|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Nov 21, 2017 23:20:12 GMT -5
No, a failing O2 sensor could have been responsible for the car not running properly on E10.
And on that note, I'm gone. Have a nice life.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Nov 20, 2017 8:20:23 GMT -5
Not defensive, Jarlaxle, just really irritated that my research and own personal findings were pretty much totally blown off like I'm just window dressing here. Along with you pretty much saying that I wouldn't know something was wrong with my car, or that my mech wouldn't tell me. And I never said my car COULDN'T run e10. I just said he wasn't designed for it. And posted his improved gas mileage as proof that he preferred clean gas. It could easily be running fine...but have something wrong. (Wild guess: a failing O2 sensor.) |
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Nov 19, 2017 20:44:58 GMT -5
Factually incorrect. By 1992, everything was designed to run E10. (Most cars were by the mid-80's.) If yours did not, something else was wrong. I have put hundreds of thousands of miles on cars older than 1992 on E10 without a problem. Actually, everything I found online back then said cars pre-1995ish (?) weren't designed for more than just a small percentage of ethanol if any. I'm not totally sure of that year as I researched this around 2005 when there was all the buzz about some energy bill being passed to pretty much make e10 as the standard. And since I switched to clean gas, I didn't make a point of saving that knowledge into my brain. But hey, maybe my math is wacky. I'm a blonde, it's so hard to divide miles by gallons put in, even with a calculator. So yeah, I'm sure I'm wrong when I look in my Taurie's old mileage book (yes, I kept it--I figured the kid could start his own. I also kept the ciggy lighter too. And the cargo net but that wasn't on purpose) and see his mpg change pre-clean vs after several fill-ups post. And I even switched from good stations (Shell or BP) to QT (buys from whoever is cheapest at the time, so who knows it might've even been Conoco/Phillips) Maybe it was because I DIDN'T drive lots. When I sold him in 2015 () he had about 198k miles on him. He started in '97 with near-80k. You can do the math and see how little I drive. Or maybe it's since I'm not mechanical. I obviously would have no clue if something was wrong with my car, right? That's why once when I took him in to my mech and his guy didn't find anything wrong, Dave didn't tell him "If Kathy says something's wrong with her car, then something's wrong with her car. She knows her car. Go check it again." (oh, wait, that's EXACTLY what he told him) And the guy ran some additional test that usually is a waste without obvious symptoms, and found some little minor thing that had gone wrong, that so barely affected how Taurie handled that the guy didn't feel anything wrong when he test-drove. And yet I did feel it. So.Bite.Me. For assuming that just because I'm not mechanical I wouldn't know my car's running. For assuming I didn't research how ethanol would affect my beloved Taurie. For assuming I just pulled this out of my ttub. Wow, a little defensive, there. You clearly have your mind made up, so I will not even bother. Except to note that I have been burning ethanol-blend (5-10%) gas for 20 years, in vehicles older than your Taurus (oldest I'm certain of is my 1979 Cadillac), with a grand total of zero problems. Actually, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I burned E10 in a 1972 Ford F-800...so that would be the oldest. And I will note that 118,000 miles in 18 years really isn't that much driving. |
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Nov 19, 2017 12:43:54 GMT -5
Mine runs fine on E10...no detectable power difference, very slight loss in mileage. Note that my Burgman is EXPLICITLY designed for E10 fuel, as all engines made in the last 25 years should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Nov 18, 2017 20:36:47 GMT -5
. I have run many carbuerated vehicles on E10, and have had none of those problems. The sky is NOT falling. you've been lucky, there are many many documented cases of damage from these fuels, I've done plenty of repairs myself. It's not a case of the sky is falling, it's a case of the solvent properties of ethanol and the fact that even a small amount of water will cause it to phase separate, small engine and marine manufacturers refusing to honor warranties from the use of ethanol are based on science and damage history Naah. They are based on shoddy products, which should probably be recalled and destroyed if they cannot handle E10 fuel. Considering it has been common for over 20 years, there is absolutely no excuse for it. If it cannot run E10 without a problem, it should not be permitted to be sold in the United States, and any that were sold should be recalled, and repaired or replaced free of charge. |
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Nov 17, 2017 21:18:24 GMT -5
Remember when the Honda 750 four only made 40 hp? A lot of VWs only made 40 hp. Sure do... And those old 750 4 cylinder bikes were still plenty fast... I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the incredible amount of horsepower-per-cubic-inch modern engines put out... After all, a liter is only about 60 cubic-inches. 1.4 liter Honda cars miniscule 85cid motors regularly put out 400+ hp in the hands of tuner kids... THAT is over 4.4 hp per cid... Even my Accord V6 3.0 liter (about 120 cid) puts out 256 hp PLUS plenty of torque... That's 2.1 hp per inch... And as kids, we thought we were making "killer hp" at 1 hp per cid, with V8's that were "built" and finicky, and gave 5mpg gas mileage...I have to grudgingly admit it... there actually IS a "replacement for displacement"...  I guess it's "technology"... LOL! Good stuff... Those high-power Hondas are hand grenades with the pins pulled, on par with a dragster engine...also note, they generally have no factory parts beyond highly-modified block and head, and cost a fortune. At WOT, they have a service life measured in minutes-think: <5% duty cycle. In contrast: a 5.3 Chevy truck engine will happily make 60+ dyno pulls, spinning to 7000RPM and making over 1000HP for most of them on stock internals. The engine-a 100,000-miler pulled from a junked van, with a big rust spot in one cylinder-made 1,200HP with a pair of turbochargers, using stock crank, stock rods, stock pistons, and even stock 100,000+ mile rings. The only thing done to the bottom end was opening up the top ring gaps. They used ported stock heads, a high-flow intake (the truck intake is a torque design, done by 5000RPM) with extreme-duty head gaskets, and a Comp blower cam-they replaced the lifters because they were clogged with crud-if not, they'd have been reused. Rockers and pushrods were stock. They were TRYING to make the engine fail...Hot Rod wanted to know the limit of the stock bottom end. AT 26psi and 1,203HP, they found a weak point. The (stock) ignition would not fire the cylinders with more than 26psi of boost. Then they realized something: it wasn't a 5.3 litre. They had made 1200HP from a 4.8 litre engine! That is 4HP/ci, on a $500 junkyard engine. Detune it to 1000HP, and you have daily-driver reliability. Yes, the LS motors are THAT good. www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1109-stock-gm-ls-engine-big-bang-theory/ |
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Nov 17, 2017 19:11:11 GMT -5
Ehhh. Its 2.99 a gallon for dedicated pumps of e free gas down here in broward and miami. My old man says to use it in everything small and thigs that go in the water. He said for big cars its kind of a waste and up to personal choice. ... Depends on the age of your car. My old Taurie was a '92. He was NOT designed for any crapanol gas. When the newest QT opened, they had dedicated nozzles for clean gas (regular octane). I filled him with it, ran him almost empty, filled again, repeated about six times. I figured at that point what crapanol remained was so diluted it didn't matter, and filled him as normal, usually somewhere between half and quarter left. His mileage went from around 16 mpg (12 if I used Concoco/Phillips gas) to 18-20. And a customer who worked in the gas industry (don't remember doing what, that was YEARS ago) told me when I ranted against e10, that "there isn't one car on the road today that can't run perfectly fine on e10." I told him I had a '92 Taurus wagon. His suggestion was, "Uh, find clean gas." Yeah, that's what I already thought. So not necessarily a waste for big cars. >'Kat Factually incorrect. By 1992, everything was designed to run E10. (Most cars were by the mid-80's.) If yours did not, something else was wrong. I have put hundreds of thousands of miles on cars older than 1992 on E10 without a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Nov 17, 2017 19:09:09 GMT -5
You don't want to run it in carbed cars, it ruins everything rubber, rubber fuel lines,carb gaskets,fuel pump parts etc, it also destroys a lot of plastic or nylon parts. On top of that it loosens up the years of gunk at the bottom if the fuel tank, and it ends up in your fuel system . I have run many carbuerated vehicles on E10, and have had none of those problems. The sky is NOT falling. |
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Nov 17, 2017 19:06:24 GMT -5
Never burned anything but E10 in my Burg or my Helix (it's all that is available here). I use Sta-Bil for winter storage...no trouble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Nov 10, 2017 21:27:01 GMT -5
Well...sometimes. TSR's older books are LOADED with mistakes. (Off the top of my head: printing "perfect" as the title of a high-ranking priest, rather than "prefect". In later printings, it was removed...but not fixed.) Then again, TSR also thought it was totally fine to use HP Lovecraft's and Michael Moorcock's and Fritz Leiber's creations. Their copyrighted creations. Without asking first if it was okay to use them.  So they might have had bigger issues on their collective mind than typos (like avoiding lawsuits...).  Actually, they HAD permission. Directly from James Ward: |
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Oct 28, 2017 18:19:28 GMT -5
I find so many typos in contemporary hard back books. Read a book published before 1990 and you rarely see any typos. We expect computers to do everything for us. Proof reading has been a big part of every job I have held, including gritty labor jobs. Well...sometimes. TSR's older books are LOADED with mistakes. (Off the top of my head: printing "perfect" as the title of a high-ranking priest, rather than "prefect". In later printings, it was removed...but not fixed.) |
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Sept 14, 2017 10:29:27 GMT -5
I'm surprised...my Burg and my wife's Honda will idle all day in 100-degree heat with no trouble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Sept 13, 2017 16:53:43 GMT -5
Check your cooling system and fan!
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Aug 18, 2017 11:15:38 GMT -5
The ridiculous service requirements on many bikes are the reason my next bike will probably be a Sportster.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Aug 1, 2017 13:38:26 GMT -5
Which is why I ended up with a 125 Elite in 1984. But I still think Vespa's are way overpriced, in the 1960's you could buy one for about the same price (adjusted for inflation.) As today's Kymco.
I have to agree with the price issue. Particularly Vespa scoots are VERY expensive, even the smallest displacement models. At least brand-new ones. On the other hand, some members here have found EXTREMELY good deals on new Italian scoots of other makes. The BIG equalizer in price (at least in my area) is in clean, minty USED Italian scoots. When I settled on my old Kymco Grandvista 250 3 years ago, I looked at every type of used scooter I could find. And, I found NUMEROUS mint, low-miles Vespa, Piaggio and such Italian scoots in the same price-range as the used Taiwanese rides like Kymco and SYM. If you have your heart set on a NEW Vespa, it's going to be pricey. If you're willing to go with a clean USED ride, the Vespa may well be no more expensive than bikes from Taiwan, and certainly no more expensive than those from Japan.
All this mumbo-jumbo does NOT help the scooter cause... LOL!To get a bargain on an Italian ride, you have to really do your homework, and search. But you can get a Taiwan-made scoot off the floor for much less. And I suspect they are about equal in build-quality, though the Vespa does offer aircraft-style aluminum unit construction. That apparently is the major reason for their high initial price. Fortunately for used buyers, it doesn't translate into resale value.All-in-all, America just doesn't seem ready to embrace the scooter to the extent of our fellow riders in other nations... Especially when you can now get a NEW Harley 500/750 or Indian Scout V-twin for around $10K or LESS.
Yanks just can't resist that V-twin look, sound and pride-of-ownership. Nope...  As for me? At 70, and full of arthritis, I've had plenty of big twins and am more than happy with a SCOOTER... Yup! I think a new Sportster 1200 stickers for about 10K. |
|
