Discussion in 'General' started by seftonm, Mar 22, 2014.
There's some doubt in your mind thus the use of the "probably".
Nah! But in auto websites of all types, the "force is strong" to believe the "ethanol in gasoline industry" & their continuous & ever present propaganda.
So my wording means I'm in denial E-0 is a better grade fuel but your wording doesn't imply any doubt?
In your experience, is it true that "the burning of 87 octane E0 does accurize the car's computer MPG reading," as Litesong claims?
I do like that new word "accurize"!
Your wording lets the "ethanol in gasoline industry" know that their propaganda is effective.
I don't listen to the oil companies or study gasoline. I simply buy what's easily available at the best price in the area I'm buying fuel. There are stations in town where I could buy E-15 at the same price as E-10. As a normal rule I don't buy gas there although I did on one tank about a year ago. I didn't know it was E-15 until I'd already pulled into the station, ran the credit card and had the nozzle in the tank and at that point I wasn't going to go to the trouble of cancelling the order driving out of the way to buy it somewhere off the highway I was traveling and likely pay more per gallon. I haven't ran E15 in any of my vehicles since although when I go to that neighboring town I always pass right in front of the station and their price is usually about the same sometimes even cheaper by 3-4 cents a gallon than I'm paying for E10 in my hometown. Yes, I would buy gas there again if I got caught and didn't have enough to get back to my hometown to buy E-10 at my regular station. If they sold E-0 at the same price I'd probably fill there quite often when going by but, I wouldn't drive the 10-11 miles it is away from home to get it. As I said in a previous post I've used both ethanol laced fuel and 100% gasoline over a 43 year driving history. In the 1970's the price was nearly if not the same for E-10 as it was for E-0 I didn't see any measurable difference in mileage 40 years ago or again when I tried it for several back to back tanks 4 or 5 years ago. I kept reading replies over the internet how E-0 would increase mileage so I gave it fair chance to prove itself. I'm not going to say my driving is exactly the same day in and day out now but, when I tried it a few years ago my daily route was nearly identical from one day to the next excluding weekends and weekends were nearly identical from one week to the next and still are.
I've got a thermostatic controlled, sealed vented heat exchanger kerosene heater that I heat my house with instead of the inefficient electric furnace. When the heater was made back in the 1990's the manufacturer said use only K1 kerosene or a fuel with a certain specific gravity or it would gum up the fuel system and cause problems with the burn chamber. I did that for years until about 3 years ago I checked to see what the specific gravity was on ULSD and found that it falls within the heater requirements. Over the years kerosene prices have skyrocketed. Ever since checking on the diesel I've been running offroad ULSD at $1.00-$2.00 less per gallon and the ULSD has 6000 more BTU per gallon. I keep the thermostat on the heater set at 70* unless the temperatures drop into the lower teens and below then I bump it up to 72*. The last few years I've heated my house all winter on less than some of the neighbors are paying monthly for electric heat.
But Honda released a Technical Service Bulletin to address it, and applied the changes to the next model year cars. It's not just me.
There's only approximately 3% difference in energy content but my Versa is consistently over reporting 10-15% so the 3% MIGHT make the numbers figure a bit closer but I don't think 3% is going to magically amount to 10-15%. 3% at my 47MPG average would amount to 1.41 MPG. I'm consistently getting figures that are at least 4-5 MPG optimistic.
......a long term "ethanol in gasoline industries" argument that the only difference between 87 octane E0 & poorly designated 87 octane E10 is the 3% energy content difference.
Was the octane on the E-15, 88 octane? As I've stated previously, poorly designated 87 octane E10 ethanol fuel blend has its gasoline component comprised of 84 octane gasoline. Now the fairly recent push to supply poorly designated 88 octane E-15 ethanol fuel blend has its gasoline component reduced to 83.5 octane.
Just to be honest I didn't know how much energy difference there was until Billin posted the information, but I still say 3% isn't magically going to amount to the 10-15% over reporting. If so it's not going to be because I'm getting 10-15% better mileage but because it has an effect on how the sensors feed information to the ECU and it reports closer to the actual mileage and not than I'm suddenly going to see a 4-5MPG increase in MPG.
It may have been. I'm not sure.
I remember when I was in working in the oil fields of NW OK/SW KS (Guymon, OK - Liberal, KS area) for a short while in the early 80's some gas there was something like 84 or 85 octane. That was the first time I'd ever saw gas with that low of octane and haven't seen it anywhere since. This wasn't just one station but every station. I don't even know whether it was E0 or E10.
Of course when I started driving and for several years we had a choice of 87 octane unleaded or 89 octane leaded gas. Both were regular grade. 89 octane unleaded has always been considered a mid grade gas not regular. Back during the '70's and '80's one of the first things to go on my cars was the catalytic converter and I'd then run leaded gas which was usually about 10 cents a gallon cheaper.
Western OK starts at elevations above 2000 feet & extreme western OK is 4000 feet. 84 & 85 octane will perform well without knocking, in the region, specially if the 85 octane gasoline was indeed 85 octane (true) E0. Now, any poorly designated 85 octane 10% ethanol fuel blend E10 would have to have its actual gasoline component, well BELOW 85 octane, maybe 82-83 octane, which I wouldn't put in my gastanks. But, 85 octane E0, I would love in my gastank, while at elevations above 2000 feet & better at 4000 to 12,000 feet.
My ex-wife bought a 1979 Datsun 210 in 1979 . This was with the guidance of her genius father.
They offered two engines , one for unleaded gas only and one that would run on "regular" leaded gas.
Of course , they bought the leaded gas car. This car ( 1.4 , 3AT ) could get up to 29 MPG at 55 MPH , summer.
I had a Buick that could beat that.
I though in 1975 that laws had been enacted requiring all cars sold within the US to have catalytic converters. I know during the early '80s I had a 1975 Ford LTD that had a catalytic converter, my dad had a 1974 and it didn't. Every car that I've ever owned that was 1975 or newer had a cat. I've owned models just in the 1970's that were 1975. 1976, 1977, 1978. The first economy car I ever owned was a 1978 MG Midget with a 1.5L engine. I usually got around 24-25 MPG in the MG and thought I was getting great mileage, now I'm driving a larger/roomier Versa with a 1.6 and getting nearly twice the mileage. My mom has a 1999 Mercury Grand Marquis with a 4.6L engine that I have driven on highway trips and got as high as 31.5 MPG with the c/c set at 55 MPH with partial a/c usage.
I just looked it up on the internet and in 1975 most cars had catalytic converters installed and they were mandatory by 1981. I probably knew this back in the '70's but if someone had of asked me now when they were required I'd have told them 1975.
^ That's about right. 1975 was the first model year most new cars had catalytic converters (along with electronic ignition), due to tightening emissions standards. A few, mostly small Japanese models, didn't until about 1981---which was in turn the first year most, but not all, cars had closed-loop fuel mixture control.
This one broke a CleanMPG Speed vs FE record by some margin! With that intro, here is our first steady states with an all-electric "exotic"!
2021 Porsche Taycan RWD with the larger 93.4 KWh (84 kWh useable) battery (225-miles AER) EV Calibration Drive
Reset (0.0 miles/KWh) to 4.7 miles/kWh over 226.1 miles indicated, 231.1 miles actual.
Electrify America 150 KW charger provided 52 KWh from 46% to Full SOC.
231.1 miles on 52 kWh = 4.44 miles/KWh vs 4.7 mi/KWh indicated yielding a negative 0.946 percent aECD offset.
2021 Porsche Taycan
Initial charge for the aECD calibration.
Temps from 58 to 60 degrees and calm winds for the NB and SB runs. 50 mph actual was 51 mph indicated. 55, 60, 65, 70, and 75 mph indicated is actual per the Garmin. The 2021 Porsche Taycan EV Speed vs Energy Efficiency curve looks like this...
The EPA highway rating of 2.37 miles/kWh was deduced from the Porsche Taycan EVs 80 MPGe highway/33.7 kWh/gal.
The EPA Highway efficiency crossover on a straight-line estimate occurred at 86.3 mph indicating the 2021 Porsche Taycan EV is quite a bit more efficient than its 2.37 miles/kWh would indicate. In fact, this set a new record for how much more efficient the Taycan is vs its EPA rating as our previous best was the 2017 Elantra Eco at a staggeringly high 78.1 mph EPA crossover. In other words, the Taycan's EPA 80 MPGe highway and 239.7 miles all-electric range are officially rated far too low. Given the energy consumption crossover at 67.5 mph is 3.105 mi/KWh, its highway range should actually be over 300 miles vs its 239.7 miles EPA rating. A possible explanation for some of the spectacular results is this Porsche arrived equipped with the Continental ProContact AS tires vs the summer tires on many of the Taycan's. It did not have the air suspension to lower it at speed which provides the 0.22 Cd vs the non-air suspended Taycan that we are driving with a 0.24 Cd.
In a previous Taycan update, I posted this result while in the midst of the Electrify America network upgrade testing. While uncalibrated at the time, the result is the one that indicated how much more efficient the Taycan is vs its EPA rating and the calibrated aECD vs Speed graph solidifies that result.
I have found the Taycan far more efficient than its 2.11 miles/kWh rating around town as well.
Separate names with a comma.