Rykers Require 87 Octane - Not 92!

[BajaRon]

Must have been going more downhill. I was in Greeneville a bunch of times, when I was leased on to Land Air.

BTW: Premium costs considerably MORE than 10-15% more than regular, even if true.

If cost is the only parameter, the Spyder is probably not the least expensive per mile vehicle you can get. It's just a matter of what matters most to each owner.

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

But YES! Ethanol contains more energy that pure gasoline. But the difference in price still make it cheaper per mile to use ethanol.

??????????????????????????????????????????

From this page: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html

Ethanol contains less energy per gallon than gasoline, to varying degrees, depending on the volume percentage of ethanol in the blend. Denatured ethanol (98% ethanol) contains about 30% less energy than gasoline per gallon. Ethanol’s impact on fuel economy is dependent on the ethanol content in the fuel and whether an engine is optimized to run on gasoline or ethanol.

 

[BajaRon]

A one (1) tankful comparison is far from accurate. There are many variables, such as temperature, humidity, road conditions, prevailing winds, source of fuel, etc., etc. You would have to do at least 20 tankful of each type & do an average.

But YES! Ethanol contains more energy that pure gasoline. But the difference in price still make it cheaper per mile to use ethanol.

I did over 50 fill-ups on my trip to California and back for the data I present. Mostly highway miles with cruise control set.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the Ethanol to Gasoline comparison (which is pretty typical of what you'll find from other sources).

Wikipedia
"1.5 gallons of ethanol has the same energy content as 1.0 gallon of gasoline. A flex-fuel vehicle will experience about 76% of the fuel mileage MPG when using E85 (85% ethanol) products as compared to 100% gasoline. ... Pure ethanol provides 2/3 of the heat value available in pure gasoline."

And ethanol is definitely NOT cheaper than gasoline. It costs a fair amount more to produce 1 gallon of ethanol than it does to produce 1 gallon of gasoline. The difference in price comes from your tax dollars subsidizing ethanol so that it APPEARS less expensive because the price at the pump is less. But the total price being paid is higher (part of the total cost being hidden because it's being removed from another pocket).

Then you have the billions of dollars of damage done to vehicle components because of ethanol, the short storage time, ethanol's affinity for water, etc., none of it good. So, we are using a more expensive, yet inferior product.

We are told that ethanol pollutes less than gasoline. And that is true if you just look at the tail pipe pollution produced by both. But when you take into consideration the entire process of planting, fertilizing, processing and transporting ethanol, it is not clear at all that there is an overall pollution advantage.

 

[Aufgeblassen47]

??????????????????????????????????????????

From this page: https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_fuel_basics.html

WHAT specifically are you confused about???????????????????????????????????????

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

WHAT specifically are you confused about???????????????????????????????????????

You wrote that ethanol has more energy than gasoline. Is that what you believe or did you miswrite? Ethanol has 30% LESS energy than gasoline.

 

[Aufgeblassen47]

You wrote that ethanol has more energy than gasoline. Is that what you believe or did you miswrite? Ethanol has 30% LESS energy than gasoline.

OBVIOUSLY I miswrote, as I clearly stated that you get lower MPG with ethanol added fuel, but that the large cost difference between the two fuels is not worth the slight fuel economy increase of non-ethanol fuel.

10% ethanol fuel would mean you get 3% lower MPG.

 

[JAS POWER]

I did over 50 fill-ups on my trip to California and back for the data I present. Mostly highway miles with cruise control set.

Here is what Wikipedia says about the Ethanol to Gasoline comparison (which is pretty typical of what you'll find from other sources).

Wikipedia
"1.5 gallons of ethanol has the same energy content as 1.0 gallon of gasoline. A flex-fuel vehicle will experience about 76% of the fuel mileage MPG when using E85 (85% ethanol) products as compared to 100% gasoline. ... Pure ethanol provides 2/3 of the heat value available in pure gasoline."

And ethanol is definitely NOT cheaper than gasoline. It costs a fair amount more to produce 1 gallon of ethanol than it does to produce 1 gallon of gasoline. The difference in price comes from your tax dollars subsidizing ethanol so that it APPEARS less expensive because the price at the pump is less. But the total price being paid is higher (part of the total cost being hidden because it's being removed from another pocket).

Then you have the billions of dollars of damage done to vehicle components because of ethanol, the short storage time, ethanol's affinity for water, etc., none of it good. So, we are using a more expensive, yet inferior product.

We are told that ethanol pollutes less than gasoline. And that is true if you just look at the tail pipe pollution produced by both. But when you take into consideration the entire process of planting, fertilizing, processing and transporting ethanol, it is not clear at all that there is an overall pollution advantage.

110% :agree:

 

[Aufgeblassen47]

110% :agree:

Me too, 210%!!! If you burned 1.5 gallons of PURE ethanol, your vehicle would go as far as if you burned 1.0 gallons of regular gasoline.

But if you burn regular 10% ethanol gasoline, it has a FACTOR OF 10 difference in effect; You need to burn 1.05 gallons of 10% ethanol fuel to go as far as 1.0 gallons of pure gasoline.

Like I said and is a basic truism: the much higher cost of non-ethanol fuel is NOT worth the slight increase in MPG!

 

[BajaRon]

Me too, 210%!!! If you burned 1.5 gallons of PURE ethanol, your vehicle would go as far as if you burned 1.0 gallons of regular gasoline.

But if you burn regular 10% ethanol gasoline, it has a FACTOR OF 10 difference in effect; You need to burn 1.05 gallons of 10% ethanol fuel to go as far as 1.0 gallons of pure gasoline.

Like I said and is a basic truism: the much higher cost of non-ethanol fuel is NOT worth the slight increase in MPG!

I just don't see this 'Trusim' when you look at the entire picture. Because the total cost to the consumer is higher for ethanol than it is for pure gasoline.

I think the important question here is; 'Why are we using ethanol fuel to begin with?'

Because ethanol fuels costs less? Only at the pump. We are actually paying more for ethanol fuel than for straight gasoline when you consider the total cost. This is exactly why the government intentionally hides the actual cost by subsidizing ethanol fuel with tax money. If the true cost of ethanol fuel were charged at the pump, people would be screaming to go back to pure gasoline. This does not even take into consideration that you have to burn more ethanol fuel to go the same distance. No matter how small this amount is. It still adds to total cost. Manufacturers are using thinner oil to get 1 mpg improvement in fuel mileage. This improvement could easily be exceeded just by going to pure gasoline.

To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? It actually takes more fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol than it does to produce a gallon of pure gasoline.

To increase fuel mileage? Well, I think most everyone knows this is not the case.

To reduce pollution? You probably will never see it because no one is really interested in funding this kind of research, and it goes against the agenda. But there are reliable studies that show a reasonably higher overall pollution issue with ethanol compared to pure gasoline.

To make vehicles more reliable? Just the opposite is true of ethanol fuel. It makes vehicles less reliable and shortens their overall life span.

There is one huge benefit to ethanol fuel. Farmers can make quite a good profit from growing products used in the production of ethanol.

 

[Aufgeblassen47]

'Why are we using ethanol fuel to begin with?'

We are using it for political reasons. Not actual practical reasons.

 

[BajaRon]

We are using it for political reasons. Not actual practical reasons.

Exactly...

 

[KC61]

The CSA, Corn Shuckers of America, says ethanol is the way to go. :roflblack:

 

[JAS POWER]

I just don't see this 'Trusim' when you look at the entire picture. Because the total cost to the consumer is higher for ethanol than it is for pure gasoline.

I think the important question here is; 'Why are we using ethanol fuel to begin with?'

Because ethanol fuels costs less? Only at the pump. We are actually paying more for ethanol fuel than for straight gasoline when you consider the total cost. This is exactly why the government intentionally hides the actual cost by subsidizing ethanol fuel with tax money. If the true cost of ethanol fuel were charged at the pump, people would be screaming to go back to pure gasoline. This does not even take into consideration that you have to burn more ethanol fuel to go the same distance. No matter how small this amount is. It still adds to total cost. Manufacturers are using thinner oil to get 1 mpg improvement in fuel mileage. This improvement could easily be exceeded just by going to pure gasoline.

To reduce our dependence on fossil fuels? It actually takes more fossil fuel to produce a gallon of ethanol than it does to produce a gallon of pure gasoline.

To increase fuel mileage? Well, I think most everyone knows this is not the case.

To reduce pollution? You probably will never see it because no one is really interested in funding this kind of research, and it goes against the agenda. But there are reliable studies that show a reasonably higher overall pollution issue with ethanol compared to pure gasoline.

To make vehicles more reliable? Just the opposite is true of ethanol fuel. It makes vehicles less reliable and shortens their overall life span.

There is one huge benefit to ethanol fuel. Farmers can make quite a good profit from growing products used in the production of ethanol.

Ounce again 110% :agree: its like you are pulling my thoughts out of my head!

 

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

We are using it for political reasons. Not actual practical reasons.

There is one practical and important reason. It is a cleaner & safer octane booster than tetraethyl lead or MTBE.

 

[Aufgeblassen47]

There is one practical and important reason. It is a cleaner & safer octane booster than tetraethyl lead or MTBE.

So it is unanimous! Uses 87 proof gasohol, unless you have a low annoyance threshold of hearing slight pinging when accelerating HARD (if it is actually indeed present), in which case, try a full tankful of mid-grade.

 

[BajaRon]

There is one practical and important reason. It is a cleaner & safer octane booster than tetraethyl lead or MTBE.

Initially, this was true. But, depending on how you look at it, may no longer be true. Certainly not now true for leaded gasoline and to a great degree, MTBE's as well. Though I believe that a fair amount of MTBE's are still being exported to locations all over the world.

Leaded gasoline for on road use was banned in the US in 1996. Tetraethyl is the chemical name for the lead additive, so they are one in the same. Though some aviation fuels still use lead. As far as I know there is only 1 company left in the world (Innospec Inc.) legally making lead additive fuel. However, there are several refineries in China and other 3rd world locations still making it illegally.

In the year 2000 the EPA began a mandated phase-out of MTBE additives. Last I heard, 25 states have banned it's use but that is old information. It is probably more that 25 today.

Today, BTEX (aromatics) derived from petroleum are the current octane booster used in most pure gasoline products in the USA. Admittedly, these also have their detractors. But lead is virtually gone and MTBE's are being eliminated. So these should essentially no longer be part of the discussion.

 

[KC61]

So, I was on the Can Am site today looking at Ryker specs. It says Premium Unleaded right on their website under the Ryker specs under the Capacity Section. So, what say you now?

 

[McRuss]

So, I was on the Can Am site today looking at Ryker specs. It says Premium Unleaded right on their website under the Ryker specs under the Capacity Section. So, what say you now?

RTFM! And
:bdh:

 

[Highwayman2013]

What it boils down to is.... you can use 87 and better. There was a time they recommended only high octane and even then folks ran on the lower grade and there were no issues. There will be slight difference as you can see stated above but unless your driving some gas guzzeling SUV the difference in price for running a better fuel is not much....:thumbup:

How is higher octane "better"?

 

[Aufgeblassen47]

RTFM! And
:bdh:

Ummm.... USA pumps display the AKI rating. European pumps display the RON rating. So when in USA use 87, when in Europe, use 92. Simple as that.

Plain as day on page 37 of RYKER Manual:



Furthermore, if your engine has no pinging whatsoever under acceleration using 87 octane, then you are at "optimal performance" already. Higher octane does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. It is an anti-pre-ignition component. If you have none, it does nothing at all to have a higher level of it.