About 1993 I worked for a company that would include a car for a group of
students taking classes in Sacramento. The students were warned that if
they chose to run Ethebal in the car it would not make it to South
Lake Tahoe and back on one tank, but if they ran gas in the dual fuel car
and did not drive around much once they got there they should be ok.
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
*John Phillips*
students taking classes in Sacramento. The students were warned that if
they chose to run Ethebal in the car it would not make it to South
Lake Tahoe and back on one tank, but if they ran gas in the dual fuel car
and did not drive around much once they got there they should be ok.
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://list.gmcnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gmclist_list.gmcnet.org
>
--
*John Phillips*
