Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Ethanol Wars (Youtube comparison of 10% ethanol fuel)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ethanol Wars [message #340316 is a reply to message #340294] |
Thu, 24 January 2019 13:32   |
NextGenGMC
Messages: 146
Registered: December 2017
Location: Washington State
Karma: -1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
It's an interesting video. However, I can't help it when the "scientist" is talking inside my head:
1. A single run on each fuel is not conclusive. You don't know if 95 seconds is actually a significant difference or a random variation.
2. You need to run several replications of this test (randomly assigning which fuel going in and in what order).
3. The gentleman ran space heaters as a load. Were they drawing the same amount of power for the entirety of the test? It's possible that warmer air in the garage during the second run influenced the results.
4. It would be helpful to precisely measure the amount of fuel to start with for each run instead of just sloshing it into container.
5. Can you really draw any grand conclusions as to usefulness of blended vs non-blended fuel for small (or big) engine from this test? I don't think so... Are we talking purely in terms of run time, power or economics? How much power was generated? What was the cost of $$ per watt for each fuel? Where is the break even point of cost of different grades of fuel?
All in all - this topic has way too many variables and too many strong feelings on both sides.
Vadim Jitkov
'76 Glenbrook 26'
Pullman, WA
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars [message #340317 is a reply to message #340316] |
Thu, 24 January 2019 14:13 |
Dolph Santorine
Messages: 1236
Registered: April 2011
Location: Wheeling, WV
Karma: -41
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Vadim:
All valid points.
It is completely consistent with more controlled scientific tests.
If it wasn’t, both viewpoints would be carping.
My .02
Dolph Santorine
DE AD0LF
Wheeling, West Virginia
1977 ex-Palm Beach TZE167V100820
Sullybuilt Bags, Reaction Arms, Manny Transmission
> On Jan 24, 2019, at 2:32 PM, Vadim Jitkov wrote:
>
> It's an interesting video. However, I can't help it when the "scientist" is talking inside my head:
>
> 1. A single run on each fuel is not conclusive. You don't know if 95 seconds is actually a significant difference or a random variation.
> 2. You need to run several replications of this test (randomly assigning which fuel going in and in what order).
> 3. The gentleman ran space heaters as a load. Were they drawing the same amount of power for the entirety of the test? It's possible that warmer air
> in the garage during the second run influenced the results.
> 4. It would be helpful to precisely measure the amount of fuel to start with for each run instead of just sloshing it into container.
> 5. Can you really draw any grand conclusions as to usefulness of blended vs non-blended fuel for small (or big) engine from this test? I don't think
> so... Are we talking purely in terms of run time, power or economics? How much power was generated? What was the cost of $$ per watt for each fuel?
> Where is the break even point of cost of different grades of fuel?
>
> All in all - this topic has way too many variables and too many strong feelings on both sides.
>
> --
> Vadim Jitkov
> '76 Glenbrook 26'
> Pullman, WA
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ethanol Wars [message #340318 is a reply to message #340294] |
Thu, 24 January 2019 15:11 |
JohnL455
Messages: 4447
Registered: October 2006
Location: Woodstock, IL
Karma: 12
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET. -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and with unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use. So the money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank and most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in my 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas vs E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in slighty more fuel used per mile.
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars [message #340321 is a reply to message #340318] |
Thu, 24 January 2019 17:04 |
jimk
Messages: 6734
Registered: July 2006
Location: Belmont, CA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Being a graduate of Engineering, I say that test run was poor.
Run was too short, constant running, not cooling down,etc.
I can tell you that almost every engine we remove the heads these days look
carbon free.
20 years ago, they were carboned up a lot.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski
wrote:
> I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
> freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and with
> unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
> 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> So the
> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank and
> most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in my
> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas vs
> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
> slighty more fuel used per mile.
>
> --
> John Lebetski
> Woodstock, IL
> 77 Eleganza II
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Newark,CA
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars [message #340322 is a reply to message #340318] |
Thu, 24 January 2019 17:14 |
James Hupy
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Ethanol is a ploy by the government to extract more taxes from us. On many
vehicles, when it is added to gasoline, it increases fuel use by at least
the amount that it is added to gasoline. Some vehicles more, some less.
It DOES SERVE as an anti-knock additive, but it is no where close to
being as effective as tetra-ethyl lead. Mere drops of that stuff per gallon
will do the same thing. But tetra-ethyl lead it is a deadly poison and we
do not want it in the air we all breathe.
There are a few other compounds that will serve as an anti-knock, but
they all have some drawbacks.
Back to alcohol, it sllloooooowwwsss down the rate of flame spread in
combustion engines, lowers the temperature and produces less power than
gasoline, so, it takes more of it to do the same work. The more of it we
buy and burn, the more tax revenue the cities, counties, provinces, states,
and federal governments receive. If you think they are in any hurry to fund
research to improve fuel economy, think again. Better fuel economy means
lost revenue to them.
Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They
can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline
without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
That's my take on it.
Jim Hupy
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.[/color]
> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
> freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and with
> unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
> 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> So the
> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank and
> most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in my
> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas vs
> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
> slighty more fuel used per mile.
>
> --
> John Lebetski
> Woodstock, IL
> 77 Eleganza II
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars [message #340323 is a reply to message #340322] |
Thu, 24 January 2019 17:55 |
Ken Henderson
Messages: 8726
Registered: March 2004
Location: Americus, GA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Bet on it, Jim. Eventually it will be dictated that all vehicles, electric
or not, are equipped with mileage reporting devices, perhaps reporting
continuously. We'll pay again, by the mile, for the roads we've already
paid to build.
JWITIK,
Ken H.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:11 PM James Hupy wrote:
> ...
> Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They
> can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline
> without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
> That's my take on it.
> Jim Hupy
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski wrote:
>
>> I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
>> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
>> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
>> freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and
> with
>> unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
>> 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
>> So the
>> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank
> and
>> most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in
> my
>> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas
> vs
>> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
>> slighty more fuel used per mile.
>>
>> --
>> John Lebetski
>> Woodstock, IL
>> 77 Eleganza II
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Ken Henderson
Americus, GA
www.gmcwipersetc.com
Large Wiring Diagrams
76 X-Birchaven
76 X-Palm Beach
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars [message #340332 is a reply to message #340323] |
Thu, 24 January 2019 21:30 |
Dolph Santorine
Messages: 1236
Registered: April 2011
Location: Wheeling, WV
Karma: -41
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Sadly, Ken, you nailed it.
What’s worse is the existing taxes won’t go away. Just more.
Dolph
DE AD0LF
Wheeling, West Virginia
1977 26’ ex-PalmBeach
Howell EFI & EBL, Reaction Arms, Sullybilt Bags, Manny Transmission
“The Aluminum and Fiberglass Mistress"
> On Jan 24, 2019, at 6:55 PM, Ken Henderson wrote:
>
> Bet on it, Jim. Eventually it will be dictated that all vehicles, electric
> or not, are equipped with mileage reporting devices, perhaps reporting
> continuously. We'll pay again, by the mile, for the roads we've already
> paid to build.
>
> JWITIK,
>
> Ken H.
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 6:11 PM James Hupy wrote:
>
>> ...
>> Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They
>> can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline
>> without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
>> That's my take on it.
>> Jim Hupy
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski > wrote:
>>
>>> I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
>>> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
>>> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
>>> freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and
>> with
>>> unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
>>> 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
>>> So the
>>> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank
>> and
>>> most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in
>> my
>>> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas
>> vs
>>> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
>>> slighty more fuel used per mile.
>>>
>>> --
>>> John Lebetski
>>> Woodstock, IL
>>> 77 Eleganza II
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GMCnet mailing list
>>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>>> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars [message #340396 is a reply to message #340322] |
Sat, 26 January 2019 17:46 |
Inline Technologies
Messages: 11
Registered: September 2018
Karma: 1
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Want to see how crooked the oil millionaires and government are.
Look up vaporized gas and the Pogue carburetor!!!!!
1934 ford achieved 125 mpg.
Reason lead was added to gas, then additives added after lead was taken out.
Ken Kruckeberg
The Shirt Factory
806-352-9262
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces@list.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of James Hupy
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 5:15 PM
To: gmclist@list.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars
Ethanol is a ploy by the government to extract more taxes from us. On many vehicles, when it is added to gasoline, it increases fuel use by at least the amount that it is added to gasoline. Some vehicles more, some less.
It DOES SERVE as an anti-knock additive, but it is no where close to being as effective as tetra-ethyl lead. Mere drops of that stuff per gallon will do the same thing. But tetra-ethyl lead it is a deadly poison and we do not want it in the air we all breathe.
There are a few other compounds that will serve as an anti-knock, but they all have some drawbacks.
Back to alcohol, it sllloooooowwwsss down the rate of flame spread in combustion engines, lowers the temperature and produces less power than gasoline, so, it takes more of it to do the same work. The more of it we buy and burn, the more tax revenue the cities, counties, provinces, states, and federal governments receive. If you think they are in any hurry to fund research to improve fuel economy, think again. Better fuel economy means lost revenue to them.
Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
That's my take on it.
Jim Hupy
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.[/color]
> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline
> line freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly
> circulating and with unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps
> E10 but it can hold 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> So the
> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank
> and most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance
> difference in my
> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure
> gas vs
> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor
> in slighty more fuel used per mile.
>
> --
> John Lebetski
> Woodstock, IL
> 77 Eleganza II
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars [message #340400 is a reply to message #340397] |
Sun, 27 January 2019 01:07 |
johnd01
Messages: 354
Registered: July 2017
Location: Sacrameot
Karma: -1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
The real ploy is to by corn state's votes.
On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 4:51 PM Matt Colie wrote:
> Inline Technologies wrote on Sat, 26 January 2019 18:46
>> Want to see how crooked the oil millionaires and government are.
>> Look up vaporized gas and the Pogue carburetor!!!!!
>>
>> 1934 ford achieved 125 mpg.
>> Reason lead was added to gas, then additives added after lead was taken
> out.
>>
>> Ken Kruckeberg
>
> Ken,
>
> While I an willing to acknowledge that there are some crooked people out
> there, I worked in engine and automotive research labs for most of my
> shore-side career. One of them was an independent laboratory and we
> tested all kinds of things. One was a modern version of the Pogue. It did
> not
> do any better at all than the conventional hardware.
>
> Consider please, with the current pressure on manufactures to produce CAFE
> numbers that were unrealistic a few years ago, do you think that they would
> have let any miracle carburetor go by??
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
> Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
> OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
*John Phillips*
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Johnd01
John Phillips
Avion A2600 TZE064V101164
Rancho Cordova, CA (Sacramento)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ethanol Wars [message #340409 is a reply to message #340294] |
Sun, 27 January 2019 11:50 |
GatsbysCruise
Messages: 261
Registered: January 2017
Location: Waukegan, Illinois
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I (we) don't have any say in the ethanol wars, I can only add this tid bit.
Back when it all started I was a young man that still kept numbers of MPG of
my cars and truck.
I always thought my mileage numbers were meager at best but I liked to see
what driving charactoristics made an impact on MPG.
Along came ethanol. First if I remember right, you could try it without being
forced to put it in your tank and I opted out. Feed back started coming in and
for the most part it was not good.
Then we had no choice, non ethanol fuels in most large populated areas were
required to use the ethanol contaminated fuels. I believe it started at 5%,
of which it would later be quietly increased to 10%.
I was still taking number for MPG and I saw a minimum DECREASE in MPG of 35%.
OK so you say my numbers were wrong. But this showed up the same in all
of my vehicles.
This immediately made me thing of how much more gas we had to burn, or how much
more MONEY we would have to spend over a year, to get to the same place that
would have cost us much less and less fuel amounts without the ethanol
contamination to the fuels.
Ok, lets look at it another way.
We are already poluting the air with the NON ethanol contaminated fuels but
once the contamination is added, that is 35% MORE AIR POLLUTION PER CAR.
Now maybe people like us might be concerned about polution or the status of the
Earths breathable air quality for future people and our children, but the crooked
politicians don't care other than getting money in their pockets.
As far as I was concerned, this last election proved beyond the doubt how crooked
and unlawful the politics of our government are.
But to sell off our health and breathable air quality for a few dollars just
does not make sense to me. And of course, we who elect these bums, have no
say in anything government.
Just my thought on the subject.
(stepping off my soap box)
GatsbysCruise. \
74GMC260 Former Glacier Model style. \
Waukegan, Illinois \ Keep those MiniDiscs Spinning \ MY GREYHOUND IS FASTER THAN YOUR HONOR ROLL STUDENT \ WindowsXP-Win7-Win8.1-UBUNTU STUDIO - UBUNTU VOYAGER - Berzin Auto Center
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars [message #340433 is a reply to message #340409] |
Sun, 27 January 2019 23:25 |
johnd01
Messages: 354
Registered: July 2017
Location: Sacrameot
Karma: -1
|
Senior Member |
|
|
About 1993 I worked for a company that would include a car for a group of
students taking classes in Sacramento. The students were warned that if
they chose to run Ethebal in the car it would not make it to South
Lake Tahoe and back on one tank, but if they ran gas in the dual fuel car
and did not drive around much once they got there they should be ok.
On Sun, Jan 27, 2019 at 9:53 AM slc wrote:
> I (we) don't have any say in the ethanol wars, I can only add this tid bit.
>
> Back when it all started I was a young man that still kept numbers of MPG
> of
> my cars and truck.
>
> I always thought my mileage numbers were meager at best but I liked to see
> what driving charactoristics made an impact on MPG.
>
> Along came ethanol. First if I remember right, you could try it without
> being
> forced to put it in your tank and I opted out. Feed back started coming
> in and
> for the most part it was not good.
>
> Then we had no choice, non ethanol fuels in most large populated areas
> were
> required to use the ethanol contaminated fuels. I believe it started at
> 5%,
> of which it would later be quietly increased to 10%.
>
> I was still taking number for MPG and I saw a minimum DECREASE in MPG of
> 35%.
>
> OK so you say my numbers were wrong. But this showed up the same in all
> of my vehicles.
>
> This immediately made me thing of how much more gas we had to burn, or how
> much
> more MONEY we would have to spend over a year, to get to the same place
> that
> would have cost us much less and less fuel amounts without the ethanol
> contamination to the fuels.
>
> Ok, lets look at it another way.
> We are already poluting the air with the NON ethanol contaminated fuels
> but
> once the contamination is added, that is 35% MORE AIR POLLUTION PER CAR.
>
> Now maybe people like us might be concerned about polution or the status
> of the
> Earths breathable air quality for future people and our children, but the
> crooked
> politicians don't care other than getting money in their pockets.
> As far as I was concerned, this last election proved beyond the doubt how
> crooked
> and unlawful the politics of our government are.
>
> But to sell off our health and breathable air quality for a few dollars
> just
> does not make sense to me. And of course, we who elect these bums, have
> no
> say in anything government.
>
> Just my thought on the subject.
>
> (stepping off my soap box)
> --
> GatsbysCruise. \
> 74GMC260 Former Glacier Model style. \
> Waukegan, Illinois \ Keep those MiniDiscs Spinning \ MY GREYHOUND IS
> FASTER THAN YOUR HONOR ROLL STUDENT \ WindowsXP-Win7-Win8.1-UBUNTU STUDIO -
> UBUNTU VOYAGER - Berzin Auto Center
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
*John Phillips*
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Johnd01
John Phillips
Avion A2600 TZE064V101164
Rancho Cordova, CA (Sacramento)
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ethanol Wars [message #340438 is a reply to message #340294] |
Mon, 28 January 2019 09:04 |
JohnL455
Messages: 4447
Registered: October 2006
Location: Woodstock, IL
Karma: 12
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Here is my "seat of pants dyno" test. Those who visit the Amana GMCMI probably know the convenience store gas mart just outside the fairgrounds. Leaving I went to fuel up and saw E0 pure gas so bought about $50 worth. I found I had no more power and a new tendency for detonation rattle at the secondary tip in point merging onto the highway. I had my timing set to just be at the safe point of that not happening with E10. My theory is the slowing of the burn by the E10 was able to quell this, but not the pure gas at the given octane. So if I were to run this pure gas all the time I would have pull a couple degrees of timing losing a bit of resposiveness and fuel mileage. And spend $ more doing it. So since E10 is the norm, I staying with that setup. Again not scientific due to sample size. but reconfirmed what I had found in the past when I used E0 on trips.
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ethanol Wars [message #340441 is a reply to message #340438] |
Mon, 28 January 2019 09:47 |
GatsbysCruise
Messages: 261
Registered: January 2017
Location: Waukegan, Illinois
Karma: 3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
I believe that is correct.
When Ethanhol was added to polute our fuels, all of my cars had to be set a little different to burn it.
Since finding real fuel without the polutant mixed in, that is no longer a problem.
We just burn more fuel, spend more money and not get as far as we used to.
GatsbysCruise. \
74GMC260 Former Glacier Model style. \
Waukegan, Illinois \ Keep those MiniDiscs Spinning \ MY GREYHOUND IS FASTER THAN YOUR HONOR ROLL STUDENT \ WindowsXP-Win7-Win8.1-UBUNTU STUDIO - UBUNTU VOYAGER - Berzin Auto Center
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ethanol Wars [message #340448 is a reply to message #340294] |
Mon, 28 January 2019 10:46 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
In my carbureted coach, non-ethanol gas resulted in better fuel mileage by 7 - 10% over a year of monitoring. My current injuected coach doesn't seem to make as much difference, but I didn't run hard numbers on it. We'll see what the new mill does.
--johnny
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ethanol Wars [message #340450 is a reply to message #340294] |
Mon, 28 January 2019 10:50 |
jhbridges
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
|
Senior Member |
|
|
For Inline Technologies, I can't help your fuel mileage, maybe the vaporizing magic equipment might. By the same arguments though, I can heklp your braking. I have a pair of Brake Guard Sentry units which I can let go for a reasonable price. $50 3ach, plus about eight dollars for a U.S.P.S. Small Flat-rate box. $108 puts them in the mail to you.
--johnny
Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons.
Braselton, Ga.
I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
|
|
|
|
| Re: Ethanol Wars [message #340456 is a reply to message #340438] |
Mon, 28 January 2019 12:53 |
 |
Matt Colie
Messages: 8547
Registered: March 2007
Location: S.E. Michigan
Karma: 7
|
Senior Member |
|
|
JohnL455 wrote on Mon, 28 January 2019 10:04Here is my "seat of pants dyno" test. Those who visit the Amana GMCMI probably know the convenience store gas mart just outside the fairgrounds. Leaving I went to fuel up and saw E0 pure gas so bought about $50 worth. I found I had no more power and a new tendency for detonation rattle at the secondary tip in point merging onto the highway. I had my timing set to just be at the safe point of that not happening with E10. My theory is the slowing of the burn by the E10 was able to quell this, but not the pure gas at the given octane. So if I were to run this pure gas all the time I would have pull a couple degrees of timing losing a bit of resposiveness and fuel mileage. And spend $ more doing it. So since E10 is the norm, I staying with that setup. Again not scientific due to sample size. but reconfirmed what I had found in the past when I used E0 on trips.
John,
My bet would be that the E0 fuel you got was not a good Ron+Mon/2 of 85. The Research and Motor Octane numbers are both set by test engines that run at very different conditions. It is possible to affect one more than the other and I would not like to accuse fuel suppliers as fudging the values, but I have to do so because I know that they do. With a low volume of distribution of E0 fuel, an regular is very likely to be off the mark.
Now, if you had a closed loop engine (as I have had a few) and you paid attention, you might have seen more of a difference. As I suspect, that the E0 was not as labeled octane-wise, you would not have found any performance gain. One of my turbo cars was so fuel sensitive that I could have calibrated the boost gauge as an octane meter.
Matt
Matt & Mary Colie - Chaumière -'73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan with OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Near DTW - Twixt A2 and Detroit
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Sep 19 21:44:43 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01365 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
