than Brazil. Besides, even Brazil's ethanol craze has a huge negative impact in that rainforest is being clear-cut to make room for more sugar cane fields. Not a good trade, IMO. >> Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It >> just [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Ed White Believe there is something like a 50 cent a gallon import tax on ethanol. Otherwise it would be cheaper for US to buy from Brazil than make our own. Chalk another one up to ADM ;( Frank >> To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy to >> make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > would agree with you. > --scott Heard an interview with a farmer who also is a partner in an ethanol plant. He said it took 1 gal of fuel to produce 1.3 gal. Now keep in mind that gasoline also has related refining costs. He also said he was looking into switching to switch grass. The bio-fuels industry is in its infancy and its bound to get more efficient as time goes by. Mitch > Heard an interview with a farmer who also is a partner in an ethanol > plant. He said it took 1 gal of fuel to produce 1.3 gal. Now keep in > mind that gasoline also has related refining costs. He also said he > was looking into switching to switch grass. The bio-fuels industry > is in its infancy and its bound to get more efficient as time goes > by. You get 1.3 gal of ethanol AND you have almost as much animal feed as if you fed the corn directly. Ed >> Heard an interview with a farmer who also is a partner in an ethanol >> plant. He said it took 1 gal of fuel to produce 1.3 gal. Now keep in [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You get 1.3 gal of ethanol AND you have almost as much animal feed as > if you fed the corn directly. And you've taken food out of the mouths of humans. Funny how the beef industry cites the rising cost of animal feed, caused by ethanol production, as a reason for the rising cost of beef. SignatureDec. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Government officials and activists flying to Bali, Indonesia, for the United Nations meeting on climate change will cause as much pollution as 20,000 cars in a year. In our case we are experiencing troubles with the ethanol and gasoline mixture. In most of the mechanic workshops that i have to visit cuz of the job, at least 7 out of 10 cars are having some kind of problem with the fuel system. Burned pumps, dirty injectors and carbs are what u see. And we grow sugar cane to produce ethanol because of the latitude, but i sure agree with some people who think there is still too much hunger in the world to just drop food production to make fuel. That doesnt make sense to me i have to say, cuz id rather feed my family than my car. And im not willing to pay more money for food either. Besides, we are so used to good and cheap fuel that this crappy gas the goverment is selling to us just doesnt cut it. Ill turn to alternative fuels when they manage a way of using the hydrogen from water to run a V-8. ill bet its gonna have a lot of "gas mileage". >>> Heard an interview with a farmer who also is a partner in an ethanol >>> plant. He said it took 1 gal of fuel to produce 1.3 gal. Now keep in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Funny how the beef industry cites the rising cost of animal feed, caused > by ethanol production, as a reason for the rising cost of beef. Adjusted for inflation food prices are low. And although the cost of corn has risen in recent years, even this year, unadjusted for inflation, corn prices were no higher than the mid-70's. If you adjust the prices for inflation, they are less than half of the mid-70's prices. If you adjust them for inflation corn prices are still at historically low levels. Ed >>To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy to >>make it, and some mfgs use petroleum to make it, in which case it [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, thinking about ethanol as a petroleum replacement is silly. It just > doesn't work out, costing more to make than you get out of it. I saw another interesting article about the impact of the ethanol fuel lunacy going on. So much more cropland is being converted to corn to support the craze that the amount of nitrogen-rich fertilzer entering the Mississippi River has jumped significantly in the last couple of years (corn "leaks" more fertilizer into runoff water than other crops do). Cutting to the chase, the result is that the Gulf of Mexico "dead zone" of severe oxygen depletion (which drives away fish and kills shellfish that cant escape ) off the coast of Louisiana and Texas is expected to grow significantly over the next couple of years. Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the corn surge due to ethanol.... >>>To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy >>>to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the > corn surge due to ethanol.... You mean like municipal waste treatment plants? Now as for crop land being converted to corn...converted from what? There is very little crop land in the Mississippi river system that isn't already devoted to either corn, cotton, or wheat. All of these crops get similar amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. The only crop that is routinely grown in these areas that doesn't get a lot of nitrogen fertilizer is soybeans, and soybean prices are even better than corn prices. In my area, people are switching to soybeans and away from corn because of the high cost of nitrogen fertilizer. I personally plan to plant less corn next year and more soybeans. Soybeans require less labor, less fertilizer, and less water. Given the current price differential, soybeans are far more profitable (at least for many farmers). I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who is funding the pro-ethanol lobby. Who is funding the anti-ethanol lobby? I'd say follow the money......Who stands to loose the most if ethanol displaces a significant amount of foreign oil? Ed > "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message >>Thank you ever so much, "environmentalists." But I have no doubt >>that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the >>corn surge due to ethanol.... > > You mean like municipal waste treatment plants? Who knows, but they'll find something that they aren't responsible for and then lobby to shut it down. > Now as for crop land being converted to corn...converted from what? > There is very little crop land in the Mississippi river system that > isn't already devoted to either corn, cotton, or wheat. All of these > crops get similar amounts of nitrogen fertilizer. They GET similar amounts, but the claim is that much more runs off from corn than the others and winds up in the river. > I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the > anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who > is funding the pro-ethanol lobby. Who is funding the anti-ethanol > lobby? I'd say follow the money......Who stands to loose the most if > ethanol displaces a significant amount of foreign oil? I don't know that there IS an anti-ethanol lobby, per se. I certainly can't make it add up to being a winner just by balancing energy in/energy out and considering the amount of cropland displaced for more corn. Too bad we CAN'T really use sugar cane, but the climate is what it is. Hey, maybe if we can get a little more global warming going, we will be able to grow sugar in Iowa! :-p >> "Steve" <no@spam.thanks> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > They GET similar amounts, but the claim is that much more runs off from > corn than the others and winds up in the river. That is not proven to be true at all. Nitrogen runoff from corn has dramaticly dropped per acre in the last 10 years as nitrogen use per acre has dropped as better research and cost of nitrogen has changed. what really chafts my britches is town and city people fertilizing there worthless lawns with 10 times the amount of fert. I use per acre. My crop has value, your lawn is worthless other than the O2 it produces. Also more pesticides are dumped on lawns at a incorect rate that most all the farms. KB >> I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the >> anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > is. Hey, maybe if we can get a little more global warming going, we will > be able to grow sugar in Iowa! :-p Oh yea sign me up. I could stand some heat about now. KB SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. > Steve <no@spam.thanks> wrote in >>They GET similar amounts, but the claim is that much more runs off from >>corn than the others and winds up in the river. > > That is not proven to be true at all. Nitrogen runoff from corn has > dramaticly dropped per acre in the last 10 years as nitrogen use per acre > has dropped as better research and cost of nitrogen has changed. The claim was only true RELATIVE to other crops. I don't know if its valid or not. what > really chafts my britches is town and city people fertilizing there > worthless lawns with 10 times the amount of fert. I use per acre. My crop > has value, your lawn is worthless other than the O2 it produces. Also > more pesticides are dumped on lawns at a incorect rate that most all the > farms. KB I don't disagree with that AT ALL. Urbanites are ruining the planet, not rural people. I grew up on a farm and only live in an urban hive to make a living- once I retire I'm outta here and they can HAVE the stinking place. I'm just repeating the report, and speculating on how the environmentalists will spin it. "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message > I am not sure that ethanol is the answer, but I also think that the > anti-ethanol lobby is lying through their collective teeth. I know who [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ed Fully agree with this, Ed. Everybody has a different axe to grind in this situation. > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Fully agree with this, Ed. Everybody has a different axe to grind in this > situation. No, a lot of us just think that ethanol as a widely-used replacement for gasoline is not viable for North America when you balance the energy budget. I personally, however, think bioDIESEL has an enormous potential. The difference is that far less energy is required to extract corn oil from corn (or other plant oils from their parent plants) than to distill ethanol from fermented corn. It still doesn't alleviate the problem with food crop being displaced for fuel crop while much of the world starves, and it doesn't make a big enough dent in oil demand because not enough of the automobile fleet is diesel powered... but I just want to point out that in my case its not a matter of "follow the money" at all. >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > diesel powered... but I just want to point out that in my case its not a > matter of "follow the money" at all. I also think biodiesel holds a lot of promise. Corn may not be the best source for the fatty acids to make biodiesel either. > I also think biodiesel holds a lot of promise. Corn may not be the best > source for > the fatty acids to make biodiesel either. True, there are many many sources. Another advantage.... > >> "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > source for > the fatty acids to make biodiesel either. I've heard that soybean makes a better biodiesel than corn. >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > diesel powered... but I just want to point out that in my case its not a > matter of "follow the money" at all. Although I said I agree with your biodiesel statement, I dont totally agree with your energy balance assessment. We dont have to replace gasoline with ethanol to make a substantial dent in oil imports. Every little bit helps. At some point we may see that liquid fuel is needed even though it costs as much as petroleum to produce. If you dont have enough petroleum, you CAN burn ethanol. Maybe we could invent a car that would burn the corn directly, but corn would still be a poor choice of fuel sources. While corn is not an ideal material to product fuel ethanol, it could be used where sugar cane, potatoes, etc cannot be raised. Corn stalks, cobs, and husks can be burned to help regain some of the energy in the equation. But, again, corn demands a lot of petroleum based fertilizer, produces relatively little grain, and therefore relatively little ethanol. In a similar sense, corn may not be the best crop for biodiesel either. Planting pine forests can guarantee a future of wood, and also tall oil, which could be converted to biodiesel..And, the trees help the environment. (I am a tree farmer too, among other things) We have to think in worst case scenarios. Lastly, small diesel engines in light weight passenger cars make sense.. Perhaps not for the freight hauler or industrial user but for most of us. We might have to go back to trains for transport instead of 18 wheelers. For the long term benefit of the nation, we, as a people, need to do better. > No, a lot of us just think that ethanol as a widely-used replacement for > gasoline is not viable for North America when you balance the energy > budget. I personally, however, think bioDIESEL has an enormous potential. > The difference is that far less energy is required to extract corn oil > from corn (or other plant oils from their parent plants) than to distill > ethanol from fermented corn. The advantage of ethanol in the short run is that it can displace 5% or 10% of foreign oil with minimal changes to existing products. We will need to build a lot more diesel vehicles before Biodiesel can make the same sort of impact. Plus, you seem to be worried that using corn to make ethanol is diverting a lot of potential food to the fuel industry. Even if this were true, the same is true for biodiesel. > It still doesn't alleviate the problem with food crop being displaced for > fuel crop while much of the world starves, and it doesn't make a big > enough dent in oil demand because not enough of the automobile fleet is > diesel powered... Much of the world starves??? PLEASEEEEE, that is crap. People may be starving in the world, but it is not because farmers in the US are selling corn for ethanol production. War, disaster, bad governments, economics, all have a lot more to do with people starving than corn being used to make ethanol. I just saw a long attack article blaming US farmers for destroying the economy of Africa because we were supply too much cheap agricultural produce. The article was demanding that we produce less cotton so that the price would rise and allow the third world to compete. Quit reading the anti-ethanol playbook and pay attention to the facts. > but I just want to point out that in my case its not a matter of "follow > the money" at all. While you personally might not have an economic incentive to attack ethanol, you are getting information from other sources. Do you think they all have pure motives? Most ethanol attackers conveniently ignore the fact that the dried mash left over after you make the ethanol is high quality animal feed and they leave the value of this feed out of the economic balance. It make a huge difference in the numbers. Ed el. >>It still doesn't alleviate the problem with food crop being displaced for >>fuel crop while much of the world starves, and it doesn't make a big [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have a lot more to do with people starving than corn being used to make > ethanol. I never implied that it was a CAUSE of famine and given that a lot of US farmland is idle, shifting (at least temporarily) to fuel crop might make sense. But it is annoying on some level to know that the US has enough farm capacity to feed the whole world, yet people go without food because the distribution system is broken, whether it be by politics, war, or pig-headed backwardness. > el. >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the distribution system is broken, whether it be by politics, war, or > pig-headed backwardness. Economics! Even if farmers in the US grew the food for free, transporting it to distant lands, and distributing it would still price it out of the range of many "starving people." You can ship food into an area for an emergency, but the only long term cure for starving people is to help them create a stable society with a substanible agriculture system and workable population controls. Ed "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message Most ethanol attackers conveniently ignore the fact that the > dried mash left over after you make the ethanol is high quality animal > feed and they leave the value of this feed out of the economic balance. It > make a huge difference in the numbers. > > Ed Off topic, but some of the people around here feed commercial chicken house litter to cattle. And, there doesnt seem to be a law against it. I would far prefer to feed them sour mash solids that chicken feces. What is going to happen to the corn farmer when he can no longer get cheap ammonia based fertilizers? And that could happen easily enough. > "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message Most ethanol > attackers conveniently ignore the fact that the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > litter to cattle. And, there doesnt seem to be a law against it. I would > far prefer to feed them sour mash solids that chicken feces. Chickens have horribly inefficient digestive systems comapred to cows. Having raised cattle all my life, I don't think chicken s*&t is the worst thing cows eat. I only have a cow / calf operation, so I don't feed my cows a lot of grain or prepared feed. Mine mosty graze grass and eat hay. But all the grass they eat is basically the same grass they used for a bathroom last week. However, I think the best use for chicken litter is as fertilizer. It is good stuff! Years ago my Father applied a quanity to one of our poorer fields and you can still tell the difference. > What is going to happen to the corn farmer when he can no longer get cheap > ammonia based fertilizers? And that could happen easily enough. Obviously you have not priced fertilizer recently.....cheap is not something I would use to descibe fertilizer. Personally I plan to switch significant acerage from corn to soybeans that don't require a lot of expensive fertilizer plus at current prices the gross income in my area is almost as good and the net is a lot better. Ed "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message > Obviously you have not priced fertilizer recently.....cheap is not > something I would use to descibe fertilizer. Personally I plan to switch [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ed "Cheap" was used in a relative sense, Ed ;>) It can get worse, and probably will. The Brasilians were looking at mandioca for a source of fermentable carbohydrates. It takes almost nothing from the soil, needs water and carbon dioxide. Plus, it is quite edible. The fuel situation can be alleviated, if not solved, but it may take a group of technologies to do it. >Obviously you have not priced fertilizer recently.....cheap is not something >I would use to descibe fertilizer. Try growing without fertilizer and you'll see how cheap it really is. Personally I plan to switch significant >acerage from corn to soybeans that don't require a lot of expensive >fertilizer plus at current prices the gross income in my area is almost as >good and the net is a lot better. Yes, and you can take one field for corn and the rest for soybeans and rotate, still, just like folks did before there was fertilizer. Down here is still tobacco country and there is no way you can grow that stuff any other way. It takes all the nitrogen it can get, and more. Worst crop I can imagine, and it doesn't sell too well any more either. --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >>Off topic, but some of the people around here feed commercial chicken >>house >>litter to cattle. And, there doesnt seem to be a law against it. I would >>far prefer to feed them sour mash solids that chicken feces. > > Chickens have horribly inefficient digestive systems comapred to cows. Well, they are just surviving dinosaurs after all.... ;-) > Having raised cattle all my life, I don't think chicken s*&t is the worst > thing cows eat. Chicken $#1t is pretty nasty, given some of the diseases (no, not "bird flu just ordinary bacterial stuff) that they can carry. > However, I think the best use for chicken litter is as fertilizer. It is > good stuff! Years ago my Father applied a quanity to one of our poorer > fields and you can still tell the difference. It can actually be TOO "good." You can burn some crops pretty badly with chicken manure, especially if it hasn't had a chance to compost sufficiently. >>>To me the big thing about ethanol is that it takes a lot of energy >>>to [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > that they'll find a way to put the blame on something other than the > corn surge due to ethanol.... One more thing you should factor in is that unadjusted corn prices are still below the peak years of 1974 and 1975. If you adjust corn prices for inflation, they are still historically very low, despite the ethanol craze. More land was devoted to corn in 1974 than was devoted to corn in 2007, more nitrogen was applied to corn in 1974 than in 2007, and yet you are blaming the increase in nitrogen run-off on corn. Hmmmmm Ed > I hear a lot of people up in arms about the addition of Ethanol to > gasoline. Many places do it just in the wintertime, others do it year [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > sensors simply adapt to whatever difference it makes, but many people > are still stuck with the 'ethanol sucks' mentality. True? Some of us still drive vehicles with Carburetors and in my case 'lose' 50 to 100 miles per tank range with the crap mixed into gasoline. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com >Some of us still drive vehicles with Carburetors and in my case 'lose' >50 to 100 miles per tank range with the crap mixed into gasoline. The problem with this is that the mixture isn't optimal anymore, if the thing has been tuned to run properly with conventional gas. Drilling your carb jets out may be in order to get a slightly richer mixture. Of course, then you can't go back... --scott Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." >> Some of us still drive vehicles with Carburetors and in my case 'lose' >> 50 to 100 miles per tank range with the crap mixed into gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Of course, then you can't go back... > --scott I have a variable main fuel jet with a moving needle and tried running it a bit richer there and I have a variable 'air' jet needle which I also tried running richer to the point of seeing black smoke when floored at 65 mph. Both just gave me crappy mileage and no top end power. My owners manual even says not to use any alcohol mix of any type except if in an emergency and then to only use enough to get to real gas... So what are 'we' now supposed to do that the law says all stations have to switch for the new year here in Canada? My vehicle isn't supposed to have 'any' alcohol because it eats parts, let alone the running issues. Right now Toronto Canada has a gas shortage going on because they ran short of real gas while 'converting' so they can jack up the price which they have before they jack it up again when the alcohol law hits in the New Year. What a freaking Scam! Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com >>> Some of us still drive vehicles with Carburetors and in my case >>> 'lose' 50 to 100 miles per tank range with the crap mixed into [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build > Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com In spite of my disagreeing with you. At least in the US you can get a exemption if your viechiel is not said by the manufacture to use any ethanol. On the other hand, I know of very few that offically say they can not use it. KB SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. >>>> Some of us still drive vehicles with Carburetors and in my case >>>> 'lose' 50 to 100 miles per tank range with the crap mixed into [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > On the other hand, I know of very few that offically say they can not > use it. KB Well, now you do. The AMC Jeep's all have an ethanol and alcohol warning in their owners manual with the CJ7 carbureted engines outright forbidding it. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:476be28a$0$20826 $9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com: >>>>> Some of us still drive vehicles with Carburetors and in my case >>>>> 'lose' 50 to 100 miles per tank range with the crap mixed into [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build > Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com If it still has a carb the company has changed its offical position since the manual was written. most all manufactures in the late 90s oked 99% of there line up to be 10% ethanol compatiable. Check it out. KB PS if it has been quite a while since you tried it. They had some very out of spec stuff go through the punps in the early stages of branching out of the midwest. It caused some trouble in the eastern states that I remember for sure, don`t remember how wide spread it was. SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. >>>> Some of us still drive vehicles with Carburetors and in my case >>>> 'lose' 50 to 100 miles per tank range with the crap mixed into [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > On the other hand, I know of very few that offically say they can not > use it. KB You know Kevin, one thing you seem to miss is the nature of what I drive. It has the aerodynamics of a brick so needs 'full' power to be able to cruise at highway speeds. Any slight loss, means the gas pedal has to be mashed to the floor to hold 65 on a hill or in a head wind instead of floating along at half throttle. This makes a radical difference in gas mileage. The owners manual for both of my AMC Jeeps also warns of drivability and poor performance issues with the mix, let alone forbidding it's use in the CJ7 so it is even 'expected'. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:476c0a93$0$30680 $9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com: >>>>> Some of us still drive vehicles with Carburetors and in my case >>>>> 'lose' 50 to 100 miles per tank range with the crap mixed into [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build > Photos: ://mhttpikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com just for curiosity sake, what is your gearing, rear end ratio and tire size? compression ratio of the eng. too. also the dist advance curve if you know it. KB SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. > Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:476c0a93$0$30680 > $9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > size? compression ratio of the eng. too. also the dist advance curve if > you know it. KB I am running tall skinny BFG mud tires in a 33x9.5" size with 3.31 gears. This gives me 2300 rpm at 65 mph in 4th gear of my T5 tranny. I do not use overdrive or 5th gear because of lugging issues which again drops me by 5 mpg when I use it vs 4th. 5th at 65 mph is only 1725 or so RPM which is to low. In other words I am right at the edge of good drivability and gear ratios.... My 258 or 4.2L straight six engine has a 2bbl Weber-Carter BBD feedback carb on it with no computer running any emissions or the feedback circuit so it's totally manually set up. It has an Accel SuperCoil, slightly overgapped plugs, oversized straight pipe leading to a Dynomax SuperTurbo muffler, no cat needed on a CJ7 here in Canada and pretty much stock everything else. Base timing is at 9 deg BTDC with a ported vacuum source and a mechanical plate advance. My mechanical advance comes in full at approximately 1600 rpm. Ported advances with throttle. My light isn't fancy enough for the full advance degree reading. I have had two physical engines and several different distributors in, all giving me the same basic performance curve so figure it's 'right'. I can pass Canadian tailpipe emissions on the ASM 2525 test with 589 NOx , 16 ppm HC and 0.11% CO. I get a stable 23 mpg or 11L/100km highway (checked recently using Esso 91 octane) and it goes like a scalded cat with it's light all fiberglass body. 1st lights up the tires way too easy, 2nd tops out at 52 mph turning 4400 rpm, 3rd pulls hard up to 75 mph, 4th buries the speedo and I have 'no' urge to find out how fast 5th will go. It will purr along on our 400 series highways at a nice 120-140 kph so I can keep up to the big trucks easy. (120 kph in the slow lane usually around here holds up traffic, 100 kph or 65 mph is almost suicidal) We have taken it on three 3000 to 4500 'mile' vacation trips to the east coast even. All in all I/we love the old thing and have a new frame sitting in the back yard getting beefed up before installing in the spring. It needs it's TLC still. It is not forgiving about when needing a tune up either, LOL!... Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com Oh, compression ratio is either 8:1 or 8.5:1 as far as I can find out, not sure which. Mike Where I live they have been selling 10% gasohol at the farm co-op stations since the mid seventies. There aren't many of those around today (because the engine was the only thing AMC built to last)) but back then every AMC 258 engine I ever saw gets better mileage on 10% ethanol than straight gas. There were one of the best engines to tune for good mileage on gasohol. And cruising at 1700 RPM shouldn't be a problem either. -jim > > Mike Romain <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in news:476c0a93$0$30680 > > $9a6e19ea@unlimited.newshosting.com: [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build > Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com Well the owners manual says that the computer feedback carb engines can benefit from using high octane gas if run hard and hot so maybe the ethanol mix upped the octane enough to notice? I know I have two different engines with high test and regular because of my manual tuning, so I am already at the top of the performance peak which shows a decrease with the ethanol mix 'or' regular gas. I 'am' tuned with a 'real' 4400 rpm top end. Stock it hits a wall at 3500 rpm max, most hit the wall at 3300 under load. Mike > Where I live they have been selling 10% gasohol at the farm co-op stations > since the mid seventies. There aren't many of those around today (because [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] >> 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build >> Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com > Well the owners manual says that the computer feedback carb engines can > benefit from using high octane gas if run hard and hot so maybe the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I 'am' tuned with a 'real' 4400 rpm top end. Stock it hits a wall at > 3500 rpm max, most hit the wall at 3300 under load. Oh I thought you were trying to get good gas mileage...... never mind. -jim > Mike > [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > >> 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build > >> Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com >> Well the owners manual says that the computer feedback carb engines can >> benefit from using high octane gas if run hard and hot so maybe the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -jim In order to get good gas mileage, you first must have good performance. If it is tuned to run like a pig, it will just drink gas. If it is tuned to the max, the mileage matches. The common saying is 'you need a tune up' when your gas mileage goes to crap right? >> Mike >> [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] >>>> 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build >>>> Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com > >> Well the owners manual says that the computer feedback carb engines can > >> benefit from using high octane gas if run hard and hot so maybe the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > The common saying is 'you need a tune up' when your gas mileage goes to > crap right? Right. So what's up with the thumpin your chest about 4400 rpm? It sounds like you have bad performance and bad gas mileage at 1700 rpm. -jim >>>> Well the owners manual says that the computer feedback carb engines can >>>> benefit from using high octane gas if run hard and hot so maybe the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > -jim I do so I just 'don't' run at 1700 rpm at highway speed in overdrive because my engine lugs there due to my tires and gearing. I keep in the top normal gear of 4th. By tuning my engine up manually so it has it's real 'red line' of 4500 rpm back rather than an artificial red line caused by the governor 'effect' built into the Ford Emissions computer AMC used, I get a 25% seat of the pants boost in power 'and' the same increase in gas mileage while still passing emissions with low numbers. The stock machines used a Ford computer running a feedback carb that 'could benefit from high octane if run hard and hot or fully loaded' because they would ping despite a knock sensor according to the owners manual. If running high test didn't help, the owners manual says to 'lighten the load' also. I am 'already' at the top of the timing and power curve and 'need' high test to get the good mileage and performance I have so all the ethanol does for me is give me 'poor' performance and gas mileage in comparison to running 'real' gas like the owners manual states to use. If I use regular gas or an ethanol mix, I lose about 100 miles per tank range. The last tank of ethanol mix ran empty at 225 miles. The last tank of regular lasted just over 265 miles. Thankfully I carry a full gas can with me. I go 350 miles between fills on high test. We will have to see what this mandated 10% food additive BS is going to do to the mileage, let alone the carb parts, gas pump diaphragm and fuel lines that go gooey... Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com > >>>> Well the owners manual says that the computer feedback carb engines can > >>>> benefit from using high octane gas if run hard and hot so maybe the [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > seat of the pants boost in power 'and' the same increase in gas mileage > while still passing emissions with low numbers. Here's the problem: What your engine does or does not do above 3000 RPM has nothing to do with getting good gas mileage. Particularly with the type of engine you have. Only a moron would make a statement such as "it has it's real 'red line' of 4500 rpm back rather than an artificial red line caused by the governor" in the context of a discussion on how to get good gas mileage. You are not going to get good gas mileage going down the road at 4500 rpm so why even bring it up? The fact that you get much better gas mileage using higher octane fuel sounds believable. At least it would if some other person said it - your obvious lack of impartiality makes any numbers you give suspect. However that doesn't have much at all to do with whether ethanol is good for your engine. It is more than likely that at least some of the octane boost in that premium fuel you like comes from ethanol. The fuel that you are disparaging as ethanol fuel is more than likely some very very low octane fuel that has some sort of promotion behind (either by the government or the oil companies). Where I live premium (high octane) gas has had ethanol in it for at least 25 years and they proudly display that information because in many respects ethanol is viewed as a much better additive than any of the other alternatives. At any rate you haven't made a case against ethanol at all only against low octane fuel. Who knows, where you live they may only identify the cheapest fuel as having ethanol because they know that some morons will be willing to pay for the more expensive stuff based on that revelation alone. The fact is it costs more to produce high octane fuel it always has. That is one of many things that the detractors of ethanol conveniently overlook. Anything you add to the fuel to boost octane is going to cost a lot more than the base 80-85 octane stuff that is the cheapest fraction of the petroleum crude to come out of the refineries. Whether or not you could tune your 258 to get better efficiency on low octane is another open question. The fact is that particular engine's distributor and carb (don't overlook temp controls) are set up to be able to make that sort of adjustments very easily and thus it is quite possible to maximize fuel economy for any particular fuel and operating conditions. Inevitably, you are always going to get better mileage with higher octane (if you impartially compare peak efficiency for both grades) but that extra efficiency may or may not be good enough to offset the extra cost of the higher grade. -jim > The stock machines used a Ford computer running a feedback carb that > 'could benefit from high octane if run hard and hot or fully loaded' [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build > Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com > Here's the problem: > > What your engine does or does not do above 3000 RPM has nothing to do > with getting good gas mileage. If the top end is 3500 RPM, which is 'full throttle or the pedal to the metal, then cruising at 2300 rpm needs about 3/4 of the throttle pedal. When the top end is 4500 rpm on the same engine, again that is pedal to the metal, then cruising at 2300 rpm only needs about half throttle. This 25% difference in the gas pedal position 'sure' appears to translate into a sweet 25% 'increase' in gas mileage. It has for me and over a half dozen others I have tuned up with the emissions 'governor' gone. Why is this hard to understand? Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com >> Here's the problem: >> What your engine does or does not do above 3000 RPM has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build > Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com Better gas mileage comes from having the throttle opened more, not less. This is the main purpose for egr now. More throttle with more dead gas equals less pumping losses. >>> Here's the problem: >>> What your engine does or does not do above 3000 RPM has nothing [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > This is the main purpose for egr now. More throttle with more dead gas > equals less pumping losses. I have a carburetor engine... Mike > >> Here's the problem: > >> What your engine does or does not do above 3000 RPM has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Better gas mileage comes from having the throttle opened more, not less. So now we have one moronic theory to counter another. Having the throttle wider open will give you better mileage iff that is accomplished by putting in a smaller engine. Sure if you put in a smaller more efficient engine then you can run down the road at WOT and that will give you better fuel economy. But only an idiot would think that tuning your engine so that it requires wide open throttle to maintain the same speed rather than tuning it so that 1/2 throttle will give you that same power is going to increase your gas mileage. At least Mike has that part right. But that has nothing to do with ethanol or what he could be getting in fuel economy. If anybody still remembers ethanol and good gas mileage was the topic of discussion. The 258 is a long stroke engine with excellent low end power. So tuning it so that it doesn't run well at the engine rpm where it is designed to run most efficiently is not going to give you the best mileage even if it does give you better mileage than somebody else's sick engine. It is no big surprise that a bunch of stuff that was stuck on to a good engine to supposedly control emissions resulted in poor performance and bad fuel economy at whatever RPM. Remember this was AMC and they went out of business and there was a good reason for that. > This is the main purpose for egr now. The initial intent of EGR was to reduce NOX emissions. It was discovered that it also acted like an octane boost which does allow you to tune an engine with more advanced timing and leaner mixture which can translate into better fuel efficiency (but to some extent defeating the original intent). >More throttle with more dead gas equals less pumping losses. If you are going from point A to point B in a certain vehicle with a certain gear ratio and their are no losses due to things like the tires slipping then you will have exactly the same number of engine revolutions no matter how you plant your foot on the throttle. How is running more gas and air thru a fixed number of cycles going to improve the mileage? -jim >>>> Here's the problem: >>>> What your engine does or does not do above 3000 RPM has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > -jim Same gas, same air. More dead gas. More throttle for same amount of good air. The otto engine is most efficient at wide open throttle. Those old economy runs where they got insane gas mileage were all done at full throttle. > Same gas, same air. More dead gas. More throttle for same amount of > good air. The otto engine is most efficient at wide open throttle. > Those old economy runs where they got insane gas mileage were all done > at full throttle. sure but they engineered it with a tad bit more knowledge than 'we need to drive this thing at wide open throttle'. Since that little tiny bit of the knowledge seems to be the only part of the total knowledge you possess it is unlikely that you would ever be able to even come close to getting the type of fuel economy the average driver does. >> >> Here's the problem: >> >> What your engine does or does not do above 3000 RPM has nothing to [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > no matter how you plant your foot on the throttle. How is running more gas > and air thru a fixed number of cycles going to improve the mileage? It's not that simple. First off, you won't get any more air in the cylinder unless it is forced in. If you add more fuel you get a bigger bang in the cylinder which delivers more power to the rear wheels, which carries the vehicle further down the road. Of coarse this only works to a point and then fuel economy suffers but power will still be increasing. > -jim If you add more fuel you get a bigger bang in the > cylinder which delivers more power to the rear wheels, which carries the > vehicle further down the road. No incorrect. What that illustrates is your complete lack of understanding. A car does not skid along the road like a hockey puck propelled by little puffs of fuel explosions like you imagine. Driving down the highway (in high gear) the crankshaft is linked to the wheels directly in such a way that each explosion caries the vehicle exactly the same distance no matter whether you imagine the explosions are big or little. That is if you drive from point A to point B in top gear there will be a fixed number of engine revs involved. What more power to the piston means is that you get their faster. That is, the piston moves faster so the car goes the same distance in less time. So if you think about what you are saying (obviously, not something you are used to) your claim is that the faster you go (i.e. the more throttle) the better the gas mileage. That is just plain wrong. > If you add more fuel you get a bigger bang in the >> cylinder which delivers more power to the rear wheels, which carries the >> vehicle further down the road. > > No incorrect. No, not incorrect. The more fuel you can burn the more power to the rear wheels. Think of it as a rifle. The more powder in the cartridge the faster the bullet moves. It's not rocket science, it's simple physics. > What that illustrates is your complete lack of understanding. A car does > not skid along the road like a hockey puck Nobody but you is making that claim !!!! propelled by little puffs of > fuel explosions like you imagine. Then tell me what does happen in those cylinders when the air/fuel mixture is ignited. Driving down the highway (in high gear) > the crankshaft is linked to the wheels directly in such a way that each > explosion Whoops !! You just said above that "propelled by little puffs of fuel explosions like you imagine." don't happen. So which is it Jim, they happen or they don't ???? caries the vehicle exactly the same distance no matter whether > you imagine the explosions are big or little. That is if you drive from > point A to point B in top gear there will be a fixed number of engine revs > involved. > > What more power to the piston means is that you get their faster. Why would it mean you get there faster ?? It's not like you neeed to add twice the fuel to make this happen. We're talking about richening the fuel mixture slightly, like a % point or two. That > is, the piston moves faster so the car goes the same distance in less > time. So if you think about what you are saying (obviously, not something > you are used to) your claim is that the faster you go (i.e. the more > throttle) the better the gas mileage. That is just plain wrong. Jim, you are a f.cking moron. You need to study more on the topics you are trying to debate. > Jim, you are a f.cking moron. You need to study more on the topics you are > trying to debate. Well at least I can read a whole sentence and comprehend its meaning. You don't seem to be able to comprehend any more than 2 or 3 words from any one sentence - that makes debating impossible. >>> Here's the problem: >>> What your engine does or does not do above 3000 RPM has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > This is the main purpose for egr now. More throttle with more dead gas > equals less pumping losses. Not quite. A larger throttle opening improves the volumetric efficiency of an engine. This does not mean that driving at full throttle will give you better mileage. The main purpose of EGR is to reduce Oxides of Nitrogen. > > Here's the problem: > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build > Photos:http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com Because throttle opening and rpm are only connected in steady state, i.e, cruising on level ground at constant speed. But cars get pretty good milage under those conditions anyway. It is acceleration where we lose a lot of efficiency, and during acceleration rpm and throttle opening are not uniquely connected. >> >>>> Well the owners manual says that the computer feedback carb engines >> >>>> can [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > for your engine. It is more than likely that at least some of the octane > boost in that premium fuel you like comes from ethanol. I believe that all gasoline containing ethanol must be labeled as such at the pump. The fuel that you > are disparaging as ethanol fuel is more than likely some very very low > octane fuel that has some sort of promotion behind (either by the > government or the oil companies). Yes, that's it, they would promote some sh.t fuel as ethanol. Makes perfect sense, right? Where I live premium (high octane) gas > has had ethanol in it for at least 25 years and they proudly display that > information because in many respects ethanol is viewed as a much better > additive than any of the other alternatives. I've got news for you, it's not "proudly dispalyed". It is labeled as containing ethanol because ethanol is really a shitty fuel additive. Ethanol is corrosive and detrimental to certain rubber compounds used as fuel lines and carb gaskets. A gasoline/ethanol blend is also harmful to small aircooled engines such as lawnmowers and garden tractors as it leans them out and causes them to run hot. It can be deadly to any 2 stroke engine as ethanol doesn't mix well with 2-stroke oils and can cause oil/fuel sepearation. These are the reasons it's so "proudly dispalyed" at the pump. At any rate you haven't made > a case against ethanol at all only against low octane fuel. He said he loses "100 miles per tank" on an ethanol blend, does that sound normal to you ? Who knows, > where you live they may only identify the cheapest fuel as having ethanol > because they know that some morons will be willing to pay for the more > expensive stuff based on that revelation alone. The fact is it costs more > to produce high octane fuel it always has. Do you have any figures to back that up or did you just pull it out of your a.s ?? That is one of many things that > the detractors of ethanol conveniently overlook. Ethanol sucks as a fuel additive and as a replacement motor fuel. Ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline but it only contains half the BTU's. You need to burn twice as much ethanol to get the same power as gasoline. Some of this loss in mileage can be recovered by building an engine just for ethanol as ethanol has a higher octane than gasoline so you would be able to run a higher compression ratio on an ethanol engine. This would give a small increase in mileage as well as an increase in horsepower and torque. Such a high compression engine would be unable to run on gasoline. Anything you add to the > fuel to boost octane is going to cost a lot more than the base 80-85 > octane stuff that is the cheapest fraction of the petroleum crude to come > out of the refineries. > > Whether or not you could tune your 258 to get better efficiency on low > octane is another open questio The fact is that particular engine's > distributor and carb (don't overlook temp controls) are set up to be able > to make that sort of adjustments very easily and thus it is quite possible > to maximize fuel economy for any particular fuel and operating conditions. This may be true, BUT, it still may get better mileage on a higher octane fuel. > Inevitably, you are always going to get better mileage with higher octane BULLSHITT !!! The gasoline manufacturers would like you to believe that nonsense but that doesn't make it true. If your engine was designed to run on 87 octane you won't likely see a difference in mileage with higher octane. > (if you impartially compare peak efficiency for both grades) but that > extra efficiency may or may not be good enough to offset the extra cost of > the higher grade. Correct. If you even see any difference at all with higher octane. It is also possible that running premium fuel may be detrimental to your engine. > -jim > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build >> Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com > I've got news for you, it's not "proudly dispalyed". It is labeled as > containing ethanol because ethanol is really a shitty fuel additive. Ethanol [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > mix well with 2-stroke oils and can cause oil/fuel sepearation. These are the > reasons it's so "proudly dispalyed" at the pump. In the mid seventies it was the farm co-op stations that started to sell gasohol. Do you think they were ashamed of the ethanol? They advertised it. As it turned out it became quite popular. Part of the reason was because people were getting better gas mileage on gasohol because at the same time they were phasing out lead. I don't know where Mike is or what the requirements are there for |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message