Autoblog Article: Ways Automakers Cheat Fuel Economy Tests - Page 2 - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum

Frank Lee · 11-10-2014, 02:29 PM

Back in the day- almost 100 years ago- they added lead as an octane booster and also it helped non-hardened valve seat longevity tremendously. Well that was nasty and it killed cat converters so it had to go. MTBE came and went for environmental reasons too.

Wiki says ethanol may have been our oxygenate additive since the '20s were it not for political reasons. Tetraethyllead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At any rate, it seems 100% gas is not a viable way to go.

The rest- energy conversion and food- come on.

roosterk0031 · 11-10-2014, 08:55 PM

This again

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ear-30343.html

Ethanol is still being used as an Octane booster, last year (IIRC) the midwest pipe lines switched frome being 87 octane to 85, without 10% ethanol or premium mixed in, their (big oil) base fuel is not marketable. E10 burns cleaner is about 5% cheaper than 87 octane E0, but only 1.5% lower BTU's per gallon though studies in the link above show that btu's/ gallon doesn't = btus/mile.

Big oil came up with the food vs fuel lie and have been running with it for years. Petrolumn had a greater influence on food cost than ethanol.

How Oil Prices Affect the Price of Food

I didn't even read it, it was just second article that came up googling "petrolum vs food" the graph provides all the data food cost follows petrolum.

Hersbird · 11-10-2014, 10:39 PM

How can anyone say that using food for fuel and therefore changing supply vs demand wouldn't effect food? The corn isn't just eaten by us, it's eaten by the things we then eat, and isn't possible some land that might grow something else or some of our precious water is being wasted making fuel? So maybe there isn't a food shortage in our country but it certainly makes the food more expensive by the government mandating we use it for fuel rather then just letting the free market work out what is best.

Frank Lee · 11-10-2014, 10:58 PM

oldtamiyaphile · 11-11-2014, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hersbird

How can anyone say that using food for fuel and therefore changing supply vs demand wouldn't effect food? The corn isn't just eaten by us, it's eaten by the things we then eat, and isn't possible some land that might grow something else or some of our precious water is being wasted making fuel?.

Since basically all corn in the US is GMO, it's really only suitable for use as a fuel.

ChazInMT · 11-11-2014, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Since basically all corn in the US is GMO, it's really only suitable for use as a fuel.

Oh Great!! Now we bring GMO's into the debate. This thread is going to Helena Handcart in short order. Is there no stopping this madness?

FYI, GMO's taste delicious just like the real thing.

Hersbird · 11-12-2014, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

Since basically all corn in the US is GMO, it's really only suitable for use as a fuel.

Funny, the same people who discount the "broad scientific consensus" that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. And no reports of ill effects have been proven in the human population from ingesting GM food. Are often the same people who throw out the "broad scientific consensus" on global warming. Sadly it seems the last great scientist died in 1955. I used to have some respect for Steven Hawking but think he may have lost his mind thinking our only chance at avoiding extinction in the next 1000 years is to colonize other planets. Really? I think I'll place my bet on Earth 3006 being alive and kicking with humans.

What were we talking about anyway?

Xist · 11-12-2014, 06:14 AM

I go through a box of Kashi in a day or two, usually two, but there are days when I eat an entire box in one sitting. Either way, it is fairly expensive, so I looked into making my own Kashi, and all that I found was "Kashi is poison!"

Poison, eh?

Quote:

a substance that can cause people or animals to die or to become very sick if it gets into their bodies especially by being swallowed

Poison - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I do not watch the news or read the paper, but Win8 has a news app, so when I go to open a program, I see headlines, and often click on them. I removed that when I was in school and blocked sites where I spent too much time, like this one.

I really think that I would have heard if anyone had died from eating GMO food, or even gotten sick. I spent all night last week in the ER with my friend and she decided that she was allergic to the soy in her diet food, she gets sick every time that she starts her diet. I imagine that she could just as easily decided that GMO made her sick, without any factual evidence. Those blogs certainly seemed like too much hype. Fear-mongering? I just wanted to know how to use my own, regardless of the GMO argument. Besides, Kashi stopped using that stuff, undoubtedly without discernible difference, except profit margin.

So, there is a second part to the definition:

Quote:

something (such as an idea, emotion, or situation) that is very harmful or unpleasant

The idea is unpleasant, therefore it is poison? I am continuously disappointed with the dictionary. I try to look up a better way to phrase something and see a word listed as is own synonym. Oh, okay, I will just use the same word repeatedly. At least it is not an auto-antonym!