Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you are not getting what engineering theory predicts, your engine probably needs a tune-up. Changed your spark plugs recently?
If you can't give me an engineering reason why theory and street don't agree, why should I buy your story? Give me an explanation and we'll go from there.
Oh please.
Both our cars declined 5-10% in MPG and one lost so much power it had trouble pulling hills over 60 MPH, when on a long trip and we happened into E10/E15 country. Both were in fine "tune."
My current vehicle has noticeable MPG drop using E10. It has 9000 miles so a "tune up" is not the issue.
BTW, for the last 20+ years a "tune up" means new plugs every 100,000 miles and a new air filter from time to time.
Theory doesn't always pan out in reality, get real. If you don't know that, I have nothing further to waste keystrokes on.
Whether you "buy my story" is irrelevent.
It's fact: miles divided by gallons doesn't lie.
You mean at the height of the crisis over a year ago, correct? A current search on gas buddy shows nowhere over $3.19 a gallon currently in the whole state..
"Gas Buddy" is wrong. Regular unleaded is $3.54/gal right now (Sept 2) here in Seward (the cheapest of three local stations). Prices in some of the remote villages that are not on the highway system are exponentially higher, due to shipping costs via barge or plane...
"Gas Buddy" is wrong. Regular unleaded is $3.54/gal right now (Sept 2) here in Seward (the cheapest of three local stations). Prices in some of the remote villages that are not on the highway system are exponentially higher, due to shipping costs via barge or plane...
Bud
Prices in the remote areas are unbelievable, aren't they?
I have a friend who used to be a school teacher up in Kotzebue. He & his wife spent their summers stateside, and before they left to drive back up to Alaska, they'd pack their full-sized truck (with topper) to the gills with groceries & anything else they might need. For awhile they even pulled a small enclosed trailer.
Location: Pelion, South Carolina/orig. from Cape May, NJ
1,113 posts, read 3,495,189 times
Reputation: 1176
Here in SC near Columbia, they have stations with ethanol gas and stations without it. I try to frequent the ones without it.
P.S.- I prefer pumping my own gas. Wish my homestate would follow suit! (NJ)
Any car will lose MORE MPG with under inflated tires than it will ever loose by burning ethanol.
So while ethanol doesn't have the same BTU's of energy as gasoline the benefits far out weight any lost MPG.
Maybe so, but under-inflated tires can be fixed in 5 minutes at any service station, and not everybody has under-inflated tires.
Burning ethanol fuels because there is no other choice likely can't be fixed at all, short of government intervention. (don't hold your breath...they want to INCREASE ethanol use, not decrease it)
And....here's a "benefit" of ethanol we can all do without: the widespread use of ethanol is quickly depleting the Ogallala water aquifer in a huge area covered by 8 states. How can ethanol use and production ever justify destroying our water supply? (which once lost will never be replaced in our lifetime)
I could go on and on, but I think you get the general picture: it takes approximately 4 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol. We can live without ethanol, but we surely can't live without water. Still think the "benefits" of ethanol outweigh any loss of mpg?
Maybe so, but under-inflated tires can be fixed in 5 minutes at any service station, and not everybody has under-inflated tires.
Burning ethanol fuels because there is no other choice likely can't be fixed at all, short of government intervention. (don't hold your breath...they want to INCREASE ethanol use, not decrease it)
And....here's a "benefit" of ethanol we can all do without: the widespread use of ethanol is quickly depleting the Ogallala water aquifer in a huge area covered by 8 states. How can ethanol use and production ever justify destroying our water supply? (which once lost will never be replaced in our lifetime)
I could go on and on, but I think you get the general picture: it takes approximately 4 gallons of water to make one gallon of ethanol. We can live without ethanol, but we surely can't live without water. Still think the "benefits" of ethanol outweigh any loss of mpg?
Bud
Here's where the entire premise of that information is dead wrong: They're growing the corn anyway.
That said... The overwhelming majority of corn used for the production of ethanol is coming from non-irrigated land, such as the land in Iowa. Its production has no bearing whatever to the level of the aquifer.
If people are so concerned about the water level of aquifers, we can start doing something about it by keeping the millions of suburbanites in places like Las Vegas and Phoenix from watering their lawns - a ridiculous habit that uses more water than all farmland irrigation combined.
Ethanol has the potential to solve a lot of problems in this country.
Too bad the liberals are still trying to kill it & keep us addicted to foreign oil (and their extremist leaders).
Ethanol can and should be a piece of the energy puzzle. And while I don't know that it's the liberals doing it, there certainly are a lot of VERY misleading and false ideas floating around about ethanol.
So many lies about the cost of production, etc. It's astounding and appalling.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.