Introducing myself

[ecomodded]

Quote DoctorM:
I'm also thinking about setting up a "still" to remove the ethanol and then add in some acetone to compensate. I have some papers on experiments along that line also.

`````````````````````````````````````````````



Acetone enrichment can be studied in our unicorn corral where it belongs.
Removing ethanol from the gas? belongs in the corral as well, ridiculous idea to begin with, lets all go buy some gas then remove 5% of its volume threw some time consuming nutty distillation process and bingo you now have less fuel to travel less miles with. Now that's a bright idea, the original poster is either gullible as all **** or is trolling.

I nominate this thread to the Unicorn coral

[ron]

Ok so some 15 odd years ago I worked at a refinery. all day long the tankers pulled up and filled 100s of them in an 8 hr shift. guess what was always asked of the driver. who are you








Delivering to then the fueler would climb up to the tank and pour in the proper colorator, yellow for shell red for texaco Its all the same only the color. now for your testing, I used a transfer vacuum (a 5 gal glass bottle) run off of my engine vacuum to pull water from station tanks no worry about explosion while your removing the water/alcohol and you can see the product

[MetroMPG]

Still curious:

Originally Posted by DoctorM

12.5 mpg first tank. Totally unacceptable.

What would be acceptable?

EPA ratings for this truck (V6, auto, 2WD) are:

15 City
17 Combined
20 Highway

Fuel Economy of the 2012 Nissan Frontier 2WD

[DoctorM]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Still curious:



What would be acceptable?

EPA ratings for this truck (V6, auto, 2WD) are:

15 City
17 Combined
20 Highway

Fuel Economy of the 2012 Nissan Frontier 2WD

my '92 got 19 mpg in the city or on the highway - so I would expect more, not less, for a new model twenty years later.

One thing that is different is the electric gas pedal - no mechanical linkage. Maybe that is part of the problem.

[JRMichler]

Driving technique has a HUGE effect on mileage. Much of the mileage I'm getting comes from how I drive my truck.

How does your driving technique compare to that discussed in the stickies?

[Mustang Dave]

Originally Posted by JRMichler

Driving technique has a HUGE effect on mileage. Much of the mileage I'm getting comes from how I drive my truck...

+1!
It's not just what you drive; it's how you drive it.
Yes, a Ford Mustang is capable of over 30MPG. But it's not easy.

[Mustang Dave]

Originally Posted by DoctorM

One thing that is different is the electric gas pedal - no mechanical linkage. Maybe that is part of the problem.

It doesn't seem to be a problem with my 2007 Mustang. (with my driving technique, anyway...) YMMV.

[DoctorM]

Originally Posted by JRMichler

Driving technique has a HUGE effect on mileage. Much of the mileage I'm getting comes from how I drive my truck.

How does your driving technique compare to that discussed in the stickies?

Understand my viewpoint --
I'm comparing a new Nissan flagship pickup of twenty years ago to a new flagship Nissan pickup of today.

With all the advances in on-board computers and electronic controls, variable cams and such, the truck of today should be getting double the gas mileage of its counterpart twenty years ago.

Instead, it is upside down - as far as efficiency, the truck of twenty years ago is better, by a very large factor.

-- SOMETHING IS DRASTICALLY WRONG --

And I aim to find out what, and correct for it.

All the eco-mods and driving techniques do not answer that basic question -- why are the vehicles of today so much less efficient than their counterparts two decades ago?

In all cases, that isn't true. But for my choice, it is.

[UltArc]

I would look at the weight difference, then look at engine details, then transmission. Aerodynamics will also play a role. I forget if your vehicle is brand new, bit he break in period also applies before the engine is 100%

[MetroMPG]

-- SOMETHING IS DRASTICALLY WRONG --

This isn't rocket science. To start with, the 2012 4.0L V6 has 108 more horsepower than the 3.0L V6 in the 1992 truck: 261 vs 153 (assuming I got the trims right).

Is it reasonable to expect 108 more horsepower to come with no fuel economy penalty? To actually have better fuel economy?

Feel free to carry on the investigation re: vehicle weight, transmission differences & aerodynamics (frontal area is likely greater).