Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffmeistro
Japan and Europe use RON only for their octane ratings.
USA uses AKI octane ratings, which are consistently lower than RON
According to Wiki:
PetroCanada 94 is rated at 101 octane RON, but only 94 octane AKI
EuroSuper 95 octane is only rated at 90 octane AKI
Shell V Power 94 octane is rated at 98 RON.
Even "Regular" 87 octane in the US is 91-92 octane via the RON method.
|
Which still puts US gas as FAR lower octane. Our premium octane, 92 in most parts of the country, is lower than their regular. Our regular octane doesn't even come close to their regular, and 87 is the standard for regular octane that most vehicles are tuned for in the US. Forget about the fact that there are places in this country where you still get 85 octane for regular.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffmeistro
So are you then saying that the 57mpg BMW that started this thread actually doesn't get better MPG than a similarly equipped Passat TDI? That it's just different ways of measuring MPG that makes it appear more fuel efficient than it is?
|
No, it is still quite fuel efficient.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffmeistro
Oh, I would say the difference is about 66%, which is a lot.
|
Saying 66% doesn't really mean that much does it? I could say that someone's hair is 66% browner than mine, but that isn't a very meaningful number. Here is a meaningful number. 40 parts per BILLION. That is next to nothing. Now like I said, look up the emissions data for those vehicles you mentioned. Then maybe, just maybe you will see that NOx isn't what is keeping them out of this country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffmeistro
Ditto
|
Yeah, I am gonna trust the guy with the lab coat a long time before I trust the guy with the suit and tie who wants my money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffmeistro
Yup! We're stricter on the only part of emissions that actually prevents a very proven method of improving MPG.
|
Wrong. NOx standards are't hurting fuel economy. You could never in a million years find an modicum of data to back that up, outside of tuning something for a leaner burn in aftermarket, which causes a vehicle to operate outside of its specs anyway. I can tune a vehicle for a leaner burn without a significant increase in emissions. Granted, there is a point at a lean burn you cannot overcome the increase in emissions, but by then you are losing a lot of horsepower, and the American carbuying public hates that. Why do you think vehicles continue to get more and more horsepower? Besides, there are better ways to get power AND fuel economy out of vehicles, which is why manufacturers just stopped doing lean burn in most cases, or stopped using such an aggressive lean burn. Now, manufacturers use variable timing and cams to change the way the engine runs, fuel mixtures are only lean burn over specific rpms at specific throttle positions. You know, there is something else you are really not considering here either. Lean burn doesn't just reduce engine power, it also significantly reduces engine life. Here we are in a society that seems to think that if anything on their engine breaks within 150,000 miles, it is cheap junk. Then they complain about how they want their old carbed engines back that they knew how to work on and lasted forever, cause 100,000 miles was forever when you were never able to drive your car anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Biffmeistro
Nope!
|
Good, it is getting tiresome having to explain every little thing to you just because you are so set on proving the government is some evil creature hell bent on keeping you from buying a car you will never buy.
__________________