"I discovered during the gulf war that in my car, a 76 corolla, if I bought Texaco premium I would get 40mpg vs 30mpg on regular. I was ahead paying more for gas, with no investment requires."
Sounds like a 33% increase.
To characterise it more appropriately:
"Hey I started putting the fuel my compression ratio calls for, and I stopped getting less than my optimum mileage!"
There.
Congratulations on taking that car through A LONG LIFE. Where do you live? Do they salt the roads there?
Yes, I remember I had a typo in that statement, S for D. I should use preview.
Keep in mind that when I made that statement, I had NO idea what the compression ratio was. I did the smart thing and actually tried various fuels, noted the result. It had to have been 1990 as that's when the gulf war started and the price of fuel basically doubled. I know I looked at the manual, I may have known the compression ratio at the time, but the manual listed the RON. I don't remember which grade was recommended, only that it could take leaded or unleaded. I do remember the octane selector which wasn't on the 79 model, which suggests the car was designed for various fuel grades.
Yes I got a 33% improvement over baseline using premium Texaco fuel IN THAT CAR. I said nothing about you getting that sort of improvement in YOUR car. I don't know how much of an improvement was using the premium fuel or using the Texaco mix, but I got an improvement. It seems perfectly reasonable to try the various options and make a choice based on performance, and it just so happens to be backed up by a list of compression ratios to recommended octane rating, which is actually out of date as we now have computer control ignition which can retard or advance the spark accordingly, I presume based in part on the anti-knock sensors and the CO module in the catalytic converter.
You, respectfully, presumed stupidity and employed a blanket statement. "You sir, are an idiot. Premium gasoline does not result in better mileage. Period."
Which is clearly false. Premium fuel is more stable, less prone to predetonation, and can produce more joules per volume than non-premium. You even later presumed it was a timing issue, which is a fair statement and I imagine the main reason they offered an octane selector.
So... 1976 Toyota corolla in my case 40mpg highway on Texaco Premium Fuel, about 35 with Chevron premium, and regular 30 to at best 35. Engine 1.6l 9:1 compression, hemi heads, no catalytic converter but a smog pump, tested 0% CO. No real mods except botch platinum plugs. Top speed 120MPH which I presume is redline for 2.5hours till the fuel runs out, about 28-30MPG at that speed consistently from Seattle to San Diago with a rest near major cities. A smooth 65-75 was 40mpg Texaco Premium.
And no, they don't use salt on the roads where I live, which is outside Seattle.
Your original statment perhaps was poorly worded, and implied that, "hey use premium fuel and get a 33% increase in economy for pennies!" Which is hardly true.
Ah, no, I'll have to revisit what I said, but I found on Texaco premium fuel during the gulf war, which I did incorrectly remember as late 80s when it clearly was 90-91, I got 40mpg. I got about 30mpg on Arco regular, IIRC about 35 on Texaco regular. I did get an improvement with Chevron premium, but not as much. On the flip side, a 1997 corolla a friend had preferred Chevron over Texaco, and again there was an improvement over premium.
I don't think I said use premium and see a 33% improvement, I think I was clear as said you should try various fuels and see the result. The largest improvement likely is brand. BP for example seemed to have a high water concentration, which under certain conditions I imagine might offer a benefit. For me, it clogged my fuel filter.
Well then the engine was DESIGNED for high octane fuels, and using lesser octane rating was less than optimum (there was predetonation effecting a lower mileage). Premium fuel can withstand a higher compression without detonation (premature) it does not contain more potential joules of energy per volume.
I have NO idea what the car was designed for, but obviously since they included an octane selector on the cap they had different fuel grades in mind. Most important, it was designed to take leaded gas which at the time was rated at 88 RON+MON/2 where I bought fuel with the exception of some odd ball 102 leaded premium which showed no improvement.
The easiest way to improve the octane rating of a fuel is to refine so you have a greater number of octane molecules per volume. A more refined solution is far more predictable and as such is less likely to predetonate. You can use additives to stabilize your fuel, but if you have more octane molecules per volume, the energy per volume is greater.
IIRC regular 87 is about 35 MJ/L premium 91 is about 40 MJ/L
If you recieved better fuel economy in your 76 corolla by using higher octane fuel, your engines timing was off, and this is a rather expensive ongoing solution to just getting your timing adjusted to optimise detonation.
Ah, no. I timed it my self. First was the broad timing, then the octane selection. I used a handy dandy digital tach and an induction light. I even verified TDC by putting a 3/8 inch extension in cylinder 1 and made damn sure the mark lined up. If my timing was off, odds are my CO rate would have been more significant than 0%. My fuel economy was pretty tops, my emissions were low, and I was perfectly able to maintain 120mph for 2.5 hours at a time where my economy would drop by 20% or so. My engine was in tune. Everything thing said it was in tune, there was no evidence that it wasn't in tune. My plugs showed no signs of pre-detonation, just the usual grey and white residue. It's hard to judge electrode wear on Botch platinums, but when they were not in stock and I had to get Autolite, everything was golden, or I should say grey with white.
IIRC the compression ratio on that engine was 9:1, it being a 76 it was geared for both leaded and unleaded fuels. The chart from the time period states at that ratio an octane rating 96 is recommended. I presume that's the RON number, where IIRC 91 RON = 87 RON+MON/2.
I understand where you are coming from, you can adjust your timing to compensate for different fuel grades, which I certainly had to do if I had the misfortune of getting fuel in the mountains that was actually 82 RON+MON/2.
Back to your statement, "Premium gasoline does not result in better mileage." That's clearly false. Premium fuel can produce more energy per volume than regular.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/premium/myths.html "In actual fact, you'll get a greater range of fuel economy between different brands of regular gas, than you will between the same manufacturer's regular and premium gasses. Interesting, eh? We thought so."
They claim they only measured a slight difference between premium and regular, but a larger difference between different kinds of gas, which was pretty much my observation. I found Texaco was best for my 76 corolla, with the best result with the premium gas where I measured consistently 40mpg.
You could say most cars you can't tell the difference. That could be true. You can also say that it's a substitute for adjusting your timing, again, that's true too. But we are talking about a Japanese 4 cyl which used higher RPMs to achieve power, where slight predetonation would have a serious impact.
One really needs to actually measure it for them selves.
Are you seriously insinuating that putting premium fuel in your auto is a good idea, regardless of savings? Autos take a certain octane of fuel because they are tuned to run on that octane. Using a higher octane will give you slightly better power, and thusly fuel efficiency, but, over time, the wear on the parts and the reduced lifespan of the vehicle will NOT amount to the money saved from the slightly higher efficiency.
Well, I put 100,000 or so miles on the 76 corolla. The 79 Corolla I bought later I gave it up when it had 360,000 miles on the clock. Well, it could have been more, I saw zero three times. I can't say I got 40mpg on the 79, I only got 35 on Premium, 28-30 on regular. IIRC the compression ratio was 9:1, so that does actually call for something higher than 87 unless you have fuel injection and computerized ignition. If I wore out the engine more quickly, and gave the car away while it was still running, I must be doing something right.
You sir, are an idiot. Premium gasoline does not result in better mileage. Period.
It really depends on the vehicle. The octane rating isn't so much the number of octane molecules in the solution, but rather it's rather it's ability to resist premature detonation.
Research Octane Number (RON) is judged by running a fuel in an engine in contrast to iso-octane and n-heptane. Motor Octane Number (MON) is similar but tested under a load, with a preheated fuel mixture, and variable ignition timing.
It's a little confusing for imports as they often recommend a fuel rating based on the RON number, where in the US and Canada we take the average of the RON and MON, where the RON is typically a higher number. A 91 RON might be equal to 87 RON+MON/2.
Firstly, we have MJ/liter Regular is about 35 "Premium" is about 40
Or roughly 12.5% higher for "premium" using the numbers pulled from my ass.
Now 12.5 more energy per volume shouldn't equal 33% more work done, but keep in mind that the numbers are not so much a measure of energy per volume but rather how the fuel knocks in contrast to to iso-octane and n-heptane. Resisting predetonation is likely what I experienced. This typically isn't really a factor unless you're talking higher compression ratios like 9:1 and above.
I generally agree with your assessment of TCO. However you need to compare the same level of car. A Corolla isn't the same as a VW Jetta a better comparison would be a Camery.
For me, well, I buy used.
As someone else pointed out it's best to compare the same model car in gas and TDI, which is about $17000 / $20,000 or so. For someone buying the Jetta it's about a $3000 premium.
My logic is more simple, most fuel efficient car possible at the lowest cost possible. I see your point, and I would agree except it presumes the person in question would buy the Camery. It's actually fair comment that the Jetta is far closer to the Camery than the Corolla.
Are there not cheaper diesel options in the US than swish VWs? Surely you can get hold of Toyota's diesel models?
Not that I'm aware. Seriously, California is rather anti-diesel and anything imported into the US is either going to be made for California standards, or close enough. In the RWD days they had a -C designation for their engines, where I believe -C = California. It makes sense, since that's like 1/2 the coast like of the US on the west coast.
Actually, it isn't on par. Let's pretend you spend $5000 more upfront for that shiny new VW TDI.
I, on the other hand, buy the cheaper Corolla and invest that $5000. At the end of 10 years, my $5000 investment (even at a very low 3% rate) is worth around $6700. This means that in 10 years from now, I actually have $1700 more than you do.
You have a point, albeit a limited one. This presumes one saves up $20,000 on a car, spends $15k on the cheaper model. I can speak with reasonable assurance that your average Joe doesn't do this, they get a loan. Now one can presume what they don't spend on their car goes into savings, which isn't going to be $5000 in a single plop, it's going to be a series of little plops.
Someone did raise the point of resale value, where I sort of pulled numbers from my arse. The truth is, I have no idea how much more a TDI goes for over gas, but presuming $5000 more for the TDI after 10 years I'd guess deprecation would knock that down to $2500 depending on condition. Cars are funny, even if you have a perfect engine, without the body to match it's pretty worthless.
The reverse is true too. I remember trying to "give away" a 1984 buick station wagon some years back with a bad engine. Couldn't get rid of it for the life of me. Perfect body, perfect upholstery Oddly enough the only people "interested" wanted a test drive, in a car advertised as needs an engine. If it wasn't a gas hog, I would have done one of those rebuilt lifetime warranty jobs, which brings me to another care purchase model, keeping it past 100k miles. American cars in my experience blow engines much more quickly than many imports, or require engine work which can be spendy. If available in your area there often are places that offer rebuild engines with lifetime warranty. I've known people who got engines swapped every 10 or so years. Worked out rather well in terms of cost.
While you usually don't see this issue with a diesel, a used car + rebuilt gas engine is typically far less by thousands.
Using premium fuel is often a cheap way to stop your engine from pinging/knocking (usually because the engine has carbon build up and you don't want to tear the engine apart to fix it). If his car was pinging using regular fuel but not premium I could see the increase in mileage, and it's not hard to believe that 15 year old car from the 70's might be pinging.
Or rather, I turned the handy dandy octane selector per the manual's instructions, which IIRC the engine should ping slightly if you slam on the gas on a level road at 10mph in 3rd gear, or something like that.
Secondary evidence was the stellar CO levels which were 0% each time I had it tested.
I know there are those who will not believe me, I can only say after the gulf war I went out of my way to try all the fuel options, found that Texaco Premium provided the most stellar results. It wasn't an isolated case I kept track of the millage very carefully. The high MPG was mostly freeway driving, which included some trips from Seattle to San Diago. The Odometer was checked against the mile posts spanning 400 miles apart. The range of the vehicle from a topped off tank to sputtering was 480 miles entirely highway driving.
Yes, but you're not considering another important factor: diesel engines have a far greater life expectancy than any gas motor. Yeah, call out that guy with the million mile Corolla or whatever, but he's a very rare exception.
My last car was a 79 corolla with 360,000 miles on it. In fact it was still running when I gave it to my niece, who in turn used it as a trade in for a used Volkswagen Cabriolet. It was reaching the point that a head rebuild would have been prudent.
I won't dispute with you the fact that an average diesel will outlast an average gas, but a 10 year run at about 15k miles per year or 156,000 isn't all that unusual, which is about what you'd have to do (just pulling numbers from my arse) to even consider making back your investment.
If you are planning on owning your vehicle beyond let's say 200,000 miles, great! More power too you. I'm sure the resale value of a TDI based car is going to be higher, but, it is an extra $5000 or so above and beyond that of a reasonably efficient gas car. If you replace your car every 10 years or so or there and abouts of 150,000 miles or so (pulling the number out of my ass), you might break even and you might even come out ahead. Best case IMHO after 10 years the value of the car is going to drop by at least 1/2 depending on condition, so I'd be willing to believe after 10 years you could be ahead by perhaps $2500, perhaps.
I'm not saying it's impossible to make back that extra investment, only it is an extra investment.
Because the regular explanation of the difference between regular and premium - higher octane - does not explain how you could get 33% better mileage on a car so old (and cheap) that it doesn't have fuel injection, never mind a computer managing the mix.
Keep in mind that this was during the gulf war, so we are talking the late 1980s. It was an old car but that doesn't preclude the engine being in good shape.
A couple of points in my favor, the cap had an octane selector which I did make sure to tune to premium gas. It's not computer control but it clearly did the trick.
Also, the only emissions control on board was smog pump. Oddly enough my emissions were lower, specifically the CO which was measured at 0%, than a later model which had no smog pump but did have a catalytic converter. While Toyota, the engine employed a hemi-head as in ball shaped piston top and head.
Now I've never been clear about the octane rating. Part is higher ratio of octane, and part of it is fuel stability. Not all engines benefit. Some do, but not all. But for whatever reason it was Texaco Premium that I got 40mpg from, not anything else including Chevron or Arco premium, and not the odd ball premium leaded gas.
I'm sure there were other carburetor driven cars that did just as well. The 1988 Nissan Sentra was a lightweight with a whopping 69HP engine. I don't know how well it did on premium but it averaged out about 35mpg.
Across 400 miles, if gas is $3.00 and diesel is $4.00, then I'm ahead by $8. If gas is $4.00 and diesel is $5, then I'm ahead $13.33
Unfortunately too many uneducated Americans don't do the math, they just see one price. Most of my fellow Americans also think that paying $250/month for 72 months is better than paying $350/month for 48 months for the same car.
I discovered during the gulf war that in my car, a 76 corolla, if I bought Texaco premium I would get 40mpg vs 30mpg on regular. I was ahead paying more for gas, with no investment requires.
Let's say you can save your self $10/week on diesel. That works out to be $521/year. In 10 years that's $5210. That's a good thing.
But a Jetta TDI new will run you about $20,000. A 2009 corolla will run you about $15,000 or so, and there are a couple of options under $15k like the Nissan Versa, Mazda 3i, and the new Smart Fortwo.
I hate to say it, but going with the budget import that gets about 40mpg highway, not including maintenance, is pretty much on par with the VW TDI solution provided you drive enough to make back your investment in 10 years. If you are not burning close to a tank per week, well, it'll certainly take you longer to make back your investment.
While I do like TDI, it's a premium that'll cost you about $5000 more.
It's a niche product, I can think of plenty of niches it fits in nicely.
Yes. When I and others went to school, I'm sure you remember those portable film strip readers. They were semi portable, typically used 35mm film, and back projected on a small screen typically 14 inches diagonal or so. I have no clue what they were called, in fact I doubt the teachers knew, but they were ubiquitous, in that tasteful 50s battleship gray leading to wonder whether the paint came from military surplus.
I "imagine" one could do the same thing with 110 film, in fact ViewMaster had a few solutions beyond their hand held viewer.
I see this digital revolution attempting to provide the technology we had some 50 years ago, but easier to produce as one doesn't need to worry about film or film chemistry to do it.
Well, I've only done a mirror of Khaaaan.net or whatever that url was that had William Shatner in Star Trek II yelling "Khannnn... Khannnn.... Khannnnn....." at your friendly neighborhood StarFucks.
I never tried Goatse. Khannnn... was frightful enough. A dozen or so laptops over and over again yelling "Khannn...." until they figured out they shouldn't connect to StarFucks.
Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.
That may be your ideal, however that doesn't make it the ideal.
Camping serves many purposes, top among which is it's the cheapest form of lodging even if in the states there are heavy restrictions on doing it.
Another purpose it serves is recreation. There are a ton of natural wonders that either don't have services near by, or are just outside the reach of civilization. This may include lakes, hot springs, beaches, mountains, valleys, and certainly many others. However, this doesn't exclude camping for it's own purpose.
Presuming recreation, whose to say that one can't for example catch a fun filled day of natural fun? The funny thing about natural fun is it gets dark at night, which limits your options for late night entertainment.
The first time I went camping was somewhere where you could park your car and pitch a tent, away from civilization. I bought a tape player. The batteries died after the first day, but I enjoyed "roughing it" with music. Other times I bought along my laptop, not so much because I wanted to use it but it made an ultra handy backup light.
I'm trying real hard to see how useful this gadget will be, I mean, up to 11 inches widescreen right now is kinda of.. "ahem" limiting. Laptops typically have 14 inches screens and up anyways, so, I can't see how this mini projector can compete with that.
As I said in another post, an LCD screen is rather fragile, not the sort of thing you would choose to travel with if you had a choice.
If you had a laptop already, for that size use the damn screen. But I suspect that in a dark room you could expand this out beyond that which is practical for a laptop.
But, here's the kicker, a laptop has a bit of bulk to it. Imagine such a device on a portable DVD player. That would be rather handy. For portable applications I can see the benefits over a laptop LCD screen, mainly it's not as fragile I presume. Ditching the big display would have some advantages. As much as I like laptops, I don't like the whole clam shell screen attached aspect. Getting a wireless mouse/keyboard helps to a degree, but projecting would be effectively detaching the display from the unit. This would resolve some issues using the suckers on airplanes.
By "slides", I meant "powerpoint slides", not film or transparencies. But your points are very valid.
I also see your point about low-quality DVD, but that seems like a pretty tiny market, people for whom a $350 device to show low quality video to a small group is a better solution than a variety of alternatives.
I was confused on the point of slides. I was unsure if you meant printed out transparencies or slides as in 35mm, where transparencies on an overhead projector are still quite the norm.
I do see a market for such a device. To me, it's a matter of a simple portable DVD player and this projector, or a laptop and this projector. The alternative really is lugging around an LCD screen which to be fair is a tad fragile. Keep in mind that this sort of thing was available in the past in the form of film strips on small projectors or ViewMaster type solutions. You could use it for a small sales presentation, safety film, instructional vid, and quite a few applications where you need to be transportable and don't need really high resolution.
My job required me to give numerous presentations using projectors for about a year, and even when the audience was just a handful of people I wouldn't have been able to give a reasonable presentation with such a low resolution projector. In every one of the situations where such a small projector would have been useful, I simply printed my slides and handed them out, which was more than satisfactory to my bosses and the presentation audience sitting around the table.{/quote>
Well, absolutely. If you're looking for a decent presentation you simply can't beat slides for portability and the simple technology required to display them. This would include 35mm slides, while requiring a certain bother and effort to convert letter to slide, certain time and expense, this still is a viable technology. Ektachrome Professional I believe is rated at about 4096x3276, or in paper of about 350dpi or so. When making a copy, expect to lose at least 1/2 that (note, number pulled from arse), but that still about 2048x1638 which isn't too shabby. This presumes a good macro lens and such. When dealing with inkjet, I question whether printable transparencies or a good photo quality paper and slides provide a better result.
Now you or I would likely need at least 800x600, if not higher. I won't argue that. But 640x480 is almost good enough for DVD SP, certainly is good enough for LP DVD. The bulk of a series of slides or transparencies and the relativly simple nature of the equipment is likely to be more bulky than a laptop and a pocket projector. So I will still see it as being useful, if in the spiffy toy class.
I can't imagine what the market would be for this thing. Even if the brightness isn't a problem, the resolution is too low for almost any worthwhile use I can imagine. 800x600 is about the lowest I would want for even the simplest tasks.
Well, I can "imagine" LP resolution DVDs, even regular SP dvd with some down sampling. I can really imagine a simple power point presentation being MORE than adequate at 640x480. Not that you don't have a point. WinXP hardly supports 640x480 anymore, in fact it's a bit of a pain if you want to output to a TV.
Not going to be much of a cheap hometheater setup at that resolution.
As others have pointed out, it's a pocket projector, not a HT projector. Also DVD resolution is only about 720 x 480 dropping down to 352 x 480 at LP. While not perfect, nothing to sneeze at considering the price. It would be ideal to catch a vid while camping.
Presuming a 40 hr work week, that works out to be 1/3 of the year on phone sex lines.
That's pretty unbelievable, considering that one still needs time to jack into the lines in the first place.
I've done some slack things at work, and it's pretty easy to get distracted and find out you spent most of the day goofing off. But this would take a real concerted effort to not work.
But not with mobile phones, usually you're either told just after the call ends how much credit you have left on your pay-as-you-go account or at the end of the month when your contract bill arrives in the post.
This seems reasonable. On pay phones, back when I used them, I could dial a LD number and get an automated voice asking for a dollar amount for x amount of time. On the GTE phones after deregulation I got a person, and actually it was rather amazing how much they charged on those phones. I remember a GTE operator asking me for some $50 or so to make a call cross the border, to which I said that I didn't have that many quarters on me.
When I think of blind phone users, I think of regular phones, where you dial numbers and they reach people. While it would be nice to have speaking menus so a blind user could navigate their phone and access the spiffy features, perhaps some cool text to speech to handle text messaging, I think the main goal would be your basic no frills phone. Nice pad with a mark for the number 5, as well as an obvious send and end button.
I can't think of the model, but tracfone had a Nokia in their lineup which was just this, a basic phone with no real features other than being a phone. No camera, no MP3 support, just a phone.
Call me silly, but that should be the main criteria, the ability to operate based on typing in a bunch of numbers and making a call.
Slashdot Mirror
What you said
Quote:
"I discovered during the gulf war that in my car, a 76 corolla, if I bought Texaco premium I would get 40mpg vs 30mpg on regular. I was ahead paying more for gas, with no investment requires."
Sounds like a 33% increase.
To characterise it more appropriately:
"Hey I started putting the fuel my compression ratio calls for, and I stopped getting less than my optimum mileage!"
There.
Congratulations on taking that car through A LONG LIFE. Where do you live? Do they salt the roads there?
Yes, I remember I had a typo in that statement, S for D. I should use preview.
Keep in mind that when I made that statement, I had NO idea what the compression ratio was. I did the smart thing and actually tried various fuels, noted the result. It had to have been 1990 as that's when the gulf war started and the price of fuel basically doubled. I know I looked at the manual, I may have known the compression ratio at the time, but the manual listed the RON. I don't remember which grade was recommended, only that it could take leaded or unleaded. I do remember the octane selector which wasn't on the 79 model, which suggests the car was designed for various fuel grades.
Yes I got a 33% improvement over baseline using premium Texaco fuel IN THAT CAR. I said nothing about you getting that sort of improvement in YOUR car. I don't know how much of an improvement was using the premium fuel or using the Texaco mix, but I got an improvement. It seems perfectly reasonable to try the various options and make a choice based on performance, and it just so happens to be backed up by a list of compression ratios to recommended octane rating, which is actually out of date as we now have computer control ignition which can retard or advance the spark accordingly, I presume based in part on the anti-knock sensors and the CO module in the catalytic converter.
You, respectfully, presumed stupidity and employed a blanket statement.
"You sir, are an idiot. Premium gasoline does not result in better mileage. Period."
Which is clearly false. Premium fuel is more stable, less prone to predetonation, and can produce more joules per volume than non-premium. You even later presumed it was a timing issue, which is a fair statement and I imagine the main reason they offered an octane selector.
So... 1976 Toyota corolla in my case 40mpg highway on Texaco Premium Fuel, about 35 with Chevron premium, and regular 30 to at best 35. Engine 1.6l 9:1 compression, hemi heads, no catalytic converter but a smog pump, tested 0% CO. No real mods except botch platinum plugs. Top speed 120MPH which I presume is redline for 2.5hours till the fuel runs out, about 28-30MPG at that speed consistently from Seattle to San Diago with a rest near major cities. A smooth 65-75 was 40mpg Texaco Premium.
And no, they don't use salt on the roads where I live, which is outside Seattle.
Your original statment perhaps was poorly worded, and implied that, "hey use premium fuel and get a 33% increase in economy for pennies!" Which is hardly true.
Ah, no, I'll have to revisit what I said, but I found on Texaco premium fuel during the gulf war, which I did incorrectly remember as late 80s when it clearly was 90-91, I got 40mpg. I got about 30mpg on Arco regular, IIRC about 35 on Texaco regular. I did get an improvement with Chevron premium, but not as much. On the flip side, a 1997 corolla a friend had preferred Chevron over Texaco, and again there was an improvement over premium.
I don't think I said use premium and see a 33% improvement, I think I was clear as said you should try various fuels and see the result. The largest improvement likely is brand. BP for example seemed to have a high water concentration, which under certain conditions I imagine might offer a benefit. For me, it clogged my fuel filter.
Well then the engine was DESIGNED for high octane fuels, and using lesser octane rating was less than optimum (there was predetonation effecting a lower mileage). Premium fuel can withstand a higher compression without detonation (premature) it does not contain more potential joules of energy per volume.
I have NO idea what the car was designed for, but obviously since they included an octane selector on the cap they had different fuel grades in mind. Most important, it was designed to take leaded gas which at the time was rated at 88 RON+MON/2 where I bought fuel with the exception of some odd ball 102 leaded premium which showed no improvement.
The easiest way to improve the octane rating of a fuel is to refine so you have a greater number of octane molecules per volume. A more refined solution is far more predictable and as such is less likely to predetonate. You can use additives to stabilize your fuel, but if you have more octane molecules per volume, the energy per volume is greater.
IIRC regular 87 is about 35 MJ/L
premium 91 is about 40 MJ/L
If you recieved better fuel economy in your 76 corolla by using higher octane fuel, your engines timing was off, and this is a rather expensive ongoing solution to just getting your timing adjusted to optimise detonation.
Ah, no. I timed it my self. First was the broad timing, then the octane selection. I used a handy dandy digital tach and an induction light. I even verified TDC by putting a 3/8 inch extension in cylinder 1 and made damn sure the mark lined up. If my timing was off, odds are my CO rate would have been more significant than 0%. My fuel economy was pretty tops, my emissions were low, and I was perfectly able to maintain 120mph for 2.5 hours at a time where my economy would drop by 20% or so. My engine was in tune. Everything thing said it was in tune, there was no evidence that it wasn't in tune. My plugs showed no signs of pre-detonation, just the usual grey and white residue. It's hard to judge electrode wear on Botch platinums, but when they were not in stock and I had to get Autolite, everything was golden, or I should say grey with white.
IIRC the compression ratio on that engine was 9:1, it being a 76 it was geared for both leaded and unleaded fuels. The chart from the time period states at that ratio an octane rating 96 is recommended. I presume that's the RON number, where IIRC 91 RON = 87 RON+MON/2.
I understand where you are coming from, you can adjust your timing to compensate for different fuel grades, which I certainly had to do if I had the misfortune of getting fuel in the mountains that was actually 82 RON+MON/2.
Back to your statement, "Premium gasoline does not result in better mileage." That's clearly false. Premium fuel can produce more energy per volume than regular.
http://www.cartalk.com/content/features/premium/myths.html
"In actual fact, you'll get a greater range of fuel economy between different brands of regular gas, than you will between the same manufacturer's regular and premium gasses. Interesting, eh? We thought so."
They claim they only measured a slight difference between premium and regular, but a larger difference between different kinds of gas, which was pretty much my observation. I found Texaco was best for my 76 corolla, with the best result with the premium gas where I measured consistently 40mpg.
You could say most cars you can't tell the difference. That could be true. You can also say that it's a substitute for adjusting your timing, again, that's true too. But we are talking about a Japanese 4 cyl which used higher RPMs to achieve power, where slight predetonation would have a serious impact.
One really needs to actually measure it for them selves.
Are you seriously insinuating that putting premium fuel in your auto is a good idea, regardless of savings? Autos take a certain octane of fuel because they are tuned to run on that octane. Using a higher octane will give you slightly better power, and thusly fuel efficiency, but, over time, the wear on the parts and the reduced lifespan of the vehicle will NOT amount to the money saved from the slightly higher efficiency.
Well, I put 100,000 or so miles on the 76 corolla.
The 79 Corolla I bought later I gave it up when it had 360,000 miles on the clock. Well, it could have been more, I saw zero three times. I can't say I got 40mpg on the 79, I only got 35 on Premium, 28-30 on regular. IIRC the compression ratio was 9:1, so that does actually call for something higher than 87 unless you have fuel injection and computerized ignition. If I wore out the engine more quickly, and gave the car away while it was still running, I must be doing something right.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part3/section-1.html
I already posted the old list of compression ratios to recommended octane rating.
You sir, are an idiot. Premium gasoline does not result in better mileage. Period.
It really depends on the vehicle. The octane rating isn't so much the number of octane molecules in the solution, but rather it's rather it's ability to resist premature detonation.
Research Octane Number (RON) is judged by running a fuel in an engine in contrast to iso-octane and n-heptane.
Motor Octane Number (MON) is similar but tested under a load, with a preheated fuel mixture, and variable ignition timing.
It's a little confusing for imports as they often recommend a fuel rating based on the RON number, where in the US and Canada we take the average of the RON and MON, where the RON is typically a higher number. A 91 RON might be equal to 87 RON+MON/2.
Firstly, we have MJ/liter
Regular is about 35
"Premium" is about 40
Or roughly 12.5% higher for "premium" using the numbers pulled from my ass.
Now 12.5 more energy per volume shouldn't equal 33% more work done, but keep in mind that the numbers are not so much a measure of energy per volume but rather how the fuel knocks in contrast to to iso-octane and n-heptane. Resisting predetonation is likely what I experienced. This typically isn't really a factor unless you're talking higher compression ratios like 9:1 and above.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part3/section-1.html
Compression Octane Number
Ratio Requirement
05 to 1=72
06 to 1=81
07 to 1=87
08 to 1=92
09 to 1=96
10 to 1=100
11 to 1=104
12 to 1=108
Presuming this list is in RON, I believe 91 RON = 87 RON+MON/2
This is old data, before computer control and fuel injection were common place.
I generally agree with your assessment of TCO. However you need to compare the same level of car. A Corolla isn't the same as a VW Jetta a better comparison would be a Camery.
For me, well, I buy used.
As someone else pointed out it's best to compare the same model car in gas and TDI, which is about $17000 / $20,000 or so. For someone buying the Jetta it's about a $3000 premium.
My logic is more simple, most fuel efficient car possible at the lowest cost possible. I see your point, and I would agree except it presumes the person in question would buy the Camery. It's actually fair comment that the Jetta is far closer to the Camery than the Corolla.
Are there not cheaper diesel options in the US than swish VWs? Surely you can get hold of Toyota's diesel models?
Not that I'm aware. Seriously, California is rather anti-diesel and anything imported into the US is either going to be made for California standards, or close enough. In the RWD days they had a -C designation for their engines, where I believe -C = California. It makes sense, since that's like 1/2 the coast like of the US on the west coast.
Actually, it isn't on par. Let's pretend you spend $5000 more upfront for that shiny new VW TDI.
I, on the other hand, buy the cheaper Corolla and invest that $5000. At the end of 10 years, my $5000 investment (even at a very low 3% rate) is worth around $6700. This means that in 10 years from now, I actually have $1700 more than you do.
You have a point, albeit a limited one. This presumes one saves up $20,000 on a car, spends $15k on the cheaper model. I can speak with reasonable assurance that your average Joe doesn't do this, they get a loan. Now one can presume what they don't spend on their car goes into savings, which isn't going to be $5000 in a single plop, it's going to be a series of little plops.
Someone did raise the point of resale value, where I sort of pulled numbers from my arse. The truth is, I have no idea how much more a TDI goes for over gas, but presuming $5000 more for the TDI after 10 years I'd guess deprecation would knock that down to $2500 depending on condition. Cars are funny, even if you have a perfect engine, without the body to match it's pretty worthless.
The reverse is true too. I remember trying to "give away" a 1984 buick station wagon some years back with a bad engine. Couldn't get rid of it for the life of me. Perfect body, perfect upholstery Oddly enough the only people "interested" wanted a test drive, in a car advertised as needs an engine. If it wasn't a gas hog, I would have done one of those rebuilt lifetime warranty jobs, which brings me to another care purchase model, keeping it past 100k miles. American cars in my experience blow engines much more quickly than many imports, or require engine work which can be spendy. If available in your area there often are places that offer rebuild engines with lifetime warranty. I've known people who got engines swapped every 10 or so years. Worked out rather well in terms of cost.
While you usually don't see this issue with a diesel, a used car + rebuilt gas engine is typically far less by thousands.
Using premium fuel is often a cheap way to stop your engine from pinging/knocking (usually because the engine has carbon build up and you don't want to tear the engine apart to fix it). If his car was pinging using regular fuel but not premium I could see the increase in mileage, and it's not hard to believe that 15 year old car from the 70's might be pinging.
Or rather, I turned the handy dandy octane selector per the manual's instructions, which IIRC the engine should ping slightly if you slam on the gas on a level road at 10mph in 3rd gear, or something like that.
Secondary evidence was the stellar CO levels which were 0% each time I had it tested.
I know there are those who will not believe me, I can only say after the gulf war I went out of my way to try all the fuel options, found that Texaco Premium provided the most stellar results. It wasn't an isolated case I kept track of the millage very carefully. The high MPG was mostly freeway driving, which included some trips from Seattle to San Diago. The Odometer was checked against the mile posts spanning 400 miles apart. The range of the vehicle from a topped off tank to sputtering was 480 miles entirely highway driving.
Yes, but you're not considering another important factor: diesel engines have a far greater life expectancy than any gas motor. Yeah, call out that guy with the million mile Corolla or whatever, but he's a very rare exception.
My last car was a 79 corolla with 360,000 miles on it. In fact it was still running when I gave it to my niece, who in turn used it as a trade in for a used Volkswagen Cabriolet. It was reaching the point that a head rebuild would have been prudent.
I won't dispute with you the fact that an average diesel will outlast an average gas, but a 10 year run at about 15k miles per year or 156,000 isn't all that unusual, which is about what you'd have to do (just pulling numbers from my arse) to even consider making back your investment.
If you are planning on owning your vehicle beyond let's say 200,000 miles, great! More power too you. I'm sure the resale value of a TDI based car is going to be higher, but, it is an extra $5000 or so above and beyond that of a reasonably efficient gas car. If you replace your car every 10 years or so or there and abouts of 150,000 miles or so (pulling the number out of my ass), you might break even and you might even come out ahead. Best case IMHO after 10 years the value of the car is going to drop by at least 1/2 depending on condition, so I'd be willing to believe after 10 years you could be ahead by perhaps $2500, perhaps.
I'm not saying it's impossible to make back that extra investment, only it is an extra investment.
Because the regular explanation of the difference between regular and premium - higher octane - does not explain how you could get 33% better mileage on a car so old (and cheap) that it doesn't have fuel injection, never mind a computer managing the mix.
Keep in mind that this was during the gulf war, so we are talking the late 1980s. It was an old car but that doesn't preclude the engine being in good shape.
A couple of points in my favor, the cap had an octane selector which I did make sure to tune to premium gas. It's not computer control but it clearly did the trick.
Also, the only emissions control on board was smog pump. Oddly enough my emissions were lower, specifically the CO which was measured at 0%, than a later model which had no smog pump but did have a catalytic converter. While Toyota, the engine employed a hemi-head as in ball shaped piston top and head.
Now I've never been clear about the octane rating. Part is higher ratio of octane, and part of it is fuel stability. Not all engines benefit. Some do, but not all. But for whatever reason it was Texaco Premium that I got 40mpg from, not anything else including Chevron or Arco premium, and not the odd ball premium leaded gas.
I'm sure there were other carburetor driven cars that did just as well. The 1988 Nissan Sentra was a lightweight with a whopping 69HP engine. I don't know how well it did on premium but it averaged out about 35mpg.
Across 400 miles, if gas is $3.00 and diesel is $4.00, then I'm ahead by $8. If gas is $4.00 and diesel is $5, then I'm ahead $13.33
Unfortunately too many uneducated Americans don't do the math, they just see one price. Most of my fellow Americans also think that paying $250/month for 72 months is better than paying $350/month for 48 months for the same car.
I discovered during the gulf war that in my car, a 76 corolla, if I bought Texaco premium I would get 40mpg vs 30mpg on regular. I was ahead paying more for gas, with no investment requires.
Let's say you can save your self $10/week on diesel. That works out to be $521/year. In 10 years that's $5210. That's a good thing.
But a Jetta TDI new will run you about $20,000. A 2009 corolla will run you about $15,000 or so, and there are a couple of options under $15k like the Nissan Versa, Mazda 3i, and the new Smart Fortwo.
I hate to say it, but going with the budget import that gets about 40mpg highway, not including maintenance, is pretty much on par with the VW TDI solution provided you drive enough to make back your investment in 10 years. If you are not burning close to a tank per week, well, it'll certainly take you longer to make back your investment.
While I do like TDI, it's a premium that'll cost you about $5000 more.
Ever given a presentation in an elevator?
It's a niche product, I can think of plenty of niches it fits in nicely.
Yes. When I and others went to school, I'm sure you remember those portable film strip readers. They were semi portable, typically used 35mm film, and back projected on a small screen typically 14 inches diagonal or so. I have no clue what they were called, in fact I doubt the teachers knew, but they were ubiquitous, in that tasteful 50s battleship gray leading to wonder whether the paint came from military surplus.
I "imagine" one could do the same thing with 110 film, in fact ViewMaster had a few solutions beyond their hand held viewer.
I see this digital revolution attempting to provide the technology we had some 50 years ago, but easier to produce as one doesn't need to worry about film or film chemistry to do it.
that's so twisted I might just do it.
Well, I've only done a mirror of Khaaaan.net or whatever that url was that had William Shatner in Star Trek II yelling "Khannnn... Khannnn.... Khannnnn....." at your friendly neighborhood StarFucks.
I never tried Goatse. Khannnn... was frightful enough. A dozen or so laptops over and over again yelling "Khannn...." until they figured out they shouldn't connect to StarFucks.
Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.
That may be your ideal, however that doesn't make it the ideal.
Camping serves many purposes, top among which is it's the cheapest form of lodging even if in the states there are heavy restrictions on doing it.
Another purpose it serves is recreation. There are a ton of natural wonders that either don't have services near by, or are just outside the reach of civilization. This may include lakes, hot springs, beaches, mountains, valleys, and certainly many others. However, this doesn't exclude camping for it's own purpose.
Presuming recreation, whose to say that one can't for example catch a fun filled day of natural fun? The funny thing about natural fun is it gets dark at night, which limits your options for late night entertainment.
The first time I went camping was somewhere where you could park your car and pitch a tent, away from civilization. I bought a tape player. The batteries died after the first day, but I enjoyed "roughing it" with music. Other times I bought along my laptop, not so much because I wanted to use it but it made an ultra handy backup light.
I'm trying real hard to see how useful this gadget will be, I mean, up to 11 inches widescreen right now is kinda of .. "ahem" limiting. Laptops typically have 14 inches screens and up anyways, so, I can't see how this mini projector can compete with that.
As I said in another post, an LCD screen is rather fragile, not the sort of thing you would choose to travel with if you had a choice.
If you had a laptop already, for that size use the damn screen. But I suspect that in a dark room you could expand this out beyond that which is practical for a laptop.
But, here's the kicker, a laptop has a bit of bulk to it. Imagine such a device on a portable DVD player. That would be rather handy. For portable applications I can see the benefits over a laptop LCD screen, mainly it's not as fragile I presume. Ditching the big display would have some advantages. As much as I like laptops, I don't like the whole clam shell screen attached aspect. Getting a wireless mouse/keyboard helps to a degree, but projecting would be effectively detaching the display from the unit. This would resolve some issues using the suckers on airplanes.
By "slides", I meant "powerpoint slides", not film or transparencies. But your points are very valid.
I also see your point about low-quality DVD, but that seems like a pretty tiny market, people for whom a $350 device to show low quality video to a small group is a better solution than a variety of alternatives.
I was confused on the point of slides. I was unsure if you meant printed out transparencies or slides as in 35mm, where transparencies on an overhead projector are still quite the norm.
I do see a market for such a device. To me, it's a matter of a simple portable DVD player and this projector, or a laptop and this projector. The alternative really is lugging around an LCD screen which to be fair is a tad fragile. Keep in mind that this sort of thing was available in the past in the form of film strips on small projectors or ViewMaster type solutions. You could use it for a small sales presentation, safety film, instructional vid, and quite a few applications where you need to be transportable and don't need really high resolution.
My job required me to give numerous presentations using projectors for about a year, and even when the audience was just a handful of people I wouldn't have been able to give a reasonable presentation with such a low resolution projector. In every one of the situations where such a small projector would have been useful, I simply printed my slides and handed them out, which was more than satisfactory to my bosses and the presentation audience sitting around the table.{/quote>
Well, absolutely. If you're looking for a decent presentation you simply can't beat slides for portability and the simple technology required to display them. This would include 35mm slides, while requiring a certain bother and effort to convert letter to slide, certain time and expense, this still is a viable technology. Ektachrome Professional I believe is rated at about 4096x3276, or in paper of about 350dpi or so. When making a copy, expect to lose at least 1/2 that (note, number pulled from arse), but that still about 2048x1638 which isn't too shabby. This presumes a good macro lens and such. When dealing with inkjet, I question whether printable transparencies or a good photo quality paper and slides provide a better result.
Now you or I would likely need at least 800x600, if not higher. I won't argue that. But 640x480 is almost good enough for DVD SP, certainly is good enough for LP DVD. The bulk of a series of slides or transparencies and the relativly simple nature of the equipment is likely to be more bulky than a laptop and a pocket projector. So I will still see it as being useful, if in the spiffy toy class.
I can't imagine what the market would be for this thing. Even if the brightness isn't a problem, the resolution is too low for almost any worthwhile use I can imagine. 800x600 is about the lowest I would want for even the simplest tasks.
Well, I can "imagine" LP resolution DVDs, even regular SP dvd with some down sampling. I can really imagine a simple power point presentation being MORE than adequate at 640x480. Not that you don't have a point. WinXP hardly supports 640x480 anymore, in fact it's a bit of a pain if you want to output to a TV.
Who needs sound when you project goatse from your cellphone on a crowded bus?
Who needs a projector when you can setup a wifi hotpoint with everything redirected to a local cache of goatse.
Not going to be much of a cheap hometheater setup at that resolution.
As others have pointed out, it's a pocket projector, not a HT projector. Also DVD resolution is only about 720 x 480 dropping down to 352 x 480 at LP. While not perfect, nothing to sneeze at considering the price. It would be ideal to catch a vid while camping.
I gather that he spent a lot of time jacking into those lines!
Well, you have that, or perhaps there were many jack-offs working for the phone company.
Seriously, that is a a hell of a lot of time dialing phone sex lines. 14.4 hours/week? 2.9 hours/day?
I'm really skeptical one person did this.
Presuming a 40 hr work week, that works out to be 1/3 of the year on phone sex lines.
That's pretty unbelievable, considering that one still needs time to jack into the lines in the first place.
I've done some slack things at work, and it's pretty easy to get distracted and find out you spent most of the day goofing off. But this would take a real concerted effort to not work.
But not with mobile phones, usually you're either told just after the call ends how much credit you have left on your pay-as-you-go account or at the end of the month when your contract bill arrives in the post.
This seems reasonable. On pay phones, back when I used them, I could dial a LD number and get an automated voice asking for a dollar amount for x amount of time. On the GTE phones after deregulation I got a person, and actually it was rather amazing how much they charged on those phones. I remember a GTE operator asking me for some $50 or so to make a call cross the border, to which I said that I didn't have that many quarters on me.
When I think of blind phone users, I think of regular phones, where you dial numbers and they reach people. While it would be nice to have speaking menus so a blind user could navigate their phone and access the spiffy features, perhaps some cool text to speech to handle text messaging, I think the main goal would be your basic no frills phone. Nice pad with a mark for the number 5, as well as an obvious send and end button.
I can't think of the model, but tracfone had a Nokia in their lineup which was just this, a basic phone with no real features other than being a phone. No camera, no MP3 support, just a phone.
Call me silly, but that should be the main criteria, the ability to operate based on typing in a bunch of numbers and making a call.