It doesn't work for me. My point was that it's never about maximizing one factor with total disregard to all the others.
ALASKA and Yukon sell E0 (and non-re formulated gas in the summertime, I think). Compared to Lower 48 E10 (reformulated for much of the drive East of the Mississippi), I observed about a 5mpg or 10% increase in gas mileage on our trip last summer. Also wish we had data from controlled tests on this, particularly separating the RFG versus non-RFG factor from the E10 versus E0 factor. Couldn't we use a calorimeter to do this, folks?
from what I've read about drag cars running nitro, they don't even use head gaskets (or didn't used to) cause the nitro would eat through during the run. I did see a picture from one race where the crank and rods had blown out the bottom and bounced about 100 yards high-- you could see the rotating assembly way up in the corner of the photo of the car, which was engulfed in flames. kinda wild going over 300 mph within 1320'. I imagine it would blow that little 1.5L to bits.
Thanks Robert that is exactly what I would expect 10% difference between our stuff E10 RFG (low energy) and the highest energy E0 non-RFG. I think EPA often just uses density to make the adjustment, but a calorimeter would do nicely. In the years past EPA has quoted about 7% density difference in the nations fuel system, but I don't know if that still valid. But add 7+3% for ethanol and you get 10% possible variation. That's my number and I'm sticking to it.
