https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEf9Fdvx_Sc
Pretty thorough comparison between the two fuels.
--
1977 Eleganza II
Ogden NY
Pretty thorough comparison between the two fuels.
--
1977 Eleganza II
Ogden NY
Ethanol Wars
- Thread starter Ernest Dankert
- Start date
Thanks for sharing.
Informative.
Dolph
DE AD0LF
Wheeling, West Virginia
1977 26’ ex-PalmBeach
Howell EFI & EBL, Reaction Arms, Sullybilt Bags, Manny Transmission
“The Aluminum and Fiberglass Mistress"
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEf9Fdvx_Sc
>
> Pretty thorough comparison between the two fuels.
> --
> 1977 Eleganza II
> Ogden NY
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Informative.
Dolph
DE AD0LF
Wheeling, West Virginia
1977 26’ ex-PalmBeach
Howell EFI & EBL, Reaction Arms, Sullybilt Bags, Manny Transmission
“The Aluminum and Fiberglass Mistress"
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEf9Fdvx_Sc
>
> Pretty thorough comparison between the two fuels.
> --
> 1977 Eleganza II
> Ogden NY
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
It's an interesting video. However, I can't help it when the "scientist" is talking inside my head:
1. A single run on each fuel is not conclusive. You don't know if 95 seconds is actually a significant difference or a random variation.
2. You need to run several replications of this test (randomly assigning which fuel going in and in what order).
3. The gentleman ran space heaters as a load. Were they drawing the same amount of power for the entirety of the test? It's possible that warmer air
in the garage during the second run influenced the results.
4. It would be helpful to precisely measure the amount of fuel to start with for each run instead of just sloshing it into container.
5. Can you really draw any grand conclusions as to usefulness of blended vs non-blended fuel for small (or big) engine from this test? I don't think
so... Are we talking purely in terms of run time, power or economics? How much power was generated? What was the cost of $$ per watt for each fuel?
Where is the break even point of cost of different grades of fuel?
All in all - this topic has way too many variables and too many strong feelings on both sides.
--
Vadim Jitkov
'76 Glenbrook 26'
Pullman, WA
1. A single run on each fuel is not conclusive. You don't know if 95 seconds is actually a significant difference or a random variation.
2. You need to run several replications of this test (randomly assigning which fuel going in and in what order).
3. The gentleman ran space heaters as a load. Were they drawing the same amount of power for the entirety of the test? It's possible that warmer air
in the garage during the second run influenced the results.
4. It would be helpful to precisely measure the amount of fuel to start with for each run instead of just sloshing it into container.
5. Can you really draw any grand conclusions as to usefulness of blended vs non-blended fuel for small (or big) engine from this test? I don't think
so... Are we talking purely in terms of run time, power or economics? How much power was generated? What was the cost of $$ per watt for each fuel?
Where is the break even point of cost of different grades of fuel?
All in all - this topic has way too many variables and too many strong feelings on both sides.
--
Vadim Jitkov
'76 Glenbrook 26'
Pullman, WA
Vadim:
All valid points.
It is completely consistent with more controlled scientific tests.
If it wasn’t, both viewpoints would be carping.
My .02
Dolph Santorine
DE AD0LF
Wheeling, West Virginia
1977 ex-Palm Beach TZE167V100820
Sullybuilt Bags, Reaction Arms, Manny Transmission
>
> It's an interesting video. However, I can't help it when the "scientist" is talking inside my head:
>
> 1. A single run on each fuel is not conclusive. You don't know if 95 seconds is actually a significant difference or a random variation.
> 2. You need to run several replications of this test (randomly assigning which fuel going in and in what order).
> 3. The gentleman ran space heaters as a load. Were they drawing the same amount of power for the entirety of the test? It's possible that warmer air
> in the garage during the second run influenced the results.
> 4. It would be helpful to precisely measure the amount of fuel to start with for each run instead of just sloshing it into container.
> 5. Can you really draw any grand conclusions as to usefulness of blended vs non-blended fuel for small (or big) engine from this test? I don't think
> so... Are we talking purely in terms of run time, power or economics? How much power was generated? What was the cost of $$ per watt for each fuel?
> Where is the break even point of cost of different grades of fuel?
>
> All in all - this topic has way too many variables and too many strong feelings on both sides.
>
> --
> Vadim Jitkov
> '76 Glenbrook 26'
> Pullman, WA
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
All valid points.
It is completely consistent with more controlled scientific tests.
If it wasn’t, both viewpoints would be carping.
My .02
Dolph Santorine
DE AD0LF
Wheeling, West Virginia
1977 ex-Palm Beach TZE167V100820
Sullybuilt Bags, Reaction Arms, Manny Transmission
>
> It's an interesting video. However, I can't help it when the "scientist" is talking inside my head:
>
> 1. A single run on each fuel is not conclusive. You don't know if 95 seconds is actually a significant difference or a random variation.
> 2. You need to run several replications of this test (randomly assigning which fuel going in and in what order).
> 3. The gentleman ran space heaters as a load. Were they drawing the same amount of power for the entirety of the test? It's possible that warmer air
> in the garage during the second run influenced the results.
> 4. It would be helpful to precisely measure the amount of fuel to start with for each run instead of just sloshing it into container.
> 5. Can you really draw any grand conclusions as to usefulness of blended vs non-blended fuel for small (or big) engine from this test? I don't think
> so... Are we talking purely in terms of run time, power or economics? How much power was generated? What was the cost of $$ per watt for each fuel?
> Where is the break even point of cost of different grades of fuel?
>
> All in all - this topic has way too many variables and too many strong feelings on both sides.
>
> --
> Vadim Jitkov
> '76 Glenbrook 26'
> Pullman, WA
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET. -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and with
unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use. So the
money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank and most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in my
455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas vs E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
slighty more fuel used per mile.
--
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and with
unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use. So the
money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank and most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in my
455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas vs E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
slighty more fuel used per mile.
--
John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
Being a graduate of Engineering, I say that test run was poor.
Run was too short, constant running, not cooling down,etc.
I can tell you that almost every engine we remove the heads these days look
carbon free.
20 years ago, they were carboned up a lot.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski
wrote:
> I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
> freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and with
> unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
> 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> So the
> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank and
> most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in my
> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas vs
> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
> slighty more fuel used per mile.
>
> --
> John Lebetski
> Woodstock, IL
> 77 Eleganza II
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Newark,CA
jimk
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
Run was too short, constant running, not cooling down,etc.
I can tell you that almost every engine we remove the heads these days look
carbon free.
20 years ago, they were carboned up a lot.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019 at 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski
wrote:
> I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
> freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and with
> unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
> 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> So the
> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank and
> most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in my
> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas vs
> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
> slighty more fuel used per mile.
>
> --
> John Lebetski
> Woodstock, IL
> 77 Eleganza II
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC, Newark,CA
jimk
http://www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
Ethanol is a ploy by the government to extract more taxes from us. On many
vehicles, when it is added to gasoline, it increases fuel use by at least
the amount that it is added to gasoline. Some vehicles more, some less.
It DOES SERVE as an anti-knock additive, but it is no where close to
being as effective as tetra-ethyl lead. Mere drops of that stuff per gallon
will do the same thing. But tetra-ethyl lead it is a deadly poison and we
do not want it in the air we all breathe.
There are a few other compounds that will serve as an anti-knock, but
they all have some drawbacks.
Back to alcohol, it sllloooooowwwsss down the rate of flame spread in
combustion engines, lowers the temperature and produces less power than
gasoline, so, it takes more of it to do the same work. The more of it we
buy and burn, the more tax revenue the cities, counties, provinces, states,
and federal governments receive. If you think they are in any hurry to fund
research to improve fuel economy, think again. Better fuel economy means
lost revenue to them.
Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They
can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline
without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
That's my take on it.
Jim Hupy
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
> freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and with
> unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
> 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> So the
> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank and
> most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in my
> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas vs
> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
> slighty more fuel used per mile.
>
> --
> John Lebetski
> Woodstock, IL
> 77 Eleganza II
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
vehicles, when it is added to gasoline, it increases fuel use by at least
the amount that it is added to gasoline. Some vehicles more, some less.
It DOES SERVE as an anti-knock additive, but it is no where close to
being as effective as tetra-ethyl lead. Mere drops of that stuff per gallon
will do the same thing. But tetra-ethyl lead it is a deadly poison and we
do not want it in the air we all breathe.
There are a few other compounds that will serve as an anti-knock, but
they all have some drawbacks.
Back to alcohol, it sllloooooowwwsss down the rate of flame spread in
combustion engines, lowers the temperature and produces less power than
gasoline, so, it takes more of it to do the same work. The more of it we
buy and burn, the more tax revenue the cities, counties, provinces, states,
and federal governments receive. If you think they are in any hurry to fund
research to improve fuel economy, think again. Better fuel economy means
lost revenue to them.
Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They
can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline
without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
That's my take on it.
Jim Hupy
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
> freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and with
> unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
> 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> So the
> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank and
> most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in my
> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas vs
> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
> slighty more fuel used per mile.
>
> --
> John Lebetski
> Woodstock, IL
> 77 Eleganza II
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
Bet on it, Jim. Eventually it will be dictated that all vehicles, electric
or not, are equipped with mileage reporting devices, perhaps reporting
continuously. We'll pay again, by the mile, for the roads we've already
paid to build.
JWITIK,
Ken H.
> ...
> Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They
> can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline
> without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
> That's my take on it.
> Jim Hupy
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski
> > I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
> > -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> > preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
> > freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and
> with
> > unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
> > 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> > So the
> > money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank
> and
> > most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in
> my
> > 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas
> vs
> > E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
> > slighty more fuel used per mile.
> >
> > --
> > John Lebetski
> > Woodstock, IL
> > 77 Eleganza II
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
or not, are equipped with mileage reporting devices, perhaps reporting
continuously. We'll pay again, by the mile, for the roads we've already
paid to build.
JWITIK,
Ken H.
> ...
> Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They
> can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline
> without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
> That's my take on it.
> Jim Hupy
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski
> > I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
> > -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> > preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
> > freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and
> with
> > unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
> > 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> > So the
> > money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank
> and
> > most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in
> my
> > 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas
> vs
> > E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
> > slighty more fuel used per mile.
> >
> > --
> > John Lebetski
> > Woodstock, IL
> > 77 Eleganza II
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GMCnet mailing list
> > Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> > http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
Sadly, Ken, you nailed it.
What’s worse is the existing taxes won’t go away. Just more.
Dolph
DE AD0LF
Wheeling, West Virginia
1977 26’ ex-PalmBeach
Howell EFI & EBL, Reaction Arms, Sullybilt Bags, Manny Transmission
“The Aluminum and Fiberglass Mistress"
>
> Bet on it, Jim. Eventually it will be dictated that all vehicles, electric
> or not, are equipped with mileage reporting devices, perhaps reporting
> continuously. We'll pay again, by the mile, for the roads we've already
> paid to build.
>
> JWITIK,
>
> Ken H.
>
>
>> ...
>> Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They
>> can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline
>> without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
>> That's my take on it.
>> Jim Hupy
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski >
>>> I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
>>> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
>>> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
>>> freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and
>> with
>>> unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
>>> 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
>>> So the
>>> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank
>> and
>>> most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in
>> my
>>> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas
>> vs
>>> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
>>> slighty more fuel used per mile.
>>>
>>> --
>>> John Lebetski
>>> Woodstock, IL
>>> 77 Eleganza II
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GMCnet mailing list
>>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>>> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
What’s worse is the existing taxes won’t go away. Just more.
Dolph
DE AD0LF
Wheeling, West Virginia
1977 26’ ex-PalmBeach
Howell EFI & EBL, Reaction Arms, Sullybilt Bags, Manny Transmission
“The Aluminum and Fiberglass Mistress"
>
> Bet on it, Jim. Eventually it will be dictated that all vehicles, electric
> or not, are equipped with mileage reporting devices, perhaps reporting
> continuously. We'll pay again, by the mile, for the roads we've already
> paid to build.
>
> JWITIK,
>
> Ken H.
>
>
>> ...
>> Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They
>> can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline
>> without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
>> That's my take on it.
>> Jim Hupy
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski >
>>> I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
>>> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
>>> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline line
>>> freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly circulating and
>> with
>>> unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps E10 but it can hold
>>> 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
>>> So the
>>> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank
>> and
>>> most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance difference in
>> my
>>> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure gas
>> vs
>>> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor in
>>> slighty more fuel used per mile.
>>>
>>> --
>>> John Lebetski
>>> Woodstock, IL
>>> 77 Eleganza II
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> GMCnet mailing list
>>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>>> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Want to see how crooked the oil millionaires and government are.
Look up vaporized gas and the Pogue carburetor!!!!!
1934 ford achieved 125 mpg.
Reason lead was added to gas, then additives added after lead was taken out.
Ken Kruckeberg
The Shirt Factory
806-352-9262
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of James Hupy
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 5:15 PM
To: gmclist
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars
Ethanol is a ploy by the government to extract more taxes from us. On many vehicles, when it is added to gasoline, it increases fuel use by at least the amount that it is added to gasoline. Some vehicles more, some less.
It DOES SERVE as an anti-knock additive, but it is no where close to being as effective as tetra-ethyl lead. Mere drops of that stuff per gallon will do the same thing. But tetra-ethyl lead it is a deadly poison and we do not want it in the air we all breathe.
There are a few other compounds that will serve as an anti-knock, but they all have some drawbacks.
Back to alcohol, it sllloooooowwwsss down the rate of flame spread in combustion engines, lowers the temperature and produces less power than gasoline, so, it takes more of it to do the same work. The more of it we buy and burn, the more tax revenue the cities, counties, provinces, states, and federal governments receive. If you think they are in any hurry to fund research to improve fuel economy, think again. Better fuel economy means lost revenue to them.
Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
That's my take on it.
Jim Hupy
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline
> line freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly
> circulating and with unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps
> E10 but it can hold 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> So the
> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank
> and most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance
> difference in my
> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure
> gas vs
> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor
> in slighty more fuel used per mile.
>
> --
> John Lebetski
> Woodstock, IL
> 77 Eleganza II
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
Look up vaporized gas and the Pogue carburetor!!!!!
1934 ford achieved 125 mpg.
Reason lead was added to gas, then additives added after lead was taken out.
Ken Kruckeberg
The Shirt Factory
806-352-9262
-----Original Message-----
From: Gmclist [mailto:gmclist-bounces] On Behalf Of James Hupy
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2019 5:15 PM
To: gmclist
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Ethanol Wars
Ethanol is a ploy by the government to extract more taxes from us. On many vehicles, when it is added to gasoline, it increases fuel use by at least the amount that it is added to gasoline. Some vehicles more, some less.
It DOES SERVE as an anti-knock additive, but it is no where close to being as effective as tetra-ethyl lead. Mere drops of that stuff per gallon will do the same thing. But tetra-ethyl lead it is a deadly poison and we do not want it in the air we all breathe.
There are a few other compounds that will serve as an anti-knock, but they all have some drawbacks.
Back to alcohol, it sllloooooowwwsss down the rate of flame spread in combustion engines, lowers the temperature and produces less power than gasoline, so, it takes more of it to do the same work. The more of it we buy and burn, the more tax revenue the cities, counties, provinces, states, and federal governments receive. If you think they are in any hurry to fund research to improve fuel economy, think again. Better fuel economy means lost revenue to them.
Government think tanks are all atwitter about electric cars. They can't figure out anyway to tax the hell out of them like they do gasoline without the real reasons becoming readily apparent.
That's my take on it.
Jim Hupy
On Thu, Jan 24, 2019, 1:23 PM John R. Lebetski I saw a lady checking out today at grocery today with a bottle of HEET.
> -20F predictions next week. This was a big seller when I was a kid for
> preventing "gas line freeze". You don't hear much about gasoline
> line freeze these days with E10 and in tank pumps constantly
> circulating and with unneeded fuel returned to tank. Everyone bad raps
> E10 but it can hold 1tbsp of water per gallon of E10, water to be removed through normal use.
> So the
> money spent on HEET is waisted unless there is excessive water in tank
> and most likely not needed. Furthermore I note no performance
> difference in my
> 455 using pure gas. I have not sniff machined the exhaust with pure
> gas vs
> E10 but my guess is the E10 has less emissions, though you must factor
> in slighty more fuel used per mile.
>
> --
> John Lebetski
> Woodstock, IL
> 77 Eleganza II
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
> Want to see how crooked the oil millionaires and government are.
> Look up vaporized gas and the Pogue carburetor!!!!!
>
> 1934 ford achieved 125 mpg.
> Reason lead was added to gas, then additives added after lead was taken out.
>
> Ken Kruckeberg
Ken,
While I an willing to acknowledge that there are some crooked people out there, I worked in engine and automotive research labs for most of my
shore-side career. One of them was an independent laboratory and we tested all kinds of things. One was a modern version of the Pogue. It did not
do any better at all than the conventional hardware.
Consider please, with the current pressure on manufactures to produce CAFE numbers that were unrealistic a few years ago, do you think that they would
have let any miracle carburetor go by??
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
> Look up vaporized gas and the Pogue carburetor!!!!!
>
> 1934 ford achieved 125 mpg.
> Reason lead was added to gas, then additives added after lead was taken out.
>
> Ken Kruckeberg
Ken,
While I an willing to acknowledge that there are some crooked people out there, I worked in engine and automotive research labs for most of my
shore-side career. One of them was an independent laboratory and we tested all kinds of things. One was a modern version of the Pogue. It did not
do any better at all than the conventional hardware.
Consider please, with the current pressure on manufactures to produce CAFE numbers that were unrealistic a few years ago, do you think that they would
have let any miracle carburetor go by??
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
The real ploy is to by corn state's votes.
> > Want to see how crooked the oil millionaires and government are.
> > Look up vaporized gas and the Pogue carburetor!!!!!
> >
> > 1934 ford achieved 125 mpg.
> > Reason lead was added to gas, then additives added after lead was taken
> out.
> >
> > Ken Kruckeberg
>
> Ken,
>
> While I an willing to acknowledge that there are some crooked people out
> there, I worked in engine and automotive research labs for most of my
> shore-side career. One of them was an independent laboratory and we
> tested all kinds of things. One was a modern version of the Pogue. It did
> not
> do any better at all than the conventional hardware.
>
> Consider please, with the current pressure on manufactures to produce CAFE
> numbers that were unrealistic a few years ago, do you think that they would
> have let any miracle carburetor go by??
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
> Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
> OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
*John Phillips*
> > Want to see how crooked the oil millionaires and government are.
> > Look up vaporized gas and the Pogue carburetor!!!!!
> >
> > 1934 ford achieved 125 mpg.
> > Reason lead was added to gas, then additives added after lead was taken
> out.
> >
> > Ken Kruckeberg
>
> Ken,
>
> While I an willing to acknowledge that there are some crooked people out
> there, I worked in engine and automotive research labs for most of my
> shore-side career. One of them was an independent laboratory and we
> tested all kinds of things. One was a modern version of the Pogue. It did
> not
> do any better at all than the conventional hardware.
>
> Consider please, with the current pressure on manufactures to produce CAFE
> numbers that were unrealistic a few years ago, do you think that they would
> have let any miracle carburetor go by??
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
> Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
> OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
*John Phillips*
> The real ploy is to by corn state's votes.--
>
> *John Phillips*
The only argument I will make there is that you forgot the ADM lobby. Lots of money there.
What was interesting to me was how closely his test matched both what I remembered from testing and and the results from our coach. Early in our
coach travel days, I used to use a kluge version that was a combination of the "Ken Burton presents of Alcohol" test and cheap and sleazy copy of the
amount of alcohol our lab guy would do on the testing lab's fuel regularly. What that provided was an reasonable excuse for the occasional poor fuel
rate. As we used to run the tanks way down because fueling was a long stop, I could pretty much know that the whole way to the next stop was that one
tank. The fuel rate would be increased by just a little less than the measured amount of alcohol in that tank.
This habit ended when the modified fill vent took the fuel stop time from an half on an hour to about ten minutes. (Consumer fuel pumps max out a
10GPM - EPA rule.) Now I have to plan the time to clean the windshield and do other things.
At the time of the introduction of crapahol, we (the MARCO lab) did a lot of testing for OEs and high tier suppliers. We did a lot of alcohol fuel or
not comparisons. We always chuckled at the "reduced emissions" jokes. If one did the tests on a properly maintained engine, the change in emissions
was inside the experimental error. The thing that did change the most was the fuel rate for the closed loop engines. We did not do real fuel rate
for any of them as working back to pounds per brake horsepower hour is a lot of work, but the closed loop engines (CL carburetors) we could monitor
the pulse width at WOT.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
>
> *John Phillips*
The only argument I will make there is that you forgot the ADM lobby. Lots of money there.
What was interesting to me was how closely his test matched both what I remembered from testing and and the results from our coach. Early in our
coach travel days, I used to use a kluge version that was a combination of the "Ken Burton presents of Alcohol" test and cheap and sleazy copy of the
amount of alcohol our lab guy would do on the testing lab's fuel regularly. What that provided was an reasonable excuse for the occasional poor fuel
rate. As we used to run the tanks way down because fueling was a long stop, I could pretty much know that the whole way to the next stop was that one
tank. The fuel rate would be increased by just a little less than the measured amount of alcohol in that tank.
This habit ended when the modified fill vent took the fuel stop time from an half on an hour to about ten minutes. (Consumer fuel pumps max out a
10GPM - EPA rule.) Now I have to plan the time to clean the windshield and do other things.
At the time of the introduction of crapahol, we (the MARCO lab) did a lot of testing for OEs and high tier suppliers. We did a lot of alcohol fuel or
not comparisons. We always chuckled at the "reduced emissions" jokes. If one did the tests on a properly maintained engine, the change in emissions
was inside the experimental error. The thing that did change the most was the fuel rate for the closed loop engines. We did not do real fuel rate
for any of them as working back to pounds per brake horsepower hour is a lot of work, but the closed loop engines (CL carburetors) we could monitor
the pulse width at WOT.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
While it fun to engage in all the conspiracy theories surrounding the addition of ethanol to what we call gasoline it is important to put this all in the context of that day. While never based on good science, the localized argument was two fold - burning something other than gasoline would reduce our dependence on imported oil and if we burn something other than gasoline we will reduce emissions harmful to the atmosphere. Those two formed the nexus that persists to this day even though the situation has changed dramatically.
Thanks to radical changes in technology we now are the largest producer of oil and gas in the world and our auto producers have dramatically redesigned auto engines to emit far less than they did when this whole thing started. So, neither of the initial arguments make much sense any more but all the entrenched players have figured out how to profit from the status quo so there is a massive pressure to preserve it.
As GMC enthusiasts there is not much we can do other than make the changes we can to allow our coaches to function, if not thrive, in the world of alcohol laced fuels that likely will be with us through the remaining useful life of a GMC. From what we know today it is only a matter of time until we will need to change everything that touches fuel to keep our GMCs on the road. Partial steps will help for a while, but if I were restoring another GMC today I would start at the fuel tanks and replace everything from there to where the atomized fuel flows into the intake manifold through a modern fuel injection system.
Far more productive than mashing teeth over the boogie men asserted to be conspiring to keep alcohol in our fuels. My take, anyway.
Jerry
Jerry Work
The Dovetail Joint
Fine furniture designed & hand crafted
in the 1907 former Masonic Temple building
in historic Kerby, OR
http://jerrywork.com
Thanks to radical changes in technology we now are the largest producer of oil and gas in the world and our auto producers have dramatically redesigned auto engines to emit far less than they did when this whole thing started. So, neither of the initial arguments make much sense any more but all the entrenched players have figured out how to profit from the status quo so there is a massive pressure to preserve it.
As GMC enthusiasts there is not much we can do other than make the changes we can to allow our coaches to function, if not thrive, in the world of alcohol laced fuels that likely will be with us through the remaining useful life of a GMC. From what we know today it is only a matter of time until we will need to change everything that touches fuel to keep our GMCs on the road. Partial steps will help for a while, but if I were restoring another GMC today I would start at the fuel tanks and replace everything from there to where the atomized fuel flows into the intake manifold through a modern fuel injection system.
Far more productive than mashing teeth over the boogie men asserted to be conspiring to keep alcohol in our fuels. My take, anyway.
Jerry
Jerry Work
The Dovetail Joint
Fine furniture designed & hand crafted
in the 1907 former Masonic Temple building
in historic Kerby, OR
http://jerrywork.com
I (we) don't have any say in the ethanol wars, I can only add this tid bit.
Back when it all started I was a young man that still kept numbers of MPG of
my cars and truck.
I always thought my mileage numbers were meager at best but I liked to see
what driving charactoristics made an impact on MPG.
Along came ethanol. First if I remember right, you could try it without being
forced to put it in your tank and I opted out. Feed back started coming in and
for the most part it was not good.
Then we had no choice, non ethanol fuels in most large populated areas were
required to use the ethanol contaminated fuels. I believe it started at 5%,
of which it would later be quietly increased to 10%.
I was still taking number for MPG and I saw a minimum DECREASE in MPG of 35%.
OK so you say my numbers were wrong. But this showed up the same in all
of my vehicles.
This immediately made me thing of how much more gas we had to burn, or how much
more MONEY we would have to spend over a year, to get to the same place that
would have cost us much less and less fuel amounts without the ethanol
contamination to the fuels.
Ok, lets look at it another way.
We are already poluting the air with the NON ethanol contaminated fuels but
once the contamination is added, that is 35% MORE AIR POLLUTION PER CAR.
Now maybe people like us might be concerned about polution or the status of the
Earths breathable air quality for future people and our children, but the crooked
politicians don't care other than getting money in their pockets.
As far as I was concerned, this last election proved beyond the doubt how crooked
and unlawful the politics of our government are.
But to sell off our health and breathable air quality for a few dollars just
does not make sense to me. And of course, we who elect these bums, have no
say in anything government.
Just my thought on the subject.
(stepping off my soap box)
--
GatsbysCruise. \
74GMC260 Former Glacier Model style. \
Waukegan, Illinois \ Keep those MiniDiscs Spinning \ MY GREYHOUND IS FASTER THAN YOUR HONOR ROLL STUDENT \ WindowsXP-Win7-Win8.1-UBUNTU STUDIO -
UBUNTU VOYAGER - Berzin Auto Center
Back when it all started I was a young man that still kept numbers of MPG of
my cars and truck.
I always thought my mileage numbers were meager at best but I liked to see
what driving charactoristics made an impact on MPG.
Along came ethanol. First if I remember right, you could try it without being
forced to put it in your tank and I opted out. Feed back started coming in and
for the most part it was not good.
Then we had no choice, non ethanol fuels in most large populated areas were
required to use the ethanol contaminated fuels. I believe it started at 5%,
of which it would later be quietly increased to 10%.
I was still taking number for MPG and I saw a minimum DECREASE in MPG of 35%.
OK so you say my numbers were wrong. But this showed up the same in all
of my vehicles.
This immediately made me thing of how much more gas we had to burn, or how much
more MONEY we would have to spend over a year, to get to the same place that
would have cost us much less and less fuel amounts without the ethanol
contamination to the fuels.
Ok, lets look at it another way.
We are already poluting the air with the NON ethanol contaminated fuels but
once the contamination is added, that is 35% MORE AIR POLLUTION PER CAR.
Now maybe people like us might be concerned about polution or the status of the
Earths breathable air quality for future people and our children, but the crooked
politicians don't care other than getting money in their pockets.
As far as I was concerned, this last election proved beyond the doubt how crooked
and unlawful the politics of our government are.
But to sell off our health and breathable air quality for a few dollars just
does not make sense to me. And of course, we who elect these bums, have no
say in anything government.
Just my thought on the subject.
(stepping off my soap box)
--
GatsbysCruise. \
74GMC260 Former Glacier Model style. \
Waukegan, Illinois \ Keep those MiniDiscs Spinning \ MY GREYHOUND IS FASTER THAN YOUR HONOR ROLL STUDENT \ WindowsXP-Win7-Win8.1-UBUNTU STUDIO -
UBUNTU VOYAGER - Berzin Auto Center
> While it fun to engage in all the conspiracy theories surrounding the addition of ethanol to what we call gasoline it is important to put this all in the context of that day. While never based on good science, the localized argument was two fold - burning something other than gasoline would reduce our dependence on imported oil and if we burn something other than gasoline we will reduce emissions harmful to the atmosphere.
ISTR that the EPA was wanting an oxygenate additive in the late 70’s/early 80s to reduce emissions from carbureted vehicles (of which almost all vehicles were at that time) and the petro industry developed and starting including MTBE as their oxygenating additive.
Then, at some point, the narrative was heard that MTBE was being found in groundwater and therefore a safer additive was needed - with that safer additive being EtOH. Plus EtOH was “renewable” and was good for the big Ag industry as well as being less injurious to groundwater than MTBE was.
Clearly there are some logical problems with all of this:
1. If MTBE was in the groundwater then gasoline would have also had to have been there too - as they both would have been from leaking USTs. Switching to EtOH as the additive would do nothing to eliminate the gasoline that was leaking underground.
2. Closed-loop fuel injection was just around the corner and would eliminate the need for the extra oxygenate anyway - yet we still have it 30 years later.
I could be all washed up on my recollection and look forward to hearing from Matt Colie and the others who were active in the industry at the time.
--Jim
Jim Miller
1977 Eleganza
1977 Royale
Hamilton, OH
ISTR that the EPA was wanting an oxygenate additive in the late 70’s/early 80s to reduce emissions from carbureted vehicles (of which almost all vehicles were at that time) and the petro industry developed and starting including MTBE as their oxygenating additive.
Then, at some point, the narrative was heard that MTBE was being found in groundwater and therefore a safer additive was needed - with that safer additive being EtOH. Plus EtOH was “renewable” and was good for the big Ag industry as well as being less injurious to groundwater than MTBE was.
Clearly there are some logical problems with all of this:
1. If MTBE was in the groundwater then gasoline would have also had to have been there too - as they both would have been from leaking USTs. Switching to EtOH as the additive would do nothing to eliminate the gasoline that was leaking underground.
2. Closed-loop fuel injection was just around the corner and would eliminate the need for the extra oxygenate anyway - yet we still have it 30 years later.
I could be all washed up on my recollection and look forward to hearing from Matt Colie and the others who were active in the industry at the time.
--Jim
Jim Miller
1977 Eleganza
1977 Royale
Hamilton, OH
> ISTR that the EPA was wanting an oxygenate additive in the late 70's/early 80s to reduce emissions from carbureted vehicles (of which almost all
> vehicles were at that time) and the petro industry developed and starting including MTBE as their oxygenating additive.
>
> Then, at some point, the narrative was heard that MTBE was being found in groundwater and therefore a safer additive was needed - with that safer
> additive being EtOH. Plus EtOH was "renewable" and was good for the big Ag industry as well as being less injurious to groundwater than MTBE was.
>
> Clearly there are some logical problems with all of this:
>
> 1. If MTBE was in the groundwater then gasoline would have also had to have been there too - as they both would have been from leaking USTs.
> Switching to EtOH as the additive would do nothing to eliminate the gasoline that was leaking underground.
>
> 2. Closed-loop fuel injection was just around the corner and would eliminate the need for the extra oxygenate anyway - yet we still have it 30
> years later.
>
> I could be all washed up on my recollection and look forward to hearing from Matt Colie and the others who were active in the industry at the
> time.
>
> --Jim
Jim,
Your memory is very good.
MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is incredibly soluble in water. Much more so even than ethanol. It was never proven to be a carcinogen (though
CARB wanted it to be) but as an engine lab with fuel storage on site, we were required to notify the city (Ann Arbor), the county and the state
anytime we had more than one pound of it on the property. It was a pretty good knock suppressant, but it sucked as and oxygenant. But as said, we
had to de-tune the engines to make any change that either that or alcohol could cause any gain.
If anybody had looked at the engineering going on, they would have seen that before they could even implement their "wonderful" ideas, the technology
would make them all irrelevant. (Which is where we have been since the mid 80's.) ECMs came on line with the first of the closed loop catalyst
engines. They were controlled carburetors and not all that good, but they could keep a catalyst lit and that was important.
Me?
I'm still trying to figure out how something that makes ICE engines burn more fuel is better for anything. With the possible exception of the
producers of said product....
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
> vehicles were at that time) and the petro industry developed and starting including MTBE as their oxygenating additive.
>
> Then, at some point, the narrative was heard that MTBE was being found in groundwater and therefore a safer additive was needed - with that safer
> additive being EtOH. Plus EtOH was "renewable" and was good for the big Ag industry as well as being less injurious to groundwater than MTBE was.
>
> Clearly there are some logical problems with all of this:
>
> 1. If MTBE was in the groundwater then gasoline would have also had to have been there too - as they both would have been from leaking USTs.
> Switching to EtOH as the additive would do nothing to eliminate the gasoline that was leaking underground.
>
> 2. Closed-loop fuel injection was just around the corner and would eliminate the need for the extra oxygenate anyway - yet we still have it 30
> years later.
>
> I could be all washed up on my recollection and look forward to hearing from Matt Colie and the others who were active in the industry at the
> time.
>
> --Jim
Jim,
Your memory is very good.
MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is incredibly soluble in water. Much more so even than ethanol. It was never proven to be a carcinogen (though
CARB wanted it to be) but as an engine lab with fuel storage on site, we were required to notify the city (Ann Arbor), the county and the state
anytime we had more than one pound of it on the property. It was a pretty good knock suppressant, but it sucked as and oxygenant. But as said, we
had to de-tune the engines to make any change that either that or alcohol could cause any gain.
If anybody had looked at the engineering going on, they would have seen that before they could even implement their "wonderful" ideas, the technology
would make them all irrelevant. (Which is where we have been since the mid 80's.) ECMs came on line with the first of the closed loop catalyst
engines. They were controlled carburetors and not all that good, but they could keep a catalyst lit and that was important.
Me?
I'm still trying to figure out how something that makes ICE engines burn more fuel is better for anything. With the possible exception of the
producers of said product....
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
Yep, anytime you burn 10 gallons of fuel to do the same job that 5 gallons
of fuel will do, what happens to the 5 gallons that just gets burned up
with no work being done??
I already know the answer, but I am curious what the rest of you
think. Any government types want to put their spin on this one? (Grin)
Jim Hupy
> > ISTR that the EPA was wanting an oxygenate additive in the late
> 70's/early 80s to reduce emissions from carbureted vehicles (of which
> almost all
> > vehicles were at that time) and the petro industry developed and
> starting including MTBE as their oxygenating additive.
> >
> > Then, at some point, the narrative was heard that MTBE was being found
> in groundwater and therefore a safer additive was needed - with that safer
> > additive being EtOH. Plus EtOH was "renewable" and was good for the big
> Ag industry as well as being less injurious to groundwater than MTBE was.
> >
> > Clearly there are some logical problems with all of this:
> >
> > 1. If MTBE was in the groundwater then gasoline would have also had to
> have been there too - as they both would have been from leaking USTs.
> > Switching to EtOH as the additive would do nothing to eliminate the
> gasoline that was leaking underground.
> >
> > 2. Closed-loop fuel injection was just around the corner and would
> eliminate the need for the extra oxygenate anyway - yet we still have it 30
> > years later.
> >
> > I could be all washed up on my recollection and look forward to hearing
> from Matt Colie and the others who were active in the industry at the
> > time.
> >
> > --Jim
>
> Jim,
>
> Your memory is very good.
>
> MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is incredibly soluble in water. Much
> more so even than ethanol. It was never proven to be a carcinogen (though
> CARB wanted it to be) but as an engine lab with fuel storage on site, we
> were required to notify the city (Ann Arbor), the county and the state
> anytime we had more than one pound of it on the property. It was a pretty
> good knock suppressant, but it sucked as and oxygenant. But as said, we
> had to de-tune the engines to make any change that either that or alcohol
> could cause any gain.
>
> If anybody had looked at the engineering going on, they would have seen
> that before they could even implement their "wonderful" ideas, the
> technology
> would make them all irrelevant. (Which is where we have been since the
> mid 80's.) ECMs came on line with the first of the closed loop catalyst
> engines. They were controlled carburetors and not all that good, but they
> could keep a catalyst lit and that was important.
>
> Me?
> I'm still trying to figure out how something that makes ICE engines burn
> more fuel is better for anything. With the possible exception of the
> producers of said product....
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
> Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
> OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
of fuel will do, what happens to the 5 gallons that just gets burned up
with no work being done??
I already know the answer, but I am curious what the rest of you
think. Any government types want to put their spin on this one? (Grin)
Jim Hupy
> > ISTR that the EPA was wanting an oxygenate additive in the late
> 70's/early 80s to reduce emissions from carbureted vehicles (of which
> almost all
> > vehicles were at that time) and the petro industry developed and
> starting including MTBE as their oxygenating additive.
> >
> > Then, at some point, the narrative was heard that MTBE was being found
> in groundwater and therefore a safer additive was needed - with that safer
> > additive being EtOH. Plus EtOH was "renewable" and was good for the big
> Ag industry as well as being less injurious to groundwater than MTBE was.
> >
> > Clearly there are some logical problems with all of this:
> >
> > 1. If MTBE was in the groundwater then gasoline would have also had to
> have been there too - as they both would have been from leaking USTs.
> > Switching to EtOH as the additive would do nothing to eliminate the
> gasoline that was leaking underground.
> >
> > 2. Closed-loop fuel injection was just around the corner and would
> eliminate the need for the extra oxygenate anyway - yet we still have it 30
> > years later.
> >
> > I could be all washed up on my recollection and look forward to hearing
> from Matt Colie and the others who were active in the industry at the
> > time.
> >
> > --Jim
>
> Jim,
>
> Your memory is very good.
>
> MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is incredibly soluble in water. Much
> more so even than ethanol. It was never proven to be a carcinogen (though
> CARB wanted it to be) but as an engine lab with fuel storage on site, we
> were required to notify the city (Ann Arbor), the county and the state
> anytime we had more than one pound of it on the property. It was a pretty
> good knock suppressant, but it sucked as and oxygenant. But as said, we
> had to de-tune the engines to make any change that either that or alcohol
> could cause any gain.
>
> If anybody had looked at the engineering going on, they would have seen
> that before they could even implement their "wonderful" ideas, the
> technology
> would make them all irrelevant. (Which is where we have been since the
> mid 80's.) ECMs came on line with the first of the closed loop catalyst
> engines. They were controlled carburetors and not all that good, but they
> could keep a catalyst lit and that was important.
>
> Me?
> I'm still trying to figure out how something that makes ICE engines burn
> more fuel is better for anything. With the possible exception of the
> producers of said product....
>
> Matt
> --
> Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
> Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
> OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
Hey Matt, what have you got to say about Hexavalent Chromium Erin
Brockovich made a career out of it, as I remember.
Jim Hupy
> Yep, anytime you burn 10 gallons of fuel to do the same job that 5 gallons
> of fuel will do, what happens to the 5 gallons that just gets burned up
> with no work being done??
> I already know the answer, but I am curious what the rest of you
> think. Any government types want to put their spin on this one? (Grin)
> Jim Hupy
>
>
>
>> > ISTR that the EPA was wanting an oxygenate additive in the late
>> 70's/early 80s to reduce emissions from carbureted vehicles (of which
>> almost all
>> > vehicles were at that time) and the petro industry developed and
>> starting including MTBE as their oxygenating additive.
>> >
>> > Then, at some point, the narrative was heard that MTBE was being found
>> in groundwater and therefore a safer additive was needed - with that safer
>> > additive being EtOH. Plus EtOH was "renewable" and was good for the big
>> Ag industry as well as being less injurious to groundwater than MTBE was.
>> >
>> > Clearly there are some logical problems with all of this:
>> >
>> > 1. If MTBE was in the groundwater then gasoline would have also had to
>> have been there too - as they both would have been from leaking USTs.
>> > Switching to EtOH as the additive would do nothing to eliminate the
>> gasoline that was leaking underground.
>> >
>> > 2. Closed-loop fuel injection was just around the corner and would
>> eliminate the need for the extra oxygenate anyway - yet we still have it 30
>> > years later.
>> >
>> > I could be all washed up on my recollection and look forward to hearing
>> from Matt Colie and the others who were active in the industry at the
>> > time.
>> >
>> > --Jim
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> Your memory is very good.
>>
>> MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is incredibly soluble in water. Much
>> more so even than ethanol. It was never proven to be a carcinogen (though
>> CARB wanted it to be) but as an engine lab with fuel storage on site, we
>> were required to notify the city (Ann Arbor), the county and the state
>> anytime we had more than one pound of it on the property. It was a
>> pretty good knock suppressant, but it sucked as and oxygenant. But as
>> said, we
>> had to de-tune the engines to make any change that either that or alcohol
>> could cause any gain.
>>
>> If anybody had looked at the engineering going on, they would have seen
>> that before they could even implement their "wonderful" ideas, the
>> technology
>> would make them all irrelevant. (Which is where we have been since the
>> mid 80's.) ECMs came on line with the first of the closed loop catalyst
>> engines. They were controlled carburetors and not all that good, but
>> they could keep a catalyst lit and that was important.
>>
>> Me?
>> I'm still trying to figure out how something that makes ICE engines burn
>> more fuel is better for anything. With the possible exception of the
>> producers of said product....
>>
>> Matt
>> --
>> Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
>> Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
>> OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
>> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>>
>
Brockovich made a career out of it, as I remember.
Jim Hupy
> Yep, anytime you burn 10 gallons of fuel to do the same job that 5 gallons
> of fuel will do, what happens to the 5 gallons that just gets burned up
> with no work being done??
> I already know the answer, but I am curious what the rest of you
> think. Any government types want to put their spin on this one? (Grin)
> Jim Hupy
>
>
>
>> > ISTR that the EPA was wanting an oxygenate additive in the late
>> 70's/early 80s to reduce emissions from carbureted vehicles (of which
>> almost all
>> > vehicles were at that time) and the petro industry developed and
>> starting including MTBE as their oxygenating additive.
>> >
>> > Then, at some point, the narrative was heard that MTBE was being found
>> in groundwater and therefore a safer additive was needed - with that safer
>> > additive being EtOH. Plus EtOH was "renewable" and was good for the big
>> Ag industry as well as being less injurious to groundwater than MTBE was.
>> >
>> > Clearly there are some logical problems with all of this:
>> >
>> > 1. If MTBE was in the groundwater then gasoline would have also had to
>> have been there too - as they both would have been from leaking USTs.
>> > Switching to EtOH as the additive would do nothing to eliminate the
>> gasoline that was leaking underground.
>> >
>> > 2. Closed-loop fuel injection was just around the corner and would
>> eliminate the need for the extra oxygenate anyway - yet we still have it 30
>> > years later.
>> >
>> > I could be all washed up on my recollection and look forward to hearing
>> from Matt Colie and the others who were active in the industry at the
>> > time.
>> >
>> > --Jim
>>
>> Jim,
>>
>> Your memory is very good.
>>
>> MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether) is incredibly soluble in water. Much
>> more so even than ethanol. It was never proven to be a carcinogen (though
>> CARB wanted it to be) but as an engine lab with fuel storage on site, we
>> were required to notify the city (Ann Arbor), the county and the state
>> anytime we had more than one pound of it on the property. It was a
>> pretty good knock suppressant, but it sucked as and oxygenant. But as
>> said, we
>> had to de-tune the engines to make any change that either that or alcohol
>> could cause any gain.
>>
>> If anybody had looked at the engineering going on, they would have seen
>> that before they could even implement their "wonderful" ideas, the
>> technology
>> would make them all irrelevant. (Which is where we have been since the
>> mid 80's.) ECMs came on line with the first of the closed loop catalyst
>> engines. They were controlled carburetors and not all that good, but
>> they could keep a catalyst lit and that was important.
>>
>> Me?
>> I'm still trying to figure out how something that makes ICE engines burn
>> more fuel is better for anything. With the possible exception of the
>> producers of said product....
>>
>> Matt
>> --
>> Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
>> Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
>> OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
>> SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
>> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>>
>
> Hey Matt, what have you got to say about Hexavalent Chromium Erin
> Brockovich made a career out of it, as I remember.
> Jim Hupy
Well, she sure did and PG&E deserved to get stung for what they did and tried to hide.
That stuff was know nasty. It is used in plating (always nasty) and in some dyes. They were just pouring it on the ground and nobody was watching.
That is why our lab had to jump through hoops to use anything that was non-standard.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
> Brockovich made a career out of it, as I remember.
> Jim Hupy
Well, she sure did and PG&E deserved to get stung for what they did and tried to hide.
That stuff was know nasty. It is used in plating (always nasty) and in some dyes. They were just pouring it on the ground and nobody was watching.
That is why our lab had to jump through hoops to use anything that was non-standard.
Matt
--
Matt & Mary Colie - '73 Glacier 23 - Members GMCMI, GMCGL, GMCES
Electronically Controlled Quiet Engine Cooling Fan
OE Rear Drum Brakes with Applied Control Arms
SE Michigan - Twixt A2 and Detroit
