Premium for 2010-2011 RX350? (merged threads)
05-26-09, 02:10 PM
#46
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ethanol gas is bad for small motors too. Boats, lawnmowers, etc.
06-14-09, 05:56 PM
#48
06-15-09, 11:02 AM
#49
Lexus Test Driver
All new engines are require to be able to run on 10% ethanol gas without knocking, 10% ethanol gas will become standard pretty soon, right now it is only require in the big cities.
06-15-09, 03:49 PM
#50
Pole Position
Ethanol also is cheaper than gas and I have noticed I get less miles per gallon after they (BP) started putting it in their Products. They call it Invigorate, LOL!
I have put BP's lowest octane in my LX570 and do not even hear a knock. When it was only a dime difference to buy premium I ran premium, now that it is 30+ cents I can see people changing. I will keep using premium but I hate to toss money into the pockets of the oil companies for no reason
I have put BP's lowest octane in my LX570 and do not even hear a knock. When it was only a dime difference to buy premium I ran premium, now that it is 30+ cents I can see people changing. I will keep using premium but I hate to toss money into the pockets of the oil companies for no reason
06-16-09, 07:15 AM
#51
Lexus Test Driver
Just because you dont hear a knock, that doesnt mean its not knocking. The knock sensors are more sensitive than your ears, it will retart the timing before you can hear it knocking.
07-06-09, 10:45 AM
#52
Pole Position
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: az
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
found this while trying to find places with "pure" gasoline"
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008, AND THEREAFTER
Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax
One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.
Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.
Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.
Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.
There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar beet and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.
Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.
It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.
The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 12, 2008, AND THEREAFTER
Big Corn and Ethanol Hoax
One of the many mandates of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 calls for oil companies to increase the amount of ethanol mixed with gasoline. President Bush said, during his 2006 State of the Union address, "America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world." Let's look at some of the "wonders" of ethanol as a replacement for gasoline.
Ethanol contains water that distillation cannot remove. As such, it can cause major damage to automobile engines not specifically designed to burn ethanol. The water content of ethanol also risks pipeline corrosion and thus must be shipped by truck, rail car or barge. These shipping methods are far more expensive than pipelines.
Ethanol is 20 to 30 percent less efficient than gasoline, making it more expensive per highway mile. It takes 450 pounds of corn to produce the ethanol to fill one SUV tank. That's enough corn to feed one person for a year. Plus, it takes more than one gallon of fossil fuel -- oil and natural gas -- to produce one gallon of ethanol. After all, corn must be grown, fertilized, harvested and trucked to ethanol producers -- all of which are fuel-using activities. And, it takes 1,700 gallons of water to produce one gallon of ethanol. On top of all this, if our total annual corn output were put to ethanol production, it would reduce gasoline consumption by 10 or 12 percent.
Ethanol is so costly that it wouldn't make it in a free market. That's why Congress has enacted major ethanol subsidies, about $1.05 to $1.38 a gallon, which is no less than a tax on consumers. In fact, there's a double tax -- one in the form of ethanol subsidies and another in the form of handouts to corn farmers to the tune of $9.5 billion in 2005 alone.
There's something else wrong with this picture. If Congress and President Bush say we need less reliance on oil and greater use of renewable fuels, then why would Congress impose a stiff tariff, 54 cents a gallon, on ethanol from Brazil? Brazilian ethanol, by the way, is produced from sugar beet and is far more energy efficient, cleaner and cheaper to produce.
Ethanol production has driven up the prices of corn-fed livestock, such as beef, chicken and dairy products, and products made from corn, such as cereals. As a result of higher demand for corn, other grain prices, such as soybean and wheat, have risen dramatically. The fact that the U.S. is the world's largest grain producer and exporter means that the ethanol-induced higher grain prices will have a worldwide impact on food prices.
It's easy to understand how the public, looking for cheaper gasoline, can be taken in by the call for increased ethanol usage. But politicians, corn farmers and ethanol producers know they are running a cruel hoax on the American consumer. They are in it for the money. The top leader in the ethanol hoax is Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), the country's largest producer of ethanol. Ethanol producers and the farm lobby have pressured farm state congressmen into believing that it would be political suicide if they didn't support subsidized ethanol production. That's the stick. Campaign contributions play the role of the carrot.
The ethanol hoax is a good example of a problem economists refer to as narrow, well-defined benefits versus widely dispersed costs. It pays the ethanol lobby to organize and collect money to grease the palms of politicians willing to do their bidding because there's a large benefit for them -- higher wages and profits. The millions of gasoline consumers, who fund the benefits through higher fuel and food prices, as well as taxes, are relatively uninformed and have little clout. After all, who do you think a politician will invite into his congressional or White House office to have a heart-to-heart -- you or an Archer Daniels Midlands executive?
07-30-09, 08:34 AM
#54
Pole Position
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: az
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And also see food costs increase.
as I said earlier I filled my Bimmer with pure gas twice on a trip recently--cars mileage instantly increased and performance was smooth
07-30-09, 12:35 PM
#55
every time the government gets involved they screw things up. and then they ignore the after effect. So we save a few pennies per gallon (maybe) on ethanol and see mileage and performance drop.
And also see food costs increase.
as I said earlier I filled my Bimmer with pure gas twice on a trip recently--cars mileage instantly increased and performance was smooth
And also see food costs increase.
as I said earlier I filled my Bimmer with pure gas twice on a trip recently--cars mileage instantly increased and performance was smooth
08-02-09, 04:12 PM
#56
11-22-09, 03:38 PM
#59
premium vs regular mpg comparison
kept a log of my fuel consumption & thought i'd share results
1st 2600 miles gave me 24.7 mpg on premium
next 2800 miles gave me 24.1 on regular
doing the math. i'd saved ~$20 on the 1st 2600 miles had i run regular
not enough to break anyone's bank
i'll prolly continue to run regular
my personal opinion is premium isn't needed unless your really putting load on the engine (towing, driving thru mountains, drag racing, etc)
there are countless internet debates on this topic & i'm not trying to sway anyone in either direction, just sharing some #'s
i'm impressed @ how accurate computer calculates mpg, previous vehicles have always overestimated a couple mpg
1st 2600 miles gave me 24.7 mpg on premium
next 2800 miles gave me 24.1 on regular
doing the math. i'd saved ~$20 on the 1st 2600 miles had i run regular
not enough to break anyone's bank
i'll prolly continue to run regular
my personal opinion is premium isn't needed unless your really putting load on the engine (towing, driving thru mountains, drag racing, etc)
there are countless internet debates on this topic & i'm not trying to sway anyone in either direction, just sharing some #'s
i'm impressed @ how accurate computer calculates mpg, previous vehicles have always overestimated a couple mpg
11-22-09, 09:39 PM
#60
Pole Position
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: None
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting and thoughtful comparison.
I have one question: the columns in total miles and miles driven do not match, why not?
For example, the last 2 entries, 5113 + 335 = 5448, and the column on next line shows only 5426.
I have one question: the columns in total miles and miles driven do not match, why not?
For example, the last 2 entries, 5113 + 335 = 5448, and the column on next line shows only 5426.
