What about the new gas?

Tim, I am just sharing the truth about what I'm doing and have done in
"real world situations". My Sport trac does not get their rated mileage
becuse I tow so I had it ordered with the 4.11 rear end gears, limited
lock and the 4 wheel drive option (yes, the two wheel was standard).
Remember, this is real world. Now for some of the other opinions that
are treated as fact. All of the vehicles I have owned since 1979 have
ran better on E-10. They have had no change at all to their tune ups or
anything else. Better mileage and more power. I have owned Approx 12
cars and trucks including all the ACVWs during this period. I have used
E-85 in my Sport trac as much as possible (E-85 is not available in all
areas yet). It has started without problem with temps as low as 0
degrees F. I have much more towing power although the mileage drop is
huge depending on the weight towed. I towed approx 4000 lbs 380 miles
and got 11mpg. As far as btu's per gallon, I would guess that would
depend on how much of it is used by your vehicle's engine in the
cylinder or how much is burned by your converter. A lot of myths are
treated as fact. My wife said that a lot of you guys are "book smart"
and "door knob dumb".

href="http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4025706&a=32090944&f="Den's
Dogs</a>

href="http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4025706&a=30209382&vt=vp">Den's
1977 Puma</a>

"Dennis Wik" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tim, I am just sharing the truth about what I'm doing and have done in
> "real world situations". My Sport trac does not get their rated mileage
> becuse I tow so I had it ordered with the 4.11 rear end gears, limited
> lock and the 4 wheel drive option (yes, the two wheel was standard).
> Remember, this is real world. Now for some of the other opinions that
> are treated as fact. All of the vehicles I have owned since 1979 have
> ran better on E-10. They have had no change at all to their tune ups or
> anything else. Better mileage and more power. I have owned Approx 12
> cars and trucks including all the ACVWs during this period. I have used
> E-85 in my Sport trac as much as possible (E-85 is not available in all
> areas yet). It has started without problem with temps as low as 0
> degrees F. I have much more towing power although the mileage drop is
> huge depending on the weight towed. I towed approx 4000 lbs 380 miles
> and got 11mpg. As far as btu's per gallon, I would guess that would
> depend on how much of it is used by your vehicle's engine in the
> cylinder or how much is burned by your converter. A lot of myths are
> treated as fact. My wife said that a lot of you guys are "book smart"
> and "door knob dumb".
>
>

...............At 11 mpg, I'm not sure what it is that E-85 is accomplishing
for you other than lower emissions and more $$$$ for Archer Daniels Midland
instead of Exxon.

..........I don't doubt that E-10 is a practical alternative to straight
gasoline but how is it that these subsidies make any sense when that money
is going from the tax payers to Archer Daniels Midland in addition to the
actual price at the pump? Did you know that the Brazilians can't export
alcohol for fuel to the USA because there's a 54 cents per gallon tariff on
it? It doesn't take too much book learning to figure out who's behind that.

I'm convinced that no matter who we elect, we're screwed. Wish there was a
vialble 3rd party option just to send a message.
Andy

"Tim Rogers" > wrote in message
...
> "Dennis Wik" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Tim, I am just sharing the truth about what I'm doing and have done in
>> "real world situations". My Sport trac does not get their rated mileage
>> becuse I tow so I had it ordered with the 4.11 rear end gears, limited
>> lock and the 4 wheel drive option (yes, the two wheel was standard).
>> Remember, this is real world. Now for some of the other opinions that
>> are treated as fact. All of the vehicles I have owned since 1979 have
>> ran better on E-10. They have had no change at all to their tune ups or
>> anything else. Better mileage and more power. I have owned Approx 12
>> cars and trucks including all the ACVWs during this period. I have used
>> E-85 in my Sport trac as much as possible (E-85 is not available in all
>> areas yet). It has started without problem with temps as low as 0
>> degrees F. I have much more towing power although the mileage drop is
>> huge depending on the weight towed. I towed approx 4000 lbs 380 miles
>> and got 11mpg. As far as btu's per gallon, I would guess that would
>> depend on how much of it is used by your vehicle's engine in the
>> cylinder or how much is burned by your converter. A lot of myths are
>> treated as fact. My wife said that a lot of you guys are "book smart"
>> and "door knob dumb".
>>
>>
>
> ..............At 11 mpg, I'm not sure what it is that E-85 is
> accomplishing
> for you other than lower emissions and more $$$$ for Archer Daniels
> Midland
> instead of Exxon.
>
> .........I don't doubt that E-10 is a practical alternative to straight
> gasoline but how is it that these subsidies make any sense when that money
> is going from the tax payers to Archer Daniels Midland in addition to the
> actual price at the pump? Did you know that the Brazilians can't export
> alcohol for fuel to the USA because there's a 54 cents per gallon tariff
> on
> it? It doesn't take too much book learning to figure out who's behind
> that.
>
>

At 11mpg towing 4000 lbs vs 14 mpg with regular I am gaining a vehicle
that shifts down less, an engine that runs easier and is easier to drive
with a noticeable increase of power. Anyway I cannot imagine anyone who
would rather send their fuel money to the countries who finance the
people we are fighting rather than to the people who grow crops that can
be distilled to run our vehicles in our own country. Must be more of
that book learning, eh?

href="http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4025706&a=32090944&f="Den's
Dogs</a>

href="http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumIndex?u=4025706&a=30209382&vt=vp">Den's
1977 Puma</a>