NEW! STA-BIL® Ethanol Treatment.

[Water Warrior 2]

Originally Posted by jonathan180iq

Be sure that you're getting the fuel you think you are getting.

I think I did. After running a couple tanks with increasing octane ratings with Ethanol and feeling no difference or hearing no change in the engine note I tried the 94 octane without Ethanol. This was with the Ranger 4.0 V6. There was a real difference in performance and engine noise. The truck ran quieter with an increase in power across the RPM range. The increase in torque allowed me to stay in 5th rather than downshift to 4th on longer steep grades.
I think the Ethanol addition is nothing more than a giant scam to make somebody richer than they need to be.

[alantf]

After what I keep reading, I just thank the lord that we don't have ethanol over here. Is it added to make the air cleaner? because if it is, it's certainly a scam. There are pollution monitors in all the big towns, over here, & they all show that the air quality is good, even with the traffic congestion that we suffer.

[jonathan180iq]

At first it was praised as a good idea that was a great deal for farmers and a head nod to the Environmentalists all at the same time. Ethanol blended fuel (or any oxygenate for that matter) reduces carbon monoxide emissions and cleans up a couple of other nasty things that come out of the tail pipe. It was also a boost for corn and grain farmers who received a subsidy for growing the stuff at a time when they weren't making much for their harvest. And it was intended to reduce dependence on foreign oil, ever so slightly.

But now that a lot of time has passed, and we have seen the project in action over many years, the project has shown that there is a decrease in fuel economy as well as a decrease in food production as a whole. The ethanol debacle is a good part of what is causing food prices all over the world to increase. People who used to grow food for a living can make more $$ buy earning the subsidy by producing inedible corn to be made into a fuel blend. It's just silly to think that we are throwing our food into gas tanks all in the name of reduce CO emissions.... and I'm one of the whacko nut jobs that thinks reduced emissions are a good thing. But if it comes at the expense of our fuel economy (which makes us pay more for a gas blend that doesn't get us as far as it used to) and causes food shortages and food price increases all over the world... what are we thinking by continuing this program. On top of all that, we are forced to buy more foreign oil because the gas that we DO have doesn't go the same amount of miles as gas without ethanol. So we're driving shorter distances and having to fill up more often. When you start breaking it down, it's insane that we still do this.

I don't blame the farmers at all. If I was a farmer and I got paid extra to produce that crunchy nugget of gold, I would too. It would make the most sense to my family. Why don't we just remove the fuel corn subsidy and pay farmers for what they really do... grow food?

We also tout Brazil as being a model for us possibly. Brazil makes most of their own fuel by harvesting cane sugar and turning the byproduct into ethanol. I think the whole country runs on E-85. Brazil also has a pretty big food shortage problem. They're blowing their food out the tailpipe.

[Gz Rider]

...

[jonathan180iq]

We they first announced that we were getting the Smart, I was thrilled. I assumed, of course, that we would get the 65 MPG turbo diesel city car that is available in Europe. In stead, all we got was a lousy go-kart. Actually, I'll bet a Briggs motor in that thing would get better mileage than the one they gave us.... Freakin' US auto market ruins everything.

And while motorcycle emissions are dirtier than car emissions, (our PPM is higher in most categories) we exhaust so little of the nasty stuff that it really doesn't matter.

Let's say a bike spits out 6 PPM of a particular pollutant per gallon of gasoline. And the car only spits our 2 PPM of the same pollutant.
But the car burns through 3 times the amount of gas as the bike, assuming 20+ MPG for the car and 60+ MPG for the bike.

Over 100 miles the car will have exhausted that 2-PPM FIVE times, while the bike will have done it 1.667 times.

So which is more a more polluting vehicle?

2-PPM x 5 = 10 total contaminants.
6-PPM x 1.667 = 10.002 total contaminants per 100 miles.

So is the bike dirtier than the car? Yes.... by .002
Even if you expand that out to 15,000 miles per year, the difference is still only .3

*This is an extremely simplified response showing how cars and bike pollute just about the same amount.
Actual pollutant information can be found @ www.fueleconomy.gov

[alantf]

On the subject of cars - we've got a 1400cc Citroen C3. Great fuel economy on the lowest grade petrol. Able to carry 5 people plus luggage. Cruises comfortably at 80mph+ on the autopista. Low maintenance costs. How many people in America would admit that they've got a car with a smaller engine than some of the bikes on this site?

[jonathan180iq]

I could probably do an entire thread on the awesome Euro cars that we don't get.... You guys suck

My first car was a 1000cc 1994 Geo Metro Coupe 3cyl. My 50cc scooter would out run it, but it was the smallest engine around for a while.

[Gz Rider]

...

[jonathan180iq]

Yeah. I used to laugh a Prius owners as I passed them in my 1994 POS.

1994 POS = 45 MPG
2010 Toyota Hybrid Electric Bling = 45 MPG

Someone is not doing something right.

[birdmove]

I also had a three cylinder Geo Metro two door hatchback and manual transmission. That waqs the best car I ever owned. Drove it for 160,000 miles. Totally easy to change oil and filter, tuneup, etc. The sum total of problems? The muffler rusted through at about 120,000 miles. Mine AVERAGED 54 miles per US gallon. It was the cheapest car of it's day, as I think the real POS Yugo had dissapeared by then.
Bring back that little car at a reasonable price and it would sell like crazy.

jon