# A tank of regular fuel (87)



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

I filled up with a tank of BP Regular this morning. My mileage kind of sucks - 26.5 mpg - and I'm tired of paying the extra for 92 Octane.


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (liquid stereo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_I filled up with a tank of BP Regular this morning. My mileage kind of sucks - 26.5 mpg - and I'm tired of paying the extra for 92 Octane.


Bad approach. Back when gas was $1.00/$1.10/$1.20 the 92 octane gas represented a 20% premium over regular. When gas costs $3.00/3.10/3.20 you're paying just under a 6.7% premium for the 92 octane. So actually the more expensive gas gets, the more sense it makes to buy the top grade because the cost difference becomes less and less on a percentage basis.
I thought up in Minnesota you had that gas staion where you could pay for gas in bulk and essentially let the station store it for you, thereby locking in a cheaper price.
The only cost saving strategy individuals can successfully apply to their fuel purchases is *dollar cost averaging*... just like your 401K contribution toward mutual funds. If you get caught in need when gas is high, buy 2-3 days worth and see what the price is in another 2-3 days. When it gets cheaper, stuff your tank full and keep topping it off if you get below 3/4 of a tank to try to ride out the bad times for as long as possible. Over time that strategy will lower your average price paid for gas.
There are articles about it. I'm surprised the strategy is not more well known.
http://www.tnpcnewsletter.com/...aging/ 



_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 8:04 PM 5-4-2007_


----------



## archiea (Nov 29, 2006)

I don't get the big piss that people get over pay premium for gas in car that requires it. how else do you think VW gets 200 hp from a little ole engine. American cars need a 6 banger fro tha perfromance. switching to 87 is like a few dollars a month for basicaly worse mileage, worse performance and possibly engine knock.


----------



## sethworld (Mar 10, 2007)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (liquid stereo)*

Enjoy the car while you can... giving it diet fuel is not going to help get better mileage, it will more than likely make it worse. 26mpg isn't bad at all for a turbo. it isn't like it was a secret what the mileage was when you got it.


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (sethworld)*

The engine is tuned for 91 octane, so putting anything less with cause performance issues like pre-detonation. I wonder how much of an icreas in power 93 octane brings.


----------



## kghia (Nov 16, 2006)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (WolfsburgerMitFries)*


_Quote, originally posted by *WolfsburgerMitFries* »_Bad approach. Back when gas was $1.00/$1.10/$1.20 the 92 octane gas represented a 20% premium over regular. When gas costs $3.00/3.10/3.20 you're paying just under a 6.7% premium for the 92 octane. So actually the more expensive gas gets, the more sense it makes to buy the top grade because the cost difference becomes less and less on a percentage basis.


I agree that lower octane is just going to result in lower performance since that is what the car is tuned toward.
In fact, when we asked a VW mechanic what would happen if we put lower octane gas in my wife's Passat, he explained that the engine would detect the knocking as it occured, and would reduce the advance (and the efficiency) to prevent the knocking. But since it has to detect a problem beginning, you would very slightly be experiencing bad running.
*However*, I think that the difference in price has stayed about _the same_. I don't see why people complain about the difference, because it is still only 20 cents more (or at the Shell I use, only 14-15 cents more, and less than the stations once I am home from commute)
I think that the 2nd way makes more sense (as much as I'd like to be paying such a lower percentage), because the distance a gallon takes you remains approx. constant, so the difference for premium remains constant *per mile* (with other variables staying the same)
We consume the gas by the mile, not by the dollar*. If the base price per gallon increases to $3, the base cost per mile increased
Since $3 of $1 gas got you further than $3 of $3 gas, the difference in cost for by the dollar was spread over more miles using $1 gas than with the $3 gas.
_*some people may consume by the dollar, but this only applies to the very poor who have to chose whether driving is even possible, or the weekend driver who *only* drives for pleasure. For those who must drive regularly and only determine their gas, this method holds. The others are probably not buying new cars, or aren't pinching pennies. Even the poor would want their car running *efficiently* though, or again it is just bad economics_
William


----------



## SeaTreg (Dec 27, 2004)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (liquid stereo)*

I am always amazed by people who buy a car, knowing it should use premium fuel, and know what the expected mileage is going to be, and then complain about it. You say you are getting 26.5 mpg, which is just about what you should get in combined driving according to the window sticker. If you drive the average of 15000 miles per year, you are using 566 gallons of gas. At about .20 more per gallon, you are spending $113.00 per year, or just under $10.00 more per month to allow your car to perform at its best, and get good mileage! I can't figure why on earth you would not want to spend the extra $10.00 per month so that your car performs at its best.


_Modified by SeaTreg at 4:16 PM 5-4-2007_


----------



## solarflare (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (kpiskin)*


_Quote, originally posted by *kpiskin* »_I wonder how much of an icreas in power 93 octane brings.


You will get no increase in power. Octane is not a measurement of energy stored in gasoline. It's a measure of stability. Lower octane gasoline will ignite at a lower compression. Using it in a high compression engine, such as ours, will cause predetonation. The air/ fuel mixture ignites before the spark plug gets a chance to causing that knocking sound. Modern engines will detect this and retard or advance the ignition timing to compensate. This has the effect of "detuning" the engine. The engine is no longer operating at peak efficiency. The only way to increase power using higher octane is if the engine controller can detect this higher octane and adjust engine control parameters such as turbo boost pressure and valve/ignition timing. I believe this is the modification that can be done by ABT in Europe. Our controller is not programmed to detect a higher octane so we get no benefit of using 92-93 over 91. BTW, Sunoco has 4 grades of gasoline, 87,89,91,93, at least in my area. I always fill up at Sunoco with 91. They are usually less expensive to start and the 91 is an additional few cent per gallon cheaper then 93.
-Erik

_Modified by solarflare at 6:59 PM 5-4-2007_


_Modified by solarflare at 11:26 AM 5-9-2007_


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*Who needs 200hp - Not me.*

The engine will be fine. It probably has 4 knock sensors so it will do its thing..
As for the cost savings... its about 8%. When was the last time my supervisor offered me an 8% raise? Not recently.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

_Quote, originally posted by *archiea* »_I don't get the big piss that people get over pay premium for gas in car that requires it. how else do you think VW gets 200 hp from a little ole engine. American cars need a 6 banger fro tha perfromance. switching to 87 is like a few dollars a month for basicaly worse mileage, worse performance and possibly engine knock.


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (kghia)*

With all due respect, this detect-a-problem business is a load of bs...
As for the mileage and the cost, if I can if costs me more to use regular as opposed to premium, then I will return to using premium. Additionally, if the performance drop is significant, I will switch back to using premium. But when if I have the choice of filling my tank at $35 vs $40, all else being the same, I will choose $35 each and every time.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

_Quote, originally posted by *kghia* »_
But since it has to detect a problem beginning, you would very slightly be experiencing bad running.
*However*, I think that the difference in price has stayed about _the same_. I don't see why people complain about the difference, because it is still only 20 cents more (or at the Shell I use, only 14-15 cents more, and less than the stations once I am home from commute)
I think that the 2nd way makes more sense (as much as I'd like to be paying such a lower percentage), because the distance a gallon takes you remains approx. constant, so the difference for premium remains constant *per mile* (with other variables staying the same)
We consume the gas by the mile, not by the dollar*. If the base price per gallon increases to $3, the base cost per mile increased
Since $3 of $1 gas got you further than $3 of $3 gas, the difference in cost for by the dollar was spread over more miles using $1 gas than with the $3 gas.
_*some people may consume by the dollar, but this only applies to the very poor who have to chose whether driving is even possible, or the weekend driver who *only* drives for pleasure. For those who must drive regularly and only determine their gas, this method holds. The others are probably not buying new cars, or aren't pinching pennies. Even the poor would want their car running *efficiently* though, or again it is just bad economics_
William


----------



## archiea (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (liquid stereo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_With all due respect, this detect-a-problem business is a load of bs...
As for the mileage and the cost, if I can if costs me more to use regular as opposed to premium, then I will return to using premium. Additionally, if the performance drop is significant, I will switch back to using premium. But when if I have the choice of filling my tank at $35 vs $40, all else being the same, I will choose $35 each and every time.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

but all else isn;t the same. the engine is tuned for premium. If you really wanted all else to be the same you should get your engine tuned to use regular gas. that way it will run efficient for that octane rating. So you will have less power, but supposedly the same mileage for the 8% less. 
and man, those extra $10 a month.. i'm sure you'll find a place to spend it wisely... most people who buy near impractical $30k+ cars are ususally saving every dime, so those $10 will go far. 
While you are at it, why don't you strip out the sound dampening and some of the extra bracing... so your car will jiggle and rattle around, who caes, you might be able to shave off another $10 a month by driving a more lighter albiet more rattley car.. or get the Pontiac G6 convertable.. same diffference... 
..or just trade it in for a Prius while you are at it. 
..and yes I realize I'm being an *******.. but seriously someone buying a near impractacle convertable for 30+K trying to save $10 a month.... 


_Modified by archiea at 8:51 PM 5-4-2007_


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (archiea)*

Listen.
(1) Its called a knock sensor. It adjusts the timing such that the engine performs optimally within a range of octane values.
(2) 87 octane is within the range of acceptable values.
(3) Operating with 87 octane will yield less power.
For me its $20-$25/month. Maybe you're rich. Maybe you don't care about the money you spend. In any event its my money and my car. Personally, I can afford a $34k car because I don't waste my time/effort/money.
If you feel like sending $25/month my way, I can give you a DirectTV account number and you can pick up my monthly bill. If not, then with all due respect, stop being an *******...
Cheers http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


_Quote, originally posted by *archiea* »_
but all else isn;t the same. the engine is tuned for premium. If you really wanted all else to be the same you should get your engine tuned to use regular gas. that way it will run efficient for that octane rating. So you will have less power, but supposedly the same mileage for the 8% less. 
and man, those extra $10 a month.. i'm sure you'll find a place to spend it wisely... most people who buy near impractical $30k+ cars are ususally saving every dime, so those $10 will go far. 
While you are at it, why don't you strip out the sound dampening and some of the extra bracing... so your car will jiggle and rattle around, who caes, you might be able to shave off another $10 a month by driving a more lighter albiet more rattley car.. or get the Pontiac G6 convertable.. same diffference... 
..or just trade it in for a Prius while you are at it. 
..and yes I realize I'm being an *******.. but seriously someone buying a near impractacle convertable for 30+K trying to save $10 a month.... 

_Modified by archiea at 8:51 PM 5-4-2007_



_Modified by liquid stereo at 10:55 AM 5-8-2007_


----------



## archiea (Nov 29, 2006)

what does the **** stand for again?


----------



## Canadian Lurker (Nov 11, 2006)

*Re: (archiea)*

So, setting aside the "discussion" on the dollar cost savings vs the performance loss - what is the real impact?
What we know:
- the car is designed or tuned for a higher octane
- it can run on a lower octane
- performance and economy will be affected (other than anecdotal evidence from seat of the pants observations I'm not aware of any controlled studies that compare the differences)
- saving money is good
- losing performance "may" be bad (and is a highly personal item)
What we don't know:
- I say performance loss "may" be bad because the car has knock sensors to adjust for lower octane, however, is this component designed to address short-term/isolated cases of knock, ie one tank or odd cases.....or was this component built to run safely for an indefinite period on lower octane
- again as above, are there any studies by the EPA, a car mag, Consumers Reports? It's been written about many times as factoid opinion, but has there been controlled studies that clearly state the performance differences in power, quickness, and mileage
Let's keep the discussion going, but without the baggage please.








JJ


----------



## solarflare (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: (Canadian Lurker)*

On page 3.2-36 first paragraph "Using the correct grade of gasoline is very important to help prevent engine *damage* and loss of engine *performance*." 
"Damage" is all I need to see...
It should also be noted to check for blends.
No more the 3% Methanl, 10% Ethanol or 15% MTBE. The gasoline that I regularly use has 10% Ethanol added.
This brings up another question. Does 90% gasoline/10% ethanol contain the same amount of energy as 100% Gasoline?


_Modified by solarflare at 6:19 AM 5-5-2007_


----------



## solarflare (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: (solarflare)*

It should also be noted that in the blends discussion on that page it also states that a minimum octane rating of no lower then 87 should used. So is this saying 87 can be used safely with blended gasoline?


----------



## kpiskin (Apr 6, 2007)

*Re: (solarflare)*

Well the ethanol/gas blend is rated at a certain octane. You could have 93 octane gas, but it's easier to make 93 octane gas/ethanol since ethanol has more energy in it. Modern cars are more optimally tuned to run on gas, even the flex fuel versions. That's why you get worse gas mileage on those cars when they are filled with ethanol.


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*On damage*

The damage that "could occur" is from the fact that the knock & ping that one would possibly encounter is due to premature detonation, ie. explosions.
More octane means fuel-air mixture handles higher pressure/temperature before burning. The knock sensor adjusts the timing on the fly such that the cylinders fire before these "explosions" take place. This results in lower power. However, if the sensor cannot retard the timing to a degree that premature detonation takes place then damage may occur. Under regular/normal driving, ie. commuting, 87 octane should be sufficient.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
p.s. this exercise may be helpful
http://www.leeric.lsu.edu/bgbb...b.htm

_Quote, originally posted by *solarflare* »_On page 3.2-36 first paragraph "Using the correct grade of gasoline is very important to help prevent engine *damage* and loss of engine *performance*." 
"Damage" is all I need to see...
It should also be noted to check for blends.
No more the 3% Methanl, 10% Ethanol or 15% MTBE. The gasoline that I regularly use has 10% Ethanol added.
This brings up another question. Does 90% gasoline/10% ethanol contain the same amount of energy as 100% Gasoline?

_Modified by solarflare at 6:19 AM 5-5-2007_


----------



## oab97 (Feb 18, 2007)

*Re: (solarflare)*


_Quote, originally posted by *solarflare* »_This brings up another question. Does 90% gasoline/10% ethanol contain the same amount of energy as 100% Gasoline?

No, Gasoline contains 115,400 BTU/Gal while ethanol contains only 75,670 BTU/Gal. I'll let you do the math for a 90%-10% mix. That said, pure ethanol also has a 116 octane rating so while there is less stored energy in the fuel, theoretically it can be used at higher compression ratios without detonation which would make up for at least some of the lost power. Unfortunately, our cars don't run on high percentage ethanol fuels and have no way to take advantage of it's high octane rating.
Bottom line, in cars sold today, fuels containing ethanol will tend to decrease performance. It's the price we pay to decrease our dependence on middle-east oil and to be a little more Earth friendly.


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*Ethanol and the environment*

BTW, ethanol may not be all its purported to be. But corn-growing states and their politicians love the idea.
If anyone is interested in the article, please drop me a message.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...a71b3

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 
Ethanol in gasoline: environmental impacts and sustainability review article
Abstract
This study concerns the use of ethanol as a gasoline (petrol) additive, at levels around 10% by volume (‘E10’) as well as an 85% blend (‘E85’). By detailed reviews of the peer-reviewed and technical literature, five environmental aspects of ethanol enrichment are examined: (1) its purported reduction in air pollutant emissions; (2) its potential impact on subsurface soils and groundwater; (3) its purported reduction in greenhouse gas emissions; (4) the energy efficiency of ethanol; and (5) the overall sustainability of ethanol production. The study indicates that E10 is of debatable air pollution merit (and may in fact increase the production of photochemical smog); offers little advantage in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, energy efficiency or environmental sustainability; and will significantly increase both the risk and severity of soil and groundwater contamination. In contrast, E85 offers significant greenhouse gas benefits, however it will produce significant air pollution impacts, involves substantial risks to biodiversity, and its groundwater contamination impacts and overall sustainability are largely unknown.


----------



## just4fun (Oct 29, 2006)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (liquid stereo)*

I'm not going to wade into this debate to any large degree because we already had a fairly extensive debate on another thread, but will add the following for discussion.
1. Ethanol is an oxidated fuel and as such can "fool" oxygen sensors into thinking the engine running too lean. Onboard computers then instruct the fuel system to deliver extra fuel to compensate and enrich the mixture. This can result in an even further reduction in fuel economy on engines not specifically designed to run on blended fuel.
FFV's (flexible fuel vehicles) are designed to recognize this condition and can be operated on fuels with higher percentages of ethanol.
Engines not designed as FFV will generally run OK on blended fuels with low percentages of ethanol.
The Eos is not an FFV, which would be one reason the owners manual recommends only low percentages of fuel blends.
2. As always there are at least two sides to any debate. Some Canadian research has recently questioned whether or not ethanol fuel is actually any "greener" than gasoline.
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-4-12/54020.html
3. I contacted VW customer care and requested clarification on the information in the owners manual when we were debating this earlier. this was posted in the other thread already, but here it is again. 
" There is *NO* risk of engine damage if the fuel used meets the specifications outlined in the owners manual, however, to obtain optimum performance, use the fuel recommended on the sticker inside the fuel door."
4. Liquidstereo has indicated if he isn't satisfied with the performance or fuel economy, he will switch back to premium, it's his car, it's his choice.
I am of the mindset that I will only use premium in our Eos, but I am interested in hearing feedback from liquidstereo on how things work out. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
For reference, here is the page out of the owners manual again.








Kevin








Hmmmm....so much for not wading in.


----------



## WolfsburgerMitFries (Jul 4, 2005)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (liquid stereo)*

Don't forget that alcohol based additives are corrosive to fuel system components...fuel pump diaphragms and impellers, seals, fuel injectors. The result will be higher maintenence and operating costs.
Alcohol based "alternatives" such as E85 are just a terrible idea, and the push in that direction is just the latest in a continuum of mistakes from the Bush administration. Remember those are the people who, with a straight face, presented the idea that changing daylight savings time to a month earlier was going to result in some huge energy savings to the country.


_Modified by WolfsburgerMitFries at 1:29 PM 5-5-2007_


----------



## solarflare (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (just4fun)*

So if I understand page 36 correctly, using a blended fuel commonly available such as one with 10% ethanol would be ok with 87 octane? I understand there will be a loss of performance. Is this because ethanol has a higher octane rating effectively raising this index? I think some experimentation is in order. 
100% gasoline 91 octane
10% ethanol 91 octane
10% ethanol 87 octane
Once the temperature around here stabilizes around 80 I'll try a tankful of each and note fuel economy.


----------



## jmg3637 (Jul 17, 2006)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (WolfsburgerMitFries)*

Both of my Acura's (RL and later MDX) recommended premium gas. for a few years I followed that advice. I then switched to 89 and noticed no difference. after a few more years I dropped down to 87 and again no noticable difference.
For the MDX my wife was not willing to risk going down to 87 but she does use 89 and we have seen no real difference.
When I get my EOS in the next few weeks I plan on using 91 at least for a while.
I can afford whatever gas I need/want, but on the Acura's I did not see the need of paying the extra $10/month for nothing.


----------



## kghia (Nov 16, 2006)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (jmg3637)*

We don't have 91 where I've traveled anymore.
So I always get 93 in ALL my VWs, even the older aircooled ones
The older ones don't _really_ require the higher octane, but they do slip in tuning over time, and slightly higher octane helps those older engines to be tuned with more advance and not experience knock. I keep mileage logs, and when my mpg starts to slip, I can check and adjust my points, timing, etc (the older VWs obviously) Anyway, they don't need it when tuned well, but help protect the engine as the tuning slips or factors change. And you can just plain tune a little more aggressively without getting knock. *Well worth the insurance of piece of mind with my motors!* The newer _Eos and Passat can just adjust efficiency and get worse mileage_, but for my vintage VWs it would also be slow damage to the wear on the crankshaft and case (no computerized on-the-fly adaptation).
I have tried going back to 87 on the Beetle (which was recommended 91RON -equiv to about 86 (R+M)/2 octane measurement used in the US), but even then it occurred to me that it had been well tuned by my ex-VW mechanic who has had his own shop for 30+ years, using 93 and maybe needed to be de-tuned to run better. I decided to pay 0.15 more instead.
William


_Modified by kghia at 6:03 PM 5-5-2007_


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (kghia)*

For a really small difference, why not put in what VW recomends? We are talking a very small delta in your overall gas budget for the year compared to a lot of other car related expenses. 
If you are tired of gas prices, drive less, and drive slower. That alone will save your wallet the small difference in gas cost from 87 to 91. 
I always tell my friends this joke:
"Knock Knock"
"Who is there?"
"Engine damage"


----------



## kghia (Nov 16, 2006)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_For a really small difference, why not put in what VW recomends? We are talking a very small delta in your overall gas budget for the year compared to a lot of other car related expenses. 
If you are tired of gas prices, drive less, and drive slower. That alone will save your wallet the small difference in gas cost from 87 to 91. 
I always tell my friends this joke:
"Knock Knock"
"Who is there?"
"Engine damage"










wonderful! I will retell that one for sure (hey my wife has already heard it now.







--of course, she always uses 93 in the Passat)


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment ([email protected])*

You're right in that driving less will offset the increasing fuel expenses.
As for the joke, its funny, but there's no truth in it. If you were to put in 85 octane (still available in some parts of the U.S.) engine damage could occur as the knock sensor and ignition system cannot retard the timing enough. As for what VW recommends... please read it carefully - for optimum performance use 91+
Optimum performance = 200hp. Can I live without 200hp? Yes. In fact, had a lesser engine been available I would have bought that one. The 1.6 FSI is a fantastic option.
And as for small deltas, small for you may not be small for someone else. For example, I can think of many charities that would love it if 10% of all Eos drivers gave them $20/month. They wouldn't think that was small. Or another way of thinking about it - let's not get into the business of telling people what to do with their money, unless they ask.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_For a really small difference, why not put in what VW recomends? We are talking a very small delta in your overall gas budget for the year compared to a lot of other car related expenses. 
If you are tired of gas prices, drive less, and drive slower. That alone will save your wallet the small difference in gas cost from 87 to 91. 
I always tell my friends this joke:
"Knock Knock"
"Who is there?"
"Engine damage"


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (kghia)*

I tune my flat-six powered Karmann Ghia each summer to 90 Octane. A few years ago there was a place nearby that sold 100 octane. A tank of that was quite nice.

_Quote, originally posted by *kghia* »_We don't have 91 where I've traveled anymore.
So I always get 93 in ALL my VWs, even the older aircooled ones
The older ones don't _really_ require the higher octane, but they do slip in tuning over time, and slightly higher octane helps those older engines to be tuned with more advance and not experience knock. I keep mileage logs, and when my mpg starts to slip, I can check and adjust my points, timing, etc (the older VWs obviously) Anyway, they don't need it when tuned well, but help protect the engine as the tuning slips or factors change. And you can just plain tune a little more aggressively without getting knock. *Well worth the insurance of piece of mind with my motors!* The newer _Eos and Passat can just adjust efficiency and get worse mileage_, but for my vintage VWs it would also be slow damage to the wear on the crankshaft and case (no computerized on-the-fly adaptation).
I have tried going back to 87 on the Beetle (which was recommended 91RON -equiv to about 86 (R+M)/2 octane measurement used in the US), but even then it occurred to me that it had been well tuned by my ex-VW mechanic who has had his own shop for 30+ years, using 93 and maybe needed to be de-tuned to run better. I decided to pay 0.15 more instead.
William

_Modified by kghia at 6:03 PM 5-5-2007_


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (liquid stereo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_
And as for small deltas, small for you may not be small for someone else. For example, I can think of many charities that would love it if 10% of all Eos drivers gave them $20/month. They wouldn't think that was small. Or another way of thinking about it - *let's not get into the business of telling people what to do with their money, unless they ask.*
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 


Not to be rude, but then what is the point of this thread? Commenting on the price of gassing up the Eos generally leads to commentary about fuel budgets, and the general importance to do what the manufacturer recomends to do. 
As for the joke? I know there is little truth to it in modern cars. But, generally it makes the message stick. It's your car and your engine, but I personally don't know where the iginition timing limit is, and I would rather not find it myself. I've seen engines quickly eat themselves when they detonate.


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment ([email protected])*

Its 87 octane. This is why it is stated in manual. In doing so, VAG/VWoA is free of liability if/when someone chooses to use less than 87-octane fuel and damages their pistons or heads.
As for the purpose of the thread, its not to seek financial advice. Please forgive me if you were misled. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif More useful info/posting, in my humble opinion, would be of the "I did a similar thing and..." nature. Or maybe
BTW, what I have noticed so far is that the power delivery is a bit muted. For anyone who's done their own timing, manually, its the very familiar "safe but dull" kind of running.


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Not to be rude, but then what is the point of this thread? Commenting on the price of gassing up the Eos generally leads to commentary about fuel budgets, and the general importance to do what the manufacturer recomends to do. 
As for the joke? I know there is little truth to it in modern cars. But, generally it makes the message stick. It's your car and your engine, but I personally don't know where the iginition timing limit is, and I would rather not find it myself. I've seen engines quickly eat themselves when they detonate.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (liquid stereo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_Its 87 octane. This is why it is stated in manual. In doing so, VAG/VWoA is free of liability if/when someone chooses to use less than 87-octane fuel and damages their pistons or heads.
As for the purpose of the thread, its not to seek financial advice. Please forgive me if you were misled. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif More useful info/posting, in my humble opinion, would be of the "I did a similar thing and..." nature. Or maybe
BTW, what I have noticed so far is that the power delivery is a bit muted. For anyone who's done their own timing, manually, its the very familiar "safe but dull" kind of running.

Fair enough. Here is my experience then. My mom, who is a huge penny pincher, has a 2.0T Jetta, and I told her to run 91 in it. What does she do? Runs 91 for 5 months, averages 28 mpg mixed, and then switches to 87. She then drops down to 25 mpg mixed, calls me and complains, thinking something is wrong with her car.








Now, I'm in no position to tell my retired mom what to do with her money, but the difference for her is $5 a month (Jetta is her second car), and I find saving a small amount of money, and losing economy, a little asinine. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Pics for clicks (moms Jetta, and my friends GTI):








My best friend drives the Red 2.0T GTI. If he runs 89, his car sometimes knocks on normal starts.


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment ([email protected])*

This is not statistically significant but I got 27 mpg this weekend (on 87). The economy was calculated fill-up to fill-up.
If your friend's car is knocking on 89 octane, then there is something wrong with the fuel or his ignition system. More likely, the noise heard on start-up is the due to the fuel injectors. There is no load on start-up and the engine is most likely cold. These conditions do not lead to knock. (When I first purchased my GTI, the racket from the fuel injectors was quite obvious... with time, I became deaf to it.)
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Fair enough. Here is my experience then. My mom, who is a huge penny pincher, has a 2.0T Jetta, and I told her to run 91 in it. What does she do? Runs 91 for 5 months, averages 28 mpg mixed, and then switches to 87. She then drops down to 25 mpg mixed, calls me and complains, thinking something is wrong with her car.








Now, I'm in no position to tell my retired mom what to do with her money, but the difference for her is $5 a month (Jetta is her second car), and I find saving a small amount of money, and losing economy, a little asinine. http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 
Pics for clicks (moms Jetta, and my friends GTI):








My best friend drives the Red 2.0T GTI. If he runs 89, his car sometimes knocks on normal starts. 



_Modified by liquid stereo at 11:06 PM 5-6-2007_


----------



## solarflare (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment ([email protected])*

Looking at it from a money stand point. I'm figuring $5 per month difference between 87 and 91 is about 25 gallons. Assuming a gallon of 91 gas is $3. With 91 @ 28mpg you can go about 700 miles. With 87 @ 25mpg you can go 625 miles with a difference of 75 miles. Those 75 miles would cost $5 with 91 but would cost, assuming 0.20 less, $8.40 with 87. Assuming you drive the full 700 miles you really lose an additional $3.40 that month using the cheaper gas. Did I do the math right?


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (solarflare)*

I'm interested in Octane vs Mileage. Where do you get these numbers from?


_Quote, originally posted by *solarflare* »_With 91 @ 28mpg you can go about 700 miles. With 87 @ 25mpg you can go 625 miles with a difference of 75 miles.


----------



## jgermuga (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (solarflare)*

A lower octane
1. Will most likely will burn less efficiently and produce more emissions
2. May adversly impact performance
3. May have an adverse affect on engine wear
4. May lead to less than optimal mileage
But it is probably difficult to get accurate results outside of a laboratory, especially with a wide variation on driving habits and the perception of perfomance.
All I can say is I trust VW in providing the recommendation and I am personally willing to pay a bit more based upon this premise.


_Modified by jgermuga at 2:59 PM 5-7-2007_


----------



## mark_d_drake (Aug 17, 2006)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (jgermuga)*

OK, guys I think it's time to let this one rest....


----------



## solarflare (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (liquid stereo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_I'm interested in Octane vs Mileage. Where do you get these numbers from?

From Brendan's post.


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*heaven forbid everyone doesn't subscribe to same notion*

Why are you trying to convince anyone of anything?
Do you not believe in choice? Are youe suggesting that because 91+ octane exists it should be bought by everyone?
Emission or consumption per passenger-mile is a great idea http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (liquid stereo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_
If your friend's car is knocking on 89 octane, then there is something wrong with the fuel or his ignition system. More likely, the noise heard on start-up is the due to the fuel injectors. There is no load on start-up and the engine is most likely cold. These conditions do not lead to knock. (When I first purchased my GTI, the racket from the fuel injectors was quite obvious... with time, I became deaf to it.)
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif 

_Modified by liquid stereo at 11:06 PM 5-6-2007_

Sorry there, looks like my post was a little hard to figure out (there seems to be a lot of that going around here....







like the nebulous first post)
His car has a higher propensity to knock leaving stoplights (it's a 6MT) if his clutch take up isn't perfect. This doesn't happen on 91.


----------



## feels_road (Jan 27, 2005)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment ([email protected])*


_Quote, originally posted by *[email protected]* »_
Fair enough. Here is my experience then. My mom, who is a huge penny pincher, has a 2.0T Jetta, and I told her to run 91 in it. What does she do? Runs 91 for 5 months, averages 28 mpg mixed, and then switches to 87. She then drops down to 25 mpg mixed, calls me and complains, thinking something is wrong with her car.










That type of experience is similar to what I have seen with various engines/ cars/manufacturers in the past 30+ years, while driving more than 100 or so +- new cars and rentals. For example, Honda, in the past, with several of their cars/engines, explicitly warned their customers that they would see a 5% to 10% decrease in power and mileage when using regular vs. premium gas. I know for sure, because at one point I was trying to buy a Civic, then a CR-V, then an Odyssey and test-drove many and rented even more. Mazda and others have done the same. It is simple: high-octane gas allows for a much better computer-controlled process of highly-efficient combustion, with maximized timing for power, efficiency, and thermal insulation. 
However, if you never run above 50% of max power, and drive less than 10,000 miles per year, all of this is pretty much mute - the differences are negligible...


----------



## EosEnthusiastNB (Aug 9, 2006)

*Re: Ethanol and the environment (feels_road)*

Interesting article on Octane and Knock:

http://www.sciam.com/article.c...C1D4F


----------



## chrisj428 (Feb 26, 2005)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (liquid stereo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_Personally, I can afford a $34k car because I don't waste my time/effort/money.


_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_I'm tired of paying the extra for 92 Octane.

Sean,
If you can't pay the extra for the 92 octane (or are "tired" of paying it), then you cannot afford a $34k car.
Case in point, I bought my Phaeton for a good price in St. Cloud, somewhere in the mid $30k range.
However, I have to plan for the maintenance on an $70k vehicle, since that was it's purchase price originally -- I cannot delude myself into thinking the maintenance is going to be that of a new $35k vehicle simply because that's what my transaction price was.
Let me put it another way. In your profile, it states you're a professor.
Let's say I'm one of your students and I never show up to class, except to turn in assignments and for tests. Now, let's say the average of my scores is 95%. Am I still going to get an "A" from you? I did the bare minimum (the 87 octane's worth of work) -- that should be "good enough", right? As a professor, I would think that "good enough" would be nowhere near acceptable in your book.
Finally, you spent $34k of your hard-earned money on a very finely-tuned, heavily-engineered vehicle. Why are you cheaping out when it comes to maintenance and do the bare minimum? That's not to say I'm telling you to get your oil changed every 1,000 miles or anything ridiculous like that. But, you paid for 200 HP out of a very honed machine -- why not enjoy what you paid for? If you only wanted 150HP, the Beetle Convertible was available, and the 2.5 litre is perfectly suited for 87 octane.
P.S. -- just thought of another one...Michael's W12 states on the gas door that 87 octane is recommended. My V8's gas door states 91 is recommended, but 87 is acceptable. Guess who runs what in their cars?


_Modified by chrisj428 at 5:24 PM 5-8-2007_


----------



## kghia (Nov 16, 2006)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (chrisj428)*


_Quote, originally posted by *chrisj428* »_
P.S. -- just thought of another one...Michael's W12 states on the gas door that 87 octane is recommended. My V8's gas door states 91 is recommended, but 87 is acceptable. Guess who runs what in their cars?

Now, you may have different tuning in place.
Just because they are both Phaetons doesn't mean that they are both set up equivalently. Maybe his W12 is tuned more conservatively.
In fact, I remember something from the thread on the Towing capacity of the Eos where the US-spec W12 had a lower towing capacity because of its heavier weight.
Of course, I would still use 93 probably.








William


----------



## EosEnthusiastNB (Aug 9, 2006)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (kghia)*

I believe the US spec had a lower towing weight due to the less expensive brake system. I seem to remember Michael stating that in some earlier post. The Euro Phaeton had a beefier braking system and thus had a higher towing capacity from what I recall from one of his posts. I do get your point though. 
I have been using 93 octane but only because no gas station in New Bern seems to have 91 octane. I mistakenly pumped 87 octane in my car once and it definitely did not have the same peppyness to it. 
If the Eos 2.0t gets better efficient use of the 91 or better octane gas and gets better fuel economy I would expect that I only would put 91 or better in it. I tend to put 91 or better in it anyway being that its a 20 cent difference per gallon which really adds up to about 3 bucks per tank difference. For 3 bucks a tank difference I like the difference in the way the car feels. I can skip a Bojangles bisquit one morning and enjoy the peppyness in my car and hopefully cut down on some of the paunch I seem to be developing.


----------



## mark_d_drake (Aug 17, 2006)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (EosEnthusiastNB)*

I thought towing was banned in all W12 Phaetons.....


----------



## EosEnthusiastNB (Aug 9, 2006)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (mark_d_drake)*

Mark, your memory might be better than mine








.


----------



## chrisj428 (Feb 26, 2005)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (kghia)*

William,
The difference in towing is due, most likely, to the braking setup for W12s in the NAR vs. ROW. 
And, you're right -- the tuning is different between the two engines. The V8 (like the 2.0T) is _optimised_ for 91 octane, which is why it's the recommended fuel. Just because you can run it on 87 octane doesn't mean you should.


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*Re: A tank of regular fuel (kghia)*

Most likely different compression ratios in the V8 and W12. Octane requirement usually increases with compression ratio...

_Quote, originally posted by *kghia* »_
Now, you may have different tuning in place.
Just because they are both Phaetons doesn't mean that they are both set up equivalently. Maybe his W12 is tuned more conservatively.
In fact, I remember something from the thread on the Towing capacity of the Eos where the US-spec W12 had a lower towing capacity because of its heavier weight.
Of course, I would still use 93 probably.








William


----------



## liquid stereo (Feb 26, 2003)

*More tard thoughts...*

To all the Vortex Genii, including all the nazis that believe there is no choice in life, why do you think you must use 91 or 92 octane? Hell, your car can go from zero to 60 mph in 7 seconds, this must mean you're slow and stupid if you don't.
Again, as Genii #3 stated, I cannot afford the Eos. As a result, I humbly ask that you make a donation to (a) Oxfam, (b) UNCF, (c) Red Cross/Crescent, (d) Doctors Without Borders, and/or (e) the rent-a-ho Friday Night Fund. If its not clear to you how the two are connected, I suggest you read this thread from the beginning, and if you still "thoughts" that are illogical, then you have a brain.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

_Quote, originally posted by *chrisj428* »_
Sean,
If you can't pay the extra for the 92 octane (or are "tired" of paying it), then you cannot afford a $34k car.
Case in point, I bought my Phaeton for a good price in St. Cloud, somewhere in the mid $30k range.
However, I have to plan for the maintenance on an $70k vehicle, since that was it's purchase price originally -- I cannot delude myself into thinking the maintenance is going to be that of a new $35k vehicle simply because that's what my transaction price was.
Let me put it another way. In your profile, it states you're a professor.
Let's say I'm one of your students and I never show up to class, except to turn in assignments and for tests. Now, let's say the average of my scores is 95%. Am I still going to get an "A" from you? I did the bare minimum (the 87 octane's worth of work) -- that should be "good enough", right? As a professor, I would think that "good enough" would be nowhere near acceptable in your book.
Finally, you spent $34k of your hard-earned money on a very finely-tuned, heavily-engineered vehicle. Why are you cheaping out when it comes to maintenance and do the bare minimum? That's not to say I'm telling you to get your oil changed every 1,000 miles or anything ridiculous like that. But, you paid for 200 HP out of a very honed machine -- why not enjoy what you paid for? If you only wanted 150HP, the Beetle Convertible was available, and the 2.5 litre is perfectly suited for 87 octane.
P.S. -- just thought of another one...Michael's W12 states on the gas door that 87 octane is recommended. My V8's gas door states 91 is recommended, but 87 is acceptable. Guess who runs what in their cars?

_Modified by chrisj428 at 5:24 PM 5-8-2007_


----------



## mark_d_drake (Aug 17, 2006)

*Re: More tard thoughts... (liquid stereo)*

All of you, can we please just agree to disagree and respect each other and each other's opinions here. We all have valuable contributions to make to this forum, and we all seem to agree that the EOS is a wonderful car, it a shame to see a thread become so antaganistic....
I really don't want to lock / hole this thread since there is valuable information from both perspectives here,....


----------



## EosEnthusiastNB (Aug 9, 2006)

*Re: More tard thoughts... (mark_d_drake)*

I agree...this is not a place for personal attacks. I have tried both 87 and 91+ fuel and I prefer the way the car feels with 91. Its worth 3 bucks more to me. It may not be worth 3 bucks more to you. The article I linked from Scientific American states that for most cars you are wasting your money on premium IF your car is not designed for the benefits of premium. I personally like the way my car runs with 91+ and the info behind my gas cap says the car is optimized at 91 octane and should not run with less than 87 octane, so if you want to push your car around with 87 octane I am certainly not going to try and talk you out of it, at the same time don't try and say I am stupid for following what the manufacturer suggests for optimal performance. 

I would personally like some empirical evidence showing the mileage both with 87 and with 91 octane to see if there is any difference in fuel economy. If the 91 adds 10percent to my mileage it may benefit me to use the 91 other than the fact that the car just feels better to me. 
I however am not very proficient with the scientific method and probably would mess up any study on the differences. One of you scientist types can probably do a much better job and get an accurate comparison. 
For now I am sticking with 91 plus..the car still costs 20bucks less to fill up than my old Dodge Durango, even with premium.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 14, 2005)

*Re: More tard thoughts... (liquid stereo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_To all the Vortex Genii, including all the nazis that believe there is no choice in life, why do you think you must use 91 or 92 octane? Hell, your car can go from zero to 60 mph in 7 seconds, this must mean you're slow and stupid if you don't.
Again, as Genii #3 stated, I cannot afford the Eos. As a result, I humbly ask that you make a donation to (a) Oxfam, (b) UNCF, (c) Red Cross/Crescent, (d) Doctors Without Borders, and/or (e) the rent-a-ho Friday Night Fund. If its not clear to you how the two are connected, I suggest you read this thread from the beginning, and if you still "thoughts" that are illogical, then you have a brain.
http://****************.com/smile/emthup.gif

Why have you been so combative in this whole thread? You post a thread expecting something, and when you didn't get it off the bat, you turned into a pissed off kid in a sandbox who wont share his toys. I recomend next time creating a thread with a title and first post that lets us know what you want, and not too be so touchy when the thread wanders off the topic you wanted. A simple "looking for real world 87 mileage" line would have worked better than telling people how upset you are over us telling you what to do with $10 a month. 
FWIW, if $10 a month is killer for you like you insinuate it is, feel free to drop by California, and I'll buy you lunch one day a month for the whole time you drive an Eos. As long as lunch doesnt cost more than the difference between gassing up on 87 vs 91. 
Sorry to add fuel to the fire Mark...


----------



## archiea (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: More tard thoughts... ([email protected])*

how about a green EOS, aka hybrid!?!?!? The car's no GTI in swiftness nor is it a nissan 350Z in its cornering... so why not just make it a green car... getting like 40mpg in the city actual? Someone once countered that a convertable would negate the benefits of hybrid because of the drag from an open top. Well most of a hybrid's advangage is ffom city stop and go traffic which is well under the 40mph threshold of drag being a factor, according to some books I read on improving mileage. So on the highway you may get the 2.0T going puut puut and getting its ~30mpg, but in the city you'd get your eletric engine going huuuuuuummmmmmm all around town at a 40mpg. how SCHWEET would that be. License some prius guts from toyota or something.... 
perhaps if VW gets into the hybrid train with a car like the jetta or especially phaeton.. where the increase in hybrid cost could be absorbed by the model prhfit or something, then trickled down to the midranged cars.. I don't know.... something along those lines... i guess the Eos would still need premium... but considerably less than on a non hybrid EOS...
Think of how many elitist environmentalist, that have used hybrid vehicles as a "vehicle" for their moral superiority, who rub their do-gooder-ness all over you in full passive aggressiveness like an annoying cat rubbing against you in faux affection just to get their scent on you, >INHALE< how they would fork over some of their not-so-hard-earned dough "earned" in some overpaid IT job that was the result of a bidding war from two competing ceo's with little peepees...>INHALE< think how many of these Powerbook carrying, square glasses wearing (in colors like "nior" instead of black), $7.00 latte sipping, sushi-holic, iPod-de-jour listening, MYspace attention whores, republican bashing turn anti govt anarchist, anti war even if china drop parachuted a million troops into NY, LA and washington DC, >INHALE< fun sucking wet blankets toward V8 petro heads, red meat bashing, Al gore loving, tofu brained, gun hating, illegal immigrant loving, lemming-like group thinking, slammed-to-the-left liberals would suddenly embrace the Eos as part of their rebelious wild side. Crap, whats next, they may actually eat dairy or something if they go that crazy. 
Awh what the heck am I talking about, I probably just described myself..







Anyway, a hybrid EOS would probably be a welcomed sight by all if the price were the same or not that much different. 
more alternative fuel to the fire!!









_Modified by archiea evil twin at 1:28 AM 5-9-2007_


_Modified by archiea at 2:42 AM 5-9-2007_


----------



## BigFoot-74205 (Jan 26, 2006)

Well, there is a green version of the Eos. It's called Eos 2.0 TDI.


----------



## archiea (Nov 29, 2006)

*Re: (BigFoot-74205)*


_Quote, originally posted by *BigFoot-74205* »_Well, there is a green version of the Eos. It's called Eos 2.0 TDI.









Greener then!


----------



## solarflare (Mar 28, 2007)

*Re: (archiea)*

I read an article somewhere that VW was not going to pursue hybrid technology believing instead that diesel technology was a more efficient solution. I don't remember the rational though. 
I doubt the Eos would be a good candidate for hybrid technology anyway as it's too heavy. Amidst the recent gas price hikes since hurricane katrina I am surprised that VWoA is not offering the non-turbo or the TDI in this market. I'm thinking the Eos is still in the trial stages.


----------



## chrisj428 (Feb 26, 2005)

*Re: More tard thoughts... (liquid stereo)*


_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_To all the Vortex Genii, including all the nazis that believe there is no choice in life, why do you think you must use 91 or 92 octane?

There are choices in life. However, with those choices come consequences. Should you choose to not follow the _recommendations put forth by those who have labored long and hard to engineer and fine-tune your vehicle_, that's your perogative. However, it pains me to see someone mistreat such a fine vehicle, thinking they know more than the engineers and then complain later on should it have issues.

_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_Hell, your car can go from zero to 60 mph in 7 seconds, this must mean you're slow and stupid if you don't.

Quois?

_Quote, originally posted by *liquid stereo* »_Again, as Genii #3 stated, I cannot afford the Eos.

I've said nothing. I'm just interpreting your earlier comment. When you say that a $3-5 delta in the cost of filling your tank causes discomfort, I can only infer that it puts a strain on your financial situation and reduces the Eos' affordability to you. 
Regarding the "Genii" reference, it is not I who has said 91 octane is recommended, it's the _manufacturer's engineers_. And, yes, five years' VW experience does make me a bit of an SME.
As for the rest of your statement, I'm not going to give it the time of day.


----------



## jgermuga (Jan 11, 2007)

*Re: More tard thoughts... (archiea)*


_Quote, originally posted by *archiea* »_Think of how many elitist environmentalist, that have used hybrid vehicles as a "vehicle" for their moral superiority, who rub their do-gooder-ness all over you in full passive aggressiveness like an annoying cat rubbing against you in faux affection just to get their scent on you, >INHALE< how they would fork over some of their not-so-hard-earned dough "earned" in some overpaid IT job that was the result of a bidding war from two competing ceo's with little peepees...>INHALE< think how many of these Powerbook carrying, square glasses wearing (in colors like "nior" instead of black), $7.00 latte sipping, sushi-holic, iPod-de-jour listening, MYspace attention whores, republican bashing turn anti govt anarchist, anti war even if china drop parachuted a million troops into NY, LA and washington DC, >INHALE< fun sucking wet blankets toward V8 petro heads, red meat bashing, Al gore loving, tofu brained, gun hating, illegal immigrant loving, lemming-like group thinking, slammed-to-the-left liberals would suddenly embrace the Eos as part of their rebelious wild side. Crap, whats next, they may actually eat dairy or something if they go that crazy.

I think if you put a beat behind that, you might have a hit.


----------



## chrisj428 (Feb 26, 2005)

*Re: More tard thoughts... (jgermuga)*


_Quote, originally posted by *jgermuga* »_I think if you put a beat behind that, you might have a hit.










You left out Birkenstocks. 
I have three pair myself and drive a V8 -- figure that pretty much zeros out the environmental impact.


----------



## EosEnthusiastNB (Aug 9, 2006)

*Re: More tard thoughts... (chrisj428)*

I enjoy the humor of John Travolta talking about carbon emissions in the atmosphere and that we all need to be aware of it, then jumping in his boeing 727 and flying off dropping 900 tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere, while saying he is an environmentalist...lol.
I am sure we humans could fix whatever ails our atmosphere, its all about economics, 50 trillion and I bet we could have the atmosphere back to prehistoric levels of quality but so much else would suffer. 
Whoops..way off topic now.


----------



## PanEuropean (Nov 3, 2001)

*Re: More tard thoughts... (mark_d_drake)*


_Quote, originally posted by *mark_d_drake* »_All of you, can we please just agree to disagree and respect each other and each other's opinions here.


*Yes, for sure, I agree with Mark's request above 100%. And I would like to point out to everyone that that was the SECOND time that Mark has made a request in this thread for everyone to please put courtesy and politeness first.
I have been really busy for the past 10 days - I am in the process of ferrying a Phaeton from Scottsdale to Toronto - and I have not had sufficient spare time to be able to participate in the Eos forum. However, I have got to tell all of you, I am really, really saddened to see the personal attacks, the criticism and disrespect shown to each other, and the foul language (***** and other asterisks) contained in this thread.
This is NOT what our Eos forum is all about! We are a technical resource site, and hopefully a place where we can enjoy technical discussion and some social banter in an atmosphere of mutual respect for each other.
I am locking this thread up now - even though the discussion of fuel issues is interesting from a technical point of view, it is not worth the risk of letting some of the most important values we have in our forum - courtesy, respect for others, and fact-based discourse - go down the drain.
I am seriously disappointed with the forum members who have crossed over the line and spoken to others with disrespect. Just remember, this forum is a bit like a community water well - it only take one person to 'foul' a resource that hundreds of others depend on.
Michael. *


----------

