Reg versus Premium Fuel experiament in 09 PT Cruiser
in [Cars]
|
From: Ashton Crusher on 4 Nov 2009 20:49 On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 11:01:29 -0600, "E. Meyer" <epmeyer50(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >On 11/3/09 11:37 PM, in article de42f5tottgaidulbacgamp3s6ppbe570c(a)4ax.com, >"Ashton Crusher" <demi(a)moore.net> wrote: > >> 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. > >That might be your problem. The immediate readout on most cars is based on >throttle position and not on actual fuel metering. If there is a way to >reset the display to defaults and let it relearn, try that. To really know, >you need to get out the old paper & pencil and calculate it over a few tanks >of gas. I've already done that and the readout is very close to the total tank average. And as I said, my main comparison is steady state driving, constant speed, on the same road with the two different gas's. It will give an accurate relative difference between the two gas's but both might be 0.4 mpg low (or high). The last tank pen and pencil average was 25 mpg whereas the computer said 24.6.
From: Bill Putney on 4 Nov 2009 20:51 Ashton Crusher wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:33:08 -0500, Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> > wrote: > >> Ashton Crusher wrote: >> >>> 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. >> The wagon wheels with metal treads have an order of magnitude less >> rolling resistance too - so better fuel mileage, but of course their >> traction (cornering, accelerating, braking) sucks. Sounds like a >> gubmint solution to some serious problems - something Al Gore and Obama >> might be interested in having legislated (except, of course, Congressmen >> and Senators would be exempt from having to use them). :) > > > Be careful what you say. If Gore overhears you he'll want to mandate > that we all switch to nitrogen filled tires with heavy fines for using > "air". Hmm - what if we mandated that you had to fill all tires with CO2. Gore could have an exclusive franchise on the special equipment that would be required at every filling station and tire servicing facility in the country that would separate out CO2 from the ambient air for people to use to inflate and top off their tires. That way we could starve the earth and those pesky plants from that awful CO2, and an entire industry (owned and controlled by Gore, and taxed by the gubmint) would be created - a new job stimulus program that would shuffle money around and accomplish nothing like everything else they are trying to do - another entire false economy built on the "merchant's broken window" principle. This should be made part of cap and trade - OH - I'm sorry! I forgot the new euphemism for that is the "Clean Energy and Security Act". -- Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')
From: Jim Yanik on 5 Nov 2009 08:17 Bill Putney <bptn(a)kinez.net> wrote in news:7lepdaF3dpl0uU1(a)mid.individual.net: > This should be made part of cap and trade - OH - I'm sorry! I forgot > the new euphemism for that is the "Clean Energy and Security Act". > that should be the "NO energy and NO security Act". -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com
From: Steve on 5 Nov 2009 13:19 jim wrote: > > Ashton Crusher wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:25:45 -0500, elmer <e(a)f.udd> wrote: >> >> 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. Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil today. Lubricants have come WAY further than engine design- at least in terms of bearings, rings, and other "hard" parts. Fuel managment systems have come as far as the oils or even further. If you could find a "pickled" (preserved, never run) factory engine from 1965 and put it into use with today's synthetic oils
From: Steve on 5 Nov 2009 13:21
Steve wrote: > jim wrote: >> >> Ashton Crusher wrote: >>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 10:25:45 -0500, elmer <e(a)f.udd> wrote: >>> > >>> 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. > > Also left out of the discussion is the fact the the VERY BEST motor oil > you could buy in the late 60's wouldn't qualify as chainsaw bar oil > today. Lubricants have come WAY further than engine design- at least in > terms of bearings, rings, and other "hard" parts. Fuel managment systems > have come as far as the oils or even further. If you could find a > "pickled" (preserved, never run) factory engine from 1965 and put it > into use with today's synthetic oils Stupid "send" button ;-) If you put it into use with today's synthetic oils, you'd find that it runs as long or maybe longer than anything modern. If my '66 engine went 180,000 miles with the kind of "group 1 or less" oils it had early in its life, imagine how well it would do with group IV synthetics right out of the box. |