What about the new gas?

"Tim Rogers" > wrote in message
...
> "Dennis Wik" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>
> .......If all non-commercial vehicles were simply required to average at
> least 25 miles per gallon, you would solve the dependency on oil imports
> problem and get rid of a large portion of the emissions problem. I'd have
> to
> park 2 of my vehicles but I have 3 others that would satify that
> restriction
> easily. Here's another idea: Double the price of gas for vehicles that
> weigh
> more than 4,000 pounds and which don't have a commercial use
> permit..........bye bye Suburbans, Durangos, Hummers and Expeditions.
>
>


careful with wishful regulations Tim....it can bite you in the ass, when
they decide all vehicles that we enjoy are old and inefficient enough to
outlaw....we enjoy alot of freedoms here in the US....including our freedom
to **** our money away how we want to...start to take away our freedoms and
it won't be long till they are all gone...i, for one, won't support that...

"beep_beep" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay, then, it sounds as if I'll be able to run a blend of maybe 15% to
> 25% alcohol/gasoline without doing any mods? The carb is easy enough
> to re-jet. Any suggestions on which size to use?

Before everyone thinks that turning to ethanol is easy, consider a few
things. First, your mileage will go down. Power will also go down. Warm-ups
will take longer. If the cost of 25% alcohol is the same as gas of the same
volume, you lose (but maybe the environment wins - who knows for sure?)

You may have to adjust your float bowl, change your choke to closer to a
winter setting, and change your accelerator pump to a more generous squirt.
Bump up timing about 2 degrees advance.

Starting in cold weather should be more difficult - depending upon how cold
it is and your percentage of alcohol. (For 80% alcohol, 60F is "cold". I kid
you not.)

If someone wants to run 85% alcohol (or better), then be prepared for one
hell of a lot of modifications, beginning with higher compression (10:1 is
good), and a huge modification to the fuel preheat system, and for folks
where it gets cool, a supplementary gas tank of gasoline for starting, and a
manual start-n-choke regime. Finally, once you convert a Bug engine to run
on 85% alcohol, there is no going back to gasoline without unconverting
unless you want it to go away Real Soon.

"Joey Tribiani" > wrote in message
news:uJTZf.321$8q.116@dukeread08...
>
> careful with wishful regulations Tim....it can bite you in the ass, when
> they decide all vehicles that we enjoy are old and inefficient enough to
> outlaw....we enjoy alot of freedoms here in the US....including our
freedom
> to **** our money away how we want to...start to take away our freedoms
and
> it won't be long till they are all gone...i, for one, won't support
that...
>
>

.............I was suggesting a mileage standard for new vehicles and
possibly a price penalty when filling up at the gas station for certain
vehicles that are often used for personal transportation but which are
extremely inefficient in that role. Old cars are so few here in the
northeast that nobody even thinks about them. I drive sometimes for more
than a week without seeing a single car from the 60's or 70's and there
aren't too many left from the 80's.

"Tim Rogers" > wrote in message
...


> ............I was suggesting a mileage standard for new vehicles and
> possibly a price penalty when filling up at the gas station for certain
> vehicles that are often used for personal transportation but which are
> extremely inefficient in that role. Old cars are so few here in the
> northeast that nobody even thinks about them. I drive sometimes for more
> than a week without seeing a single car from the 60's or 70's and there
> aren't too many left from the 80's.
>
>

i'm following you Tim...but, when it comes to regulation of anything, things
seem to have a "snowball" effect....start out with "gas guzzler" type
taxes/restrictions, then it gets backing from the green folks, then there
are alot of folks lobying for more restrictions, because after all, if a
little is good, then a ****load must be better....right? I, personally,
don't wanna give up *any* of my freedoms just to control other folks
urges....happens too much already....my wifes fairly new Mazda doesn't get
much better fuel mileage than my old bug...but her's probably(definitely)
doesn't do as much "enviromental damage" as the vw....hell her car is barely
above your suggested starting point for penalties....
from what i have read on the web recently there is a "new" classification
for the SUV's and such that will, in fact, make them have to conform to
better standards concerning pollution and fuel mileage than is now
required...they won't be able to take advantage of the "loophole" they do
now by classifying them as light trucks.... maybe this will be something you
are interested in...no links to post because i was linked through another
message board....

"Joey Tribiani" > wrote in message
news:uJTZf.321$8q.116@dukeread08...
>
> "Tim Rogers" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Dennis Wik" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
> >
>> .......If all non-commercial vehicles were simply required to average at
>> least 25 miles per gallon, you would solve the dependency on oil imports
>> problem and get rid of a large portion of the emissions problem. I'd have
>> to
>> park 2 of my vehicles but I have 3 others that would satify that
>> restriction
>> easily. Here's another idea: Double the price of gas for vehicles that
>> weigh
>> more than 4,000 pounds and which don't have a commercial use
>> permit..........bye bye Suburbans, Durangos, Hummers and Expeditions.
>>
>>
>
>
> careful with wishful regulations Tim....it can bite you in the ass, when
> they decide all vehicles that we enjoy are old and inefficient enough to
> outlaw....we enjoy alot of freedoms here in the US....including our
> freedom to **** our money away how we want to...start to take away our
> freedoms and it won't be long till they are all gone...i, for one, won't
> support that...
>


We have already lost many of the freedoms that I remember as a kid, more
then a few years ago. We never had to have a hunting or fishing license back
then. I rode a motorcycle for years before I had to get a license for that.
I remember when an inspection was done to your car it covered almost
everything on the car now it is just a farce to get money out of you for the
state. I have seen so many other small things slip past that have cost all
of us a small freedom and they are always so small that most do not see it
and just take it as fact. How about when almost every town had some kind of
a race track and then someone moved in next door even though they knew that
the track was there. Then they start complaning about the noise and away
goes the track, the same goes for small airports. But people look at things
like well it does not bother me so no problem, well just wait long enough
and something will come along that does hit close to home and just who do
you think will be there to help you. It sure will not be the people that
lost their own small freedoms. If we all don't start standing togather then
soon we will have to get some kind of card that will let us go to the
crapper and make sure that you don't get too carred away and plug the sewer
system or you will be billed by the city for cleaning it out. Joey it sounds
like you and I can see thing as they are.

beep_beep wrote:
> Fellow bussers:
>
> What about the new gas? I'm a little worried because I don't know how
> old iron mixes with the new gas.
>
> I've been buying regular gas without alcohol for my '67 bus with a
> super beetle engine ('67 carb). I wonder if someone will comment on
> how it will run on the newly mandated gasohol? Will I have to make any
> modifications - carb, plugs, timing?
>
> Should I maybe think about replacing the engine with one (single port,
> stock) that has been specially built for gas with alcohol for
> Washington State, not California?
>
> Thanks.
>
> And...
>
> Beep Beep

And for non Americuns, gas is short for Gasoline, not what the Germans
used in the concentration camps..

J.

I'd like to suggest another lookm at the "efficiency" thing Tim.

Let's say you have a new corrolla (40mpg) and a new ......Hummer. I'm
guessing the hummer gets max around 12mpg, and that's a lot for one of
those bricks.

If a hummer carries a family of 6 to and from anywahere, it's getting
six times the rated mpg, .......that'd by 72mpg........each person is
moving the same distance, and would require a seperat vehicle if they
wouldn't fit. (hummer will fit comfortably more than 6.)

Now, lets measure the toyota too. At 40 mpg, four people measurably
comfortable, it gets ( when the same calculation is applied ) only
gets 8mpg more..............the gap narrows as we add maximum
capacity, and eventually the Hummer BEATS the corrolla.

Any questions?. ( other than the obvious arguments about single people
driving the mega vehicle, almost all verhicles are used the same way)

Efficiency is relative when looked at in a different light.

I bet your toyota would lose eficiency at an alarming rate as the
capacity is raised and the traveling weight is increased. Whereas the
Hummer probably doesn't lose efficiency at the same rate with addded
bodies...............

Just another look at it.


>............I was suggesting a mileage standard for new vehicles and
>possibly a price penalty when filling up at the gas station for certain
>vehicles that are often used for personal transportation but which are
>extremely inefficient in that role. Old cars are so few here in the
>northeast that nobody even thinks about them. I drive sometimes for more
>than a week without seeing a single car from the 60's or 70's and there
>aren't too many left from the 80's.
>

Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply

MUADIB®

http://www.angelfire.com/retro/sster...IN%20PAGE.html

If A Quiz is Quizzical,
What is a test?

The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for today has been
cancelled due to a conflict.

On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 01:41:05 GMT, MUADIB
> wrote:

>I'd like to suggest another lookm at the "efficiency" thing Tim.
>
>Let's say you have a new corrolla (40mpg) and a new ......Hummer. I'm
>guessing the hummer gets max around 12mpg, and that's a lot for one of
>those bricks.
>
>If a hummer carries a family of 6 to and from anywahere, it's getting
>six times the rated mpg, .......that'd by 72mpg........each person is
>moving the same distance, and would require a seperat vehicle if they
>wouldn't fit. (hummer will fit comfortably more than 6.)
>
>Now, lets measure the toyota too. At 40 mpg, four people measurably
>comfortable, it gets ( when the same calculation is applied ) only
>gets 8mpg more..............the gap narrows as we add maximum
>capacity, and eventually the Hummer BEATS the corrolla.
Ok I screwed that up in calculation.............LOL
I was running my keyboard too fast.

But I think My direction is valid, however my calculations are not at
all.
That corrolla is getting much better mileage than my brain was. About
double what my brain was,............but efficiency is still different
as you rasie the occupancy and such. I'll just take the beating now
and be on with my keyboard for a while............LOL
More people moving in a bigger vehicle is more better in many cases ,
however an individual does better with a smaller car.


>Any questions?. ( other than the obvious arguments about single people
>driving the mega vehicle, almost all verhicles are used the same way)
>
>Efficiency is relative when looked at in a different light.
>
>I bet your toyota would lose eficiency at an alarming rate as the
>capacity is raised and the traveling weight is increased. Whereas the
>Hummer probably doesn't lose efficiency at the same rate with addded
>bodies...............
>
>Just another look at it.
>
>
>>............I was suggesting a mileage standard for new vehicles and
>>possibly a price penalty when filling up at the gas station for certain
>>vehicles that are often used for personal transportation but which are
>>extremely inefficient in that role. Old cars are so few here in the
>>northeast that nobody even thinks about them. I drive sometimes for more
>>than a week without seeing a single car from the 60's or 70's and there
>>aren't too many left from the 80's.
>>
>
>Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply
>
>MUADIB®
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/retro/sster...IN%20PAGE.html
>
>If A Quiz is Quizzical,
>What is a test?
>
>The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for today has been
>cancelled due to a conflict.

Remove "YOURPANTIES" to reply

MUADIB®

http://www.angelfire.com/retro/sster...IN%20PAGE.html

If A Quiz is Quizzical,
What is a test?

The Peacemaking Meeting scheduled for today has been
cancelled due to a conflict.

Packrat46 wrote:
> "Joey Tribiani" > wrote in message
> news:uJTZf.321$8q.116@dukeread08...
>
>>"Tim Rogers" > wrote in message
. ..
>>
>>>"Dennis Wik" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>.......If all non-commercial vehicles were simply required to average at
>>>least 25 miles per gallon, you would solve the dependency on oil imports
>>>problem and get rid of a large portion of the emissions problem. I'd have
>>>to
>>>park 2 of my vehicles but I have 3 others that would satify that
>>>restriction
>>>easily. Here's another idea: Double the price of gas for vehicles that
>>>weigh
>>>more than 4,000 pounds and which don't have a commercial use
>>>permit..........bye bye Suburbans, Durangos, Hummers and Expeditions.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>careful with wishful regulations Tim....it can bite you in the ass, when
>>they decide all vehicles that we enjoy are old and inefficient enough to
>>outlaw....we enjoy alot of freedoms here in the US....including our
>>freedom to **** our money away how we want to...start to take away our
>>freedoms and it won't be long till they are all gone...i, for one, won't
>>support that...
>>
>
>
>
> We have already lost many of the freedoms that I remember as a kid, more
> then a few years ago. We never had to have a hunting or fishing license back
> then. I rode a motorcycle for years before I had to get a license for that.
> I remember when an inspection was done to your car it covered almost
> everything on the car now it is just a farce to get money out of you for the
> state. I have seen so many other small things slip past that have cost all
> of us a small freedom and they are always so small that most do not see it
> and just take it as fact. How about when almost every town had some kind of
> a race track and then someone moved in next door even though they knew that
> the track was there. Then they start complaning about the noise and away
> goes the track, the same goes for small airports. But people look at things
> like well it does not bother me so no problem, well just wait long enough
> and something will come along that does hit close to home and just who do
> you think will be there to help you. It sure will not be the people that
> lost their own small freedoms. If we all don't start standing togather then
> soon we will have to get some kind of card that will let us go to the
> crapper and make sure that you don't get too carred away and plug the sewer
> system or you will be billed by the city for cleaning it out. Joey it sounds
> like you and I can see thing as they are.
>
>
>
>
You can let the market drive price, but you should have to pay pollution
tax like many states require their industrial base to do. Also figure
in the cost of fighting Arabs when buying gas. Even Bush acknowledges a
huge cost here.

I raise corn and thank you for your support. Wisconsin will never fight
a war with the U.S.

Back to the original question:
When I went to 041 heads my engine ran much better on 15% ethanol. I
think they were even designed for it in Brazil

light a match... it burns off.

--
KWW
'65 Beetle (Jenny the IOC)
'64 Beetle (TBD the Blue Wave)
"beep_beep" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay, then, it sounds as if I'll be able to run a blend of maybe 15% to
> 25% alcohol/gasoline without doing any mods? The carb is easy enough
> to re-jet. Any suggestions on which size to use?
>
> Thanks, Dennis and Tim, for your comments.
>
> I wonder if there's a way to remove alcohol or most of it from an
> alcohol/gasoline blend? Distillation? Settling? Filtration? Then I
> can put the gas into the VW and drink the alcohol.
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> In article >, Tim Rogers
> > wrote:
>
>> "Dennis Wik" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > I've used E-10 and E-15 in my vw's for over 12 years without any
>> > modifications or problems. I will be using E-50 to E-85 in my Puma
>> > this
>> > summer. VW's in Brazil ran up to 100% alcohol for decades. I love the
>> > stuff, higher octane (up to 105 in the E-85 blend), cooler and longer
>> > burn (better for head temps) and less emmissions (Oil is carbon based
>> > while alcohol is an organic compound which breaks down).
>> > Enjoy....Dennis
>>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ............Alcohol is also a carbon based molecule and petroleum is also
>> an
>> organic compound. All organic compounds are carbon based.
>>
>> .........Ethanol-gasoline blends are just a government subsidy for
>> agribusiness in my opinion............Petrolem based fertilizer is used
>> to
>> grow corn-----petroleum based energy is used process the corn into
>> alcohol........Government subsidies are used in every step of
>> manufacture,
>> distribution and sale to bring down the cost of e-gas at the pump.
>> Without a
>> modern engine management system that adjusts mixture based on the
>> resistance
>> value of an 02 sensor, carbureted engines in older cars will run too lean
>> on
>> it which usually results in loss of power and poor mileage. The fix for
>> that
>> is to re-jet the carb and increasing the compression ratio of the engine
>> would help use this fuel more efficiently as well. This is all dependent
>> on
>> the concentration of ethanol vs gasoline in the blend.......E-85 which
>> has
>> 85% ethanol blended with 15% gasoline won't work in an older vehicle
>> without
>> going to a carburetor which can be jetted properly to run much richer
>> than
>> normal and also you would need to get rid of all natural rubber in the
>> fuel
>> system from the tank to the fuel pump's diaphragm to the boots on your
>> 1600
>> DP's intake manifold. The other potential problem for e-gas in an older
>> vehicle is the rust problem in the gas tank and steel gas line that can
>> result from the water absorption property of ethanol. This might not be
>> real
>> big problem in an area where the climate is dry and humidity levels
>> average
>> less than what many of us see here in the eastern states.
>>
>> .......If all non-commercial vehicles were simply required to average at
>> least 25 miles per gallon, you would solve the dependency on oil imports
>> problem and get rid of a large portion of the emissions problem. I'd have
>> to
>> park 2 of my vehicles but I have 3 others that would satify that
>> restriction
>> easily. Here's another idea: Double the price of gas for vehicles that
>> weigh
>> more than 4,000 pounds and which don't have a commercial use
>> permit..........bye bye Suburbans, Durangos, Hummers and Expeditions.