SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (212819)7/20/2007 9:53:40 PM
From: Alan Smithee  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794032
 
Did they look for God's interference? That violates a law of nature. They are claiming that a lower energy fuel source will give more power. Sounds like someone did some fiddling.


I just returned from a 4,000 mile road trip. In some states (North Dakota and Minnesota, for example), the Ethanol blend is $0.10 cheaper than the non-ethanol. However, it's 85 octane vs. 87.

I paid the dime extra and went with non-ethanol.



To: LindyBill who wrote (212819)7/21/2007 6:28:33 AM
From: Ish  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 794032
 
<<Did they look for God's interference? That violates a law of nature. They are claiming that a lower energy fuel source will give more power. Sounds like someone did some fiddling.>>

Think of the 10% ethanol as an additive rather than just a fuel source. It causes a more complete burn of the gasoline.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News