Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser
in [Cars]
|
From: Jim Yanik on 3 Nov 2009 08:35 dsi1 <dsi1(a)spamnet.com> wrote in news:w4OHm.132$oo.5(a)newsfe20.iad: > Ashton Crusher wrote: >> >> >> That's what I was thinking. I wonder how much alcohol they are >> allowed to put in basic gasoline. Maybe the main difference between >> regular and premium these days is the amount of alcohol they put in >> it. > > In our town, they can put up to 10% ethanol in the gas. I think it's > some kind of scam the state is taking part in but that's the brakes. > There is a slight drop in gas mileage but the good news is that I can > use the lowest grade of gas in my cars without knocking. Previously, the > cars had to use mid-grade. > Gas suppliers HAVE to add some oxygenate to meet emissions specs,and alcohol was the replacement for MBTE which was polluting the environment. I believe non-flex-fuel vehicles cannot reliably tolerate much more than 10% alcohol without modification. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: jim on 3 Nov 2009 09:02 Jim Yanik wrote: > > UseNet convention says if you make a claim,YOU back it up with facts;cites. > you CANT support your claim; My claim is that car companies have a financial interest in getting the best possible fuel economy rating. What kind of idiot would ask for evidence to support that statement? > >> > There is > >> > a significant financial incentive for car manufacturers to design > >> > engines that get better mileage on 91 octane than they do on > >> > regular gasoline. > >> > > >> > -jim > > I fail to see how getting better mileage on higher octanes than specified > would gain auto makers any financial gain.It's an UNKNOWN,as you stated,and > thus people would not have that "fact" to influence their purchases. > It doesn't make sense. The fuel economy test is conducted with higher octane fuel. If the engine gets better mileage with the fuel used in the test, it will get a better fuel economy rating. > > You lose. > > You demonstrate incompetence. > >> > >> It seems to me that manufacturers have a greater financial incentive > >> to design cars for regular grade fuel. > >> > >> would you get enough of a mileage increase using premium to offset > >> the added cost of premium fuel? > > > > I didn't say you will get any better mileage. Some cars do some don't. > > IOW,you just stated gibberish,unsupportable nonsense. Probably would sound like gibberish to a salamander also. -jim > > > One things for sure - You won't find out if your car does get better > > mileage by asking on usenet. > > > > -jim > > > > We won't find out anything from your worthless statements. > > -- > Jim Yanik > jyanik > at > localnet > dot com
From: Don Stauffer on 3 Nov 2009 10:00 Ashton Crusher wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 08:16:06 -0600, Don Stauffer > <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote: > >> Ashton Crusher wrote: >>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to expect >>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when I >>> filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's too >>> early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down 2 mpg >>> over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought I'd >>> test it out. >> >> I had a Neon RT. I did an extensive milage test early on. I did ten >> tankfuls of regular, then ten of premium, figuring the variance of each >> set. The milage with premium was down a little, but less than one mpg. >> However, the variance in each set of runs was over 1.5 mpg, so I had >> to conclude it made no difference. >> >> I think the Neon engine was very similar to that in the PT (though mine >> had the DOHC heads). > > > My preliminary assessment is that it's down at least 2 mpg and > possibly as much as 3 or 4. That is a lot! How many tankfuls and what is the variance of the test?
From: C. E. White on 3 Nov 2009 10:37 "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:hcmq5k$u0i$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 2009-11-02, C. E. White <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote: >> >> "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:hclgpn$tpt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> On 2009-11-02, Ashton Crusher <demi(a)moore.net> wrote: >>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to >>>> expect >>>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when >>>> I >>>> filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's >>>> too >>>> early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down >>>> 2 >>>> mpg >>>> over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought >>>> I'd >>>> test it out. >>> >>> It should be down a little. Premium has less energy per unit >>> volume. >> >> That used to be true (say 30 years ago), but these days it is not >> ture. > > If higher octane ratings are achieved through oxygenates it > certainly > will be lower because those high octane oxygenates have less > energy/volume. I think it is highly unlikely that higher octane > ratings > would be achieved through aromatics these days for fuels one can buy > at > regular gas station. > > http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon.htm > http://books.google.com/books?id=J_AkNu-Y1wQC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=energy+content+of+gasolines&source=bl&ots=j-Dw6PAVcq&sig=ZQI4tXkW_YZMjLf2epOMuDAA3OE&hl=en&ei=TeruSs7BOIuQMefywIQM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCcQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=energy%20content%20of%20gasolines&f=false > http://www.chevron.com/products/ourfuels/prodserv/fuels/technical_safety_bulletins/ogfe_enrgycon.aspx From http://www.chevron.com/products/ourfuels/prodserv/fuels/documents/69083_MotorGas_Tech%20Review.pdf : "Conventional fuels always have varied in heating value. One cause is the formulation differences among batches and among refiners. A survey of 1990-1991 conventional gasolines found that the heating value of summer gasolines varied over an 8 percent range. Heating value also varies by grade and by season. On average, the heating value of premium-grade gasoline is about 0.7 percent higher than regular grade because premium grade, in general, contains more aromatic hydrocarbons, the class of hydrocarbons with the highest densities. The heating value of winter gasoline is about 1.5 percent lower than summer gasoline because winter gasoline contains more volatile, less dense hydrocarbons. "Oxygenated gasolines (see page 53) have lower heating values because the heating values of the oxygenate components are lower than those of the hydrocarbons they displace. The percentage decrease in heating value is close to the mass percent oxygen in the gasoline. For example, in keeping with federal regulations, gasoline in carbon monoxide nonattainment areas in the U.S. is oxygenated to a minimum of 2.7 mass percent oxygen during four or five winter months. The heating value of the oxygenated product is about 2.7 mass percent lower than that of conventional gasoline. In addition, federal RFG and California Phase 3 RFG in federal RFG areas are typically oxygenated year-round to an average oxygen content of about 2 mass percent. The resulting heating values are about 2 percent lower than that of conventional gasoline. California Phase 3 RFG also has limits on distillation temperatures and aromatics content, which has the secondary effect of lowering the density of the fuel. These limits reduce heating value by about another 1 percent. "The gasolines that produced the results displayed in Figure 1.3 were specially formulated to span a wide range of compositions. The compositional variations were much greater than those separating conventional and reformulated commercial gasolines. Thus, the results provide solid evidence that RFG does not exert an unusual effect on fuel economy. Individual drivers have reported decreases of 10 percent, 15 percent, and even 20 percent in fuel economy when they began using RFG. Not surprisingly, many of the claims are anecdotal. Most drivers do not keep continuous fuel-economy records, so they don't have a meaningful fuel-economy baseline for the gasoline they previously used. Even with a baseline, a fuel-economy value based on the consumption of a single tank of gasoline can be misleading. Drivers interested in fuel economy should average results over several tanks of gasoline or, better yet, over several months of driving." From http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/gasoline-octane.cfm : "Gasoline with a higher heating value (energy content) provides better fuel economy. Traditionally, premium gasoline has had a slightly higher heating value than regular, and, thus, provides slightly better fuel economy, but it is difficult to detect in normal driving. There can be even larger differences in heating value between batches of gasoline from the same refinery, between summer and winter volatility classes, or between brands of gasoline from different refineries because of compositional differences. The differences are small and there is no practical way for the consumer to identify gasoline with a higher-than-average heating value."
From: Brent on 3 Nov 2009 11:03
On 2009-11-03, C. E. White <cewhite3(a)mindspring.com> wrote: > > "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:hcmq5k$u0i$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On 2009-11-02, C. E. White <cewhite3(a)removemindspring.com> wrote: >>> >>> "Brent" <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:hclgpn$tpt$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> On 2009-11-02, Ashton Crusher <demi(a)moore.net> wrote: >>>>> I have pretty much gotten a decent feel for the gas mileage to >>>>> expect >>>>> from my PT. The last three tanks averaged about 23 mpg. So when >>>>> I >>>>> filled up yesterday I put premium in it instead of regular. It's >>>>> too >>>>> early for a definitive answer but so far it looks like it's down >>>>> 2 >>>>> mpg >>>>> over what I'd been getting. About what I expected but I thought >>>>> I'd >>>>> test it out. >>>> >>>> It should be down a little. Premium has less energy per unit >>>> volume. >>> >>> That used to be true (say 30 years ago), but these days it is not >>> ture. >> >> If higher octane ratings are achieved through oxygenates it >> certainly >> will be lower because those high octane oxygenates have less >> energy/volume. I think it is highly unlikely that higher octane >> ratings >> would be achieved through aromatics these days for fuels one can buy >> at >> regular gas station. >> >> http://www.epa.gov/oms/rfgecon.htm >> http://books.google.com/books?id=J_AkNu-Y1wQC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=energy+content+of+gasolines&source=bl&ots=j-Dw6PAVcq&sig=ZQI4tXkW_YZMjLf2epOMuDAA3OE&hl=en&ei=TeruSs7BOIuQMefywIQM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCcQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=energy%20content%20of%20gasolines&f=false >> > > http://www.chevron.com/products/ourfuels/prodserv/fuels/technical_safety_bulletins/ogfe_enrgycon.aspx > > From > http://www.chevron.com/products/ourfuels/prodserv/fuels/documents/69083_MotorGas_Tech%20Review.pdf : > > "Conventional fuels always have varied in heating value. One cause is > the formulation differences among batches and among refiners. A survey > of 1990-1991 conventional gasolines found that the heating value of > summer gasolines varied over an 8 percent range. Heating value also > varies by grade and by season. On average, the heating value of > premium-grade gasoline is about 0.7 percent higher than regular grade > because premium grade, in general, contains more aromatic > hydrocarbons, the class of hydrocarbons with the highest densities. > The heating value of winter gasoline is about 1.5 percent lower than > summer gasoline because winter gasoline contains more volatile, less > dense hydrocarbons. > > "Oxygenated gasolines (see page 53) have lower heating values because > the heating values of the oxygenate components are lower than those of > the hydrocarbons they displace. The percentage decrease in heating > value is close to the mass percent oxygen in the gasoline. For > example, in keeping with federal regulations, gasoline in carbon > monoxide nonattainment areas in the U.S. is oxygenated to a minimum of > 2.7 mass percent oxygen during four or five winter months. The heating > value of the oxygenated product is about 2.7 mass percent lower than > that of conventional gasoline. In addition, federal RFG and California > Phase 3 RFG in federal RFG areas are typically oxygenated year-round > to an average oxygen content of about 2 mass percent. The resulting > heating values are about 2 percent lower than that of conventional > gasoline. California Phase 3 RFG also has limits on distillation > temperatures and aromatics content, which has the secondary effect of > lowering the density of the fuel. These limits reduce heating value by > about another 1 percent. > > "The gasolines that produced the results displayed in Figure 1.3 were > specially formulated to span a wide range of compositions. The > compositional variations were much greater than those separating > conventional and reformulated commercial gasolines. Thus, the results > provide solid evidence that RFG does not exert an unusual effect on > fuel economy. Individual drivers have reported decreases of 10 > percent, 15 percent, and even 20 percent in fuel economy when they > began using RFG. Not surprisingly, many of the claims are anecdotal. > Most drivers do not keep continuous fuel-economy records, so they don't > have a meaningful fuel-economy baseline for the gasoline they > previously used. Even with a baseline, a fuel-economy value based on > the consumption of a single tank of gasoline can > be misleading. Drivers interested in fuel economy should average > results over several tanks of gasoline or, better yet, over several > months of driving." > > From http://www.api.org/aboutoilgas/gasoline/gasoline-octane.cfm : > > "Gasoline with a higher heating value (energy content) provides better > fuel economy. Traditionally, premium gasoline has had a slightly > higher heating value than regular, and, thus, provides slightly better > fuel economy, but it is difficult to detect in normal driving. There > can be even larger differences in heating value between batches of > gasoline from the same refinery, between summer and winter volatility > classes, or between brands of gasoline from different refineries > because of compositional differences. The differences are small and > there is no practical way for the consumer to identify gasoline with a > higher-than-average heating value." I saw some of that on my own. it's just longer ways of saying the same thing and some additional detail. RFG has been around for 14 years now. Even when I've been out in the middle of no where, well outside the RFG mandated areas ( http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg/whereyoulive.htm ) the fuels have at the very least contained ethanol if not fully RFG compliant. Do any refineries make anything else now? (I thought ethanol was a federal requirement anyway) Once adding that stuff the easier way to higher octane is just putting in more of it. |