Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser
in [Cars]
|
From: dsi1 on 3 Nov 2009 12:23 Jim Yanik wrote: > dsi1 <dsi1(a)spamnet.com> wrote in news:w4OHm.132$oo.5(a)newsfe20.iad: > >> Ashton Crusher wrote: >>> >>> That's what I was thinking. I wonder how much alcohol they are >>> allowed to put in basic gasoline. Maybe the main difference between >>> regular and premium these days is the amount of alcohol they put in >>> it. >> In our town, they can put up to 10% ethanol in the gas. I think it's >> some kind of scam the state is taking part in but that's the brakes. >> There is a slight drop in gas mileage but the good news is that I can >> use the lowest grade of gas in my cars without knocking. Previously, the >> cars had to use mid-grade. >> > > Gas suppliers HAVE to add some oxygenate to meet emissions specs,and > alcohol was the replacement for MBTE which was polluting the environment. The gas here in Hawaii works fine with alcohol. I don't recall the reason for going through all that trouble to ship the stuff in from the mainland but I reckon that somebody's getting rich off of this nutty scheme. It might make a little more sense if we were making alcohol from sugar cane or pineapples locally. :-) > > I believe non-flex-fuel vehicles cannot reliably tolerate much more than > 10% alcohol without modification. > Back in the 80's the reason for this was that the fuel lines would be damaged by alcohol. Gee - is this still true?
From: Ashton Crusher on 4 Nov 2009 00:15 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:35:50 -0600, Jim Yanik <jyanik(a)abuse.gov> wrote: >dsi1 <dsi1(a)spamnet.com> wrote in news:w4OHm.132$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. > True. But it's been years since the addition was actually needed because the emissions controls are now good enough that you don't need oxygenated gas anymore. But the scam to benefit corn growers continues. And we pay for it in higher taxes, higher gas prices, and lowered gas mileage. >I believe non-flex-fuel vehicles cannot reliably tolerate much more than >10% alcohol without modification.
From: Ashton Crusher on 4 Nov 2009 00:28 On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 23:18:09 -0500, elmer <e(a)f.udd> wrote: >Ashton Crusher wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:25:45 -0500, elmer <e(a)f.udd> wrote: >> >>> Brent wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>> High Octane has the same energy. It has a higher OCTANE and is wasted or >>> may not be burned as completly in a low compression motor or with >>> retarded or less advance in the timing of ignition. It burns slower and >>> does not detonate under heat of compression as easily as regular. >>> Fuel that uses more ethanol to increase octane has less energy. Regular >>> fuel with ethanol has less energy. >>> A 12 to 1 compression or even 14 to 1 compression motor burning 105 >>> octane or higher will get better mileage and torque if the ignition >>> curve etc are right. >>> Just like diesel the motor has to be built for the stress. >>> What we have now and for a long time is junk engines designed to be >>> built as cheaply as possible and to run on junk fuel as per EPA or >>> California really. The electronics are good at getting the most from >>> junk. Just imagine what great engine structure and electronics would do >>> with great fuel. >> >> >> I don't understand you claims of "junk" engines. Today's engines are >> far better in pretty much every way then everything that came before >> them including durability. That's a general statement, there will >> always be a few bad designs. Up until the mid/late sixties, engines >> were so weak that it was common for them to need valve jobs before >> 100K and for many of them they needed both rings and valves befor >> that point. There used to be a thriving industry doing ring and valve >> jobs there was such a demand for it. >Remember the Hemi of the late 60s, not the mid sixties. It put out an >honest 800 hp and 860 ft lbs according to modern testing a year or so ago. >They came apart because that much power and trying to rev past 8000 rpm. >If you kept it at 7000 or below everytime it stayed together. However >the head block gasket would seep a little bit of oil, if constantly >stressed. >Name me one engine that puts out that torque that you can afford. I've >got one of the modern high hp jobs. It revs like crazy but hasn't got >any torque. Next time you get a chance ride in a 70 442 w 410 gears, or >a Hemi Cuda properly tuned. A 429 Cobra Jet or a 428 for that Matter, or >a high winding 427 or a bunch more. >The new engines don't come apart becaause they don't put out power that >will break them. you 3.3 mph per second regulated electronic throttle is >a wuse. A hemi with modern developments could probably push 900 hp. >Street Rod Standards are now in the 1000 hp range. Try that with a >Mercedes engine short of 6.3 twin turbo. None of them will survive. >The reason the don't run 186 mph or above is rear gearing and no >overdrives in the gearbox. A 440 or hemi and a number of others would do >155 at 8000 but don't expect it to live. >Ride in a 427 Vette and wish it had the gearing etc box of the new >Vette. The technology is far more developed today but it is not applied >but who "needs" a 250 mph 900-1000 hp Hemi. >The new Hemi is more a Polsphere head It has an unfinished area to hold >heat and twin plugs to burn junk fuel. Now you're just being silly. Talking about 800 hp engines the comprised 0.002% of the market is meaningless. In the 60's your primary engines were the Chevy and ford 6's and small block v8s and similar in the upscale cars like Buick, Lincoln, etc. Not only the engines but the cars themselves were often worn out within 10 years/100K miles. If you want to talk about power, consider that back in the day a typical 6.6+ Liter muscle car might do 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, I forget their quarter mile numbers. My 99 GT with 4.6L motor can do the same 6.6 and quarter, more or less. And instead of getting 13 mpg I can get 18 mpg or better. Heck, people with new Corvettes that will blow the doors off the Corvettes from back in the day, have reported 30 mpg on trips. You are living on some other planet if you believe what you are writing.
From: Ashton Crusher on 4 Nov 2009 00:31 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:15:53 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m(a)mwt,net> wrote: > > >Ashton Crusher wrote: >> >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:25:45 -0500, elmer <e(a)f.udd> wrote: >> >> >Brent wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> >> >High Octane has the same energy. It has a higher OCTANE and is wasted or >> >may not be burned as completly in a low compression motor or with >> >retarded or less advance in the timing of ignition. It burns slower and >> >does not detonate under heat of compression as easily as regular. >> >Fuel that uses more ethanol to increase octane has less energy. Regular >> >fuel with ethanol has less energy. >> >A 12 to 1 compression or even 14 to 1 compression motor burning 105 >> >octane or higher will get better mileage and torque if the ignition >> >curve etc are right. >> >Just like diesel the motor has to be built for the stress. >> >What we have now and for a long time is junk engines designed to be >> >built as cheaply as possible and to run on junk fuel as per EPA or >> >California really. The electronics are good at getting the most from >> >junk. Just imagine what great engine structure and electronics would do >> >with great fuel. >> >> I don't understand you claims of "junk" engines. Today's engines are >> far better in pretty much every way then everything that came before >> them including durability. That's a general statement, there will >> always be a few bad designs. Up until the mid/late sixties, engines >> were so weak that it was common for them to need valve jobs before >> 100K and for many of them they needed both rings and valves before >> that point. There used to be a thriving industry doing ring and valve >> jobs there was such a demand for it. > >But that has nothing to with the engine itself. To claim that burning >rings and valves is evidence of a "weak" engine is silly. That >definition would mean the weakest engines are the ones used in dragsters >and race cars. > > Take a hundred of what you think are the best built car engines today >and install a breaker-point ignition and a carburetor on them and you'll >find out the rings and valves don't hold up as well as the cars that >were designed with those old fuel and ignition systems. > > The point that I think was being made was that toady's manufacturers >and oil companies are delivering cheaper quality to the consumer, but >the electronics used today more than compensate for that. > >-jim I suppose we could split hairs over the quality of the lock washers too. It is what it is and is what it was. Today's clearances are much tighter, the engines are cleaner burning, etc. Sure, if you want to take a complete system (today's engines) that was designed for today's technology, and remove part of it and substitute parts it was never designed to use, sure, you can make it worse. Next you be singing the praises of wooden wagon wheels over modern tires because the wooden ones never blew out from being run low on air.
From: Ashton Crusher on 4 Nov 2009 00:37
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 09:00:35 -0600, Don Stauffer <stauffer(a)usfamily.net> wrote: >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? Just a few. But keep in mind that unlike having to run several full tanks over similar but not identical courses, and then calculate the overall mpg, I can get immediate readout from the computer in the car. That's mainly what I'm looking at. I can run on the exact same street at the exact same speed, resetting the computer at the start, and immediately get the mpg results. Ditto on my "high speed" daily commute. So it was immediately apparent that the mpg was down just about as soon as I left the gas station after filling up. It's been the same every day, whatever I was getting as "instant" mpg with regular gas is down about 2 mpg now that it's burning premium. When this tank runs out and I go back to regular if it goes back up it will be just as immediately obvious. I'm looking at the trend, not particularly an exact number. |