gimmie11s

this whole thread is silly.............. Anyone who has tuned or played with boosted engines knows that higher octane allows your tuner to be a bit lazy with his work.

It takes someone who knows their stuff to get max power out of pump gasoline. In the days before E85 my turbo 4 banger made 456 wheel horsepower on 100 octane unleaded VP.... E85 is a whole other story!

I also dyno'd with Ca 91 **** pump gas and the best i could get her to do was 385 whp...this was partially due to me having to lower the boost from the 456whp run in order to keep knock under control.

High octane has its place. Will it give better mpg? im no expert on that but my experience says no. Will it give better power.............. usually yes.

I would bet if you put two EB trucks next to each other on two identical dynos --one filled with 91 octane and one filled with 87 octane-- the 91 octane truck would produce higher HP every time.... even if its only a few HP my bet is it would produce more.

BoostedFx

Just filled up with 93 and drove 430miles on the interstate. I got about 1.5 mpg better and didn't have that slight engine shudder while going up steeper grades. Its 93 from now on for me.

HankHill

I will second that on the mpg. I filled up with 93 for the first time. Milage went from 15 to 16.5 driving around to town and from 16.9 at 70 mph to 18.1. I am impressed with the 93 octane. But still may not use it every time due to the price difference. I know some will say this is a load of bull as I did not hand calculate but after 8,000 miles of driving this truck I can see the difference in this first tank of 93. The fuel distance guage went from usually saying about 326 miles to epty to where it said 383 miles to empty.

murdr

I noticed better milage as well with higher octane.

rkan

...especially on a post this old and with a political bent to boot, but...

JAUR (thats not catchy) Just Another Uninformed Republican

Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L 109-58) is a bill signed into law by President George W. Bush on August 8, 2005.
the Act increases the amount of biofuel (usually ethanol) that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the United States to 4 billion US gallons (15,000,000 m3) by 2006, 6.1 billion US gallons (23,000,000 m3) by 2009 and 7.5 billion US gallons (28,000,000 m3) by 2012; two years later, the Energy Independance and Security Act of 2007 extended the target to 36 billion US gallons (140,000,000 m3) by 2022.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-140) originally named the Clean Energy Act of 2007) is an Act of Congress concerning the energy policy of the United States. After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007 and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007 in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years

Yes, you are right it was all the Democrats fault.


And I think the ethanol subsidy went on faaar too long. As a tool to help an American industry get started, it was a good idea. But the ethanol industry shoud have been standing on its own feet long ago if it was a viable product. I'm glad its over. Ethanol sucks.

69428SCJ

The 2005 bill was capped at 7.5 billion gallons in 2012. IN 2007 the three dems, BOXER/FEINSTEIN/OBAMA with control of both houses increased this amount. It passed with numbers in both houses that would not enable a VETO. The WAXMAN/MARKEY...both dems bill in 2009 with control of both houses and the big house passed an even more agressive bill than the 2007. What started out as 7.5 is now 36.

rkan

Did I say the dems had nothing to do with it? Nope, just was responding to hillwood24's sweeping generalization that was implied when he said "Reminds me why I vote Republican" suggesting that the Republicans had nothing to do with ethanol, that is was all the Democrats.

I am well aware of the Dems involvement. You see, I understand to get anything done in a bipartisan system you need to compromise with the other side, so you each get some of what you believe in.
Now let me repeat that for the teabaggers......the word is c o m p r o m i s e.

I know they are unfamiliar with the word, so I said it slowly.

That being said, both sides sucking up to the corn farmers all these years has been a disgusting waste. How's that for a sweeping generalization? ( FYI, I live in a corn state)

Joewee3.5

I think the word is pandering. In politics that's the same as compromise. I'm for drilling everywhere there's space to drill. More jobs, cheaper fuel and less dependence on foreign oil.

BeerCan

2 backhand slaps at the right and you expect anything you say to be taken seriously? Can't you have a political discussion without insults? Based on the issues only? Jeez.

rkan

I assume that was meant for me. Yeah, your right, I will own that.

Instead of just providing the info that right and left both had involvement with the increased ethanol requirement, I threw in a bad acronym.

Then while making a point about lack of compromise I used a (slightly?) negative term for a politcal movement. (sorry, extremists tick me off, whatever side they are on)

Its hard not to get caught up in the vitriol spewed out by the extremist in the parties.

So, while I believe my examples and points raised are valid and true, I did not have to throw zingers and add to the negative discourse that pervades most politically involved discussions.

Oh yeah, 1 more thing. Ethanol sucks. ( I did not intend to insult corn there )