Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK General Discussion Forum > Gasoline

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: Gasoline Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
01-26-2011 11:31 AM
arrowhead There is a commuter train in my state. Everyone's tax dollars that lives in the state help to keep it running. It's route is a little over a hundred miles but I don't know the exact mileage. I've never seen it as I would have to drive over 200 miles to reach it's closest point to me. A large part of the state is in the same boat. Not a very efficient use of public money for a state that is ranked at number 49 on the personal income totem pole. Our past governor did get his name painted on it though.
01-25-2011 03:35 PM
pokey If I ride my bicycle after eating Fritos will I get better mileage
01-25-2011 01:38 PM
Davidsjeep Wow... Ok so I got on the tread to see what others had to say about higher octane fuel. I decided that I would test it out just for fun so for a while now I've been filling up with higher octane fuel, I got less then 1 mpg more using higher octane, but without even trying to notice I noticed that my jeep idles a lot smoother on higher octane, I remember a while ago not liking the way it sounded as it idled ( just sounded a little rough) than I completely forgot about it, well I started back on 87, and I noticed as I said before without even trying to notice, it was back to idling a little bit rough.
01-25-2011 01:40 AM
sheetsd66 Wow, Bubba....that was impressive, but ineffective. First, public transportation "saves" fuel in the same way my wive "saves" money by buying her purses on sale; I'm still losing money on the deal, just not as much of it. Even so, using your own argument that public transportation saves fuel when used, one would have to state that public transportation wastes fuel when it isn't used.

If you implement your incremental improvements as proposed, you're expecting more people to use public transportation, that means less people will need cars. I guess the workers from the auto industry who lose their jobs will enter the significant labor force to lay the train tracks.

Not all farmers require or receive government subsidies.

As for the cost of using the transit system compared to the cost of owning a car, if public transportation charged ticket prices high enough to cover the operating costs it wouldn't be such a sweet deal (you can get cars for less than $30,000, by the way). As it stands, your buddy in Chicago is only paying a fraction of the cost of getting him where he needs to go-the taxpayers are footing the rest of the bill. That's why its so convenient for him. I'll bet that your buddy would have second thoughts if public transportation actually cost him more than driving himself.

If you really want to reduce fuel consumption, reduce congestion, and reduce pollution you need to get people out of vehicles that rely on streets and fossil fuel....hence the bicycles mentioned in an earlier post. Or they could become pedestrians, I suppose. I pedal to work most days (30 miles round trip) and my wife drives. It takes me 10 minutes longer each way to make the trip than it takes her, I don't sit in traffic, and I watch half-empty trains and buses lumber by during the entire commute. Some days I run to work as well, but I wouldn't want to do that every day. I haven't bought a tank of gas in over 6 months. You're going to have a hard time convincing me that public transportation can match those results in terms of reduction in congestion, fuel consumption, and pollution.
01-24-2011 05:01 PM
j33pZ I think it is wonderful for the lazy-asses around here to have cheap transportation to their drug dealer's house and the unemployment office.
It would make me feel better if the busses looked more like stretch limousines and the bus drivers wore tuxedos. Why can't drinks and snacks be served also? Isn't it against the law to keep refreshments from people? I cannot bear to think that American citizens could possibly get a dry mouth or a hunger cramp on the way to collect an unemployment check. What has this country come to anyway?
01-24-2011 11:54 AM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheetsd66 View Post
No, if it was about the environmental impact we'd be talking about bicycles. burton160w said it takes him 3 connections and an hour to go 25 miles using public transportation....then you said public transportation needs to be beefed up. Apparently no city in the history of mankind (not even the cities you cited in your post) has been able to make public transportation a break-even proposition, no matter how convenient it is. The bottom line is we're paying to drive ourselves around PLUS we're paying for an empty bus to drive around and burn more fuel. Exactly what kind of beefing up do you propose to fix that?
Saving gas isn't about the environment? Well thats news to me...please, tell me more

Public transit, when used, DOES reduce congestion, DOES reduce pollution, and DOES reduce fuel consumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mabar View Post
Wow, did this thread get off topic! To answer the original question, there is absolutely no benefit in using a higher octane gas than the manufacturer recommends for your vehicle.

As far as "beefing up" mass transit to make it more convenient....



Mass transit in the United States is basically a money pit, that almost always looses money and must have huge government subsidies to keep it running.
Never said it wasn't.

Quote:
To make mass transit more convenient in most cities, would require HUGE expansions of the number of buses, trains, routes, etc. To actually make mass transit cost effective and time effective, would probably require tripling, quadrupling, quintupling (or more) the money already pouring into the system.
When it comes to buses - it can be done in small increments. With trains the laying of tracks will require a significant labor force...which of course keeps people employed - and the benefits of those tracks will last well into the future. This isn't to take anything away from the significant investment that would need to be made - but there are other benefits aside from just those who use it.

Quote:
Let's face it, for most people, especially suburbanites, in most cities, mass transit is NOT convenient. A 15-30 minute drive by car, could easily take 2, 3, 4 or more hours by bus, or mass transit, depending on where you live, and where you are going.
Exactly - hence needs to be beefed up in MOST CITIES to be convenient. And I'd love to know where a 15 minute drive by car takes 2 hours by public transportation...even here where we only have buses running limited routes it would never, EVER take 2 hours. Hell even taking the train in from the suburbs in Chicago doesn't take 2 hours - and its certainly not a 15 minute drive as the alternative.

Quote:
HUGE amounts of money invested into a mass transit system would be required to actually make it convenient, and to make sure the transit system goes to where you actually want to go.

This would require either HUGE amounts of government money, or HUGE increases in fare rates. I can't imagine mass transit riders paying $10, $20, $30 or more for a bus ride, and/or I can't imagine taxpayers paying billions more to "beef up" or make mass transit more convenient.
It will always require government subsidies in the same way farming will always require government subsidies.

Quote:
As to the Chicago mass transit system being "easier than owning a car" for him, that is because everybody else is paying for his transportation, to the tune of billions of dollars. See it here:

Mass Transit | DGAP



Your "feel good" statement that "mass transit needs to be beefed up" is just that, a "feel good" statement, that really has not been thought out


Mabar
What does cost have to do with ease? It doesn't - ease is just that - ease of use. He can walk a block to a transit station and get anywhere he needs to go - even out to the suburbs. Matter of fact, right out of college he lived with his parents (to save up the money to buy his condo downtown)...it was STILL easier living way out in the suburbs to take the train rather than commute into downtown. That is ease of use.

As for cost - you can buy a lot of train tickets for $30,000 PLUS gas PLUS insurance PLUS maintenance...

Its not a 'feel good' statement. It is a fact of life that traffic congestion is becoming more and more of a problem. When 6 lane roads are jam packed and there's no more room to add lanes - the ONLY solution is to reduce the number of cars on the road. Not saying public transit is perfect - but transporting 25 people on a bus that gets 5 mpg is a hell of a lot better than 25 people driving their 15 mpg Jeeps into town.

Just because it'll never be a money maker doesn't mean it isn't needed. Again, see farming.

And yeah, way off topic now. So I'm done hijacking...though I welcome your response if you have one.
01-24-2011 11:23 AM
Boosta Best thread EVER!! "popcorn"
01-24-2011 11:06 AM
Mabar Wow, did this thread get off topic! To answer the original question, there is absolutely no benefit in using a higher octane gas than the manufacturer recommends for your vehicle.

As far as "beefing up" mass transit to make it more convenient....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba68CS View Post
Public transportation absolutely needs to be beefed up in most cities. Its nice going to a city that has a decent transportation system in place. A good friend of mine lives in downtown Chicago - doesn't even own a car. Doesn't need one - he gets everywhere he needs to go by walking or the trains. Its actually easier than owning a car for him.
Mass transit in the United States is basically a money pit, that almost always looses money and must have huge government subsidies to keep it running.

To make mass transit more convenient in most cities, would require HUGE expansions of the number of buses, trains, routes, etc. To actually make mass transit cost effective and time effective, would probably require tripling, quadrupling, quintupling (or more) the money already pouring into the system.

Let's face it, for most people, especially suburbanites, in most cities, mass transit is NOT convenient. A 15-30 minute drive by car, could easily take 2, 3, 4 or more hours by bus, or mass transit, depending on where you live, and where you are going.

HUGE amounts of money invested into a mass transit system would be required to actually make it convenient, and to make sure the transit system goes to where you actually want to go.

This would require either HUGE amounts of government money, or HUGE increases in fare rates. I can't imagine mass transit riders paying $10, $20, $30 or more for a bus ride, and/or I can't imagine taxpayers paying billions more to "beef up" or make mass transit more convenient.

As to the Chicago mass transit system being "easier than owning a car" for him, that is because everybody else is paying for his transportation, to the tune of billions of dollars. See it here:

Mass Transit | DGAP

Quote:
In its long-range strategic plan, the RTA estimated that it needed $16 billion in capital investments over the next 5 years, and $57 billion over the next 30 years, to repair and modernize the rail infrastructure, fix equipment, and replace dilapidated buses and train cars.
Your "feel good" statement that "mass transit needs to be beefed up" is just that, a "feel good" statement, that really has not been thought out


Mabar
01-24-2011 09:55 AM
yomondo I tried 91 octane for about a month some time ago, and didn't notice any better mileage or performance in comparision to 87 octane.
01-24-2011 09:48 AM
sheetsd66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba68CS View Post
In any case, this is about environmental impact. If you make public transportation convenient for people, they'll use it (as they do in cities with good transit systems around the world). And using it reduces traffic congestion and air pollution.
No, if it was about the environmental impact we'd be talking about bicycles. burton160w said it takes him 3 connections and an hour to go 25 miles using public transportation....then you said public transportation needs to be beefed up. Apparently no city in the history of mankind (not even the cities you cited in your post) has been able to make public transportation a break-even proposition, no matter how convenient it is. The bottom line is we're paying to drive ourselves around PLUS we're paying for an empty bus to drive around and burn more fuel. Exactly what kind of beefing up do you propose to fix that?
01-24-2011 08:52 AM
phottomatt There is no MPG advantage to running higher octane.
Ethanol can harm your vehicle by corroding parts. Not good stuff, I am not happy that they will be adding more to our fuel.
01-24-2011 08:30 AM
jp2611 Not that it is following the thread but for the OP- I ran high octane or premium for a couple of years in my rig thinking it would run "better-better mileage etc." Replaced the cat 3x in those 2 or 3 years.

Went back to 87 octane with a fuel treatment at each oil change. No difference in mileage no more bad cats. You tell me - the owner's manual says 87 octane only for TJ's.
01-24-2011 08:17 AM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrowhead View Post
1 gallon of gasoline contains 125,000 BTUs.

1 gallon of diesel contains 139,000 BTUs.

The added cost of diesel at the pump pretty much negates it's mileage advantage over gasoline.

1 gallon of ethanol contains 76,000 BTUs.

Should be self explanatory.
Should be...but its not always:

The added cost of diesel does not always negate its mileage advantage as with some vehicles, the diesel offers a substantial mileage gain over its gasoline sibling. However people do need to take into account how much gasoline can be purchased with the money used for the initial cost of the diesel engine - which is typically quite a bit more than its gasoline counterpart.

As for BTU - that is not the end all measure for mileage as both ethanol and diesel are capable of considerably higher compression ratios (diesel because of the cycle, ethanol because of the octane rating).

Many people forget that E85 has an octane rating of 105. Yet its running in engines designed for 87 octane. It can take a significant bump in compression and that increase in efficiency (see Otto cycle) will recover a good portion of the mileage lost (though I don't believe it would recover all of it)
01-24-2011 08:12 AM
Peepers I used to drive buses for my university in college. I worked there for 3 years, and every year they tried to raise the transportation charge on tuition by like $10-20 per student to help off-set the costs of running the buses... Never passed, it was always voted down by the students, but god forbid if you were 30 seconds late to a bus stop or if their clock was off compaired to ours and we left "early" and they missed us. It was like the rath of hell coming down on us.

Their are people that depend on mass transportation. and then their are the rest of us that refuse to work on their scheduel and drive ourselves everywhere.
01-24-2011 08:10 AM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheetsd66 View Post
You weren't talking about all government programs, you were talking about public transportation. You said it needs to be beefed up in most cities and I replied that cities are already losing money on public transportation. It doesn't make sense to expand a losing program.Try to stay focused.
Maybar covered the government part for me Private businesses go out of business when they operate at a loss - only when the government helps out do they continue operating.

In any case, this is about environmental impact. If you make public transportation convenient for people, they'll use it (as they do in cities with good transit systems around the world). And using it reduces traffic congestion and air pollution.
01-24-2011 08:09 AM
arrowhead 1 gallon of gasoline contains 125,000 BTUs.

1 gallon of diesel contains 139,000 BTUs.

The added cost of diesel at the pump pretty much negates it's mileage advantage over gasoline. Figure in the added cost of the diesel engine and it takes a LOT of miles just to break even on the vehicle purchase cost.

1 gallon of ethanol contains 76,000 BTUs.

Should be self explanatory.
01-24-2011 08:02 AM
sheetsd66 How did we get on the topic of buses anyhow? Didn't the OP ask if there was any advantage to running higher octane fuel in his stock set-up?
01-24-2011 07:26 AM
Mabar
Quote:
Originally Posted by j33pZ View Post
Where I live, I don't know how the busses are making any money. Every time I see a bus, there is less than 30% of the seats filled. Most of the time there is only three or four people on board. I always wonder how much it costs the city (tax payers) to keep just one bus running all day.... (fuel, salary of bus driver, insurance??)
i am thankful I have my own jeep
The plain and simple fact is that mass transit in the United States DOES NOT make a profit. It is a HUGE cost to taxpayers. Mass transit is almost always government subsidized, and usually cannot sustain itself.

Check it out here:

mass transit :: Subsidies -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

Quote:
Mass transportation fares typically are set below the level necessary to cover full costs, and the difference is made up by government subsidy intended to create the social benefits produced when people use transit. In the United States, revenues from passenger fares typically pay from 10 to 70 percent of operating costs, the lower number representing lightly used suburban services and the higher number reflecting intensely used downtown corridor services. The other 30 to 90 percent comes from state, regional, and local subsidies
Mabar
01-24-2011 07:00 AM
j33pZ Where I live, I don't know how the busses are making any money. Every time I see a bus, there is less than 30% of the seats filled. Most of the time there is only three or four people on board. I always wonder how much it costs the city (tax payers) to keep just one bus running all day.... (fuel, salary of bus driver, insurance??)
i am thankful I have my own jeep
01-24-2011 12:59 AM
sheetsd66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba68CS View Post
By that account, I can't think of any government program that isn't losing money...
You weren't talking about all government programs, you were talking about public transportation. You said it needs to be beefed up in most cities and I replied that cities are already losing money on public transportation. It doesn't make sense to expand a losing program.Try to stay focused.
01-23-2011 02:54 PM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheetsd66 View Post
I don't think there's a public transit system in the country that isn't losing money. Sure they're an excellent alternative for the few people who use them, but overall they're a losing proposition.
By that account, I can't think of any government program that isn't losing money...
01-23-2011 02:38 PM
sheetsd66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba68CS View Post
Public transportation absolutely needs to be beefed up in most cities. Its nice going to a city that has a decent transportation system in place. A good friend of mine lives in downtown Chicago - doesn't even own a car. Doesn't need one - he gets everywhere he needs to go by walking or the trains. Its actually easier than owning a car for him.
I don't think there's a public transit system in the country that isn't losing money. Sure they're an excellent alternative for the few people who use them, but overall they're a losing proposition.
01-23-2011 02:22 PM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by burton160w View Post
How can you guys let a gem like this get by?


gay.


Also here's some data. The trend is roughly 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel for 1 gallon of ethanol. It depends on a lot of different factors. However, the intention is not to save fossil fuels, but to burn cleaner fuel. Me personally? I like electric vehicles. I'm all in for the Nissan Leafs and the Chevy Volts and the Teslas. Granted they're now underpowered and don't have the range, but it'll get there. However, I'm even more so a bigger advocate of urban planning. Public transportation really is much more feasible than everyone driving their own vehicle. I take the train into work everyday and it takes me three connections to get where I want to go and an hour to go twenty five miles. Granted, this runs counter to the gearhead side of me. But the truth is vehicles in general are wasteful. If driving my Jeep was solely a hobby/weekend activity I'd be fine with that and wouldn't mind paying a luxury for the gasoline.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...n3XFmxWbyFnGbA
Public transportation absolutely needs to be beefed up in most cities. Its nice going to a city that has a decent transportation system in place. A good friend of mine lives in downtown Chicago - doesn't even own a car. Doesn't need one - he gets everywhere he needs to go by walking or the trains. Its actually easier than owning a car for him.
01-23-2011 02:12 PM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba68CS View Post
1) Ethanol getting worse mpg has nothing to do with anything when it comes to the energy balance. Ethanol has a set amount of energy per unit volume...it requires a certain amount of energy to produce it.

2) The ratio is the amount of energy you get out of the fuel divided by the amount of energy required to make the fuel. In other words 1 unit of input energy will yield 1.2-1.3 units of ethanol corn fuel energy. Many of the comparisons to gasoline have conveniently forgotten the fact that it requires fuel to make the stuff...skewing those numbers. On the same side some of the extreme high end numbers for ethanol were skewed in a similar manner. While I am not one to rely on Wikipedia for reference, their article on "ethanol fuel energy balance" gives a pretty decent list of references. But yes, the energy cost of planting the crops, growing the crops, harvesting the crops, transporting the crops, and producing the ethanol are all taken into account.

There are still variables that are difficult to account for...but to date, those are the most accurate numbers (and its not one source...but many).

And that will only improve as farming and production techniques become more refined. The bigger issues lie elsewhere in the debate...and that is where ethanol REALLY falls short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by licensedtwochill View Post
Now that you mention it, where is your data?
If you need more, a simple google search for 'ethanol energy balance' will keep you busy for quite some time. As I said, there are two out there that have been debunked...everything else gives a positive energy balance - so my references are everything on the subject but those two.
01-23-2011 01:38 PM
burton160w How can you guys let a gem like this get by?

Quote:
doubt it all you want but my ass knows the difference
gay.


Also here's some data. The trend is roughly 1.29 gallons of fossil fuel for 1 gallon of ethanol. It depends on a lot of different factors. However, the intention is not to save fossil fuels, but to burn cleaner fuel. Me personally? I like electric vehicles. I'm all in for the Nissan Leafs and the Chevy Volts and the Teslas. Granted they're now underpowered and don't have the range, but it'll get there. However, I'm even more so a bigger advocate of urban planning. Public transportation really is much more feasible than everyone driving their own vehicle. I take the train into work everyday and it takes me three connections to get where I want to go and an hour to go twenty five miles. Granted, this runs counter to the gearhead side of me. But the truth is vehicles in general are wasteful. If driving my Jeep was solely a hobby/weekend activity I'd be fine with that and wouldn't mind paying a luxury for the gasoline.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...n3XFmxWbyFnGbA
01-23-2011 01:20 PM
licensedtwochill
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba68CS View Post
Once again, not true. Has been proven wrong many times. There are only two studies showing that myth to be true, both from around 2005...both made significant errors. If you have more recent data, by all means, publish it.
Now that you mention it, where is your data?
01-23-2011 09:39 AM
OsageJeep
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobigorgohome View Post
All these farm machines run on gasoline, and the actual process of changing corn into ethanol is very energy inten
What farm machines used to harvest corn run on gasoline?
01-23-2011 09:29 AM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by licensedtwochill View Post
I think he's trying to explain the amount of energy used to produce ethanol, when you consider planting, harvest, rendering, and fractionation, you've used more energy than you've created.
Once again, not true. Has been proven wrong many times. There are only two studies showing that myth to be true, both from around 2005...both made significant errors. If you have more recent data, by all means, publish it.
01-23-2011 09:27 AM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by licensedtwochill View Post
You are quite wrong sir, I work in the refining industry, and am sitting not more than 100yds from equipment that produces "gasoline", which is several different hydrocarbon streams and it's content varies by season. The company I work for also produces "renewable fuels", and it has been made quite clear to us, that the only reason the produce it is to gain the tax benefits and incentives offered by our government. If those programs end tomorrow, they would pull the plug before the ink would dry in on the bill in Congress because it is not a profitable business on it's own.
I never once claimed it to be profitable without government subsidies.
01-23-2011 08:11 AM
sheetsd66
Quote:
Originally Posted by licensedtwochill View Post
I think he's trying to explain the amount of energy used to produce ethanol, when you consider planting, harvest, rendering, and fractionation, you've used more energy than you've created.
I don't think they took into account the thousands of years it took nature to make the crude oil used to produce gasoline.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:16 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC