$1.12 Per Litre Gas

Now a days $1+ gas is as normal as the old days, $.70 gas days.
Don’t rip on rupert for the gas!
It’s as normal as old gas prices, before they rose.

Post your comment of the gas prices

I don’t get this post? What is it serving?

bcgasprices.com/index.aspx?s … e_limit=60

Cool! I never seen the site before! Thanks.

I think that’s about the same as it is here in Grande Prairie. Maybe a little less here for regular.

I ran my last VQ35 on mostly 89. At 87 the timing was retarding about 8 degrees and I lost about 2-3mpg, so it was cheaper and cleaner to run 89 or 91. Don, at work ran 87 in his VG33 Pathfinder and it eventually destroyed the engine.

Is it just Japanese vehicles demanding high-octane fuel or do newer domestics and european cars need it also? I don’t mind the extra cost, since it balances out with economy. Plus, I buy my fuel at safeway which immediately saves me $0.07/L which is generally the exact difference between 87 and 91.

Increased fuel prices are hard on the wallet, but it’s forcing some people to reconsider their 3500HD or Escalade while promoting the option of a more efficient vehicle or alternative. I say, raise the price even higher! Whats going on with ethanol? Doesn’t ethanol run about a 120octane rating and require a 15:1 compression ratio?

I don’t know tons about ethanol, but the new Fords and Chevs can run E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline). Your fuel economy drops with ethanol because it produces less heat pound for pound than gasoline. They do this with normal compression ratios.

Ethanol has a high octane rating, but just like premium fuel, you can still use it in a low compression engine. The new Flex-Fuel (E85) compatible motors run the lower compression ratio so they can still run on 87 octane 100% gasoline. I imagine if you pledged to solely use E85, you could bump up your compression ratio to take advantage of the greater thermal efficiency, but you’d never be able to fuel up with 87 octane again.

My exGF had a Saab turbo. It got just incredible gas mielage, but required highest grade gas (you could only fill it at Chevron) which negated any gain.
I’ve tossed in with the ZEV crowd, if one of the major makers would make a battery powered car, with existing technology right now, people would buy it. Half the people I know in the Lower Mainland would flog their 2nd commuter car for a ZEV tomorrow.

GM and Ford both made battery powered vehicles. GM crushed them all, while Ford let owners buy 'em when their leases were up. They were electric Ford Ranger pick-up trucks. They had the area below the bed filled with batteries

Existing technology doesn’t have a good way of storing electrical energy. Lead acid batteries are big, heavy, expensive, bad for the environment, don’t last long, suck in the cold, and worst of all don’t store much energy. I think consumers would be very disappointed with lead-acid electric vehicles.

You can find home-grown electric vehicle conversions on the net though. Too bad fuel cells weren’t cheaper, because I’d totally rock an electric vehicle and make my own hydrogen gas.

Ethanol is bad. In places like Brazil, they refine ethanol from sugarcane, and it’s fairly efficient (though I don’t want to comment on the treatment of the people that work in that industry), but in North America, we make it from corn, and the process is much less efficient. The American corn industry is a powerful lobbying organization, which is why we see lots of engines from the Big 3 that can run on E85.

And remember, that E85 is more expensive than gasoline, and yields less energy (you’ll get worse mileage). The only advantage is that your tailpipe emissions are lowered, but it is debatable if they’re lowered enough to account for the increased emissions from the ethanol production that got the fuel to you.

The Ethanol Scam: One of America’s Biggest Political Boondoggles

Rangerwreck is right about electric cars though – the roadblock is the battery technology. If they can make the batteries better, we’ll see way more electric cars. Add a sprinkling of nuclear power plants, and we’re sailing.

Ethanol is the suck. It’s a stopgap at best, and a poor one at that for all the reasons Eso stated.

Unless they serve 100% ethanol at the pumps. Drinks on me!

Totally need the nuclear. We don’t have the infrastructure in place to switch to electric vehicles. That’s a lot of power we’re talking about to charge everyone’s car, and it’s going to take some huge power line upgrades and higher capacity power generation.

And what shall we use to generate power?

Solar: too much $$$ per kW, too much land space needed
Wind: just like solar, but better
Hydro: the greenies don’t like dams, the $$$ per kW is reasonable, but not the best
Coal: HAH
Natural gas: is gonna get pricey soon
NUCLEAR: no emissions (those towers are for steam cooling–that’s not radioactive bird killing juice pouring out), lotsa bang for the buck, safe (look at France’s record!), with a teeny bit of waste

Don’t want nuclear? Then turn off your lights! It’s coming…

If you’re interested in this stuff a really good movie to watch is

"Who Killed the Electric Car"

Don’t write it off as “eco-bullshit”. I found it quite interesting.

Even worse, it drives up the price of corn on the cob, which can ruin your bbq  planning something fierce…

NUCLEAR: no emissions (those towers are for steam cooling–that’s not radioactive bird killing juice pouring out), lotsa bang for the buck, safe (look at France’s record!), with a teeny bit of waste[/quote]

Where do you get the cold water to cool the hot rods from?  From Cold Rivers.
Where does the warm water from cooling the rods go?  To Warm (previously Cold) Rivers.

Changing the temperature of a River just the slightest bit has a major impact on its ecosystem…  But at least it’s not our habitat.

Isn’t it amazing how hydorgen fuel cells powered the Apollo missions 35 years ago, but they are always “10-15 years away” when it comes to cars. I know a couple people who are over half way to retirement eligibilty with Ballard…
Lead-acid are recycleable. They’re also so poor they’re in 100% of existing autos, mine vehicles, forklifts, etc. In other words, they may not be the best, but they’re here now, they’re available and inexpensive, and their limitations are known.
The interesting thing in Who Killed the Electric Car is about the battery the ZEV used. Bought out and sequestered away. A progressive President would not have overruled California’s Zero Emission Laws, he would have over-ruled patents on that battery “in the interest of National Security”.

Right, so the best solution is to consume less. Let’s not drive cars, let’s not have computers or TVs. It would be great for the environment, but I just don’t really see it happening.

No computers?..aaaaarrrrrrgggggghhhhh :smiley:

Lead acid batteries work well in those applications because all they need to do is kick over a starter motor every once in a while. Even with expensive deep cycle batteries the continuous daily charge and discharge, plus the large current draw under acceleration plays a toll on them. The cold winters make them downright suck.

You can read teh specs of some EVs home built or otherwise: austinev.org/evalbum/

Most seem to have a max range of 50 to 100km, which wouldn’t even work as a commuter car for some people in Vancouver.

The nice thing about electric vehicles though, is the minimal maintenance they need.

Cold weather around here is the killer…