Neighbor Drives 50 Miles to fill up with Fuel with no Ethanol.

[lockhaven]

not wanting to be attacked but I think maybe the ethanol is meant more for saving the amount of crude rather then saving mileage. But has been mentioned with the loss of MPG's there is no savings. It is a Federal program thus it does not have to make a sense, nothing the feds do is efficient or intelligent.

 

[RickB]

not wanting to be attacked but I think maybe the ethanol is meant more for saving the amount of crude rather then saving mileage. But has been mentioned with the loss of MPG's there is no savings. It is a Federal program thus it does not have to make a sense, nothing the feds do is efficient or intelligent.

Not much there to attack.

 

[Jstpssng]

not wanting to be attacked but I think maybe the ethanol is meant more for saving the amount of crude rather then saving mileage. But has been mentioned with the loss of MPG's there is no savings. It is a Federal program thus it does not have to make a sense, nothing the feds do is efficient or intelligent.

That's what I was trying to say. ( I knew what I meant. )

If they were really serious about increasing mileage there would be more emphasis on cleaner running diesels. IMHO the ball was droppes when new standards for fuel were implemented. There should have been more stringent standards for passenger cars than commercial trucks (>26000 lbs)
Imagine a real hybrid... diesel/electric similar to a locomotive. The problem is that simple isn't profitable.

 

[dave1949]

That's what I was trying to say. ( I knew what I meant. )

If they were really serious about increasing mileage there would be more emphasis on cleaner running diesels. IMHO the ball was droppes when new standards for fuel were implemented. There should have been more stringent standards for passenger cars than commercial trucks (>26000 lbs)
Imagine a real hybrid... diesel/electric similar to a locomotive. The problem is that simple isn't profitable.

Good observation. Government policy is owned by lobbyists who represent narrow interests, and elected representatives that represent narrow home district interests--neither of which is a good way to arrive at solutions that make overall sense in a complex world. What politician can go to the corn belt and say ethanol sucks and be reelected? We don't reward vision and knowledge, we punish it.

 

[murphy1244]

Good observation. Government policy is owned by lobbyists who represent narrow interests, and elected representatives that represent narrow home district interests--neither of which is a good way to arrive at solutions that make overall sense in a complex world. What politician can go to the corn belt and say ethanol sucks and be reelected? We don't reward vision and knowledge, we punish it.

Remember "West Wing" and the ethanol pledge?

 

[dave1949]

Remember "West Wing" and the ethanol pledge?

No, I used to watch that off and on, but that doesn't ring a bell.

 

[ljohnson778]

Must be a local thing. Around here they call it a 5.3. Pointing out the 18 year gap between 327 production and Z-71 production is hardly "splitting hairs".
More to the point of debunking your vague claim that they overlap and might have been available together.
I could understand (but not necessarily agree with) going out of one's way to put ethanol-free gas in a carbuerated 327, but doing so for the "benefit" of a modern 5.3 makes no sense to me. But then I'm not the one doing it.

Anyone calling a 5.3 a 327 is clearly showing their ignorance! They are many years and worlds apart.
From the metal they are made from to the hp output, from the fuel management system to the ignition system.
Nice try though.

Look gentlemen, google 5.3 and 327 and you'll find this debate raging all over the net... Must be my ignorance showing, though. Actually, GM calls the 5.3 a 323 ci motor.

What you apparently glossed over was my attempt to explain the correlation between a Z-71 and a 327 as mentioned by the OP. Again, I said it was 'commonly referred' to as a 327, never said it actually was.

This is why I find myself on TBN less and less these days... A few people are always ready to attack others over simple, and relatively unimportant, things. Re-read the entire thread and you might just find the context for certain posts, before you blindly attack them.

 

[RickB]

Look gentlemen, google 5.3 and 327 and you'll find this debate raging all over the net... Must be my ignorance showing, though. Actually, GM calls the 5.3 a 323 ci motor.

What you apparently glossed over was my attempt to explain the correlation between a Z-71 and a 327 as mentioned by the OP. Again, I said it was 'commonly referred' to as a 327, never said it actually was.

This is why I find myself on TBN less and less these days... A few people are always ready to attack others over simple, and relatively unimportant, things. Re-read the entire thread and you might just find the context for certain posts, before you blindly attack them.

Blind attack? Get real. I've read this thread front to back several times. Try inserting some fact, maybe the "attacks" on your "context" will lessen.

 

[ljohnson778]

Blind attack? Get real. I've read this thread front to back several times. Try inserting some fact, maybe the "attacks" on your "context" will lessen.

Nothing of value can come from this argument... I say argument, because civil discussion left the building a while ago. You take issue with anyone who doesn't subscribe to your EXACT point of view. And since you're always right, heck, they must be dead wrong. Let me guess, everyone driving slower than you is an a-hole, and everyone driving faster is a lunatic...

 

[tcartwri]

Anyone calling a 5.3 a 327 is clearly showing their ignorance! They are many years and worlds apart.
From the metal they are made from to the hp output, from the fuel management system to the ignition system.
Nice try though.

Straight from the GMPP catalog.

LS327 Crate motor