Website

Tom Littleton wrote:
"daytripper" wrote in message
...


Well, yes, I think it's pretty clear that many lies have died today. If
you
don't agree, with all due respect you couldn't have been following along.


my point is that I viewed the original claims as suspect, at best
exaggerations. Nothing has changed for me today,
except that you come off as a bit less dignified than before.
Tom

I suspect that if someone repeatedly posted lies about you being a
cheapskate you might feel differently.

I've seen LaCourse do this **** time and again over the years, both in
ROFF and in person, and not just to Daytripper.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:50:07 -0700, rw
wrote:


wrote:

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:43:41 -0700, rw
wrote:



wrote:


If the car in question runs without combustion issues on "regular," the
only thing one ____might____ get from using a slightly higher octane
rating is marginally quicker acceleration of the car and a
proportionally higher acceleration of cash outflow...

Fuel mileage will be different.

I can run my Subaru Turbo Outback just fine on regular (premium is
recommended), but the mileage (miles/gal) is less. As close as I can
tell, it's just about as economical to run it with premium, but if a
rider thoughtfully filled it with regular I wouldn't mind one bit.


Good lord - an Outback has a turbo'ed V8?!?! Either I'm wrong about
what I think the Outback is, size-wise, or the pistons must be the size
of US half-dollars. But IAC, you shouldn't see a noticeable MPG
difference, all other factors equal

So who am I going to believe? You or my own eyes? Especially considering
that you're nearly always wrong about everything.


I really don't care what you believe, but if you believe that the
"octane rating" is a measure of "power," you're wrong.

I know perfectly well what an octane rating is. It's true that using
premium gasoline in a car designed for regular is a waste of money. What
you seem not to understand is that turbocharged engines (and in
particular the one in my car) are designed for premium gasoline, and
they do not run as efficiently on regular gasoline.

BTW, it's not a V8. I never said it was.

Also BTW, premium gasoline is also strongly recommended for my
motorcycle, but that's because it has a pretty high compression ratio
(9.7:1).

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:54:58 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:50:07 -0700, rw
wrote:


wrote:

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:43:41 -0700, rw
wrote:



wrote:


If the car in question runs without combustion issues on "regular," the
only thing one ____might____ get from using a slightly higher octane
rating is marginally quicker acceleration of the car and a
proportionally higher acceleration of cash outflow...

Fuel mileage will be different.

I can run my Subaru Turbo Outback just fine on regular (premium is
recommended), but the mileage (miles/gal) is less. As close as I can
tell, it's just about as economical to run it with premium, but if a
rider thoughtfully filled it with regular I wouldn't mind one bit.


Good lord - an Outback has a turbo'ed V8?!?! Either I'm wrong about
what I think the Outback is, size-wise, or the pistons must be the size
of US half-dollars. But IAC, you shouldn't see a noticeable MPG
difference, all other factors equal

So who am I going to believe? You or my own eyes? Especially considering
that you're nearly always wrong about everything.


I really don't care what you believe, but if you believe that the
"octane rating" is a measure of "power," you're wrong.

I know perfectly well what an octane rating is. It's true that using
premium gasoline in a car designed for regular is a waste of money. What
you seem not to understand is that turbocharged engines (and in
particular the one in my car) are designed for premium gasoline, and
they do not run as efficiently on regular gasoline.

Unless the design is poor, turbocharged engines are not "designed for
premium gasoline." In fact, most turbocharged engines aren't designed
for _any_ gasoline, they are designed for diesel. OTOH, a
non-normally-aspirated gasoline engine (turbo'ed or
"blown"/supercharged) does generally require higher octane _under the
same conditions_ than the same engine normally aspirated; however,
"higher octane" does not translate into "premium" required. IAC, most
"production" cars with gasoline turbo'ed engines have lower compression
ratios than the non-turbo'ed versions, and moreover, no engine designer
worth a damn would set out to design an engine for such a car with the
goal of the highest possible octane requirement. If the absolute
minimum octane _required_ under the best possible (octane-wise)
conditions (i.e., a new engine in a cold, low humidity climate at high
altitude) for a particular vehicle was "premium," it would be an all but
useless vehicle to the general US public.

BTW, it's not a V8. I never said it was.

Fair enough.

Also BTW, premium gasoline is also strongly recommended for my
motorcycle, but that's because it has a pretty high compression ratio
(9.7:1).

FWIW, the compression ratio isn't the only reason, but a bike engine
ain't a car engine. Here's a hint - what's redline on your bike vs.
your car? Here's another - look at the "power band" on both.

TC,
R

Geeze guys, about these wonderful claves I've been hearing about...
do you exchange xmas cards too?
-tom

wrote:

Unless the design is poor, turbocharged engines are not "designed for
premium gasoline."

This one is. That's why Subaru recommends premium, which isn't exactly a
big selling point.


In fact, most turbocharged engines aren't designed
for _any_ gasoline, they are designed for diesel. OTOH, a
non-normally-aspirated gasoline engine (turbo'ed or
"blown"/supercharged) does generally require higher octane _under the
same conditions_ than the same engine normally aspirated;

Well there you go. You've conceded my point. Now you can shut your piehole.


however,
"higher octane" does not translate into "premium" required.

Yes it does. Regular gasoline is typically rated 87 octane and premium
is rated 91 or 92.

IAC, most
"production" cars with gasoline turbo'ed engines have lower compression
ratios than the non-turbo'ed versions,

This engine has exactly the same compression ratio as the non-turbo
version -- 10:1.


and moreover, no engine designer
worth a damn would set out to design an engine for such a car with the
goal of the highest possible octane requirement.

I wonder why Subaru doesn't hire you? Maybe it's because you're full of
****.


If the absolute
minimum octane _required_ under the best possible (octane-wise)
conditions (i.e., a new engine in a cold, low humidity climate at high
altitude) for a particular vehicle was "premium," it would be an all but
useless vehicle to the general US public.

As I said, the engine runs fine on regular gas, but with lower mileage.


BTW, it's not a V8. I never said it was.


Fair enough.

Also BTW, premium gasoline is also strongly recommended for my
motorcycle, but that's because it has a pretty high compression ratio
(9.7:1).


FWIW, the compression ratio isn't the only reason, but a bike engine
ain't a car engine. Here's a hint - what's redline on your bike vs.
your car? Here's another - look at the "power band" on both.

The redline on the motorcycle is lower than the redline on the car.

Here's a hint for you: I've MEASURED the fuel mileage on the car with
both regular and premium. It's significantly better with premium.


--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Aug 31, 11:32 am, "Tom Nakashima" wrote:
Geeze guys, about these wonderful claves I've been hearing about...
do you exchange xmas cards too?
-tom

Xmas card exchanges only for those who are thoughtful enough to bring
extra tampons.

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:40:46 -0700, rw
wrote:

I'm done. You obviously aren't interested doing anything but arguing,
and I'm not interested in that.

R

"Tom Nakashima" wrote in message
...
Geeze guys, about these wonderful claves I've been hearing about...
do you exchange xmas cards too?
-tom


ya know, my experience with the Penn's clave has been
nearly absolutely wonderful. Good people, unpredictable
angling, few disagreements that I have been made aware
of. The most consequential run-in came between a couple of clavers and an
inebriated black bear. It is sort of tragic
when a couple of perfectly decent individuals such as
Tripper and the Pirate let misunderstandings fester for years and then boil
over in juvenile exchanges. Heck, I don't know Dave T beyond his writings
here, but I have spent time with LaCourse. He is a good and generous soul,
and to temper that, can lose his temper at times in ways that puzzle me. So
can most of us. This sort of silly
exchange diminishes both of them, IMO, and I suspect I am not alone in that
thought.
Tom

wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:40:46 -0700, rw
wrote:

I'm done. You obviously aren't interested doing anything but arguing,
and I'm not interested in that.

You're quitting because the facts are on my side. Strange. That's never
stopped you before.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Tom Nakashima wrote:
Geeze guys, about these wonderful claves I've been hearing about...
do you exchange xmas cards too?
-tom



it's odd...i reckon i've grown too accustomed or numbed to the anger and
icy emotion spewed by couples who once purported to love one another to
be overly troubled by the writings of folks here. despite the acrimony
that oozes about, at the various gatherings i've attended, i've been the
beneficiary of kindness, humor, wisdom, and generosity. also, i've
noticed something in each person i've met at the roff claves which i
have admired, enjoyed, and appreciated. i'm not blind to human foibles
and failings...probably because of the bottomless abyss holding my
own...but, whatever others might think about the current tone of this
place, i'm forever grateful for having stumbled into it and for the
folks who have shared a bit of themselves with (or who have patiently
and quietly tolerated) me.

....and...uh, if cards are being sent, well...no one told me.

i suspect Tom, as in most other pursuits, if you attended one of the
claves, you'd find some folks with whom you'd have common ground and
some with whom you wouldn't. so far, i've not regreted a single
adventure with and amongst folks from this newsgroup.

jeff