 |
 | 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 / April 2008Surprising increase in truck MPG
I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. I was never able to get more that about 220 miles out of a 22 gallon tank of gas, sometimes even less. However, the last three refills, gave me 280, 266, and 283 miles per refill. (I usually run until my tanks gets fully empty, since I have an emergency gas canister for the instance when I run out of gas). This represents approximately 22% increase in MPG that I have hard times explaining. I see three possible explanations. 1) Just before those refills, I did an oil change and used Mobil 1 synthetic oil. The previous oil changes were at a service station. 2) The engine had a chance to "burn in" and naturally improved its efficiency 3) something is seriously mistaken in my measurements. I am at a loss and am very puzzled. Can synthetic oil really account for that much of an increase? I highly doubt it. i >I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > i Mobil itself claims only a 2% improvement in fuel economy, with comparable oil weight. My experience is somewhat better, but, like you, I can't really account for break-in and so on. I use Mobil 1 5W-20 in my Ford Focus, and I intend to stick with it. -- Ed Huntress >>I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > I use Mobil 1 5W-20 in my Ford Focus, and I intend to stick with it. For the next oil change, I may use regular cheap oil to see if there is any difference. i >>> I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > For the next oil change, I may use regular cheap oil to see if there > is any difference. Has the mix between Highway and City driving changed much? You might also not want to run your tank down so far. Electric fuel pumps that are in the tank last a lot longer if you keep them well submerged. Just a thought.  SignatureJohn R. Carroll www.machiningsolution.com I would recommend you do not run until the tank is completely empty. The high pressure EFI fuel pump really doesn't like that. | Mobil itself claims only a 2% improvement in fuel economy Plain synthetic* is 50% more slippery than plain mineral oil, but a difference in torque ( fr using different oils ) is noticeable only @ high rpm, so the more usage @ high rpm produces the more rise in mpg : 2% is too low ( likely incl usage @ low rpm ), 5% must be the minimum rise in mpg @ high rpm if viscosity & qty are the same. | I use Mobil 1 5W-20 Here in Msia, this is the costliest *, Bardahl * with fullerene, is the cheapest * & must be the most slippery oil. >| Mobil itself claims only a 2% improvement in fuel economy >Plain synthetic* is 50% more slippery than plain mineral [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >fullerene, is the cheapest * & must be the most slippery >oil. Just out of curiosity, how much is Mobil 1 in Malaysia? (trying to compare Malaysia and Thai prices). Bruce-in-Bangkok (correct email address for reply) >>I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > comparable oil weight. My experience is somewhat better, but, like > you, I can't really account for break-in and so on. Mobil does not claim regular Mobil 1 provides a 2% increase. They do claim the new - "Mobil 1 0W-30 Advanced Fuel Economy is engineered to deliver outstanding engine protection and to offer improved fuel economy in vehicles where SAE 0W-30, 5W-30 or 10W-30 oil is recommended." They further claim (for the new grade) - " potential 2% fuel economy improvement (based on a comparison versus those grades most commonly used). Actual savings are dependent upon vehicle/engine type, outside temperature, driving conditions, adjusting tire pressure, and your current engine oil viscosity." I am confident that if you compared "regular" Mobil 1 0W20 to the Motorcraft Sysntehtic Blend 5W20 oil, you won't detect any significant mileage improvement (assuming a careful long term comparison). Fuel economy improvments are associated with two processes - reduced pumping losses and reduced friction. Pumping losses are primarily related to the oil viscosity. 5W20 oil, at least when new, has similar viscosity in most climates whether it is synthetic or conventional. Of course in very low temperature situation, synthetic oil might provide a benefit until the engine warms up, but this is trival for most people not in Canada or Alaska. Friction reduction is mostly accomplished through additives. One interesting fact is the that the test to determine if an oil qualifies for the Energy Conserving" designation compares the oil under test to a synthetic oil. To qualify, the oil under test (either syntehtic or converntional) must demonstrate a significant improvement in fuel economy comapred to the refernce synthetic oil. > I use Mobil 1 5W-20 in my Ford Focus, and I intend to stick with it. I use Mobil 1 in my Fusion and Frontier and plan to stick with it as well. I don't use it for the fuel savings.. I have compared the mileage for multiple vehicles when using Mobil 1 versus conventional oil (of the same viscosity) and never been able to detect a significant difference in fuel economy. I beleive Mobil 1 is better quality oil and that it provides superior protection to most conventional oils. Mostly I like the idea if I miss my regular oil change, I have some margin. Ed > I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > 3) something is seriously mistaken in my measurements. There you go. You have to use 'miles' to find 'miles per gallon', not the fuel gauge. Voltage differences, temperature, the tilt of the road and lots of other things make the fuel gauge nothing anyone should think of as 'accurate'. You check the odometer when you fill up. On your next fill, no matter if even a half a tank, you check the miles on the odometer again. This gives you the number of miles traveled and the amount of gas used to do so. Then you just divide the miles by how many gallons used. > I am at a loss and am very puzzled. Can synthetic oil really account > for that much of an increase? I highly doubt it. > > i 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 >> I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > gives you the number of miles traveled and the amount of gas used to do > so. Then you just divide the miles by how many gallons used. Mike, the gallons used number was rather consistent. Otherwise your idea is very good. i >> I am at a loss and am very puzzled. Can synthetic oil really account >> for that much of an increase? I highly doubt it. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build > Photos: http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com >>> I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. >>> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > i Consistent enough to be off 16 miles or +/- 5%. For a fuel gauge, this is wickedly accurate or your eye on the line is. Even a head wind vs a tail wind can account for 5% mileage difference when actually measured by the 'miles' driven. >> 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 > > I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 'New' frame in the works for '08. Some Canadian Bush Trip and Build > Photos:http://mikeromainjeeptrips.shutterfly.com Also, because of the variations in how far you fill the tank, one single milage measurement counts for little. Too much statistical variation. Take the average of at least ten fills. Record the data for each fillup. Then do statistical analysis. This is getting easier with cheap calculators that have this function (sigma or variance). You need to know the variance because any change less than the variance is not worth considering. >> You check the odometer when you fill up. On your next fill, no matter >> if even a half a tank, you check the miles on the odometer again. This >> gives you the number of miles traveled and the amount of gas used to do >> so. Then you just divide the miles by how many gallons used. Do you really think this is a reliable way to establish mileage? Is this something new? Has this ever been proven? What would happen, say, if one would do this over ten tankfuls? Do you think this would give an accurate measurement over a long trip? Do you think anyone under 25 could do the math? WHAT AN OUTSTANDING NOVEL IDEA! Steve <g> > >> You check the odometer when you fill up. On your next fill, no matter > >> if even a half a tank, you check the miles on the odometer again. This [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would do this over ten tankfuls? Do you think this would give an accurate > measurement over a long trip? > Do you think anyone under 25 could do the > math? Sadly, no. >>> You check the odometer when you fill up. On your next fill, no matter >>> if even a half a tank, you check the miles on the odometer again. This [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Steve <g> LOL. My Jeep has had a gas gauge that works when it wants to, like maybe 2 years out of the last ten and I use the odometer all the time for fill-ups. We even take it on 3 and 4000 mile camping trips to the east coast. When I hit 350 miles on my 20 gallon tank on a trip I know I need fuel soon. I ran out once at 386 miles I think it was fully loaded running hard (70+ mph which would be about 19 mpg). If I keep mine under 65 mph, I can get 21-22 mpg. Not bad for something with the aerodynamics of a brick. 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 > My Jeep has had a gas gauge that works when it wants to, like maybe 2 > years out of the last ten and I use the odometer all the time for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > under 65 mph, I can get 21-22 mpg. Not bad for something with the > aerodynamics of a brick. That's a little better than my '95 Cherokee with the 4.0 liter. I get a fairly steady 19 MPG at 60 MPH. Haven't tried it too much faster, there are no roads in Michigan's U.P that are over 55 MPH. Like you mentioned, aerodynamics of a barn door. >> My Jeep has had a gas gauge that works when it wants to, like maybe 2 >> years out of the last ten and I use the odometer all the time for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > faster, there are no roads in Michigan's U.P that are over 55 MPH. > Like you mentioned, aerodynamics of a barn door. Yike, it used to be 70 or maybe 75 in some parts of the UP. But gas was 36 cents/gallon then. d8-) It's 65 here in NJ. Does anyone stick to the 55 mph limit up there? (Of my two cars, the one that gets the worst mileage is around 31 mpg highway. 'Sure glad I don't have a truck right now. <g>) -- Ed Huntress "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in news:480a63d0$0$25050 $607ed4bc@cv.net: > Of my two cars, the one that gets the worst mileage is around 31 mpg > highway. 'Sure glad I don't have a truck right now. <g> The onetime car that I miss most these days was my '62 MG Midget. 948 cc 4-banger with 2 side-draft carbs, mechanical tach driven off the generator, Lucas electricals, and all. 33 MPG City and 55 MPG Highway. 'Course, it'd only do 85 MPH falling off a very high cliff... >"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in news:480a63d0$0$25050 >$607ed4bc@cv.net: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >'Course, it'd only do 85 MPH falling off a very high cliff... Sounds like my 850 Mini. Single carb - 60 mph in third, 55 in fourth and 50 MPG regardless how I drove it. Generally the accellerator pedal was nothing more or less than a switch. Or my 1949 VW 998. 45MPH with a good tailwind on the level. Cable brakes made even that speed interesting when it came time to stop (touch the pedal lightly, catch the "veer" and then stand on it). Got a "breakaway" coming in the Nakatindi highway from Bottswana to Livingstone one day and hit 70 - too scared to hit the brakes to attempt to slow it down!!!! That one generally never got better than about 30 MPG, if that. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>> My Jeep has had a gas gauge that works when it wants to, like maybe 2 >>> years out of the last ten and I use the odometer all the time for [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > -- > Ed Huntress Here in Ontario Canada, the main 400 series highways average 110-120 kph in the slow lane. 110 or 70 mph holds up traffic usually. 140 kph in the center lane and if they catch you at over 150 kph in the fast lane, you lose the car for a week.... If you follow the traffic flow, they won't pick you out, you have to do something dumb to get nailed. 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 Haven't tried it too much > > faster, there are no roads in Michigan's U.P that are over 55 MPH. > > Like you mentioned, aerodynamics of a barn door. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's 65 here in NJ. Does anyone stick to the 55 mph limit up there? > -- > Ed Huntress Hi Ed.. the only road in da U.P. that's over 55 is 60 miles of I75 from St. Ignace to the Soo. But I never get that far east. If I drive south I can hit 41 just north of Green Bay, I think that is 65 or 70. Does anyone stick to 55? Nah. You know Ed, this is a part of Michigan (the Keweenaw) that most folks downstate don't realize is here. LOL > Haven't tried it too much > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > You know Ed, this is a part of Michigan (the Keweenaw) that most folks > downstate don't realize is here. LOL Yes some people do drive 55, between Raco and the Soo the cops have (well, had) a real hard-on for automotive engineers and test drivers in prototypes. Their dislike is not entirely unwarranted however... nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Haven't tried it too much >> > faster, there are no roads in Michigan's U.P that are over 55 MPH. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You know Ed, this is a part of Michigan (the Keweenaw) that most folks > downstate don't realize is here. LOL Well, in the middle of winter, it almost isn't. <g> At one point, Copper Harbor had the highest average snowfall in the continental US. -- Ed Huntress > I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > i I'm going to take a wild guess - that traffic is running a bit slower. Richard Signature(remove the X to email) Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English? John Wayne >> I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >I'm going to take a wild guess - that traffic is running a bit slower. traffic congestion drives down MPG for most vehicles. It would be rather rare that it would result in a steady speed that was better for his truck. >>>I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. >>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > rare that it would result in a steady speed that was better for his > truck. Kinda sorta exactly. When traffic slows down a bit and spreads out speeds tend to stabalize. Signature(remove the X to email) Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English? John Wayne >>>>I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > >When traffic slows down a bit and spreads out speeds tend to stabalize. On what planet? When traffic slows down here, it clumps and clumps grow into each other and when the clumps meet it soon becomes stop and go. > I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > i Could be any of the three, but Mobil 1 is very good stuff. I always get receipts from every fill up and I write the current odometer reading on them so I can eventually take a stack of those receipts and punch them into my MPG spreadsheet. > I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > i I never think in terms of MPG (miles per gallon), but rather in terms of GPH (gallons per hour) . At the speeds we are allowed to travel this is a better gauge of fuel/engine performance. cheers T.Alan "T.Alan Kraus" wrote: I never think in terms of MPG (miles per gallon), but rather in terms of > GPH (gallons per hour) . At the speeds we are allowed to travel this is a > better gauge of fuel/engine performance. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ You will get *really good* gallons per hour standing still with the engine idling. How is that a measure of anything useful? Assuming that you need to know the gallons per hour, how do you get numbers? Do you have a flowmeter in your gas line? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > You will get *really good* gallons per hour standing still with the engine > idling. exactly my point! How is that a measure of anything useful? Assuming that you need > to know the gallons per hour, how do you get numbers? Do you have a > flowmeter in your gas line? I have a watch, and the gas pump tells me how much gas I pumped cheers T.Alan > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >> You will get *really good* gallons per hour standing still with the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I have a watch, and the gas pump tells me how much gas I pumped ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Oh, so you're talking about gallons per hour going INTO the tank. That's more of a property of the gas pump than the car. On Apr 18, 11:21 am, Ignoramus15242 <ignoramus15...@NOSPAM. 15242.invalid> wrote: > I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > i I'd vote for the drivetrain getting broken in, with possibly an adjustment for seasonal changes and/or fuel formulations. I regularly get 400+ miles from a tank of gas in my car in the summer, but it drops to 325-350 in the winter. I blame increased use of the A/C (for defrost) and am curious if the difference between "summer gas" and "winter gas" contributes in any way. nate I'd vote for the drivetrain getting broken in, with possibly an adjustment for seasonal changes and/or fuel formulations. I regularly get 400+ miles from a tank of gas in my car in the summer, but it drops to 325-350 in the winter. I blame increased use of the A/C (for defrost) and am curious if the difference between "summer gas" and "winter gas" contributes in any way. nate Also in the summer your oil viscosity will be down. I'd suspect the service station has been using a higher viscosity mineral oil. Don't think it's synthetic that makes the difference, I think its viscosity (at operating temperature). Synthetics hold their viscosity better as they warm up (which goes the "wrong" way). > I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > i Live in an area in the US that uses reformulated gas for the colder months? That increase is the same you would find here in NY after they switch over to the summer blends of gas. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York Life is not like a box of chocolates it's more like a jar of jalapenos- what you do today could burn your a.s tomorrow! >> I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > months? That increase is the same you would find here in NY after they > switch over to the summer blends of gas. That's possible, yes. Strange. i On Apr 18, 11:21 am, Ignoramus15242 <ignoramus15...@NOSPAM. 15242.invalid> wrote: > I have a Chevy Silverado pickup that is by now about 18 months old. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > i Could be your part of the world just got the seasons 1st shipment of 'non-winter-blend' gasoline. Or maybe they were selling gasohol (10% ethanol) and stopped. Dave Get a container rated for gasoline storage.Put one accurately measured gallon of gasoline in the container.Mount it to the fuel intake of your vehicle's engine.Miles per gallon. cuhulin > Get a container rated for gasoline storage.Put one accurately measured > gallon of gasoline in the container.Mount it to the fuel intake of your > vehicle's engine.Miles per gallon. > cuhulin Far easier to fill up at the same station and pump each time and to top off the tank (despite the dire warning stickers), collect the receipt from the pump and write the current mileage on it. Collect a handful of these receipts and you can easily calculate a very accurate MPG. > Get a container rated for gasoline storage.Put one accurately measured > gallon of gasoline in the container.Mount it to the fuel intake of your > vehicle's engine.Miles per gallon. > cuhulin Man, nobody except a TV show is going to do that. Yes, feasible, but it isnt going to happen. Previously posted how to measure miles per gallon. >> Get a container rated for gasoline storage.Put one accurately measured >> gallon of gasoline in the container.Mount it to the fuel intake of your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Previously posted how to measure miles per gallon. It was the EPAs test method until they switched to the current computer modeling system. It is also in many of the older engine textbooks as well. SignatureSteve W. Near Cooperstown, New York >>> Get a container rated for gasoline storage.Put one accurately measured >>> gallon of gasoline in the container.Mount it to the fuel intake of your [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It was the EPAs test method until they switched to the current computer > modeling system. It is also in many of the older engine textbooks as well. I agree, it used to be a standard way of doing things, but with most cars having fuel injection now it is not too convenient. By the same token, I doubt the OP has the equipment to safely jury rig such a device on a carbureted automobile. So I stand by "feasible, but is isnt going to happen" > > Get a container rated for gasoline storage.Put one accurately measured > > gallon of gasoline in the container.Mount it to the fuel intake of your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Previously posted how to measure miles per gallon. Also really difficult to do on Iggy's 18 month old *fuel injected* truck. > On Apr 18, 11:21 am, Ignoramus15242 <ignoramus15...@NOSPAM. > 15242.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Or maybe they were selling gasohol (10% ethanol) and stopped. So, is "gasohol" really that much less energy dense??? i In rec.crafts.metalworking Ignoramus15242 <ignoramus15242@nospam.15242.invalid> wrote: (snip) > > Or maybe they were selling gasohol (10% ethanol) and stopped. > So, is "gasohol" really that much less energy dense??? > i http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=energy%20density Gasoline is 9700 Wh/l Ethanol is 6100 Wh/l So, from that, 10% ethanol gasoline is: 9340 Wh/l, so somewhere in the range of about 4% less energy dense. Other oxygenates can have a better or worse effect than ethanol. >>On Apr 18, 11:21 am, Ignoramus15242 <ignoramus15...@NOSPAM. >>15242.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > i Yes. If your fuel is 10% ethanol, it will have about 5% less energy than an equivalent volume of straight gasoline. nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > >>On Apr 18, 11:21 am, Ignoramus15242 <ignoramus15...@NOSPAM. > >>15242.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Yes. If your fuel is 10% ethanol, it will have about 5% less energy > than an equivalent volume of straight gasoline. But that is a totally meaningless statement given that you are talking to a guy who is getting 10 miles per gallon which means he is throwing away (wasting) a lot more energy in every gallon of fuel than he is using. Studies in fleet vehicles have consistently shown that adding 10% alcohol to gasoline INCREASES mpg by about 3 to 5 percent. It is also well known that the addition of alcohol to gasoline results in higher octane and in more complete combustion of the fuel than gasoline alone. Which explains why energy content calculations mean nothing. However, The OP reports he was getting 10 mpg and it has recently increased to about 12 mpg - it is doubtful ethanol has much to do with his poor gas mileage. But if it does have anything to do with it - it is more likely the increase in mileage was due to gasohol not the other way around. -jim ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > > >>On Apr 18, 11:21 am, Ignoramus15242 <ignoramus15...@NOSPAM. > > >>15242.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > a guy who is getting 10 miles per gallon which means he is throwing away > (wasting) a lot more energy in every gallon of fuel than he is using. Baloney. 10 MPG is a perfectly reasonable figure depending on the vehicle and what you are doing with it. If he was getting 10 MPG and it suddenly improved a couple MPG and his pickup isn't a 1 T heavy duty model then perhaps has has had a problem with a bad sensor connection or something that was hurting the mileage and that problem has cleared itself. 10 MPG isn't unreasonable for a 1 T dually with a big block hauling stuff around, but if it's a 1/2 T SRW under ordinary use it should do a bit better than that. Perhaps Iggy can post the detail on the truck, including axle ratio so others can give him and idea of what he should be getting for MPG and he can see if his MPG is in the expected range. >> > >>On Apr 18, 11:21 am, Ignoramus15242 <ignoramus15...@NOSPAM. >> > >>15242.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > he should be getting for MPG and he can see if his MPG is in the > expected range. I improved my MPG quite a bit recently. I changed my air filter. There are quite a few things one can do to improve mileage that are cheap or free. Steve > I improved my MPG quite a bit recently. I changed my air filter. > There are quite a few things one can do to improve mileage that are > cheap or free. Reducing speed by 5 MPH can also have a noticeable impact upon fuel economy. <grin> So can adding a bit of air pressure to the tires if they're not already at maximum. In city driving, shutting off the engine while waiting for the traffic jam to resolve itself can save quite a bit as will any other technique that reduces engine idle time. [Sweating uses less fuel than staying cool.] >I improved my MPG quite a bit recently. I changed my air filter. There are >quite a few things one can do to improve mileage that are cheap or free. > >Steve I could likely get another couple of MPG if I emptied the van and removed the passenger seats, and then raised my tire pressure 2 or 3 PSI, took off the roof rack, and removed the bra from the front. Between the seats and the stuff I carry around there is likely close to 200 lbs. When I take off the Dunlop Graspics and put the Goodyear touring tires back on it will also make a difference of close to a MPG. That should happen this next week. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>I improved my MPG quite a bit recently. I changed my air filter. There are >>quite a few things one can do to improve mileage that are cheap or free. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > happen this next week. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** As we approach $4 per gallon, I'm considering removing the roof rack from my Blazer. That silly thing has got to cost 2 or 3 mpg! Richard Signature(remove the X to email) Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English? John Wayne > Baloney. 10 MPG is a perfectly reasonable figure depending on the > vehicle and what you are doing with it. If he was getting 10 MPG and it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > he should be getting for MPG and he can see if his MPG is in the > expected range. It is a Silverado 2500HD pickup with a 5.9 liter engine, not sure about axle ratio. SignatureDue to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers you will need to find a different means of posting on Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/ > > Baloney. 10 MPG is a perfectly reasonable figure depending on the > > vehicle and what you are doing with it. If he was getting 10 MPG and it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > It is a Silverado 2500HD pickup with a 5.9 liter engine, not sure > about axle ratio. Axle ratio should have been listed on the window sticker. It's also one of the codes on the glove box RPO sticker. Axle ratio can make a pretty large difference in performance and MPG. A vehicle hauling a lot of weight does better with a high ratio, while a low ratio is best for MPG, but hurts hauling performance. As a comparison point, my K3500 DRW with 7.4 l engine and 4.56 axle ratio gets about 11 MPG moving it's 7,000# with or without the first few thousand pounds of cargo. Loaded with a 2,000# truck camper, 10,000# trailer and additional cargo to 20,000# gross, it gets about 9.5 MPG. I don't have first hand experience with your model truck (I'm sure others here do), but I would expect it to get perhaps 16-18 MPG if it has the default low axle ratio. If it has a GVW under 10k it should have some EPA MPG estimate numbers (also on the window sticker) that should be reasonably close to what to expect. I'd take a few weeks of filling the tank and logging the mileage to get an accurate MPG number and see where you really stand. snip--------- > I don't have first hand experience with your model truck (I'm sure > others here do), but I would expect it to get perhaps 16-18 MPG if it [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I'd take a few weeks of filling the tank and logging the mileage to get > an accurate MPG number and see where you really stand. 1. I think, based on a 93 suburban (e.g. same mfg) with the smaller engine that 16 mpg is optimistic - my suburban gets 16 on the freeway with people in it, traveling long distances but less in town. 2. thermostat makes a big difference - if the car doesn't come up to temp the computer keeps it running rich - (and it fails smog test) - you can see this in the exhaust gas analysis report - going from a 160 to a 180 deg thermostat made quite an improvement. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** > snip--------- > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that 16 mpg is optimistic - my suburban gets 16 on the freeway with people > in it, traveling long distances but less in town. A Suburban weighs more than a pickup. > 2. thermostat makes a big difference - if the car doesn't come up to temp > the computer keeps it running rich - (and it fails smog test) - you can see > this in the exhaust gas analysis report - going from a 160 to a 180 deg > thermostat made quite an improvement. Reprogramming the ECM so it goes closed loop with the 160 t-stat will also fix that problem, without running the engine too hot and cooking every wire and piece of plastic in the engine compartment. >> snip--------- >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >also fix that problem, without running the engine too hot and cooking >every wire and piece of plastic in the engine compartment. And 180 is NOT too hot on most engines. An occaisional engine will have a high NOX emission when run at that temp, but the VAST majority will get better fuel mileage and lower HC and CO output at the higher temperature. The more heat you keep IN the engine, the more efficient it is.As long as you don't get detonation or other problems due to the increase heat (which are USUALLY not a factor below 190 - 195. On economy runs, operating temps of 215 and above are (or used to be) commonplace. ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** >>>snip--------- >>> [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > commonplace. > ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com ** Talking of econmy runs, It as just before D day here in the UK in 1944 when your grandfathers and fathers were under canvas all along the S coast. there were some woods opposite where they were camped and a couple of houses down they had their mess and some billetts. they were very kind to me, a 10 yr old at that time, giving me a Nux? bar, American comics such as Superman with Mr. Mxtlplk from cornucopia!! I even had a breakfast of creamed corn, hash browns bacon and eggs!! But what stuck in mt mind was popular mechanics magazine. In that there was an article on how to prepare for an economy run. Every car had just 1 gallon of petrol. Tyres machined so that there was only 2in of tread. thin oil in engine gearbox and axle. Radiator blanked off virtually no breaking, gentle acceleration . and lots of coasting. Some time ago i might add Cant remember much else!!. Such as mpg achieved. It was somewhere in the 60's to 70's mpg. I may be wrong. My parents asked one GI to come in and eat with us. Named Don. We kept in touch after the war when he got back to the USA. Remember it all very well. Does any of this ring a bell? Any one have popular mechanics from that time? Ted Frater Dorset UK I have been receiving snail mail Popular Mechanics and Popular Science magazines since the 1950s.I used to subscribe to Mechanix Illustrated and Science and Mechanics magazines too, untill they went belly up.I have read about some of those road trips before, to see which cars could get the best miles per gallon. Once in a while, I email back and forth with a woman in Bognor Regis, West Sussex County, in England on the South coast.I wonder what things were like there in World War Two.I am sixty six years old.I remember Rationing in America way back then. cuhulin >>>>snip--------- >>>> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > Ted Frater > Dorset UK Here are the covers from Popular Mechanics in 1944. Maybe you'll recognize it. May's cover story was "How much oil is left?" They were a little premature. <g>: http://www.welcometowallyworld.com/frontpage/2007/11/27/popular-mechanics-covers -1944.html -- Ed Huntress > Here are the covers from Popular Mechanics in 1944. Maybe you'll recognize > it. May's cover story was "How much oil is left?" They were a little [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Ed Huntress OOOoooo..... That one goes on the Proof page! :) Richard Signature(remove the X to email) Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English? John Wayne >> Here are the covers from Popular Mechanics in 1944. Maybe you'll >> recognize it. May's cover story was "How much oil is left?" They were a [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Richard I haven't read it, but a comment I saw said that PM claimed we'd be out of oil by 1955. Too bad the Club of Rome didn't read it; it would have saved them a lot of embarrassment 25 years later. d8-) -- Ed Huntress >>>Here are the covers from Popular Mechanics in 1944. Maybe you'll >>>recognize it. May's cover story was "How much oil is left?" They were a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > -- > Ed Huntress My first exposure to the "out of oil" situation was about 15 years ago. I checked out a book from the Air Force Library - yet another aircraft design book. In one chapter they were discussing the cost of building and operating future aircraft. It had a graph of domestic and world oil supply. Domestic supply ran out about 2010, world supply about 2025. Also depicted the Hubbert peak curves - which I later learned more about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory Scary stuff back then. And now, it seems to be coming true... Richard Signature(remove the X to email) Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English? John Wayne Axle ratio can make a pretty > large difference in performance and MPG. A vehicle hauling a lot of > weight does better with a high ratio, while a low ratio is best for MPG, > but hurts hauling performance. Really! I had an MR2 years ago, tiny bug of a car, and was APALLED that it got about 16 MPG! My Corolla station wagon has a similar engine, but carburetor instead of FI, and gets about 34 MPG in mixed driving, and 39-42 on the highway. Both had 5-speed manual trans. But, I can tell the Corolla has a MUCH lower final ratio. I even thought of swapping out the final gears in the MR2, but got offered one of those insurance settlements you can never pass up, especially as an increasing family size was looming, so I let them have it. Took a couple years to figure out why I was having so many "incidents" with the MR2 - people just DIDN'T SEE the thing! At least once a week I had somebody pull out of a driveway or side street RIGHT in front of me! Jon >It is a Silverado 2500HD pickup with a 5.9 liter engine, not sure >about axle ratio. And it only has a 22-gallon gas tank????? SignatureRegards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com) Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response. Download Nfilter at http://www.milmac.com/np-120.exe >>It is a Silverado 2500HD pickup with a 5.9 liter engine, not sure >>about axle ratio. > > And it only has a 22-gallon gas tank????? Yes. I would like to have a bigger tank. SignatureDue to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers you will need to find a different means of posting on Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/ > >>It is a Silverado 2500HD pickup with a 5.9 liter engine, not sure > >>about axle ratio. > > > > And it only has a 22-gallon gas tank????? > > Yes. I would like to have a bigger tank. Yea, 22 rather sucks. My 3500 has a 34 gal and it's not really adequate. I've been thinking about relocating the spare tire, installing a 30 gal Suburban tank there and replumbing to a dual tank setup. Still haven't got around to it though. >>>It is a Silverado 2500HD pickup with a 5.9 liter engine, not sure >>>about axle ratio. >> >> And it only has a 22-gallon gas tank????? > > Yes. I would like to have a bigger tank. So you don't drive the truck, you use it to store your investment gasoline. :) Signature"[I]t's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." -- Barack Obama at a meeting with his equals, the elitist bourgeoisie >>It is a Silverado 2500HD pickup with a 5.9 liter engine, not sure >>about axle ratio. > >And it only has a 22-gallon gas tank????? My '89 Ford F350 1ton has dual tanks. A 12 gallon and a 10 gallon. 351 fuel injected, 11,000 original miles 55mph = 15mpg 60mpg =13 mpg 65 mph =10.35 mpg Gunner "[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr > > But that is a totally meaningless statement given that you are talking to > > a guy who is getting 10 miles per gallon which means he is throwing away > > (wasting) a lot more energy in every gallon of fuel than he is using. > > Baloney. 10 MPG is a perfectly reasonable figure depending on the I didn't say anything about reasonable - but now that you introduced the concept into the conversation - only a moron would call 10 mpg "perfectly reasonable". The price of fuel is controlled by one thing - availability. The more fuel that is available the cheaper it is. The price goes up when there isn't enough oil on the market to meet demand. Buyers bid up the price until someone drops out of the bidding and then the price reaches an equilibrium with demand. Prices are headed up because there is no way today to increase oil production as fast as demand is increasing. The guy getting 10 mpg is going to probably start finally conserving when it gets to $10/gallon or is he so stupid he will still be driving this truck (and driving up the price of fuel) when gas costs $30/gallon? If millions of idiots like you had not been wasting fuel over the last 60 years then that wasted fuel would still be in the ground If it was still in the ground it would be easily available and thus it would be cheap. Petroleum would still be only a few dollars/barrel if it was still as available as it was 50 years ago. And it would still be easily available if it hadn't been wasted. It's easy to see why someone 50 years ago would not be smart enough to understand that, but what excuse does someone looking back have? -jim ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- > > > But that is a totally meaningless statement given that you are talking to > > > a guy who is getting 10 miles per gallon which means he is throwing away [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > concept into the conversation - only a moron would call 10 mpg "perfectly > reasonable". Only a moron would make such statements about 10 MPG and not take the work done into account. 10 MPG is perfectly reasonable when you're moving 20,000#. MPG does not measure efficiency, only economy. 10 MPG would be inefficient if you got it from a 2,000 econo box, it is not at all unreasonable or inefficient from a heavy truck. > The price of fuel is controlled by one thing - availability. The more > fuel that is available the cheaper it is. The price goes up when there [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to $10/gallon or is he so stupid he will still be driving this truck (and > driving up the price of fuel) when gas costs $30/gallon? Again moronic statements. The price of fuel is currently being heavily influenced by investors moving their money from the collapsing housing market into oil futures. It has little to do with current supply and demand. Indeed we are seeing an oil bubble forming and may well see that bubble burst in the next 12 months and fuel prices fall drastically. As for the person driving the 10 MPG truck, most of them can't do what they need to do in a 30 MPG econo box period. It's simple physics, you can't put 4,000# of sh.t into a 2,000# car, nor can you tow a 10,000# trailer. You drive the vehicle that is necessary to get the job done and that's all there is to it. > If millions of idiots like you had not been wasting fuel over the last 60 > years then that wasted fuel would still be in the ground If it was still [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not be smart enough to understand that, but what excuse does someone > looking back have? If millions of idiots like you actually understood what trucks are for and how the fuel markets worked, we might actually have a working national energy policy. Instead no progress is made due to idiots making moronic claims like those you have posted. > However, The OP reports he was getting 10 mpg and it has recently > increased to about 12 mpg - it is doubtful ethanol has much to do with his > poor gas mileage. > -jim Don't forget that the OP is actually 'eyeballing' his gas gauge for these 'tests'. He is 'not' checking his MPG, only his eye's accuracy on guessing what a gauge reading means.... When his 'eyeball' says the needle is on E, he fills up and thinks that is his 'gas mileage'. He says he does have a gas can 'just in case'. but has never actually run the tank empty in 'reality' to test how far a full tank might take him, nor has he ever done an odometer vs volume check. Just an observation most here are ignoring for some strange reason. 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 In 1973, I owned a 1962 Ford Falcon car, six cylinder engine, manual shift transmission.I was driving in Kentucky one night and the engine suddenly stopped running.I checked under the hood, the air filter was so clogged it had stopped the air flow to the carburetor.I dont remember what sort of miles per gallon I was getting with that car before it stopped running, but it must have been considerbaly better after I removed the clogged air filter.Of course I bought a new air filter later on. cuhulin >> However, The OP reports he was getting 10 mpg and it has recently >> increased to about 12 mpg - it is doubtful ethanol has much to do with his [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Just an observation most here are ignoring for some strange reason. I have receipts for gas somewhere, I can find them. The number of gallons added was more or less consistent every time. i > 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 SignatureDue to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by more readers you will need to find a different means of posting on Usenet. http://improve-usenet.org/ >>> However, The OP reports he was getting 10 mpg and it has recently >>> increased to about 12 mpg - it is doubtful ethanol has much to do with his [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >i Easiest thing is to reset the trip odometer every time you fill up. Fuel consumption is miles driven since the last fillup divided by gallons added, modulo small differences in "fullness" (or liters divided by km driven if you want to do the metric reciprocal thing). Best regards, Spehro Pefhany Signature"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward" speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com >>> Just an observation most here are ignoring for some strange reason. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >gallons added, modulo small differences in "fullness" (or liters >divided by km driven if you want to do the metric reciprocal thing). Indeed. Not recording miles driven and actual quantiy of fuel used, is simply mental masturbation Gunner, 19.5mpg average at 55mph, 18.5mpg average at 70mph 2001 Ford Ranger, 3.0, auto, aluminum service shell and an 8' ladder on the shell rack. Based on daily records over a 30 day period, all fuel bought at AM-PM. Btw..Mobil gets me 1.2 mpg more mileage, at about $0.12 gallon higher cost. Gunner "[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner Asch <gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote on Sat, 19 Apr 2008 15:27:25 -0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking : >>>> Just an observation most here are ignoring for some strange reason. >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Indeed. Not recording miles driven and actual quantiy of fuel used, is >simply mental masturbation Ah, but then you need to enter the numbers into a spread sheet, and additionally determine how many days between fill up, what the cost per day | week | month; fuel consumption per unit time and a comparison of "lite, med & heavy" travel months ... nerds with calculators. I found that mileage was best in the heavy travel months - more of highway miles. -- pyotr filipivich "I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender whether they served zombies he said, Sure, what'll you have?'" from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries > Ah, but then you need to enter the numbers into a spread sheet, > and additionally determine how many days between fill up, what the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I found that mileage was best in the heavy travel months - more of > highway miles. I normally log location, date, time, odometer reading, # miles travelled, on-board computer guesstimates of distance to empty and fuel economy, elapsed time of operation, # gallons, cost/gallon, total expense. This way, I can also keep an eye on just how close (if at all) the on-board computer is to reality. <grin> I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that "RAM³" <s31924.nospam@netscape.net> wrote on Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:03:07 GMT in rec.crafts.metalworking : >> Ah, but then you need to enter the numbers into a spread sheet, >> and additionally determine how many days between fill up, what the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >on-board computer guesstimates of distance to empty and fuel economy, >elapsed time of operation, # gallons, cost/gallon, total expense. Ufda. I log purchase date, odometer, elapsed miles, gallons and cost. OF course, I'm not keeping a daily or trip record, save for my own interests. (special trips.) >This way, I can also keep an eye on just how close (if at all) the on-board >computer is to reality. <grin> Ah, I'm the on board computer. An "Analog self-programming computer which can be assembled by unskilled labor in the dark." tschus pyotr -- pyotr filipivich "I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender whether they served zombies he said, Sure, what'll you have?'" from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries >>divided by km driven if you want to do the metric reciprocal thing). >> >Indeed. Not recording miles driven and actual quantiy of fuel used, is >simply mental masturbation > >Gunner, 19.5mpg average at 55mph, 18.5mpg average at 70mph Correction..should be 16.5 at 70 mph Gunner "[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr > Gunner, 19.5mpg average at 55mph, 18.5mpg average at 70mph > > 2001 Ford Ranger, 3.0, auto, aluminum service shell and an 8' ladder > on the shell rack. Geez, Gunner you shoulda got the 4 banger. My 2000 gets that kinda mileage for genuine "wait at the stoplight 3 cycles 'cause a.sholes are making left turns then drive two blocks and do it again", city driving. If I open it up on the highway I get 28mpg. But I also have a manual tranny and know how to use it. Paul K. Dickman >> Gunner, 19.5mpg average at 55mph, 18.5mpg average at 70mph >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Paul K. Dickman You probably dont have an 8' ladder on the roof rack, and 800 lbs of tools and spare parts in the shell all the time either. :) Gunner "[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr > You probably dont have an 8' ladder on the roof rack, and 800 lbs of > tools and spare parts in the shell all the time either. I don't either, but my 4 banger gets 19-20 at 60-65 pulling a 1600lb pop-up trailer. "Aerodynamics of a brick" indeed. -Brian >> You probably dont have an 8' ladder on the roof rack, and 800 lbs of >> tools and spare parts in the shell all the time either. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >-Brian You are a very lucky man indeed Gunner "[L]iberals are afraid to state what they truly believe in, for to do so would result in even less votes than they currently receive. Their methodology is to lie about their real agenda in the hopes of regaining power, at which point they will do whatever they damn well please. The problem is they have concealed and obfuscated for so long that, as a group, they themselves are no longer sure of their goals. They are a collection of wild-eyed splinter groups, all holding a grab-bag of dreams and wishes. Some want a Socialist, secular-humanist state, others the repeal of the Second Amendment. Some want same sex/different species marriage, others want voting rights for trees, fish, coal and bugs. Some want cradle to grave care and complete subservience to the government nanny state, others want a culture that walks in lockstep and speaks only with intonations of political correctness. I view the American liberals in much the same way I view the competing factions of Islamic fundamentalists. The latter hate each other to the core, and only join forces to attack the US or Israel. The former hate themselves to the core, and only join forces to attack George Bush and conservatives." --Ron Marr >>>>On Apr 18, 11:21 am, Ignoramus15242 <ignoramus15...@NOSPAM. >>>>15242.invalid> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Studies in fleet vehicles have consistently shown that adding 10% alcohol > to gasoline INCREASES mpg by about 3 to 5 percent. I find that hard to believe, but I suppose it might be possible with closed-loop engine controls, a high-compression engine, and a knock sensor/spark retard *if* you were previously running on low-octane Mexican fuel. Not all vehicles have closed loop, however (basically any engine without an oxygen sensor has no means of feedback mixture control) and I just don't see any mechanism by which a less energy dense could actually produce a lower BSFC at the same power output. > It is also well known > that the addition of alcohol to gasoline results in higher octane and in > more complete combustion of the fuel than gasoline alone. Which explains > why energy content calculations mean nothing. Higher octane doesn't mean squat unless you also mill the heads or otherwise increase the compression ratio. > However, The OP reports he was getting 10 mpg and it has recently > increased to about 12 mpg - it is doubtful ethanol has much to do with his > poor gas mileage. But if it does have anything to do with it - it is more > likely the increase in mileage was due to gasohol not the other way > around. I'm curious how you come to this conclusion... nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > I f |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message