anyone using premium gas ?

[Outlaw5.0]

Originally Posted by heliosj228

I live in Colorado where 'regular' is 85 octane. The manual says to use 87.. so I do. Otherwise I don't believe it makes a difference.

Explain why you think it makes no difference?. Less timing is less power to get the car moving with the same throttle angle. Also less timing means more fuel for catalyst protection.

[AZfocus2012]

Originally Posted by heliosj228

I live in Colorado where 'regular' is 85 octane. The manual says to use 87.. so I do. Otherwise I don't believe it makes a difference.

If you didn't follow the link from page 2 to the video, you may want to check it out. Here is a link directly to the video. Also, if you are already paying for mid grade, I would find a Shell station and try a few tanks of V-Power/Optimax and see what happens.

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQghB4asSnI

[BetaDnB]

Since this has been gone over time and time again I'll only add my 11,000 miles of experience with this car; ethanol free is the way to be aka e0 is my hero.
Posted via FF Mobile

[AZfocus2012]

Originally Posted by BetaDnB

Since this has been gone over time and time again I'll only add my 11,000 miles of experience with this car; ethanol free is the way to be aka e0 is my hero.
Posted via FF Mobile

I hear ya. Not available in my area. Screw the corn grower/ethanol producer lobby for screwing all of us who can't buy gas.

[cessna1]

Ethanol’s energy content was not found to be a direct predictor of fuel economy. All four vehicles tested exhibited better fuel economy with the ethanol blends than the Btu-value estimates predicted.

E20 and E30 ethanol blends outperformed unleaded gasoline in fuel economy tests for certain autos. Contrary to Btu-based estimates of fuel economy for ethanol blends, three of the four vehicles tested achieved their highest fuel efficiency not on gasoline, but on an ethanol blend. Mid-level blends of ethanol E20 (20% ethanol, 80% gasoline) and E30 (30% ethanol, 70% gasoline) offered the best fuel economy in these tests.

E30 offered better fuel economy than gasoline (a 1% increase) in both the Toyota and the Ford.

E20 offered better fuel economy than gasoline (a 15% increase) in the flex-fuel Chevrolet.

The non-flex-fuel Chevrolet more closely followed the Btu-calculated trend for fuel economy, but did experience a significant improvement over the trend line with E40 (40% ethanol, 60% gasoline), indicating that this may be the optimal ethanol blend level for this vehicle.

The standard, non-flex-fuel vehicles operated well on ethanol blends beyond 10%. The Ford Fusion operated on E45, the Toyota on E65, and the non-flex-fuel Chevy on E55. No engine fault codes were displayed until these levels were surpassed.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...finds-cer.html

[AZfocus2012]

Originally Posted by cessna1

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...finds-cer.html

This is as far as I needed to read: The new study, co-sponsored by the US Department of Energy and the American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE)

Another slick piece of propaganda put out by the ethanol producers. How anyone can believe anything these idiots have to say is beyond me. The more of this crap they can force US drivers to burn, the more money they will make. Thus their need to try to present lies as truths and hope that someone will believe them.

[suss6052]

Originally Posted by cessna1

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007...finds-cer.html

That test ignored the long term fuel line degradation risks associated with running blends of ethanol in excess of 10% in non flex fuel vehicles, or the effects on older cars, therefore its not conclusive of anything other than the limited thesis that on a few specific modern cars which were flex fuel capable with the proper fuel sensors to prevent the car from running too lean and burning up some how also managed to prevent the required over fueling on ethanol blends due to the higher latent oxygen content of the ethanol fuel as opposed to pure gasoline, although they don't mention if their test was actually e0 vs ethanol blends vs e10 gasohol which has been bad for fuel economy due several factors, the least of which is the lower energy content, the extra o2 in the fuel means you need to burn more fuel and take in less intake air to maintain the proper a/f mixture to feed into the catalyst.

[cessna1]

That test ignored the long term fuel line degradation risks associated with running blends of ethanol in excess of 10% in non flex fuel vehicles

That's why I've done my own tests. I have a 1992 Toyota 4x4 22RE that has used mostly 50% ethanol since April 2001--haven't even changed the fuel filter yet. 1995 Ford Aspire E30 since August 2002---no problems and drove it a few hours ago. Degradation, I haven't had it happen yet.

[AZfocus2012]

Originally Posted by cessna1

That's why I've done my own tests. I have a 1992 Toyota 4x4 22RE that has used mostly 50% ethanol since April 2001--haven't even changed the fuel filter yet. 1995 Ford Aspire E30 since August 2002---no problems and drove it a few hours ago. Degradation, I haven't had it happen yet.

Good for you, just don't try to suggest the forced use of ethanol on US drivers is anything other than a big bureaucratic debacle showing the worst of Washington D.C.'s corruption.

[cessna1]

Something doesn't add up. Some of you say because of ethanol more gas is consumed.

O’Malley said laws approved during the Bush administration requiring fuel to contain 10 percent corn ethanol had reduced the demand for fuel refined from oil, even though it costs less to make than ethanol.

Also, unsubsidized ethanol CBOT price today $2.20 and New York Harbor RBOB $3.20.

Ethanol, environmental mandates blamed for Phila. refinery woes

April 26, 2012|By Andrew Maykuth, INQUIRER STAFF


Oil-industry experts told a congressional panel on Thursday that regulations requiring more ethanol in motor fuel and setting stricter federal emission standards have driven some refineries out of business.

A Joint Economic Committee hearing in Washington on the effect of the closure of Philadelphia area refineries turned into a broad-spectrum denunciation of federal environmental mandates. U.S. Sen. Robert Casey (D., Pa.), the committee’s chairman, called the hearing in response to moves by ConocoPhillips and Sunoco Inc. to sell or shut down their Philadelphia area refineries.

Republican members of the committee — Casey was the only Democrat who attended, and he missed a big part of the hearing to attend a floor vote — singled out Obama administration policies for blame. But Thomas D. O’Malley, chairman of PBF Energy, which owns refineries in Paulsboro, N.J., and Delaware City, Del., spared no party in his colorful testimony.

O’Malley said laws approved during the Bush administration requiring fuel to contain 10 percent corn ethanol had reduced the demand for fuel refined from oil, even though it costs less to make than ethanol.

“The reason for the closure of the refineries in Pennsylvania is that they didn’t make money, and the reason they didn’t make money is that you took away their market,” he said. “You delivered the market to the farm industry.”

Later, he said: “In essence, if you want to know why the refineries were closed down, I would kind of say, look in the mirror and we can find the guilty parties.”
O’Malley’s characterization of various federal mandates as “nuts” or “insane” or “dumb” prompted U.S. Rep. Kevin Brady (R.,Texas), the committee’s vice chairman, to jokingly tell the executive, “Don’t hold back.”


So now ethanol is blamed for shutting down east coast refineries. Of COURSE it is.

More: http://articles.philly.com/2012-04-2...-delaware-city