Jeep Wrangler Forum

Jeep Wrangler Forum (http://www.wranglerforum.com/)
-   JK General Discussion Forum (http://www.wranglerforum.com/f274/)
-   -   Gasoline (http://www.wranglerforum.com/f274/gasoline-76749.html)

j33pZ 01-20-2011 09:10 PM

Gasoline
 
I have a 2011 jku. The manual says to use 87. I use 87.
I was curious if there would be any advantages or disadvantages in using 89 or 93.
What do you use?

daggo66 01-20-2011 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j33pZ (Post 1003921)
I have a 2011 jku. The manual says to use 87. I use 87.
I was curious if there would be any advantages or disadvantages in using 89 or 93.
What do you use?

There is absolutely no advantage to using higher than required octane, unless your goal is to empty your wallet faster.

galaxyblur 01-20-2011 09:14 PM

The manual also says that there is absolutely no advantage to using anything other than 87 :) Engines must be calibrated to take advantage of higher octanes.

sheetsd66 01-21-2011 01:51 AM

We can't even get 87 over here in Germany (I think their stuff is equivalent to 90 or 91). As soon as Superchips cracks the code on the 11s I'll probably order a Flashpaq.

licensedtwochill 01-21-2011 03:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j33pZ (Post 1003921)
I have a 2011 jku. The manual says to use 87. I use 87.
I was curious if there would be any advantages or disadvantages in using 89 or 93.
What do you use?

No advantage what so ever, unless you increase your compression ratio through timing advance, artificial aspiration, or part replacemnt. Just purchase fuels from high volume stations, preferably "name brand" fuels for the higher end detergents they use, and by all means avoid ethanol whenever possible.

tomsjeep 01-21-2011 12:18 PM

I do get a little better gas mileage, 1 to 2 miles but you still spend more money in the long run

Cartmanpig92 01-21-2011 12:27 PM

Is there a problem with using 10% ethanol?

Mr. Sinister 01-21-2011 12:44 PM

i was getting pings under a load going up a hill at lower speeds on 87, so i had to step up to 89. cured the ping.

i put 93 in it once by accident (my other car requires 93 and gets 10mpg, so it makes frequent stops, my last dd required 93 as well) and doubt it all you want but my ass knows the difference, but the engine idled a bit smoother.

KSCRUDE 01-21-2011 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cartmanpig92 (Post 1005043)
Is there a problem with using 10% ethanol?

Stay away from any ethanol gas as it cost u a lot in mpg. Also bad for the enveriorment as it takes 2 barrels of crude to make 1 barrel of ethanol. Cam also cause engine problems in some applications.

Rock45 01-21-2011 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSCRUDE (Post 1005069)
Stay away from any ethanol gas as it cost u a lot in mpg. Also bad for the enveriorment as it takes 2 barrels of crude to make 1 barrel of ethanol. Cam also cause engine problems in some applications.


Can you explain the "2 barrels of crude to make 1 barrel of ethanol" statement? :eek: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. :banghead:


Bryan

Mr. Sinister 01-21-2011 01:06 PM

pretty much all gasoline is 10% ethanol now.

daggo66 01-21-2011 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock45 (Post 1005091)
Can you explain the "2 barrels of crude to make 1 barrel of ethanol" statement? :eek: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. :banghead:


Bryan

Maybe he meant two bushels of corn. :D

Mr. Sinister 01-21-2011 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daggo66 (Post 1005103)
Maybe he meant two bushels of corn. :D

did you know that you can set a Frito corn chip on fire, and it will hold the flame for quite a long time?
:hijacked:

Peepers 01-21-2011 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock45 (Post 1005091)
Can you explain the "2 barrels of crude to make 1 barrel of ethanol" statement? :eek: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. :banghead:


Bryan

Between planting the corn, harvesting it, transporting it, and then processing it into ethanol, you use 2 barrels worth of fuel to produce 1 barrel of fuel.

Gobigorgohome 01-21-2011 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock45

Can you explain the "2 barrels of crude to make 1 barrel of ethanol" statement? :eek: I'm not sure I understand what you mean. :banghead:

Bryan

I think what he is trying to say is that it takes a lot of farm equipment to harvest the corn/soy beans etc that is used to make ethanol. All these farm machines run on gasoline, and the actual process of changing corn into ethanol is very energy intensive. Therefore it can take more then a gallon of gas to produce a gallon of ethanol. It probably wouldn't be a viable business without the government subsidy, and the subsidy does nothing to make it more environmentally friendly.

I'll add another reason to not use ethanol that has nothing to do with our Jeeps... Everyday people around this world die of malnutrition and starvation. We (and by that I mean the American government) are redirecting food supplies away from the market and using them to produce gasoline via a subsidy that does not make economic sense. Additionally, it drives up food costs in the rest of the world because less supply = higher costs (and where the percentage of discretionary income spent on food is much higher so it can have a drastic effect of their quality of life). I love America, but I do believe that this game played by the government and the farming lobby could be construed as a crime against humanity.

Sorry for the rant, but many people never think about this. I am not even a hippy or Eco-maniac, but this is one case where doing what is right environmentally (ending the ethanol subsidy) coincides with doing right socially.

Peepers 01-21-2011 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobigorgohome (Post 1005112)
Everyday people around this world die of malnutrition and starvation.

What about the people starving here? why is everyone so concerned about what happens in other countries rather than what happening in our own country?

popstop785 01-21-2011 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peepers

What about the people starving here? why is everyone so concerned about what happens in other countries rather than what happening in our own country?

I have to agree with you. I'm more keen to donate time and money to the legal citizens (I refuse to help anyone who isn't here legally as I take offense to that) of my own country who need help before one thousands of miles away. Maybe that makes me a jerk in some peoples eyes, but I dont care.

superduty_5.9 01-21-2011 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peepers (Post 1005111)
Between planting the corn, harvesting it, transporting it, and then processing it into ethanol, you use 2 barrels worth of fuel to produce 1 barrel of fuel.

Not to mention it take 7 gallons of fresh water which is getting shorter in supply.

87 is what everybody should use. The only way 89 or higher would help is if you have sever carbon deposits which is creating hot spots and causing pre-ignition. 89 or higher will ignite at a higher temp to resist pre-ignition.

A healthy engine only need 87. Put in anything higher and you are just throwning $ away.

Gobigorgohome 01-21-2011 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peepers

What about the people starving here? why is everyone so concerned about what happens in other countries rather than what happening in our own country?

Ok, i didn't realize that the statement "around the world" excluded people in the US. People around the world (including people in the US) die of malnutrition and starvation every day.

I am not saying that if you do away with ethanol production you will stop world hunger, but it would help lower food prices for everyone (and yes, people in less developed countries are more impacted because a higher proportion or their income is spent on food...just sayin')

Ibuildembig 01-21-2011 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by superduty_5.9 (Post 1005148)
Not to mention it take 7 gallons of fresh water which is getting shorter in supply.

87 is what everybody should use. The only way 89 or higher would help is if you have sever carbon deposits which is creating hot spots and causing pre-ignition. 89 or higher will ignite at a higher temp to resist pre-ignition.

A healthy engine only need 87. Put in anything higher and you are just throwning $ away.

Unless you are in missouri where all gas but 93 has ethanol in it...junk, crap mileage, and same price as real gas here

Bubba68CS 01-21-2011 03:09 PM

Ethanol production does NOT require more energy than given by the fuel. That myth is related to two studies that used incorrect assumptions and outdated or poorly documented data to achieve that conclusion. Every recent study has shown ethanol production to yield more energy than it takes to produce.

Not saying it is a viable replacement for gasoline (its not)...but those two particular studies have been debunked many times.

Cartmanpig92 01-21-2011 03:17 PM

Well I guess I'm stuck using ethanol because that's all there is

Mabar 01-21-2011 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobigorgohome (Post 1005112)
.......It probably wouldn't be a viable business without the government subsidy, and the subsidy does nothing to make it more environmentally friendly.......

I corrected your statement for you:

It ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY WOULD NOT be a viable business without the government subsidy, and the subsidy does nothing to make it more environmentally friendly.......

Mabar

Mabar 01-21-2011 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peepers (Post 1005119)
What about the people starving here? why is everyone so concerned about what happens in other countries rather than what happening in our own country?

With all the government programs like welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, unemployment, heat assistance, tax back refunds, when you pay no income taxes, homeless shelters, (just to name a few government programs) and on and on, there should be nobody actually "starving" here in the United States.

Mabar

Bubba68CS 01-21-2011 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mabar (Post 1005366)
With all the government programs like welfare, food stamps, school lunch programs, unemployment, heat assistance, tax back refunds, when you pay no income taxes, homeless shelters, (just to name a few government programs) and on and on, there should be nobody actually "starving" here in the United States.

Mabar

:rofl: Thats a good one...government programs working like they're supposed to... :rofl::rofl:

j33pZ 01-21-2011 04:47 PM

I was trying to think of a way to perpetuate this thread and I think I thought of something!
What if the 2012 Jeeps come with a pentastar motor that only takes 93 and has an even newer interior than the 2011!?! What would you do???
:confused: :zap: :confused: :zap: :confused:

rics1997 01-21-2011 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by j33pZ (Post 1005475)
I was trying to think of a way to perpetuate this thread and I think I thought of something!
What if the 2012 Jeeps come with a pentastar motor that only takes 93 and has an even newer interior than the 2011!?! What would you do???
:confused: :zap: :confused: :zap: :confused:

Tell anyone that buys one that it looks great and keep us up on any issues with the pentastar engine/transmission. Also pictures or it didn't happen lol

I want to wait to see how the new drivetrain fairs over a few years then I probably will get one around 2016 when my daughter is able to drive. She already told me she get my current Jeep. Hopefully Fiat keeps Jeep a Jeep

bflank 01-21-2011 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bubba68CS (Post 1005313)
Ethanol production does NOT require more energy than given by the fuel. That myth is related to two studies that used incorrect assumptions and outdated or poorly documented data to achieve that conclusion. Every recent study has shown ethanol production to yield more energy than it takes to produce.

Not saying it is a viable replacement for gasoline (its not)...but those two particular studies have been debunked many times.

I have read summaries of a large number of studies on production of corn based ethanol. The range is that it takes between .75 & 1.2 units of energy to produce 1 unit of corn based ethanol energy. At the best, it's not very efficient and at the worst it's a losing proposition. But none of the reputable studies support a 2 for 1 energy cost.

Regarding the effects on food supply and the environment, only an idiot or a congressman would believe that corn based ethanol is a net benefit.

rics1997 01-21-2011 05:09 PM

I remember a study back when gas hit close to $4 a gallon that ethanol only becomes worth the cost at somewheres around $3.50 a gallon. But really some of the studies concentrate on the cost to harvest and transport corn but there is a lot of cost in oil transportation and processing also. Not to mention the environmental cost especially from spills, and to prevent them.

Obviously at the moment oil based gas is not as much as ethanol to produce but as the one study states at some point ethanol is cost efficient to oil when it hits a certain price. The thing about it is that ethanol is renewable while oil is not. At some point other forms of fuel will be more cost efficient then oil just not right at the moment.

KSCRUDE 01-21-2011 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peepers (Post 1005111)
Between planting the corn, harvesting it, transporting it, and then processing it into ethanol, you use 2 barrels worth of fuel to produce 1 barrel of fuel.

Yes Peepers you hit the nail right on the head. That's what they say out here in farm country. Many of the new ethanol plants they built in the last 10 years in Kansas are already shut down. But I am not sure how many bushels of corn they use to make a barrel of ethanol but I could find out as I have friends who do contract work for some that are still operating.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 AM.