It's simple Kevin. The loss of top end power on a flying brick like my CJ7 means the gas pedal has to be to the floor to try and hold 65 mph instead of about 1/3 to 1/2 way to the floor. This translates to about a 30% decrease in gas mileage.
I am unsure of the percent of ethanol in the mix because the pumps don't state it and the cashier hasn't a clue.
I can normally run over 350 miles to a tank and suddenly I am out of gas at about 250 miles which catches me by surprise. Hence the reference to miles per tank.
My owners manual even states Not to use 'any' alcohol or ethanol mix and cites a loss of performance as one symptom.
I just ran a tank of 'real' gas and did 50 miles in 4x4 low, then 210 miles in 2 high on rural stop and go 50 mph roads and used 60 liters which is about 17 mpg. Fully loaded for camping also.
Mike
Kev>
Mike Romain wrote in
> news: snipped-for-privacy@sympatico.ca:
>
> > The 'mileage' on these indy cars is plain crap. You keep comparing
> > alcohol to alcohol. The main reason they use the low BTU alcohol is
> > because water can put out a fire....
> >
> > Real life says when I use a mix of 15% ethanol in my Jeep engine, I get
> > 100 miles 'LESS' per tank full of 'fuel' or about 30% less mileage than
> > if I use real gasoline. I also lose all top end power.
>
> Mike we have gone through your junk Jeep and other lies here before.
> The facts of 20 years of use here of ethanol by large numbers of people
> say you are full of it. Also where are you that it is a 15% blend anyway?
> The vast majority of the country uses a 10% blend, 15 being the supposed
> max before mods are required. (although some have used 85% with regular
> eng.s and not had a problem. other than redused milage.)
> Also only a fool gives results in miles per tank. Only MPG is the way
> to accuratly tell a difference. To many variables on a per tank basis.
> unless you just want to make it sound good for your misguided belief.
> Lets just look at it logicly, if you threw away the ethanol at 15% and
> say it contributed nothing, then the loss would be only 15%. Use you
> head before you spit out stupid numbers like 30% less milage. KB >
> >
> > I have tried adjusting the timing and the mix to no avail. I have > tried
> > this because the garbage is going to be mandated into all gasoline soon
> > to please the farmers.
> >
> > Are they going to offer 'me' a subsidy for that 100 miles per tank
> > loss?? I doubt it.
> >
> > That kind of hit makes a large difference in vacation trips or even > just
> > daily driving.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> > Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
> > Jan/06
formatting link
>>
> >> > >>
> >> >I think Danny's comment is regarding gasoline and ethanol, not
> >> >methanol and ethanol.
> >>
> >> [I had to change the text around because of the top posting]
> >> Right, but unleaded gasoline has an octane rating
> >> of 97 (better grade), and ethanol has an octane rating
> >> of 113, so ___IF___ the timing and fuel:air ratio is
> >> made ideal, then the engine will be quicker and
> >> will produce more power.
> >> For the Indy 500 cars they can also increase
> >> the compression ratio even more, and if they are
> >> turbocharged or supercharged, the ethanol should
> >> work great.
> >>
> >> >And looking at the paragraph you quoted in a later post, they _may_ > be
> >> >dummies........
> >>
> >> That was sarcasm, and they already know that
> >> 113 octane is better than 107.
> >>
> >> >"Ethanol produces more power, so we need less fuel", makes no > >> >sense.
> >>
> >> Maybe, maybe not. If the engine produces more
> >> power, it may change the differential ratio, allowing better
> >> mileage, but that remains to be seen.
> >> Better mileage means less fuel for 500 miles.
> >>
> >> >If ethanol prodiced more _energy_ then we need that much less
> >> >fuel to go the distance, provided we only use the same average power
> >> >as before.
> >>
> >> But they may be able to take advantage of the extra
> >> power in ways we know nothing about.
> >>
> >> >They use (x)thanol because it does allow more power than gasoline
> >> >(AFAIK) but at the expense of fuel load / miles per gallon.
> >>
> >> Maybe we will know next June. These are the
> >> mechanics that have been on the cutting edge of racing
> >> technology for some time.
> >> It is possible whoever wrote or edited the article
> >> made an assumption of a relation between power and
> >> mileage, but it can only be proven by next years race.
> >>
> >> >>> >> >>>NOTE that some folk claim engines designed for
> >> >>>the inherent higher octane in ethanol can use higher
> >> >>>compression, and thus eke out a bit more efficiency,
> >> >>>(and, to a lesser extent, "regular" engines might
> >> >>>be able to do so as well), but... there ain't no
> >> >>>way that'll compensate for a 1/3rd reduction in BTUs
> >>
> >> >> >> >> Ha ha, so the reason methanol has been used for
> >> >>the Indy 500 and they are switching to ethanol is because
> >> >>they are dummys? :-)
> >> >>
> >> >>
formatting link
>> >>
> >> >>Joe Fischer
> >
>
> --
> Thunder Snake #9
> "Protect" your rights or "lose" them.