 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / July 20082008 minivans: Honda Odyssey vs Toyota Sienna
I mean could they make the decision any more freakin difficult? These are both really really nice vechicles for those in the minivan market, and choosing between them is damned hard. I wanted to share my notes for any other poor bastard facing the same paralyzing decision. Yes, I'm an engineer, for better or worse. I guess the good news is that it seems hard to go wrong with either of them. I was shopping in a mid trim for both, and looking to pay around $26k before taxes. The Toyota dealer I'm working with has been AMAZING in the sales process and let me take a brand new one home overnight to see how we liked it, so I have had the opportunity to put about 70 miles on the vehicle and get a very good feel for it. The Honda I haven't spent as much time behind the wheel with but have taken on a side street test drive after much time in the Sienna. For specs/details specific to the trims I'm shopping, look here http://www.cars.com/go/compare/trimCompare.jsp?acodes=USB80TOV111B0,USB80HOV011B0 Toyota Sienna LE 7 passenger $25,741+ttl (assuming incentive financing) w/ options QF AL TO RL FE -------------------------------------------------------------------- + 4 year 0% financing currently available + engine power - actually chirped tires by mistake on an onramp passing a truck 22 more hp than Honda. + 3 more MPG than the Odyssey EX + reliability "above average" by CR verus "average" for Odyssey + Interior feels more refined. Dash/instrumentation looks much cooler + feels a bit more spacious, much more cargo room than Odyssey with all seats occupied, third row seat visually felt wider (and sure enough, specs show 3" more hip width in third row) + comes with Home link and integrated compass in the QF extra value package 2 that most dealer vehicles are delivered with. + This is silly, but ... you know when you have a gallon of milk in a grocery bag, or Chinese take out, and you put it on the floor of the passenger seat.... and you need the bag handles to be held up so the upper entre don't slide off or fall on their side and leak everywhere? Toyota thought of this and has a retractable little hook just to the left of the passenger seat just below kneecap level. Brilliant! + Timing chain, not belt. As someone who lost a timing belt on an 86 Civic years ago, and most recently had 9 months of drama and over a thousand bucks chasing down a subtle performance problem on my 2001 Subaru that got traced back to an issue with the installation of the 2nd timing belt the thing has been scheduled for... I'm likin the idea of not having a fuggin timing belt! ? Very cushy touring ride, ? Very cushy easy steering w/ less feedback. These are plusses for the wife, - for me. - to get 8 passengers you need to select an 8 passenger model in which you don't have captains chairs/arms in the 2nd row at all even if you get rid of the middle seat (which you'd have to remove from the vehicle, not just fold down and out of the way) - choosing options packages FAR more confusing than Honda's approach, but as it turns out, the mostly build an options mix that's rather EX like in the Sienna LE so picking options is easier in dealer stock than on paper. - The stock stereo seems to have annoyingly boomy bass that the bass control doesn't seem to trim out. - Driver Front Side crash rating is 4 star verus Honda's 5star. Rear dynamic crash rating is poor vs Honda Good. All other crash ratings are similar. - Apart from the usual too boring, or "too dark and will fade and show salt badly in winter" colors, the blue Toyota has this year is not as rich or eye catching as Honda's Ocean Mist Blue. Honda Odyssey EX $25,399+ttl (invoice-1500, assumes incentive financing) --------------------------------------------------------- + Brilliant 2nd row seat layout. The Honda mini 8th seat is just a fabulous design. It gives you an 8th passenger option (albeit for a narrow- assed friend) when you need it, but keeps your 2nd row main seats with captain's chair arms. + quite a bit less body roll on turns than Sienna + the integrated-into the door pull up rear sunshades are very slick + crash rating 5 star for driver, good for rear collisions. Toyota 4 star/poor. + As a fan of the blues in these two vans, the Ocean Mist Blue Honda has is quite sharp versus Toyota's lighter blue. + 1500 cash back w/ financing, or 2500 cash back without - 0.9% 3 year, or 1.9% 4-year financing are both much more costly than Toyota's 0% 4 year! - engine and gearing while extremely capable is noticeably less manly than Sienna off the line and in the passing lane - brakes on the new unit I test drove felt squishier than Toyota - slightly lower fuel economy than the Sienna, as the EX trim doesn't get cylinder management (you'd need to buy leather EX-L to get there) ? steering responsiveness/feedback is much more crisp, requires a bit more effort. Wife doesn't like this, I prefer it. Makes it feel nearly sporty, actually. ? tighter feeling suspension - expected reliability just average per Consumer Reports, yet every Odyssey owner I know seems to report they've had no problems. - No compass at this trim level. This would annoy the sh.t out of engineer me. - It's a Honda, and my 1986 Civic experience was--albeit for no fault of Honda's (2nd owner of vehicle and one careless repair guy conspired to make it a bit sucktacular)--far from the trouble free Honda experience other Civic owners had enjoyed, and I'm still not entirely over it. So, the verdict for me, with current incentives: Toyota Sienna. The superior reliability rating is very influential for me as someone who keeps cars a long time, their current "free money for 4 years" financing sounds great to me especialy when the stock market is currently in a historic sh.tter, the treatment we've received at this Toyota dealer has been unbefrigginlievable, and this dealer's support of a charitable cause near and dear to our hearts (and is related to their willingness to do overnight test drive for us) has garnered huge good will and karma for us as a bonus to the issues above. Comments welcome--hope this roundup is useful for others. They both are great minivans, and I just wish I could put the suspension, steering, and 2nd row seat layout of the Honda into the Sienna! Best Regards, -- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ >So, the verdict for me, with current incentives: Toyota Sienna. The >superior reliability rating is very influential for me as someone who [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >are great minivans, and I just wish I could put the suspension, >steering, and 2nd row seat layout of the Honda into the Sienna! As a convert to Toyotas I will agree that you have made a good decision. The Honda minivans are fine vehicles and actually I even prefer their looks but there are more things about Toyotas in general that appeal to me. About 3-4 years ago we rented a new Toyota minivan to take to the Outer Banks for a week. It was the second generation Sienna design. We were very impressed with the vehicle in general and made lots of jokes about the ten or so cupholders we found in it. The ride, power, quietness, thoughtful ergonomic details, quality of interior controls, etc. made an impression upon us. Up until that point neither one of us wanted a minivan but now we were hooked. Upon return from vacation I started shopping for a previous design model and ended up getting a 2000 Sienna, this is after test driving the neighbor's new Honda Odyssey. Since discovering Toyotas about fifteen years ago I haven't been able to ignore the sense of isolation from road/wind/engine noise and quality of interior features. Unfortunately my 1997 Camry appears to have skimped on some of those things yet it is still a quality vehicle below the shortcomings. > So, the verdict for me, with current incentives: Toyota Sienna. The > superior reliability rating is very influential for me as someone who [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > are great minivans, and I just wish I could put the suspension, > steering, and 2nd row seat layout of the Honda into the Sienna! Sounds like you made a decision, Todd..... When we faced the same choice 18 months ago, the deals were essentially the same, although Honda had a slightly better lease deal (which was our primary choice, although stupid in retrospect). The difference in the cars for me was that my wife and I both felt the Odyssey was a better handler - a bit tighter with the steering and suspension and the transmission was a little more crisp-shifting. My other car is an Audi A4, and the Odyssey felt more like a minivan that Audi might make, versus the Toyota feeling a little more Lexus-like. Dan D '07 Ody EX Central NJ USA >> So, the verdict for me, with current incentives: Toyota Sienna. The >> superior reliability rating is very influential for me as someone who [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Odyssey felt more like a minivan that Audi might make, versus the > Toyota feeling a little more Lexus-like. Agreed. The Odyssey definitely gets the "handles better" award! -- Todd H. http://toddh.net/ > I mean could they make the decision any more freakin difficult? These > are both really really nice vechicles for those in the minivan market, > and choosing between them is damned hard. We have an '07 Odyssey. At the time when we were shopping, the Honda could be had in 8 passenger in leather. The Toyota was only available in 7 passenger when you got leather. All other factors about the vehicles made them equal in our eyes. The final vote came down to if 1 could be had in 8 passenger, that's the one (my wife's logic, as 6 or 7 passenger was enough in my mind seeing as we only have 2 kids. I was ready to get her an MB R350 which is only 6 passenger). Buying either is a mistake considering current gas prices. I would hold on to what you have until an equivalent hybrid is available at a reasonable price. > I mean could they make the decision any more freakin difficult? These > are both really really nice vechicles for those in the minivan market, [quoted text clipped - 114 lines] > Todd H. > http://toddh.net/ > Buying either is a mistake considering current gas prices. I would hold on > to what you have until an equivalent hybrid is available at a reasonable > price. What do you consider a reasonable price? In my opinion there is no hybrid that is priced reasonably, yet. Plus, it is only intermediate technology. The Sienna gets 25-28 MPG. If he needs a larger vehicle, the Sienna is an excellent choice. Excellent ride, good gas milage, reliable. > > I mean could they make the decision any more freakin difficult? These > > are both really really nice vechicles for those in the minivan market, [quoted text clipped - 115 lines] > > Todd H. > > http://toddh.net/ -- > The Sienna gets 25-28 MPG. This is hard for me to believe. >> The Sienna gets 25-28 MPG. > > This is hard for me to believe. Hard for the EPA to believe, too... ;-) 18/23 City/Hwy  SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X > >> The Sienna gets 25-28 MPG. > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 18/23 City/Hwy I tell truth. I don't care what EPA says. I've had vehicles where the EPA says I should get 16/19 and I got much worse. -- On Jul 17, 6:27 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The Sienna gets 25-28 MPG. > > This is hard for me to believe. It may get that on a long trip, but for day-to-day driving... From Consumer guide Automotive Forget the EPA. Consumer Guide's auto editors drove 150,000 miles last year. We drove to work, to day care, to the grocery store, and on vacation. We drove through record heat, blinding snow, driving rain, and confounding road construction, keeping track of every drop of fuel we used along the way. The EPA admits its fuel economy numbers are estimates. Our numbers are real. A typical Consumer Guide test car is evaluated by at least four editors, all of whom account for their individual fuel usage. Here are the vehicles in each class that used the least amount of fuel while in our care. Honda Odyssey-16.4 MPG Toyota Sienna-16.4 MPG http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2008-fuel-economy-champions.htm Consumer Reports faired a little better with 19 MPG. As one poster noted about the Odyssey "my normal gas mileage is 17 mpg in the city and 24.5-25 mpg on the highway. I've gotten as low as 15 mpg in the winter here (10% ethanol fuel) and as high as 27.1 mpg on the highway (traveling by myself with just two suitcases). I keep my tires at 37 psi, which is what made my gas mileage increase by 1-2 mpg." Another noted about his Sienna " I drive 80MPH and still get 24 MPG" which I will dismiss as total BS. In article <b1c62226-9512-4c81-8bb9-b9bad8d66fc3@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, > On Jul 17, 6:27 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Toyota Sienna-16.4 MPG Again, those numbers are way off from what I get and what my friends Ody gets. > http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2008-fuel-economy-champions.htm > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Another noted about his Sienna " I drive 80MPH and still get 24 MPG" > which I will dismiss as total BS. -- If one owns a vehicle that has an onboard fuel computer you will discover they most efficient speed to drive is around 70 MPH, not 60 MPH. At 75 it is only a mile or two less but still two or three more than when I drive 55 MPH. On Jul 17, 6:27 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > dbu, 7/17/2008,5:54:16 AM, wrote: > > The Sienna gets 25-28 MPG. > > This is hard for me to believe. It may get that on a long trip, but for day-to-day driving... From Consumer guide Automotive Forget the EPA. Consumer Guide's auto editors drove 150,000 miles last year. We drove to work, to day care, to the grocery store, and on vacation. We drove through record heat, blinding snow, driving rain, and confounding road construction, keeping track of every drop of fuel we used along the way. The EPA admits its fuel economy numbers are estimates. Our numbers are real. A typical Consumer Guide test car is evaluated by at least four editors, all of whom account for their individual fuel usage. Here are the vehicles in each class that used the least amount of fuel while in our care. Honda Odyssey-16.4 MPG Toyota Sienna-16.4 MPG http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2008-fuel-economy-champions.htm Consumer Reports faired a little better with 19 MPG. As one poster noted about the Odyssey "my normal gas mileage is 17 mpg in the city and 24.5-25 mpg on the highway. I've gotten as low as 15 mpg in the winter here (10% ethanol fuel) and as high as 27.1 mpg on the highway (traveling by myself with just two suitcases). I keep my tires at 37 psi, which is what made my gas mileage increase by 1-2 mpg." Another noted about his Sienna " I drive 80MPH and still get 24 MPG" which I will dismiss as total BS. > If one owns a vehicle that has an onboard fuel computer you will discover > they most efficient speed to drive is around 70 MPH, not 60 MPH. At 75 it [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Toyota Sienna-16.4 MPG That's not what I'm getting. I own and drive a Sienna and I calculate over a number of trips my gas mileage. If anyone chooses to not believe me, fine, I don't care. I know what I get in gas mileage and that is all that matters to me. My friend who has a 08 Ody gets even better gas mileage and he is conservative and flat honest, if he didn't get what he gets he would say so. > http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2008-fuel-economy-champions.htm > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Another noted about his Sienna " I drive 80MPH and still get 24 MPG" > which I will dismiss as total BS. -- >> If one owns a vehicle that has an onboard fuel computer you will discover >> they most efficient speed to drive is around 70 MPH, not 60 MPH. At 75 it [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] >> Another noted about his Sienna " I drive 80MPH and still get 24 MPG" >> which I will dismiss as total BS. Howdy, Let me add something to the mix... I have an '04 Sienna AWD. I live in rural New Hampshire and so do very little stop-and-go driving. In the four years I have had the van, I have never gotten better than 18 mpg, and I have a light foot. The simple reality is that as is true for any manufactured product there are variations part to part, and they may have a cumulative effect. I don't doubt for a moment that there are folks who get far better mileage in what is ostensibly the identical car. All the best, SignatureKenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." > >> If one owns a vehicle that has an onboard fuel computer you will discover > >> they most efficient speed to drive is around 70 MPH, not 60 MPH. At 75 [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > All the best, 18 Is damn good for AWD. -- "Kenneth" ... > Let me add something to the mix... > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In the four years I have had the van, I have never gotten > better than 18 mpg, and I have a light foot. AWD in itself saps MPG. That invalidates a comparison to non-AWD Siennas. BTW, I get about 22 in my 98 Sienna in semi rural west central NJ driving. Tomes My Odyssey has a onboard computer that I verify every fill up. It gets 17 around city. Never better around town. End I have the more efficient engine that turns off 3 cylinders during coasting. I believe they may have a new version that can turn off 4 cyclinders in the Accord. Not sure if it is in the Odyssey though. >> If one owns a vehicle that has an onboard fuel computer you will discover >> they most efficient speed to drive is around 70 MPH, not 60 MPH. At 75 [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> Another noted about his Sienna " I drive 80MPH and still get 24 MPG" >> which I will dismiss as total BS. > My Odyssey has a onboard computer that I verify every fill up. It gets 17 > around city. Never better around town. End I have the more efficient > engine that turns off 3 cylinders during coasting. I believe they may have > a new version that can turn off 4 cyclinders in the Accord. Not sure if it > is in the Odyssey though. /all/ modern fuel injected cars turn of /all/ cylinders when coasting. it's /some/ cars that turn off cylinders when /cruising/. >>> If one owns a vehicle that has an onboard fuel computer you will discover >>> they most efficient speed to drive is around 70 MPH, not 60 MPH. At 75 [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] >>> Another noted about his Sienna " I drive 80MPH and still get 24 MPG" >>> which I will dismiss as total BS. >> My Odyssey has a onboard computer that I verify every fill up. It gets 17 >> around city. Never better around town. End I have the more efficient [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >it's /some/ cars that turn off cylinders when /cruising/. snip Mind explaining what you mean? By coasting do you mean rolling with the gear shift in neutral? If that is what you mean is engine cut out in this condition a requirement of North American autos as it certainly isn't so for European vehicles. In Europe it is becoming increasingly common for modern vehicles to stop the engine when at rest and for the engine to restart when the gas pedal (accelerator) is depressed. >>> My Odyssey has a onboard computer that I verify every fill up. It gets 17 >>> around city. Never better around town. End I have the more efficient [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Mind explaining what you mean? By coasting do you mean rolling with > the gear shift in neutral? no, coasting is when the momentum of the vehicle pushes against the engine and turns it even when you have your foot off the gas, like descending a hill or slowing to a stop. > If that is what you mean is engine cut out > in this condition a requirement of North American autos as it > certainly isn't so for European vehicles. no, it's for all electronic fuel injection vehicles, globally. the forward energy of the vehicle is rotating the engine - there's no point injecting gas when the motor's just pumping air coasting. > In Europe it is becoming > increasingly common for modern vehicles to stop the engine when at > rest and for the engine to restart when the gas pedal (accelerator) is > depressed. that's not coasting. > > Mind explaining what you mean? By coasting do you mean rolling with > > the gear shift in neutral? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > that's not coasting. Uh boy, another topic introduced! ;-) Re: the regular/super debate - here in NJ, we have regular (87), plus (89) and super (91/93). My Audi A4 turbo requires "super" - 91 octane - although I have run it with no issues on 89. My wife actually filled it with regular (87) once and it definitely was down on power. Don't recall the gas mileage (although I have it in my log). I can imagine some small towns (which is where I assume dbu lives) which don't carry all 3 grades. I've seen that in Maine, but if they have 87 and 89, it's still labeled 'regular' and 'plus', not 'super' for 89. And who uses 'Super' for their lawnmowers, etc?? I use the cheapest crap I can find, just like for the Odyssey. ;-) I filled it up yesterday for $3.83 (full serve, too, which is all we have in NJ). Dan D Central NJ USA >>>> My Odyssey has a onboard computer that I verify every fill up. It gets 17 >>>> around city. Never better around town. End I have the more efficient [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >that's not coasting. I'm well aware of that. Re coasting: the definition is simply forward motion due to force of gravity, I think you have added the bit concerning engagement of engine with drive train. With respect to the engine cutting out (either by gas cutoff or ignition cutoff or both) when the torque is reversed (vehicle driving engine), this is something new to me and I am pretty sure that doesn't occur in my Civic (2005) or in any other fuel injected vehicle I have driven worldwide. I take your point that there is no gain by injecting fuel under these circumstances. How does the engine detect 'torque reversal' to cutoff fuel and ignition? Does this occur each time you brake as braking is a 'coasting' event the way you define it. Incidentally what is 'electronic fuel injection' the converse of which is, I assume, 'mechanical fuel injection'. If you mean a carburetor in my 'parlance' a carburetor is an induction system not an injection system :-) re Collins English Dictionary 'induction'. >>>>> My Odyssey has a onboard computer that I verify every fill up. It gets 17 >>>>> around city. Never better around town. End I have the more efficient [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Re coasting: the definition is simply forward motion due to force of > gravity, why gravity? coasting is coasting - taking your foot off the gas while you're moving. > I think you have added the bit concerning engagement of > engine with drive train. i did. > With respect to the engine cutting out (either by gas cutoff or > ignition cutoff or both) you can cut off ignition, but i'm not aware of anyone who does - what's important is shutting off gas. > when the torque is reversed (vehicle driving > engine), this is something new to me and I am pretty sure that doesn't > occur in my Civic (2005) or in any other fuel injected vehicle I have > driven worldwide. it absolutely does. the point is, when you're coasting, you're primarily pumping air. not point injecting gas in that situation. > I take your point that there is no gain by > injecting fuel under these circumstances. How does the engine detect > 'torque reversal' to cutoff fuel and ignition? rpm and throttle position. > Does this occur each > time you brake as braking is a 'coasting' event the way you define it. yes. > Incidentally what is 'electronic fuel injection' the converse of which > is, I assume, 'mechanical fuel injection'. modern computer controlled electronically activated fuel injection. > If you mean a carburetor > in my 'parlance' a carburetor is an induction system not an injection > system :-) re Collins English Dictionary 'induction'. if i'd meant carburetor, i'd have said carburetor. >>>>>> My Odyssey has a onboard computer that I verify every fill up. It gets 17 >>>>>> around city. Never better around town. End I have the more efficient [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > >if i'd meant carburetor, i'd have said carburetor. OK, then restating my previous question, what is the converse to electronic fuel injection in a gasoline engine. Mechanical fuel injection is the normal system for diesel engines but not, AFAIK, used for gas engines. As I understand it you are saying that during the period when 'coasting' to stop no fuel is being admitted to the engine. If this correct at some point fuel must be readmitted to allow the engine to idle when the vehicle is at stop. The question is how does the 'system' determine when fuel is to be readmitted during the coasting event to prevent the engine from 'stopping' when at rest? Incidentally rpm and throttle position does not indicate torque reversal (coasting) as you have implied. >>>>>>> My Odyssey has a onboard computer that I verify every fill up. It gets 17 >>>>>>> around city. Never better around town. End I have the more efficient [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > injection is the normal system for diesel engines but not, AFAIK, used > for gas engines. the old bosch systems were pretty much mechanical. remember the ones with the braided line that ran to each cylinder? > As I understand it you are saying that during the period when > 'coasting' to stop no fuel is being admitted to the engine. If this > correct at some point fuel must be readmitted to allow the engine to > idle when the vehicle is at stop. The question is how does the > 'system' determine when fuel is to be readmitted during the coasting > event to prevent the engine from 'stopping' when at rest? the computer monitors rpm's and starts re-injecting below a base threshold. older systems, that's about 1500rpm. according to tegger, more modern systems cut it to as low as 750rpm. > Incidentally rpm and throttle position does not indicate torque > reversal (coasting) as you have implied. then you need to think this situation through one more time - there's no situation under which you can have high rpm's and a closed throttle unless you're coasting. >> As I understand it you are saying that during the period when >> 'coasting' to stop no fuel is being admitted to the engine. If this >> correct at some point fuel must be readmitted to allow the engine to >> idle when the vehicle is at stop. The question is how does the >> 'system' determine when fuel is to be readmitted during the coasting >> event to prevent the engine from 'stopping' when at rest? > the computer monitors rpm's and starts re-injecting below a base > threshold. older systems, that's about 1500rpm. according to tegger, > more modern systems cut it to as low as 750rpm. Let me get this straight. I think you are claiming that the engine uses *NO FUEL* during coasting...., right? So, let's think of an example.... If I was coming down a large mountain, on the Interstate, at 65mph, and was to *COAST* for 20 miles (entirely realistic in some places), you are saying that I would not use ANY FUEL? Right? My take on that is that it's absolutely wrong. The engine is still running, even if it's not doing any real "work". It is using fuel. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >>> As I understand it you are saying that during the period when >>> 'coasting' to stop no fuel is being admitted to the engine. If this [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > My take on that is that it's absolutely wrong. The engine is still > running, even if it's not doing any real "work". It is using fuel. nope. the engine is turning because it's in gear and the weight of the vehicle is pushing it down hill. in this situation, the computer will inject zero fuel. not one drop. [unless you put your foot on the gas again of course.] go to megasquirt.info, dig through until you find the source code, read it, and there you will see an example of the shut-off, and the parameters the computer uses to do it. >>> As I understand it you are saying that during the period when >>> 'coasting' to stop no fuel is being admitted to the engine. If this [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > My take on that is that it's absolutely wrong. The engine is still > running, even if it's not doing any real "work". It is using fuel. Your take on that is completely wrong. In this case, the engine is being driven by the transmission. No combustion is taking place. The engine runs on the energy of the downhill glide until your RPM's get low enough that the fuel needs to be injected again to keep the engine running. SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X >>>> As I understand it you are saying that during the period when >>>> 'coasting' to stop no fuel is being admitted to the engine. If this [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > low enough that the fuel needs to be injected again to keep the engine > running. OK. Makes sense I guess. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >>> As I understand it you are saying that during the period when >>> 'coasting' to stop no fuel is being admitted to the engine. If this [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > My take on that is that it's absolutely wrong. The engine is still > running, even if it's not doing any real "work". It is using fuel. Not at all. think about it - take the engine out of the car and put a handle on the crank - you can turn it with your own hand! Why is it hard to believe that thousands of lbs. of moving car can't do that? The friction of moving turning the engine without fuel is what slows you down when gearing down. It's often good practise to be in a lower gear and off the throttle when descending a steep hill - the engine resistance will slow you or keep you at a constant speed. If there were fuel being fed to the engine to "keep it running" then there would be no braking effect. NB: I know this is the case with a manual transmission, but IIRC, there are instances where an automatic still feeds a tiny amount of fuel during "rundown". a snip >> Incidentally rpm and throttle position does not indicate torque >> reversal (coasting) as you have implied. > >then you need to think this situation through one more time - there's no >situation under which you can have high rpm's and a closed throttle >unless you're coasting. I agree I am nit picking now but a closed throttle and high rpm (plus 750-1500 rpm I think you said) is not quite the same as torque reversal although it is certainly indicative. This, for me, has been a very intertesting exchange and I thank you for you explanations and patience. > snip >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > This, for me, has been a very intertesting exchange and I thank you > for you explanations and patience. The point is that the ecu doesn't *need* to detect "torque reversal" to know when to shut off fuel. All it needs is RPM and throttle position. a Figures match my 2006 Odyssey perfectly. On Jul 17, 6:27 am, "badgolferman" <REMOVETHISbadgolfer...@gmail.com> wrote: > dbu, 7/17/2008,5:54:16 AM, wrote: > > The Sienna gets 25-28 MPG. > > This is hard for me to believe. It may get that on a long trip, but for day-to-day driving... From Consumer guide Automotive Forget the EPA. Consumer Guide's auto editors drove 150,000 miles last year. We drove to work, to day care, to the grocery store, and on vacation. We drove through record heat, blinding snow, driving rain, and confounding road construction, keeping track of every drop of fuel we used along the way. The EPA admits its fuel economy numbers are estimates. Our numbers are real. A typical Consumer Guide test car is evaluated by at least four editors, all of whom account for their individual fuel usage. Here are the vehicles in each class that used the least amount of fuel while in our care. Honda Odyssey-16.4 MPG Toyota Sienna-16.4 MPG http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2008-fuel-economy-champions.htm Consumer Reports faired a little better with 19 MPG. As one poster noted about the Odyssey "my normal gas mileage is 17 mpg in the city and 24.5-25 mpg on the highway. I've gotten as low as 15 mpg in the winter here (10% ethanol fuel) and as high as 27.1 mpg on the highway (traveling by myself with just two suitcases). I keep my tires at 37 psi, which is what made my gas mileage increase by 1-2 mpg." Another noted about his Sienna " I drive 80MPH and still get 24 MPG" which I will dismiss as total BS. > > The Sienna gets 25-28 MPG. > > This is hard for me to believe. I own one. Trip mileage of course, no kidding I really do get that kind of gas mileage. City driving is less depending on how much of a lead foot I am, but I usually try to drive like I have an egg under the gas pedal. BTW, a friend has a 08 Ody which gets even better gas milage. On a trip, it runs on 3 cylinders. I don't know how they do it. The gas mileage is average in city however. It is hard to believe for a 4000 lb plus vehicle to get that kind of economy, but it is so. -- >> > The Sienna gets 25-28 MPG. >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >believe for a 4000 lb plus vehicle to get that kind of economy, but >it is so. I can see it doing that well on a trip if you're using super unleaded gasoline. >>> > The Sienna gets 25-28 MPG. >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I can see it doing that well on a trip if you're using super unleaded > gasoline. Over the course of a recent road trip from Houston to Colorado and New Mexico and back (almost 3,000 miles total), our 2001 Odyssey averaged nearly 24.7 mpg on mostly regular gas. Much of the highway driving was on interstates, going about 70 with the AC on; there was also some driving at slightly slower speeds on smaller highways. A fair amount of the total was going up and down mountains, and there was some city driving as well. Not at all bad for a vehicle of this size and comfort level, under these conditions. Probably twice the mileage my dad used to get in our station wagons on similar trips back in the '70s. Around town (mix of street and freeway driving), I typically get between 15 and 19 mpg. In a total of about 75,000 miles, I've averaged about 19.4 overall. > I can see it doing that well on a trip if you're using super unleaded > gasoline. Horsefeathers. The grade of gasoline has NOTHING to do with how much mileage you get. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >> I can see it doing that well on a trip if you're using super >>unleaded gasoline. > >Horsefeathers. The grade of gasoline has NOTHING to do with how much >mileage you get. On interstate driving it seems to for me. > > I can see it doing that well on a trip if you're using super unleaded > > gasoline. > > Horsefeathers. The grade of gasoline has NOTHING to do with how much > mileage you get. I get slightly poorer mileage with ethanol based fuel. -- >> > I can see it doing that well on a trip if you're using super unleaded >> > gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I get slightly poorer mileage with ethanol based fuel. That will always be true, as Ethanol doesn't have as much energy as Petrol, but there will be no difference between Super and Regular unleaded. Use what the car needs. My Civic Si requires Premium. If your car doesn't, don't bother using it. It does nothing for you. SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X > >> > I can see it doing that well on a trip if you're using super unleaded > >> > gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > unleaded. Use what the car needs. My Civic Si requires Premium. If > your car doesn't, don't bother using it. It does nothing for you. Where I gas up at there is a penny difference between their reg. and their premium. I always gas up my Sienna with the premium. I can tell the difference in performance as I've tried both. Not a blow you away difference, but a difference. I expect gas mileage is somewhat better with premium also, but I've never tested it. When I gas up in the next state over that does not have state mandated ethanol based fuel I see even better performance. I'm still trying to understand where we as drivers of gas vehicles have any advantage using ethanol fuel. -- > Where I gas up at there is a penny difference between their reg. and > their premium. I don't believe that. Not at a normal gas station, anyway. > I always gas up my Sienna with the premium. I can tell the difference > in performance as I've tried both. I don't believe that, either. You are under the illusion that many people are, that premium is more "powerful". It isn't. > Not a blow you away difference, but a difference. I expect gas mileage > is somewhat better with premium also, but I've never tested it. There is no difference. > When I gas up in the next state over that does not have state mandated > ethanol based fuel I see even better performance. As has been previously stated, that is because ethanol does not have the same energy (BTU) per gallon that gasoline does. It has less. > I'm still trying to understand where we as drivers of gas vehicles have > any advantage using ethanol fuel. We don't. It's a purely political sham, and is not a good thing at all. What it's basically doing is driving up the prices of food that uses corn, which is a lot more foods than most people realize. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > > Where I gas up at there is a penny difference between their reg. and > > their premium. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > What it's basically doing is driving up the prices of food that uses corn, > which is a lot more foods than most people realize. I need not waste my time as I have no need to convince anyone. I know what I get for mileage, I know what I feel in performance difference and that is all that matters to me. The gas station is an independent and what I said is true. -- > I need not waste my time as I have no need to convince anyone. I know > what I get for mileage, I know what I feel in performance difference and > that is all that matters to me. The gas station is an independent and > what I said is true. Your mileage and performance dreams are just wishful thinking, and indicative of what a person can convince themselves of, if they want to. As for the gas station... Everywhere else in the country, gas stations (independent or not) usually charge an average of 20 cents more for Premium than for Regular. Yet you expect people to believe that in your special place, they only charge 1 cent more. Sorry, it's just too much of a difference to be believed. How about you provide a link to a picture of their sign out front, which shows the prices...? Can you do that? Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > > I need not waste my time as I have no need to convince anyone. I know > > what I get for mileage, I know what I feel in performance difference and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > How about you provide a link to a picture of their sign out front, which > shows the prices...? Can you do that? Your email? -- >> > I need not waste my time as I have no need to convince anyone. I know >> > what I get for mileage, I know what I feel in performance difference [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Your email? Post a link to the picture, thanks. All can see it then. Tomes > >> > I need not waste my time as I have no need to convince anyone. I know > >> > what I get for mileage, I know what I feel in performance difference [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Post a link to the picture, thanks. All can see it then. > Tomes I don't own a website, besides, why should I have to provide proof, I buy my gas there, if someone does not believe me why should I care. I don't know these people from Adam. -- >> >> > I need not waste my time as I have no need to convince anyone. I >> >> > know [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > buy my gas there, if someone does not believe me why should I care. I > don't know these people from Adam. Not disbelief, moreso curiosity. I am OK either way. Tomes >> How about you provide a link to a picture of their sign out front, which >> shows the prices...? Can you do that? > Your email? I'm not going to provide a valid email address here... As someone else stated, a link here will allow others to see this magical sign, too. Go to this site below, upload your image as directed (very easy), and it will provide you a link/URL that you can paste into a post here. Simple. http://imageshack.us/ Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > >> How about you provide a link to a picture of their sign out front, which > >> shows the prices...? Can you do that? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://imageshack.us/ But why should I go to that trouble when you will only come back and say I doctored up the photo. If you don't believe me now why should I expect you to believe me when I post a picture someplace. Besides, I don't care if you believe me or not. -- >> Go to this site below, upload your image as directed (very easy), and it >> will provide you a link/URL that you can paste into a post here. Simple. >> >> http://imageshack.us/ > But why should I go to that trouble when you will only come back and say > I doctored up the photo. If you don't believe me now why should I > expect you to believe me when I post a picture someplace. Besides, I > don't care if you believe me or not. It's no harder to upload a pic to there than it is to email it to me. The fact that you're reluctant to do so pretty much confirms what I'm saying. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > >> How about you provide a link to a picture of their sign out front, which > >> shows the prices...? Can you do that? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://imageshack.us/ The price today is $3.96.9 for regular, (87) and $3.97.9 for super (89) per U.S. gal. They have no price signs posted only at the pump. So there ya go Dan. BTW how old are you and what part of the country do you live in? -- >> Go to this site below, upload your image as directed (very easy), and it >> will provide you a link/URL that you can paste into a post here. Simple. >> >> http://imageshack.us/ > The price today is $3.96.9 for regular, (87) and $3.97.9 for super (89) > per U.S. gal. They have no price signs posted only at the pump. So > there ya go Dan. First of all, 89 octane is not "super". It's "mid-grade". Super/Premium is at least 91 octane, oftentimes 93. As for "there ya go...", actually you are proving my point. A gas station with no signs, huh? How often do you (or anyone) see that??? I have *NEVER* seen it, and it just reinforces the idea that you're bullshitting us. Gas stations have signs showing their prices, period. The fact that you won't post a pic to the website I indicated above proves that you're not being honest. It's no harder to upload a picture to there than it is to email it to me (which you were apparently willing to do). Take a picture of the friggin pump if you have to, showing the prices for all three grades. All pumps show that too, before you claim otherwise. Your move, big boy. > BTW how old are you and what part of the country do you live in? I'm over 40, and I live in the SE part of the country. Why? Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > >> Go to this site below, upload your image as directed (very easy), and it > >> will provide you a link/URL that you can paste into a post here. Simple. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > I'm over 40, and I live in the SE part of the country. Why? Over 40, does that tell me you are 41, but less than 50? That means you were 8 or 10 years old when we had the great Jimmy Carter gas shortage with long lines. Do you remember? Most likely not. 89 is called super. We have strict regulations here so do not worry, it's not scam. 87 is regular and 89 is called premium or "super". I don't know of gas stations here that offer 91 or, wow, 93!! -- >> >> Go to this site below, upload your image as directed (very easy), and it >> >> will provide you a link/URL that you can paste into a post here. Simple. >> >> >> >> http://imageshack.us/ >> > The price today is $3.96.9 for regular, (87) and $3.97.9 for super (89) >> > per U.S. gal. They have no price signs posted only at the pump. So >> > there ya go Dan. >> First of all, 89 octane is not "super". It's "mid-grade". Super/Premium >> is at least 91 octane, oftentimes 93. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> >> Your move, big boy. >> > BTW how old are you and what part of the country do you live in? >> I'm over 40, and I live in the SE part of the country. Why? > Over 40, does that tell me you are 41, but less than 50? That means you > were 8 or 10 years old when we had the great Jimmy Carter gas shortage > with long lines. Do you remember? Most likely not. Yes, over 40 and under 50. I vaguely remember the long gas lines, but whatever... not relevant. > 89 is called super. We have strict regulations here so do not worry, > it's not scam. 87 is regular and 89 is called premium or "super". I > don't know of gas stations here that offer 91 or, wow, 93!! Interesting that you don't address the rest of my post, regarding posting the pic for others to view. How come? Where do you live, that thinks 89 is "super", and don't have 91/93? Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > >> >> Go to this site below, upload your image as directed (very easy), and > >> >> it [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Yes, over 40 and under 50. I vaguely remember the long gas lines, but > whatever... not relevant. Why do you say it is not relevant? > > > 89 is called super. We have strict regulations here so do not worry, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Where do you live, that thinks 89 is "super", and don't have 91/93? I live in the great NorthWest. Here, 87 = regular, 89 = premium, or super as this station calls it. One penny difference. I checked for a photo, but it's not possible. I also considered posting their phone number, but after five seconds of thought I round filed that idea. You will just have to trust me which you won't, but again I don't care. -- >> > Over 40, does that tell me you are 41, but less than 50? That means you >> > were 8 or 10 years old when we had the great Jimmy Carter gas shortage >> > with long lines. Do you remember? Most likely not. >> Yes, over 40 and under 50. I vaguely remember the long gas lines, but >> whatever... not relevant. > Why do you say it is not relevant? Because it isn't relevant. What the f.ck do gas prices or long lines from 30+ years ago have to do with your claim that premium sells for one penny more than regular??? >> Where do you live, that thinks 89 is "super", and don't have 91/93? > I live in the great NorthWest. > Here, 87 = regular, 89 = premium, or super as this station calls it. > One penny difference. I don't believe that, nor does anyone else. You're making an outrageous, unsubstantiated claim, and when asked to provide some proof, you are unable or unwilling to do so. That makes you a bullshitter, and I (among others) don't buy your story. > I checked for a photo, but it's not possible. I also considered posting > their phone number, but after five seconds of thought I round filed that > idea. You will just have to trust me which you won't, but again I don't > care. A photo certainly is possible, but you don't want to do that as it will blow your claim out of the water. You're a lying bullshitter, and have been called on it. Run along, boy. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > >> > Over 40, does that tell me you are 41, but less than 50? That means you > >> > were 8 or 10 years old when we had the great Jimmy Carter gas shortage [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > blow your claim out of the water. You're a lying bullshitter, and have > been called on it. Run along, boy. I'd love to make you look like a cussing fool and I could, but it would subject the station to crank callers. A picture is not possible as they don't have both prices posted on the large sign. The pump shows the two prices, but because of a light filter makes taking a photo impossible. Let's face the facts Dan, you don't know what you are talking about. You haven't been around much. -- >I'd love to make you look like a cussing fool and I could, but it would >subject the station to crank callers. Howdy, Why not send the phone number to just one person? Surely the station would not be inconveniences by a single call. All the best, SignatureKenneth If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS." >> A photo certainly is possible, but you don't want to do that as it will >> blow your claim out of the water. You're a lying bullshitter, and have >> been called on it. Run along, boy. > I'd love to make you look like a cussing fool and I could, but it would > subject the station to crank callers. A picture is not possible as they > don't have both prices posted on the large sign. The pump shows the two > prices, but because of a light filter makes taking a photo impossible. Why would they NOT have both prices posted on the large sign? There's a "light filter" on the pump, eh? What is that, some kind of magical device that doesn't let any light get onto the price display? They do that specifically to keep people from taking photos, probably? What the f.ck are you talking about? Take a photo of the pump prices, and post it as requested, or prove to all that you are a lying bullshitter. Your excuses don't hold water. > Let's face the facts Dan, you don't know what you are talking about. > You haven't been around much. Well, as a matter of fact, I lived in the Seattle area (Silverdale) for about 6 years, less than 10 years ago. I don't remember any such oddities with gas prices or pumps with "light filters" on them. You have lied your way into a corner, and the only way out is for you to provide some proof with a picture of your claims. Signature"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > >> A photo certainly is possible, but you don't want to do that as it will > >> blow your claim out of the water. You're a lying bullshitter, and have [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > way into a corner, and the only way out is for you to provide some proof > with a picture of your claims. Why don't you post your email and I'll send you their phone number to put this to rest. I don't live anywhere near Seattle. Again your lack of experience shows. -- >> >> > Over 40, does that tell me you are 41, but less than 50? That means you >> >> > were 8 or 10 years old when we had the great Jimmy Carter gas shortage [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > don't have both prices posted on the large sign. The pump shows the two > prices, but because of a light filter makes taking a photo impossible. Ahh, well THAT settles it. You're a liar and/or a fool... > Let's face the facts Dan, you don't know what you are talking about. > You haven't been around much. LOL. SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X >>> > Over 40, does that tell me you are 41, but less than 50? That means >>> > you [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > blow your claim out of the water. You're a lying bullshitter, and have > been called on it. Run along, boy. Bingo! I know dbu well from the alt.autos.toyota group. I see you are getting to know him well too! heh heh! > >>> > Over 40, does that tell me you are 41, but less than 50? That means > >>> > you [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Bingo! I know dbu well from the alt.autos.toyota group. I see you are > getting to know him well too! heh heh! Why don't you convince this young lad to post his email so that I can send him the phone number of the station that sells regular and super at only one penny difference. I can't make a photo for reasons stated before. I'd love to see the look on this cussing fools face when he finds out I tell truth. -- > I'd love to see the look on this cussing fools face when he > finds out I tell truth. dbu, I think this all stems from the use of the word "super" to describe midgrade gasoline. Most of us use "super" when referring to the highest grade however it is probably more correct to call it "premium" and I am guessing that is what you know 91-93 octane gasoline as. I can believe you have a station that would charge a penney more for 89 octane gas, especially if it is an independent station where it receives its supply from a local refiner. You don't have to defend yourself or prove anything since it is obvious they won't believe you even if you did post a picture. They will accuse you of doctoring it or having the owner change the prices just for your picture. Signature"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on." ~ George W. Bush > > I'd love to see the look on this cussing fools face when he > > finds out I tell truth. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > even if you did post a picture. They will accuse you of doctoring it > or having the owner change the prices just for your picture. Sure, I agree. Where the problem lies is their inability to read and decipher what I said. That is not my problem. I posted the octane numbers, but it seemed to be ignored. The station called it "super" and "regular", 89 and 87 respectively, one penny difference. It is an independent supplier. I don't know of any station in this area that sells 93 octane gas, one I know of that sells 91 octane, but that is non-oxygenated fuel for use in lawnmowers and the like and illegal to use in cars and trucks unless they are licensed antique, per state law. Thanks for the help, but I don't think it will convince these narrow minded knot heads. -- >> > I'd love to see the look on this cussing fools face when he >> > finds out I tell truth. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Thanks for the help, but I don't think it will convince these narrow > minded knot heads. I read through this thread with amusement and I believe dbu. There is a Sunoco gas station here in Baltimore County, MD. It was on York Road, by Seminary Avenue in an area called Lutherville. They sell Premium at the same cost as mid grade. It used to be a Mobile station before they changed maybe over a year ago, but apparently same owner since they were doing this when they were a Mobile station. They have mechanics bays and a very small convenience section. Why do they do this? Don't know - maybe to get people to buy gas, get to know them and maybe have their car worked on by the mechanic? I don't ask, but used to buy gas there in my previous car when I used premium. Also had the car worked on by the mechanic before. He's a decent mechanic. If you're ever in the area and want to see for yourself, swing by. They've been doing this at least for the past 5 years. And no, I'm not going to take a picture - not worth the time, but it is a brand name gas. -Dave "Dave L" ... > I read through this thread with amusement and I believe dbu. There is a > Sunoco gas station here in Baltimore County, MD. It was on York Road, by [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > not going to take a picture - not worth the time, but it is a brand name > gas. Back when I was in HS and College I worked at a Shell station in Middletown NJ. This was at the time gas was about 50 cents per gallon. Whenever we ran out of regular [and it happened many times] we were instructed to lower the price of premium down to the regular price so the customers wer not pissed off that we had none of their gas. They were always really happy about this. This was when the price was regular, 2 cent more for midgrade and 4 cent more for premium. Tomes > "Dave L" ... >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > cent more for midgrade and 4 cent more for premium. > Tomes Yup, I remember when the spread between regular and premium was much smaller than now. When did gas stations start coming out with mid-grade? I thought it was more recent than the gas being 50 cents. -Dave "Dave L" ... > "Tomes" ... >> "Dave L" ... [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > smaller than now. When did gas stations start coming out with mid-grade? > I thought it was more recent than the gas being 50 cents. Now I am trying to remember better (ouch). I think that the mid-grade was the unleaded right when unleaded came out, and the regular and premium were leaded. This was 1975-8ish. Tomes > "Dave L" ... >> "Tomes" ... [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > were leaded. This was 1975-8ish. > Tomes Ya got me there. I can't remember what the pumps were that far back. I wasn't even hear driving yet! -Dave >> I'd love to see the look on this cussing fools face when he >> finds out I tell truth. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > even if you did post a picture. They will accuse you of doctoring it > or having the owner change the prices just for your picture. Actually, that's my main problem with his "story". I can't imagine a region ANYWHERE that doesn't have 91/93 octane fuel, as dbu states. That would mean that people like me can't drive there, as the fuel isn't high enough octane for my car... SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X > >> I'd love to see the look on this cussing fools face when he > >> finds out I tell truth. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That would mean that people like me can't drive there, as the fuel > isn't high enough octane for my car... I'm not saying there is none, I'm saying that I have not seen any except for the non-oxygenated premium fuel for lawn mowers etc and classic cars. You would have to look and plan ahead I guess. What kind of car do you drive that requires such a high octane, Piper or Cessina maybe? I don't think you'll have any problem finding av-gas at 110 octane. -- >> >> I'd love to see the look on this cussing fools face when he >> >> finds out I tell truth. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Cessina maybe? I don't think you'll have any problem finding av-gas at > 110 octane. A requirement of 91 Octane is fairly normal for a great variety of high performance vehicles. I drive a Civic Si. It is but one of many with such a requirement... SignatureJoe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733 joe at hits - buffalo dot com "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the time..." - Danny, American History X > >> >> I'd love to see the look on this cussing fools face when he > >> >> finds out I tell truth. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > high performance vehicles. I drive a Civic Si. It is but one of many > with such a requirement... Ok, but seems to me there was a few years ago, octane number varied according to ethanol mix or not, I just don't remember. Nobody that I know uses 91 octane. If there was 20 cents difference between reg and premium or as my favorite station calls it "super" then I would buy regular, but it's not. When I visit the next state over their fuel prices tend to be higher especially along the interstate. I always buy regular because of the price difference. -- > >> I'd love to see the look on this cussing fools face when he > >> finds out I tell truth. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That would mean that people like me can't drive there, as the fuel > isn't high enough octane for my car... It is possible a small town in the boondocks with low population to not have what the rest of us have become accustomed to. I live in SE Virginia and when travelling across the state I see many small towns with gas stations I do not recognize. Merchants tend to stock what their clientele use. For those of us who are used to tons of choices life in a small town can be quite an adjustment. >>> I'd love to see the look on this cussing fools face when he >>> finds out I tell truth. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That would mean that people like me can't drive there, as the fuel > isn't high enough octane for my car... Actually, I was in Colorado a couple of weeks ago, and all the gas there seemed to be a couple of points lower in octane than what I'm used to in Texas. I don't know why -- something to do with the altitude, maybe? Alas, I have no photos to support my assertion. > Actually, I was in Colorado a couple of weeks ago, and all the gas there > seemed to be a couple of points lower in octane than what I'm used to in > Texas. I don't know why -- something t |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message