I didn't want to create a new thread for just a simple question but this is completely off topic, I figured you would know this better than anyone. I was thinking about Pontiac's line up over the years and was wondering if anyone has ever done a TTA engine swap into the fiero. Would that be possible? I assume it would be hard to track down the engine but could imagine that it would hook up. Plus 300HP in a fiero is pretty much overkill.
I didn't want to create a new thread for just a simple question but this is completely off topic, I figured you would know this better than anyone. I was thinking about Pontiac's line up over the years and was wondering if anyone has ever done a TTA engine swap into the fiero. Would that be possible? I assume it would be hard to track down the engine but could imagine that it would hook up. Plus 300HP in a fiero is pretty much overkill.
I don't think I've ever seen that engine swapped into a Fiero. Any engine swap is possible if you've got the time/money/skills to do it.
There are cheaper/easier swaps to do that produce the same or better power, like the 3800.
It just means you were only considering the readout at a point where it actually read out what the average managed to come to. If you'd reset the average MPG reading at the beginning, it should have read the same value at the end of the trip when you filled up the gas.
All the instant reading tells you is what the computer is calculating your MPG to be at that point in time. It isn't the MPG your car is necessarily going to get over the course of an entire tank of fuel. If it was, we'd have already solved the energy problem, because my truck would be getting 99.9 MPG.
You apparently didnt read anything I wrote. We all know the instant mileage readout varies with how you push the gas pedal. When your on cruise (or not) and maintaining a steady speed on a straight level road the instant readout is dead on accurate to the tenths of a gallon...and will remain there untill you either press or release the gas pedal. Ive tested them before many times, and the car uses just what the readout says it used. All you have to do is drive a measured number of miles after you top off and what it takes to top it back off is exactly how much gas you used, ive done that to verify it. Thats very simple to comprehend. If your truck can go 30 miles on a level road and the readout says your getting 99 miles the whole way, bring it here and Ill buy it for double blue book plus your expenses. Assuming your readout is working properly of course. It WILL give the correct amount over the course of the entire tank of fuel provided you set the cruise and can find 400 miles of straight, level highway. It would not vary if you could because it will change readings only if it accelerates or decelerates during the drive. The instant readout is PERFECTLY ACCURATE if you maintain a steady speed for whatever the distance you want from 10 miles to 1000 miles. AVERAGE readout is a worthless number because it takes everything that uses gas into account. While portions of a trip may get 30 mpg, your not going to get that in stop and go traffic and going up and down mountains. Your average with highway, city traffic, stop and go, may be closer to half that. Knowing im going on a 100 mile trip in a car that gets 30 mpg, and the road is all straight and level freeway, I know I can make it with 3 gallons of gas and return with another 3 gallons. If I used the average reading for the last month, which would be more like 16 mpg avg, I would think I needed 6 gallons to go each way. Like I said, the average reading is a worthless number to me. I know Im going to get better than 16 mpg on that trip so what good is it knowing that.
" If you'd reset the average MPG reading at the beginning, it should have read the same value at the end of the trip when you filled up the gas."
Exactly.....I reset the average before the test. The average readout was identical to the instant readout, until i got off the exit, where the average dropped because of stops at lights and signs.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 07-09-2014).]
Originally posted by rogergarrison: The instant readout is PERFECTLY ACCURATE if you maintain a steady speed for whatever the distance you want from 10 miles to 1000 miles.
I read EXACTLY what you typed. What I didn't read is your mind to understand your confusingly bad logic.
You are not going to maintain a steady speed, regardless of distance. You can only maintain a steady speed for a portion of that distance. You don't start and stop at 60 MPH. The engine still burns fuel when you are increasing speed to 60 MPH, and when you pull off the freeway and into the station to fill up the tank.
If the average readout is lower than what you calculated when you filled up, then either you put less fuel in, actually drove less miles (because of tire size difference or whatever), just did the math wrong, or the computer in the car is off by some margin, and the fact that the instant readout you saw matched the average you calculated at the pump is purely a coincidence.
I'm not saying you weren't getting 25 MPG. I'm saying you're putting blind faith in something you clearly don't understand the function of. You keep espousing that the AVG readout is just wrong, and the instant is always right. And neither one of those statements is remotely true. Neither one is 100% accurate, and can be off by 3-5% most of the time under factory specified conditions.
If im on a straight level stretch of interstate on cruise control it will stay at that speed constantly until you do something to change it...let up or push on the gas. As long as its going a constant speed and not going up or down a grade, the instant reading IS constant. I can drive 30 miles without it changing at all. I can set up a camera on the dash to prove that. Central Ohio is as flat as Kansas. I can go for hours without the speed changing 1 mph, but the readout will change 1-2 mpg if I hit a grade going up or down. So you are correct, I cant drive it 400 miles without it changing...sooner or later Ill be on some kind of grade. But I can say that the car after say the 30 miles WILL tell me the exact gas mileage at the time Im measuring it. If I had enough gas I could put on the cruise and drive from coast to coast without varying more than 1-2 mph. Of course hitting mountains, or even hills would change the instant mpg...but not the mph. Soon as it was on level road, the instant reading will go right back to what it was. It works everytime to give an accurate measure of mpg as long as speed is constant and road is level...everytime. Not theory...I do it all the time on every car I have that has the readout. I dont understand why you cant see this. I leave mine on all the time and see it everytime I drive. Yes on a surface street, it dont work because it will vary every time you move the gas pedal to stop or start, or move up or down hill from 0 mpg to 80mpg...Those are not steady...those constantly change if its set on instant, but do not if its on averaging. Thats why its called average. Thats why it dont show the mileage the car can do...only the average between its best and worst mileage.
Im going to assume we are still talking about Cadillac's Instant economy read out?
If your doing exactly what you have stated than yes, the 'instant economy' should be just as accurate as the 'average mpg' read out. I noticed that driving with the 'instant' on I tend to be a little bit more delicate on the throttle.
But if I want to know what kinda mpg im getting from an over all tank of gas I reset the 'average' and start it over from there. Using the 'instant' for city driving and watching it go from 70mpg to 8 doesn't necessarily give me personally the information I need.
The Fiero V6 was built to run on 85 octane, not 91. Unless you've advanced the timing a whole lot, increased the compression a bunch, or are running a turbo, then 91+ octane is a waste of money. Also, ethanol-blended gas has been around in the US since the 70s. It was certainly around when the Fiero engines were designed and built.
I agree. I have never had any problem with running regular on a 9:1 3.4. I ran either 91 or 94 on my turbo 3.2
I still don really understand how 85 and 87 octane are both qualifying as regular, is it elevation related?.
I doubt it. "Regular" and "Premium" are really just misnomers. All they mean is the cheapest and most expensive of the 3 octane levels of gasoline at any given station.
Im going to assume we are still talking about Cadillac's Instant economy read out?
If your doing exactly what you have stated than yes, the 'instant economy' should be just as accurate as the 'average mpg' read out. I noticed that driving with the 'instant' on I tend to be a little bit more delicate on the throttle.
But if I want to know what kinda mpg im getting from an over all tank of gas I reset the 'average' and start it over from there. Using the 'instant' for city driving and watching it go from 70mpg to 8 doesn't necessarily give me personally the information I need.
Im talking about general cars. All my Chryslers, Cadillac and Lincolns had them. They all worked the same, and were all as reliable because I tested each one since I left it on most of the time. And yes, I also find myself easier on the gas since I try to keep it up to maximum all the time, even unconciously. I use the instant because I want to know what Im getting at a specific time, like right now. I can also tell when I need something like a tune up or got some bad gas...because the reading wont be up to what it normally is. Personally like I said before, I dont see the need for the average...just the opposite of you. I can get the average with a few seconds of simple math. I can read the odometer and divide it by the gallons of gas it used and it tells me exactly what the average up to that point is. I always reset my trip odometer when I fill up....and I always fill up, never just put like $10 or $20 in. I always have said it isnt any more expensive to keep it full than to keep it empty or half full. I do the same with the motorhome in warmer weather. I always top it back up when I come back from a road trip. I dont worry about it going bad because I use at least a tank of gas in it every month and it takes 60 gallons. It gets just shy of 10 mpg on the highway. No readout there, I just do the math. I used 19 gallons on a 140 mile round trip...then had to figure in the gas used in the generator @ .33 gallons per hour running time (gen runs of coaches tank) over the weekend. So It came out to about 15 gallons on the trip or 9.33 mpg. That also would be an average reading since there was some driving on surface streets too. On the highway itself on cruise, Ill guess its prob around 11mpg. Its 454 35' class A.
I still don't really understand how 85 and 87 octane are both qualifying as regular, is it elevation related?.
I would say it's related to the gas station and the state. In my state 87 is qualified as "super" where as 91 is qualified as the premium. To me it seems weird to think that there is gas stations selling 92 and 93 octane gas. Im assuming that it's got to be a $.30 difference between the two which just seems ridiculous considering on how close they are.
The Fiero V6 was built to run on 85 octane, not 91. Unless you've advanced the timing a whole lot, increased the compression a bunch, or are running a turbo, then 91+ octane is a waste of money. Also, ethanol-blended gas has been around in the US since the 70s. It was certainly around when the Fiero engines were designed and built.
Where pray tell was ethanol blended fuel sold before the late 90's ??? when it replaced mbt?? because it has been a royal pain since the late 90's in everything from boats to lawn equipment to cars from the years you are say'n it was sold as pump fuel for over the road use.. as seen as any q-jet made all the way till the last ones in 89-90 the ethanol eats the castings.. and I know what it does to non metal carb floats.. nevermind the fuel lines ..
also the octane rating and testing iirc changed big time from 1985 and now... so todays 85 octane isn't the same as that in 85-86-87-88,etc.. as the new ethanol 10% fuel is 80-82 octane gas with ethanol added that when tested =85 octane... problem with this is many starting with ethanol doesn't stay mixed in the base fuel so your engine can get anything from 79-87 octane from that pump labled 85 depending on things like the pump mixing the correct amount of ethanol (yes it's mixed at the pump) and if that ethanol is full of water or not.. and how old the load in the tank is at station and how old the stuff in the cars tank is.. and how much water the ethanol in your cars tank has sucked in.. so blindly say'n putting 91 in the tank is a waste of money is a fools game. at best.. and I'm being kind
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 07-10-2014).]
Originally posted by E.Furgal: Where pray tell was ethanol blended fuel sold before the late 90's ??? when it replaced mbt?? because it has been a royal pain since the late 90's in everything from boats to lawn equipment to cars from the years you are say'n it was sold as pump fuel for over the road use.. as seen as any q-jet made all the way till the last ones in 89-90 the ethanol eats the castings.. and I know what it does to non metal carb floats.. nevermind the fuel lines ..
also the octane rating and testing iirc changed big time from 1985 and now... so todays 85 octane isn't the same as that in 85-86-87-88,etc.. as the new ethanol 10% fuel is 80-82 octane gas with ethanol added that when tested =85 octane... problem with this is many starting with ethanol doesn't stay mixed in the base fuel so your engine can get anything from 79-87 octane from that pump labled 85 depending on things like the pump mixing the correct amount of ethanol (yes it's mixed at the pump) and if that ethanol is full of water or not.. and how old the load in the tank is at station and how old the stuff in the cars tank is.. and how much water the ethanol in your cars tank has sucked in.. so blindly say'n putting 91 in the tank is a waste of money is a fools game. at best.. and I'm being kind
Uh. Ethanol blended gasoline has been sold in the US since the 70s. Not as widely deployed as it started to be in the 90s until now, but yes, it has existed. I never claimed it was ubiquitous. But it's been around for a damn long time. A modicum of research would have told you that. Heck, since 1993, Brazil has required between 22% and 30% mixtures.
And yes, dumping 91-93 into a Fiero is a waste of money. And the number on the pump is the minimum octane rating, so no, you're not going to get 79 or 82 octane out of the pump, even if you pull 100% gasoline and no ethanol. You'll get 85, if you're pumping 85 out of the pump. There isn't a tank of 100% ethanol sitting underneath the station. Otherwise every station in the country would be selling E85 as well as E10. It's not mixed at the pump like you say. Also, with 10% ethanol, you're going to have at most 2% of that ethanol containing water. So "full of water" is not something it's going to be. The tanks and pumps at the station are a sealed system, so they aren't going to be sitting there collecting water from nowhere. Most of the water in the fuel is going to be pulled into the fuel while it's in your vehicle, depending on your fuel lines, tank, and seals; and not while it's in the tank at the station.
I would say it's related to the gas station and the state. In my state 87 is qualified as "super" where as 91 is qualified as the premium. To me it seems weird to think that there is gas stations selling 92 and 93 octane gas. Im assuming that it's got to be a $.30 difference between the two which just seems ridiculous considering on how close they are.
Here, 87 is currently about 3.49, 89 about 3.69, and 92/93 is about 3.99, depending on the station.
I was looking online and it seems the lower the octane rating, the higher elevation.
"Most cars use "regular" gasoline, which is usually 87 octane. Regular gasoline is some areas of the U.S. is 85 octane. The yellow sticker at the gas pump states the octane level of the gasoline. You should not use 85-octane gasoline if your owner's manual recommends a higher octane level.
Considerations Lower air pressure at high altitudes lowers the pressure in your car's cylinders; this might allow you to use a lower octane fuel. Eighty-five octane fuel at high altitudes is equivalent to 87 octane at sea level, according to Car Talk.
You are using an appropriate level of octane gasoline if your engine does not make rattling or pinging noises. Switch to a higher octane gasoline if the engine rattles or pings."
"so blindly say'n putting 91 in the tank is a waste of money is a fools game. at best.. and I'm being kind"
Yep. My mother had a Cavalier 4 cyl. She always put in the highest octane premium she could. Her mind set was ANYTHING that was premium was better than anything regular. You werent going to change her mind either...did it till she couldnt drive anymore.
I was looking online and it seems the lower the octane rating, the higher elevation.
"Most cars use "regular" gasoline, which is usually 87 octane. Regular gasoline is some areas of the U.S. is 85 octane. The yellow sticker at the gas pump states the octane level of the gasoline. You should not use 85-octane gasoline if your owner's manual recommends a higher octane level.
Considerations Lower air pressure at high altitudes lowers the pressure in your car's cylinders; this might allow you to use a lower octane fuel. Eighty-five octane fuel at high altitudes is equivalent to 87 octane at sea level, according to Car Talk.
You are using an appropriate level of octane gasoline if your engine does not make rattling or pinging noises. Switch to a higher octane gasoline if the engine rattles or pings."
Here on the east coast, damn near in the Atlantic Ocean, premium is 93 and regular is 87. Just returned from a trip to Kansas. As we traveled west the premium octane rating dropped to 91 but regular remained at 87. OTOH, in Colorado last year premium was 89 and regular was 85.
One of the advantages of living in a marine environment is that non-ethanol fuel is readily available because boaters need it.
Haven't seen non-ethanol fuel here for many years.
In '97 or so, I drove a '91 Saturn to Norfolk, VA. Oddly, only on the way out, I got better MPG than normal in the mountains. I later discovered this was because I'd just filled up with non-ethanol fuel. I didn't get another tank of non-ethanol until back this side of the mountains, on my way back, which was when I made the discovery.
Ethanol was one way to sell lower corn for gas engines' fuel. At the time, it cost less than gasoline, but we paid the same per gallon at the pump, so they were ripping us off. It had the additional features of causing engines to have a shorter life, gunk up, run hotter, lose MPG, and lose horsepower. Ethanol also shoetens the life of the catalytic converter. Now, ethanol costs more than gasoline, so they're increasing the cost of the entire gallon as if the whole gallon was ethanol. Meanwhile, people go hungry. Politicians.
If I could find ethanol-free fuel, I would use it. The costs at the pump are only a small portion of the true cost of using ethanol.
Haven't seen non-ethanol fuel here for many years.
In '97 or so, I drove a '91 Saturn to Norfolk, VA. Oddly, only on the way out, I got better MPG than normal in the mountains. I later discovered this was because I'd just filled up with non-ethanol fuel. I didn't get another tank of non-ethanol until back this side of the mountains, on my way back, which was when I made the discovery.
Ethanol was one way to sell lower corn for gas engines' fuel. At the time, it cost less than gasoline, but we paid the same per gallon at the pump, so they were ripping us off. It had the additional features of causing engines to have a shorter life, gunk up, run hotter, lose MPG, and lose horsepower. Ethanol also shoetens the life of the catalytic converter. Now, ethanol costs more than gasoline, so they're increasing the cost of the entire gallon as if the whole gallon was ethanol. Meanwhile, people go hungry. Politicians.
If I could find ethanol-free fuel, I would use it. The costs at the pump are only a small portion of the true cost of using ethanol.
Buy a Tesla then. No ethanol or petroleum required to run it.
[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 07-12-2014).]
I just filled up the tank with 91 octane %10 ethanol and will get back with the results after this week.
The 25.4 MPG sounds about right for what you should be getting where you live. The 31.2 on 91 seems like a fluke more than anything. Air pressure is lower there, and there's less oxygen in the air, so getting increased efficiency and power from it, just doesn't make scientific sense.
The 25.4 MPG sounds about right for what you should be getting where you live. The 31.2 on 91 seems like a fluke more than anything. Air pressure is lower there, and there's less oxygen in the air, so getting increased efficiency and power from it, just doesn't make scientific sense.
A fluke? I tried it 3 different times so this seems to be rather consistent. Who knows, maybe in the short time someone else had the car they did some tweaking, but from everything I can gather it seems to be %100 original. I bet if I could be on a straight road for awhile and constantly doing 55 I bet my car could go to 40mpg.
Remember, EPA testing is based off of 75 degree days with controlled wind resistance, and is only used on 10-15% of the car's. "EPA estimates" so the real figures can be very different from what testing shows.
Buy a Tesla then. No ethanol or petroleum required to run it.
That's good, because fires and fuel don't mix. No thanks. Besides, I like the rumble of a REAL motor. Sure, the torque on the Tesla is great, but I don't enjoy driving it. Did a drive with a few. There aree still places Teslas can't go.
Last time I drove in CO, I had to manually advance the timing on a '77 Dodge with a 440 V8 to keep it from fouling out. I suspect this Fiero has the timing advanced, which would help with the higher octane, and with the lack of ethanol. Ethanol is dirty, so a lack of ethanol would lead to a cleaner, more efficient burn.
Originally posted by zzzhuh: A fluke? I tried it 3 different times so this seems to be rather consistent. Who knows, maybe in the short time someone else had the car they did some tweaking, but from everything I can gather it seems to be %100 original. I bet if I could be on a straight road for awhile and constantly doing 55 I bet my car could go to 40mpg.
Remember, EPA testing is based off of 75 degree days with controlled wind resistance, and is only used on 10-15% of the car's. "EPA estimates" so the real figures can be very different from what testing shows.
Well, the EPA estimate is also for sea level or very near it. Yes, you'll get more than that up in FoCo, but not 50% more, and certainly not 50% more with a fuel that burns less efficiently in the Fiero's engine, and even less so with the lower cylinder pressure.
Last time I drove in CO, I had to manually advance the timing on a '77 Dodge with a 440 V8 to keep it from fouling out. I suspect this Fiero has the timing advanced, which would help with the higher octane, and with the lack of ethanol. Ethanol is dirty, so a lack of ethanol would lead to a cleaner, more efficient burn.
Ethanol is a natural cleaning agent. It's not "dirty" whatever you mean by that. Timing is one thing, and the ECM is probably naturally running advance by a few degrees to make up for the atmospheric pressure and lower oxygen content. If it were advanced enough to be running 91 efficiently at that altitude on the stock 2.8, I'd expect 85 to result in pinging or possibly misfiring, because the cylinder pressure is so low and the timing would be too advanced.
A small turbo, and advanced would certainly make 91 useful, but on a stock 2.8 with no pinging on 85, I just don't see any scientific reason for 91 to be more efficient, at that altitude.
Assuming you DO get better mileage with premium than you do with regular, does the percentage of gain outway the extra cost of the premium. I just find it hard to believe you get 5 more mpg with premium gas, but I could be wrong. Everyone always calls me out if im not exact on something.
Someone clue me in on somewhere a Tesla cant go ? They seem to do great on the street or highway, road course racetracks and dragstrips....dont think anyones tried off roading though.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 07-13-2014).]
Originally posted by rogergarrison: Someone clue me in on somewhere a Tesla cant go ? They seem to do great on the street or highway, road course racetracks and dragstrips....dont think anyones tried off roading though.
I suspect charging stations for electric cars, are still somewhat unavailable in the midwest. So long trips might be problematic. But as a daily commuter they work fine.
I was referring to out West. Colorado, Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada. Yes, charging stations is the issue. They aren't great for daily driving. The cost of using one for pizza delivery is prohibitive. Even running around sucks. If driving in southern Illinois, the Tesla will be destroyed.
Then there is the problem of getting one fixed. Good luck. If you can find a place to work on one (I mean without causing more damage), good luck getting parts.
I drove my Fiero from Lisle, IL to Hazelwood, MO. Filled up in Lisle, then about 20 miles out of Hazewood. 253 miles, about 11 gallons, so about 23MPG at speed limit. Found the FPR was bad. 24MPG, now.
I just provided these for known distances. Knowm V6 motor, known '88 gas tank.
As I understand it, ONLY the fast charge stations are hard to come by, but they will charge on any 120v outlet (id have to check for sure). I can work with 250 miles per day range myself. I think sales claims 268 miles. I also heard (unconfirmed) that there are plenty of the fast charge stations on interstates across the country.
There is a Tesla sales and service center 4 miles from me, but they also come to fix it as I understand right at the house.
If ethanol is higher octane....but reduces mpg, shouldnt premium gas, also higher octane therefore ALSO reduce mpg...Just asking since it seems to me it cant be both ways.....like those claiming more mpg with premium ?
As I understand it, ONLY the fast charge stations are hard to come by, but they will charge on any 120v outlet (id have to check for sure). I can work with 250 miles per day range myself. I think sales claims 268 miles. I also heard (unconfirmed) that there are plenty of the fast charge stations on interstates across the country.
There is a Tesla sales and service center 4 miles from me, but they also come to fix it as I understand right at the house.
If ethanol is higher octane....but reduces mpg, shouldnt premium gas, also higher octane therefore ALSO reduce mpg...Just asking since it seems to me it cant be both ways.....like those claiming more mpg with premium ?
Yes, any standard 15 amp outlet can be used to charge the Tesla, or other electric/hybrid cars.
And octane itself has very little to do with MPG. What matters is how efficiently it burns. Lower octane will also reduce MPG and possibly cause further damage, when used in engines designed for higher octane fuels. Running higher octane in an engine designed for a lower octane fuel, will generally result in a less complete burn, which is why you need to advance the timing, so that the fuel will have more time to burn in the cylinder. With proper advanced you may see an extremely small increase in MPG (a couple tenths MPG, certainly not 6 MPG) on higher octane fuel. The extra unburned fuel can result in a much shorter lifespan for the catalytic converter, when using higher octane fuel on stock timing, though. Switching to pure gasoline may also show a very small increase in performance and MPG, but only for the same octane rating. Running higher octane fuel on stock timing, even if it's got no ethanol, would still have the same burn efficiency issues as compared to the octane fuel the engine is designed for.
Now, maybe the timing on zzzhuh's car is advanced from stock enough that higher octane fuel does burn better than it otherwise would in a totally stock engine, but I would have expected him to complain about pinging/knock when switching to 85 from 91, if that were the case.
The timing is usually advanced at higher altitudes. Since I'm at 334 ft above sea level, it's quite a change to go to Colorado.
There are these geographical oddities where there is no 15A outlet to be found for more than 250 miles. Just miles and miles of ranch land. What is the point of a vehicle that won't get you anywhere? I would have a difficult time with my Fiero, as well, but there are gas stations. Do you really want to wait for hours in the middle of nowhere for your car to charge off someone's gas generator? Even gas stations and ranchers aren't too thrilled with you using their electric. Tesla=not practical at this time. We did have one in a road trip. We had to have the car towed to a charge station twice. Yes, in theory they eventually come to you. Apparently, not as good as advertised. It was easier to return the Tesla. They kept talking about sending this defective piece back for a few weeks, or that one for a few weeks. The people who come out just do trial and error for issues. Each ”fix” is another few weeks.
[This message has been edited by tshark (edited 07-14-2014).]
If higher octane than the engine is designed for is bad, clogs up the converter, causes bad MPG, runs hotter, etc, why do they put in 105 octane ethanol in 85 octane fuel? That would explain why ethanol causes so many issues.
Lead was also a cleaning agent and a lubricant. Didn't make it clean.
Bottom line, engine runs cooler, has more power, gets better MPG, lasts longer, etc WITHOUT ethanol, AND there is more corn for people to eat.
zzzhuh, can you give us known start and stop points on a map? IE, I filled up and drove from city X to city Y, where I filled up with Z gallons after a distance of ZZ miles on the trip-odometer.
We could then pull the actual distance you traveled, compare with what your odometer says, and compare MPG results.
[This message has been edited by tshark (edited 07-14-2014).]
Originally posted by tshark: If higher octane than the engine is designed for is bad, clogs up the converter, causes bad MPG, runs hotter, etc, why do they put in 105 octane ethanol in 85 octane fuel? That would explain why ethanol causes so many issues.
Lead was also a cleaning agent and a lubricant. Didn't make it clean.
Bottom line, engine runs cooler, has more power, gets better MPG, lasts longer, etc WITHOUT ethanol, AND there is more corn for people to eat.
You are reaching for excuses to blame ethanol. Higher octane PETROLEUM is very different from ETHANOL. Ethanol is a cleaning agent. It doesn't have the same burn characteristics as petroleum. "Runs hotter" is also BS. Alcohol (ethanol/methanol) powered engines actually run cooler. That's why alcohol dragsters tend to spend more time warming up in the pits, than gasoline powered cars.
If you want to make broken political conspiracy arguments, please go to T/OT where those threads belong.
Assuming you DO get better mileage with premium than you do with regular, does the percentage of gain outway the extra cost of the premium. I just find it hard to believe you get 5 more mpg with premium gas, but I could be wrong. Everyone always calls me out if im not exact on something.
"As a car gets older, depending on how the car has been driven and cared for, it may need a higher-octane gasoline anytime between four and six years. That's because carbon deposits inside the cylinders raise the combustion ratio, which in turn raises the engine's octane rating. You may notice that your car operated fine on regular fuel when it was new, but pings on regular as it gets older. So, the higher-octane fuel is not something to pamper a new car with but rather help keep an older car running properly. "
More than that, higher quality gas has better additives put into it during the refining process.
Because my car is almost 30 years old, putting premium in it keeps it clean and doesn't necessarily harm the engine. I know when I worked at a gas station we might of had 91 octane but the additives inside of our gas was not even close to being as good as a close by shell's 91 "v-power."
