The cost of ga$oline

[DomJoseph]

I've just about had enough of Oregon's idiot governor and his absurd idea that mandating E10 or 10% ethanol blend gasoline year round is going to cut "greenhouse" gases and fix the global whining...er "warming" problem.

 

My cars have significantly lower fuel economy on this garbage, averaging between 10 to 16% greater fuel consumption per tankfull, and have exhibited warm up driveability issues. My service customers mirror my experiences using this stuff, and on OBDII cars I'm noticing more and more complaints about poor driveability and check engine lamps illuminated.

 

Now this flawed "science" and ill conceived legislative nonsense is backfiring, and our local government is scrambling around for a quick fix and backtracking on this stupid policy.

 

Until then, at $4.00 a gallon for unleaded, I'm no longer buying my gas at any of the area filling stations. I've been travelling across the bridge to Washington state, and filling up where there isn't an ethanol blend requirement.

 

Today, I bought a 54 gallon drum of 103 octane unleaded race gas and filled up all of my motorcycles with it, and topped up the 'quest's tank. This stuff is far more stable than the crap you buy at the pump, and mixed 50/50 I've immediately noticed that my bikes start and warm up easier, and need less time on choke in the morning.

 

My 'quest flew through the I/M test friday .05% CO and 55 PPM HC, and runs like a banshee.

 

I don't have to commute, and as little as I drive (about 100-150 miles a month) since just about everything is delivered to me at my shop, I can afford to fill up my cars at nearly $12 a gallon with race gas.

Edited May 26, 2008 by DomJoseph

[pure_insanity]

yea, weve always had a few stations around hitting the 10% ethanol crap and i try not to buy from them unless i really have to. well yesterday i stop in to fill up at the local quiktrip, which has always had good gas and there it is on the pump. "may contain up to 10% ethanol". great, there goes the rest of the world. its been my experience that mitsubishi products generally run like crap on this stuff.

my 93 mighty max p/u is injected and normally will run on anything you put in it. i think it would run on kerosene but it doesnt like ethanol. gets sluggish and doesnt start so good. and fuel mileage goes down. the quest, reallllly hates this crap and since gas is so high nowadays, i been trying to run 89 or maybe some 87. mix this with ethanol and its a recipe for disaster. needless to say i had to back off the boost a bit.

[Kreal]

I just filled up a 5 gallon gas can and when it filled to the to the marking spot, the pump said and charged me for 5.8 gallons!

[DomJoseph]

I just filled up a 5 gallon gas can and when it filled to the to the marking spot, the pump said and charged me for 5.8 gallons!

 

 

If that's true, then check to make absolutely sure you do have a 5 gallon container. If it is indeed 5 gallons, then report the station owner to your state's attorney general.

 

Gas pumps MUST accurately dispense according to federal standards of weights and measures.

[chiplee]

"global whining", I love it.

 

I never felt a difference with the 10% ethanol stuff in my DDs and I'd never run it in my built car so it's a non-issue for me.

 

Since you tossed out a blanket zinger though, and since to me "them's fightin' words" about global warming, here's some "fightin' words" of my own about the silly fella in your avatar. http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/ I'd love to hear your opinion of that article via pm.

[DomJoseph]

"global whining", I love it.

 

I never felt a difference with the 10% ethanol stuff in my DDs and I'd never run it in my built car so it's a non-issue for me.

 

Since you tossed out a blanket zinger though, and since to me "them's fightin' words" about global warming, here's some "fightin' words" of my own about the silly fella in your avatar. http://www.slate.com/id/2101842/ I'd love to hear your opinion of that article via pm.

 

 

My purpose here is to glean whatever parts or information I can about the cars we own and love, not to engage in political bashing and a resulting flame war.

 

BTW, that "silly fella" in my avatar is a better choice deceased IMHO than any of the three current contenders living and breathing.

 

I'd vote for him now if I could.

Edited May 27, 2008 by DomJoseph

[chiplee]

My purpose here is to glean whatever parts or information I can about the cars we own and love, not to engage in political bashing and a resulting flame war.

 

BTW, that "silly fella" in my avatar is a better choice IMHO than any of the three current contenders.

 

I'd vote for him now if I could.

 

lol, I suppose I agree that the current choices aren't that great. If you don't want political debate in public then ease up on the zingers like "global whining". I'm one of those "global whiners" and I think I have some good reasons. So if you're going to honor one of the dumbest presidents we ever had with your avatar and drop more dumb bombs like "global whining" into your posts it really doesn't seem like you're trying to avoid political debate. Either way though, that's why I said I'd love to hear your reply via pm.

[DomJoseph]

BTW, as little as I drive, I'm doing a lot more for the environment than my neighbor "Captain Planet" in his Toyota Prius, who drives 100 miles RT every day to his job in Salem Oregon.

 

As a truly funny aside, I found a Prius in the LA area with the powertrain and drivetrain including batteries pulled out of it for some weird CalTech project.

 

It's a rolling chassis, and I'm thinking of snatching it up.

 

A replacement battery pack is $4,000+ according to my local Toyota dealer.

 

A GM LS2 400HP crate motor can be had for less than that (my cost).

 

I think I can mod the car and have my sheetmetal guys fab a tunnel in that Prius, and I can do a RWD arrangement with a narrowed Ford rear end with that 6.2L V8 shoved under the hood.

 

Just doing my part to save the planet. :rofl3: http://www.useless-knowledge.com/columnist...i/article6.html

Edited May 27, 2008 by DomJoseph

[jd_stazza_brendan]

Alot of the gas stations here have brought in 10% ethanol mix on the 91 fuel (equivilant to your 87). Most pumps have warnings to consult vehicle user manuals and not to use it on pre-86 cars.

 

Use it in my mums car and dads car and it runs fine, but they are new cars.

 

Also seen in one of the bigger cities 100 (would be about 95octane in US scale) octane fuel with ethanol blend. Not sure if they still have it though.

[UlrichWolf]

lol, I suppose I agree that the current choices aren't that great. If you don't want political debate in public then ease up on the zingers like "global whining". I'm one of those "global whiners" and I think I have some good reasons. So if you're going to honor one of the dumbest presidents we ever had with your avatar and drop more dumb bombs like "global whining" into your posts it really doesn't seem like you're trying to avoid political debate. Either way though, that's why I said I'd love to hear your reply via pm.

 

No Chip, you're just a whiner, period.

 

Just because you fly all over the world, doesn't make you global. http://img523.imageshack.us/img523/8596/emothurrly6.gif

 

Tim

[SOTTY]

put e85 in my old E150 Ford work truck by mistake,ran like s*** after that and eventually expired in a big way,BANG! and i got a ticket from an idiot cop for pollution as i tried to limp the old truck home. e85? never again!

[89KonQuest]

it's not "global warming" anymore guys ... It's now "Global Climate Change" ... They accidentally realized the gases they were blaming it on were the most abdundant on earth .. Oh .. and car emissions don't actually cause hurricanes ... Whoops! .. Democrats just use the enviroment as a form of more goverment. Higher taxes .. Reagan rocks and that write up on him was a joke .. Later guys ..

[Mazarin]

Global warming is a myth.

 

What I care more about is how can someone who should only be making a couple $100Gs be able to "loan" $11mil to her campaign of futility. I also have a problem with the fact she's just like the other 500+ people in the same line of work. I think it probably has something to do with the prices of these items and services we depend on.

[Shelby]

yep don't make much sence to spend $100 million to get a job that pays less then $mill a yr

got to be some dam good perks some where

[Mech]

http://www.grunt.com/images/newsletter/BS167.jpg

[Indiana]

should be more concerned about the price of gas for those that can barely get to work, you raise their transportation costs by 50% some are going to start staying at home

[MainstreaM]

the 10% blend is required here in TN now as well. I've noticed reduced mileage, and my valve seals need replacing since they started blending three months ago. It has had no effect on driveability in the 88 Montero. Guess a carb doesn't care what you run through it.

 

Kane

Edited May 27, 2008 by MainstreaM

[chiplee]

yep don't make much sence to spend $100 million to get a job that pays less then $mill a yr

got to be some dam good perks some where

 

"perks"? to being the president of the United States? Uh, yeah, I'd say there are perks. Is everyone so jaded that they dismiss all possibility of a person running for office to make a difference? Is that notion "corny" beyond repair these days?

[chiplee]

it's not "global warming" anymore guys ... It's now "Global Climate Change" ... They accidentally realized the gases they were blaming it on were the most abdundant on earth .. Oh .. and car emissions don't actually cause hurricanes ... Whoops! .. Democrats just use the enviroment as a form of more goverment. Higher taxes .. Reagan rocks and that write up on him was a joke .. Later guys ..

 

Maybe you're right. But what difference does it make if we're causing climate change? The major debate is about whether we're causing the changes being observed in the environment. The debate should be about whether we can do anything about the observed change in the environment.

 

Maybe the change is cyclic. Maybe it has always happened and maybe we have nothing to do with it. Maybe we're not causing anything about it. maybe. But so what?

 

What difference does that make? we're here this time, to observe it taking place and we need to figure out what if anything can be done to stop it. The debate should be about whether it's happening, and whether it can be stopped, not whether human beings are causing it.

 

So what if the answer to that question turns out to be "no, humans didn't cause this". What changes? I mean if we waste all this time and energy deciding whether we did it, and then figure out we didn't do it, and then it happens anyway, what have we done? Nothing. People in high places debate this subject as if figuring out whether we caused it is going to answer the question of whether we can stop it. Whether we caused it or not we might be able to stop it. We don't have to have been the cause of the problem, to be the solution to the problem. So any discussion about whether humans are the cause of "Global Climate Change" is a waste of time, plain an simple.

 

We know a few things that are not a waste of time. There have been massive climate shifts resulting in ice ages in the past. An ice age could happen in the future. An ice age would change the world and threaten civilization as we know it. We should try to stop it, and we should try even if it means major economic fall out all over the world. I would even go so far as to say the collapse of global economies would be a small price to pay if we succeed.

 

And we don't have the option to "roll the dice" on this one. Indeed, if we do nothing, and the planet fixes itself then we will have saved billions, perhaps trillions of dollars. But if we do nothing and billions of people die, then we can't even say we tried to stop it. In situations like this, this being the first one of humanity's existence, there is only one choice. You try to fix it, at ALL costs, no matter how great.

 

simple really.

Edited May 27, 2008 by chiplee

[Chad]

I think it's about figuring out if we are makeing observed change worse, and if so, how to stop it. Regardless of normal earth cycles, we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and it's historical fact (not future theory) that this increases sruface temperature.

 

We should debate about how to stop it, but that will ultimatly include how we are makign it worse. Focusing on just how we are makign it worse doesn't adequatly address the issue however.

 

it indeed may just be a short-cycle change (100-500 year varraince), but high CO2 has been proven with ice core samples to correlate to high surface temperatures. It may not be the cause, but it is a factor all the same.

 

There is more to this puzzle than just turning corn into gas, or replacing incandescent lightbulbs with flouresent lightbulbs, though those changes could have an impact if implemented adequalty.

[chiplee]

I think it's about figuring out if we are makeing observed change worse, and if so, how to stop it. Regardless of normal earth cycles, we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, and it's historical fact (not future theory) that this increases sruface temperature.

 

We should debate about how to stop it, but that will ultimatly include how we are makign it worse. Focusing on just how we are makign it worse doesn't adequatly address the issue however.

 

it indeed may just be a short-cycle change (100-500 year varraince), but high CO2 has been proven with ice core samples to correlate to high surface temperatures. It may not be the cause, but it is a factor all the same.

 

There is more to this puzzle than just turning corn into gas, or replacing incandescent lightbulbs with flouresent lightbulbs, though those changes could have an impact if implemented adequalty.

 

sure, and ultimately the US government does seem to get it, at least enough to give tax breaks to people who buy hybrid cars and so on. I think it's a natural mistake to make when we debate whether humans are causing it because like you said, it seems logical that we wouldn't be able to fix it unless something we're currently doing is causing it. the obvious answer in that case would be to stop doing whatever it is we're doing that's causing the problem.

 

Science isn't like that though. I mean, it doesn't derive solutions by pure cause and effect. A cause can have an effect that is irreversible. So removing the cause would not remove the already established effect. In my hypothetical example CO2 emissions are obviously the cause and Climate change is obviously the effect. If the effect is irreversible then a new cause has to be found for which the effect is climate change in the direction we want it to change in.

 

The most interesting thing I learned in Al Gore's documentary was about the removed reflective effect of melting polar caps. This makes perfect sense and opens the door to fixes that have nothing to do with carbon emissions. Who says we can't paint Canada white? lol, so it reflects solar energy and cools down the planet. This is hypothetical nonsense of course but the fix doesn't have to be cosmic is my point.

 

It just has to work. It sounds silly but I can imagine a time when we need white things on earth so bad that it's the only car color available, and streets are covered with white paint, and the government hands out free white tarps for people to cover their roofs and yards with. It would be expensive, but nothing major would have to change about our way of life.

Edited May 27, 2008 by chiplee

[Chad]

It sounds silly but I can imagine a time when we need white things on earth so bad that it's the only car color available, and streets are covered with white paint, and the government hands out free white tarps for people to cover their roofs and yards with.

 

Yah, I've thought about that, rolling out hundereds of mylar mirror sheets the size of a large city thoughout the uninhabited high-exposure desert regions.

 

That won't fix anything if we don't address the root cause though. You kinda need to do both.

 

Seems like currently most of the efforts are hyper-focused on small elements of the equasion.

 

Lets just hope 20-30 years from now when true change has set in, that we have a working plan to abate the problem.

 

Even if it's a natural cycle and/or a farce, given whe we can see shouldn't we do the research and make attempts to change? Doing nothing while saying "naw, this will pass" seems to be the worst possible strategy.

 

It will cost us all a lot to make these changes now, but how much will it cost if we wait till 20-30 yeras from now and the worst possible scenerio plays out.

[Shelby]

if the earth didn't change why are we diging up acient citys that are burry'd under many feet of dirt , sea beds that are now places like florida,, every where you look things were diff at one time, under water under ice what ever ,, the earth changes when and how it needs to and we are not gona stop that ,, we move adapt or die simple as that ,,, most of the earths dry land has been under water many times this we can prove,, so i'd say huge climate changes have happen'd many times and will happen again and again

now are people causeing this nope , we may be helping to speed it along but it's a natural ocurance , by the same token we may be able to slow it down to the natural level of events but we can't stop it

[Shelby]

the movie "the day after" may be real colse to what has happen'd several times befor,

we have found animals frozen in such a way as to stop them in their tracks some with food still in their mouths while chewing , now this is the real danger to us , not the slow gradual change that takes 100 or thousands of years

[PDX87Starion]

the movie "the day after" may be real colse to what has happen'd several times befor,

we have found animals frozen in such a way as to stop them in their tracks some with food still in their mouths while chewing , now this is the real danger to us , not the slow gradual change that takes 100 or thousands of years

 

 

Thats the real reason that the scientific community is really concerned. Its the rate of change. Normally, changes happen so slow that generations dont even notice and adapt to it. Like how a river will change the landscape over 1000's or 10,000's of years. Your not supposed to be able to observe these changes in your life time.

 

There is only an average of 6 degrees between current temps and an ice age. Would we even notice that the average temp was down 6 degrees? No we wouldnt, but very slowly less ice would melt durring the summer and over thousands of years the ice would expand.

 

So when scientists talk about the doom and gloom they are thinking on a geologic scale and what the results will be in 200+ years if nothing changes.

 

For the deniers:

 

We have known for a very long time that CO'2 is a "green house" gas.

We know that the green house effect caused by water vapor, CO2, + other gasses keeps the earth from freezing.

We know that increasing or decreasing the amount of greenhouse gasses effects the temperature on earth.

We know we are pumping 27 million tons a year of CO'2 into the air non-stop 24-7 that would not naturally be there.

We know the average temp is rising faster than what is "normal" on the geologic scale.

We are seeing glaciers that are tens of thousands of years old melt in front of our eyes.

 

But its a big hoax.

 

First it was, "the temp wasn't changing at all".

Then it was, "its getting warmer but its not humans its sun spots or something else".

Now its, "global warming is a good thing". "More CO'2 is good for plants and stuff" "If we do anything it will hurt our economy" LOL.

 

All these positions, studies, and theories, that the deniers point to are funded by the industries who are the biggest polluters and dont want their business or profits messed with untill after they are dead.

 

Just like the panel of real doctors who testified in front of congress all saying "IMO cigarettes do not cause cancer". They also happen to be on the pay roll of the cigarette companies.

 

No one is advocating that we stop what we are doing and go back to the stone age. There just has to be some acknowledgement that we have to take care of our home. No one is going to clean it up for us.

 

The USA is only 4% of the world population but puts out 25% of the worlds CO2. We need to be leaders, not the followers when it comes to changing from fossil fuels to cleaner energy.