Consumer Reports on Direct Injection

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks. Nothing new there, unfortunately.

The one thing that stood out for me was mention of some automakers recommending customers use non-ethanol gasoline. In most parts of the country, that is really not an option.
 
"Some carmakers, including BMW and Kia, have issued technical service bulletins (TSBs) to their dealers recommending that drivers use only name-brand detergent gasoline—without ethanol additives..."

Oh, good luck with that.
 
DI engines seem to have more chatter as well. Something to do with the injectors.
 
I know of one (out of the way, non-affiliated) station with non-ethanol premium in my area. But how is that going to help valve deposits on a GDI engine?
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
So basically one can learn more about DI from a generic BITOG discussion than this "professionally" written article.


Not only that but probably more factual here.

"Other automakers have been using direct injection to add horsepower—the Cadillac CTS, for example, gained 34 hp—without any sacrifice in fuel economy."

That is false; look up a 2009 CTS which had a 3.6 with and without DI that year. The 3.6 with DI gets a lower gas mileage rating than the non-DI motor. My 2009 has the non-DI motor. A little better MPG and more low end torque for the non-DI but higher peak HP for the DI motor.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Thanks. Nothing new there, unfortunately.

The one thing that stood out for me was mention of some automakers recommending customers use non-ethanol gasoline. In most parts of the country, that is really not an option.


Huh you have got fancy 0wXX oils.....but you dont have 98-100 (RON) octane fuel available everywhere
smile.gif


C c c
smile.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Kamele0N
but you dont have 98-100 (RON) octane fuel available everywhere
smile.gif


C c c
smile.gif


Every statement you make on BITOG is incorrect. That takes talent, or you're just a troll.

98 RON is equivalent to 93 (RON+MON)/2, which is what we have here. That has nothing to do with ethanol content though.
 
Originally Posted By: morepwr
I wish I could buy gas without ethanol!


I am surprised you can still buy gasoline in Calif!

I was told the federal gov requires ethanol on regular gas but its optional in mid and high test.

Lets hope the gov comes to their senses about ethanol being the road to energy independence. The world would be better served by sending the corn overseas to feed the hungry people with no food.
 
Keep in mind that, in many states, the stations don't need to disclose the use of ethanol.

If the blend is mandated, they can refer the resulting product as gasoline. Advertising embellishment (puffery) such as "100%", "pure", "all" is unquestionably fine.

It's a bit of a grey area to claim ethanol free, which is actively misrepresenting the product (what non-lawyers would call "a blatant lie"), but they could probably get away with it.
 
Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete


98 RON is equivalent to 93 (RON+MON)/2, which is what we have here. That has nothing to do with ethanol content though.


That is true....BUT...

I was assumed that in the USA with premium grade fuel you also get better additives in it....but as I can see that is not necessarily true....
 
Farmers, the farm lobby, congressman, and lobbyists love ethanol.
The rest of us aren't impressed.
 
Originally Posted By: Donald
Originally Posted By: morepwr
I wish I could buy gas without ethanol!


I am surprised you can still buy gasoline in Calif!
I was told the federal gov requires ethanol on regular gas but its optional in mid and high test.

Lets hope the gov comes to their senses about ethanol being the road to energy independence. The world would be better served by sending the corn overseas to feed the hungry people with no food.
agreed
 
Luckily not every state mandates that all gasoline contains alcohol. Here in Nebraska, one of the largest corn producing states, we have non alcohol gas at many stations. Caseys being one of the ones that have it, and they seem to be everywhere around here. Of course it is usually 25cents /gal higher, so I only use it in my OPE, and classic cars.
 
Just because ethanol is not a viable solution to saving the planet and is not cost or energy efficient to produce does not mean that our government will continue to mandate its use.

And as far as DI is concerned the public has not finished the field testing. If you want to be an early adopter then drive a vehicle with DI and a CVT. Then let us know how it work out.

If technology is to advance at a reasonable rate it would help to ditch ethanol and use only gasoline with additives that help the process. Or try CNG, too. We have enough natural gas to float the whole country and maybe it's time to give it a serious try.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top