Printable View
Swmbo just watching the telly about a comparison between premium unleaded, unleaded and E10 etanol blend
test car did these km on a tank of fuel
Premium unleaded 700km
unleaded 800kmn
E10 ethanol 1100km
hmm, cant get e10 here,
how much is 4 litres of metho? :cool:
Like to check for typos Bob? 100 km doesn't sound real good to me.
Richard
thanks daddles shoulda bin 1100km
Try methanol.
Premium is less than standard unleaded? I've been using Optimax for 5 years and always thought the mileage made up for the extra cost. :confused:
Hi Echidna,
That still doesn't sound quite right: my car is supposed to require PULP rather than ordinary ULP, and according to various oil companies (eg Shell with their "Optimax" product) they claim better mileage with PULP - and my experience has tended to support this, albeit somewhat empirically.
WRT E10, there is less energy (joules/gm) in the mix than "ordinary" petrol, so one would have to suppose that consumption would be greater (energy = work done)?
Cheers!
it was on the tv tonight, probably "Today Tonight"
I suppose the only way to find out which is best in each of our cars is to try it.
So it's probably wrong then. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by echnidna
Bob,
And "reporters" are scientifically qualified to report on the progress of a fly climbing the wall too...http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon10.gif- well they 'comment' on pollies too, don't they?http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon10.gifhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...cons/icon8.gif
I woulda thought the same but methanol has an optimum air/fuel ratio somewhere around 4 which is way lower than petrol so maybe what it does is lean the mix down enough to giver better mileage from the petrolcomponent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Auld Bassoon
Personally I'd like to see an exhaust gas anaylser and see just how lean it gets. Though apparently the yanks have been using E10 for years without mechanical problems.
Try it for your self.
Run the tank almost dry, fill it with PULP & clear the trip meter.
Run the tank almost dry, fill it wil ULP & clear the trip meter.
Run the tank almost dry, fill it with E10 & clear the trip meter.
D'oh... I forgot to tell you to record the reading on the trip meter....:eek:
But you knew that didn't you. :D
If you are the nervious type, when the tank is getting low, carry a 5L container of the next fuel with you incase you run out.
The problem is... we don't buy yank cars. :(Quote:
Originally Posted by echnidna
We buy most of our cars from a country were legislation dictates that they don't have to last more than 40,000Kms.
The Ethanol bugas up some of the gasket material in the feul system.
E10 won't kill the motor, it'll just start leaking out.
yep, Cliff, you're right - the fuel itself won't harm the engine, but bits of partially dissolved gaskets, plastic fittings and what-not won't do it much good either!http://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com...ons/icon10.gif
Bob; the stoichiometrically correct ratio, in theory, for petrol is around 22:1 air/fuel, and a bit less, I recall (18:1?) for methanol which is very similar, chemically, to ethanol - the prob though is that the ECU in the vehicle can't determine what fuel it has, so it's programmed on the basis of petrol, which, I'd imagine, obviates any potential advantage unless the ECU was specifically programmed for a particular fuel type - which isn't yet widely available...
Cheers!
Given the technological advances across the board in a range of industries.
I often wonder why the same hasnt seemed to happen at the same pace with regard to the internal combustion engine.
More correctly, i wonder how many real innovations may have been bought by oil companies and left in a very dark room..........now there is a conspiracy theory.
Steve
So've I, but only in some circumstances: I have actually done the comparisons over one month period for each of our cars, with the most erratic results. For the "new" ones, I actually swapped month about for a total of three months each and didn't get any difference in the numbers!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby
The "old" Cars:
'86 1200cc Suzuki Sierra - Optimax gave about 4% improvement.
'90 325 BMW - 2.5l six cylinder Optimax gave better than 10% improvement.
The "new" Cars:
2001 Suzuki Vitara 2l 4 (twin cam) - 0 difference under all driving conditions :confused:
2000 320 BMW 2.3l six, variable valve timing and all the gee whizz tricks - 0 difference under all driving conditions, but markedly better accelaration above legal highway speeds. I like to use the good stuff on the highway anyway!
None of this is useful, but it is curious.
Oh and for the statistically minded, the Suzukis get replaced at about 300,000 ks, and the Bimmers at 400,000 (with 5 year old ones that people have forgotten to drive.) We don't usually buy cars until by Cliff's standard, they've worn out. :eek:
Cheers,
P