Topic: Noto's first car purchase

[Seafoam]

Not a problem with a leased vehicle that's always under full manufacturer's warranty 😉

carbon clean up isn't covered under warranty...that's a maintenance item...and the dealer charges about $450 to do it...it's another reason i use quality fuels...it takes MUCH longer for it to be needed.

I'm thinking A) carbon shouldn't be an issue in the first 80K  B) nobdody is opening the engine on a lease return to check for carbon  C) NOTO won't give a when he hand back the keys.

it shouldn't be, but my colleague's wife's car had it in less than 2 years (which i attribute mostly to cheap gas)...but, it's one reason why i'll try to avoid a DI engine next time around (unless it's a D4S system like Toyota uses).

Well that's just  it, if the manufacturer is recommending that 87 will work fine in the vehicle and actually markets it this way it should work properly. As in not carbon up. You shouldn't have  to put premium in if it is not required. I have been saying this from the start DI is not all it is cracked up to be. That is why I decided on a non- DI car in 2012. You shouldn't have to get the valve train decarboned every 100 k. It defeats the purpose of it's advantage,more power with better fuel economy. D4S of course should solve this problem.

With regard to the ethanol. With the present level in regular there is already an increase in fuel consumption. That is why premium appears to give better mileage without ethanol  . The higher count will definately make it worse.

[blur911]

speaking of ethanol...

https://www.driving.ca/column/troubleshooter/troubleshooter-get-ready-because-higher-ethanol-gas-is-coming

That is just weird. They are saying it  is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions but at the same time you'd get 4-5% worse mileage on E15 compared to pure gasoline. Looks like the agricultural lobby has had some say in this. GMO corn is everywhere in ON.

yea...it's a scam...you'll burn more of it, offsetting any "gasoline" you aren't burning, plus all the production involved in making it in the first place...i wouldn't be surprised if it's actually WORSE for GHG emissions.

It's done because farmers vote conservative.  Gotta keep 'em happy

[PJungnitsch]

From what I understand the Amazon is being cleared by cattle ranchers because they were displaced off their pastures by crop farmers growing sugarcane and corn for ethanol, some of which ends up in the US

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190917100453.htm

[ArticSteve]

Not a problem with a leased vehicle that's always under full manufacturer's warranty 😉

carbon clean up isn't covered under warranty...that's a maintenance item...and the dealer charges about $450 to do it...it's another reason i use quality fuels...it takes MUCH longer for it to be needed.

It seems that all 91 octane gas in southern Ontario has 10% ethanol.  Oddly the Crappy Tire gas bar in Owen Sound has a sticker on the 91 saying no ethanol.  The Petro Canada station across the street has "no ethanol" labelled on only the 94 pump.  Regardless, moving to 15% ethanol would be just another bad move in an endless world of bad moves. 

As for DI; great when they are newish and you're not the one footing any repair costs.  2000 plus psi pump running off the cam/injectors stuck and buried deep inside the motor vs an electric pump in the tank pushing 57 psi to injectors sitting on top of the motor.  Staggering difference in parts cost between the 2 systems. 

I'm thinking A) carbon shouldn't be an issue in the first 80K  B) nobdody is opening the engine on a lease return to check for carbon  C) NOTO won't give a when he hand back the keys.

it shouldn't be, but my colleague's wife's car had it in less than 2 years (which i attribute mostly to cheap gas)...but, it's one reason why i'll try to avoid a DI engine next time around (unless it's a D4S system like Toyota uses).

Well that's just  it, if the manufacturer is recommending that 87 will work fine in the vehicle and actually markets it this way it should work properly. As in not carbon up. You shouldn't have  to put premium in if it is not required. I have been saying this from the start DI is not all it is cranked up to be. That is why I decided on a non- DI car in 2012. You shouldn't have to get the valve train decarboned every 100 k. It defeats the purpose of it's advantage,more power with better fuel economy. D4S of course should solve this problem.

With regard to the ethanol. With the present level in regular there is already an increase in fuel consumption. That is why premium appears to give better mileage without ethanol  . The higher count will definately make it worse.

[JayStack]

The amount of carbon emissions varies between fuels and ethanol emits less carbon.  Greenhouse gas emissions aren't based on your mileage, but also on the type of fuel you are burning.

https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/ethanol-reduces-a-variety-of-harmful-emissions-new-study-finds#:~:text=Ethanol%20Reduces%20a%20Variety%20of%20Harmful%20Emissions%2C%20New%20Study%20Finds,-October%2028%2C%202016&text=Traditional%20biofuels%20like%20ethanol%20can,by%20more%20than%20100%20percent.

[dirtyjeffer]

The amount of carbon emissions varies between fuels and ethanol emits less carbon.  Greenhouse gas emissions aren't based on your mileage, but also on the type of fuel you are burning.

i'm not talking about just "burning" it though...i mean from start to finish...comparing both options (pure gas vs E15)...it seems you are duplicating a lot of processes to get the ethanol to burn it...so while the combustion of the finished product may create less CO2, i'm sure you are negating any of that "savings" by all the processes involved in getting the ethanol in the first place.

[blur911]

The amount of carbon emissions varies between fuels and ethanol emits less carbon.  Greenhouse gas emissions aren't based on your mileage, but also on the type of fuel you are burning.

i'm not talking about just "burning" it though...i mean from start to finish...comparing both options (pure gas vs E15)...it seems you are duplicating a lot of processes to get the ethanol to burn it...so while the combustion of the finished product may create less CO2, i'm sure you are negating any of that "savings" by all the processes involved in getting the ethanol in the first place.

Exactly, tractors burn fuel, trucks burn fuel, drying out the corn burns a crazy amount of fuel.  What's it add up to?   Are we simply subsidizing farming?

[dirtyjeffer]

The amount of carbon emissions varies between fuels and ethanol emits less carbon.  Greenhouse gas emissions aren't based on your mileage, but also on the type of fuel you are burning.

i'm not talking about just "burning" it though...i mean from start to finish...comparing both options (pure gas vs E15)...it seems you are duplicating a lot of processes to get the ethanol to burn it...so while the combustion of the finished product may create less CO2, i'm sure you are negating any of that "savings" by all the processes involved in getting the ethanol in the first place.

Exactly, tractors burn fuel, trucks burn fuel, drying out the corn burns a crazy amount of fuel.  What's it add up to?   Are we simply subsidizing farming?

yes...i think they sell it on the "burning of the final product" ignoring the entire process...a good project for some science study would be to compare the two, from start to finish...i would think the ethanol fuels are much worse overall.

[Seafoam]

The amount of carbon emissions varies between fuels and ethanol emits less carbon.  Greenhouse gas emissions aren't based on your mileage, but also on the type of fuel you are burning.

i'm not talking about just "burning" it though...i mean from start to finish...comparing both options (pure gas vs E15)...it seems you are duplicating a lot of processes to get the ethanol to burn it...so while the combustion of the finished product may create less CO2, i'm sure you are negating any of that "savings" by all the processes involved in getting the ethanol in the first place.

Exactly, tractors burn fuel, trucks burn fuel, drying out the corn burns a crazy amount of fuel.  What's it add up to?   Are we simply subsidizing farming?

It also has the effect of farmers producing less of a food crop with the incentive to go where the money is producing a crop for biofuel.

[dirtyjeffer]

The amount of carbon emissions varies between fuels and ethanol emits less carbon.  Greenhouse gas emissions aren't based on your mileage, but also on the type of fuel you are burning.

i'm not talking about just "burning" it though...i mean from start to finish...comparing both options (pure gas vs E15)...it seems you are duplicating a lot of processes to get the ethanol to burn it...so while the combustion of the finished product may create less CO2, i'm sure you are negating any of that "savings" by all the processes involved in getting the ethanol in the first place.

Exactly, tractors burn fuel, trucks burn fuel, drying out the corn burns a crazy amount of fuel.  What's it add up to?   Are we simply subsidizing farming?

It also has the effect of farmers producing less of a food crop with the incentive to go where the money is producing a crop for biofuel.

yea, which reduces the amount of corn available for feed, which increases the cost of meats (as they eat it)...plus, if you just keep planting corn (for ethanol), you'll ruin the soil...it's just an all around bad idea.

[PJungnitsch]

...plus, if you just keep planting corn (for ethanol), you'll ruin the soil...

A lot of the other points are correct, but not this one

[dirtyjeffer]

...plus, if you just keep planting corn (for ethanol), you'll ruin the soil...

A lot of the other points are correct, but not this one

read up on crop rotation and why it is important.

you can certainly fertilize the hell out of the soil, but that's just adding to the carbon footprint even more.

[PJungnitsch]

Anyone growing corn is putting on lots of fertilizer, that's part of the greenhouse gas issue

Lack of rotation can be a disease problem, but the soil will be fine

[ArticSteve]

The ethanol lobby tried this same thing during the Clinton Administration.  Clinton said it was BS and it didn't go past the 10% mandate for the reasons stated above.  There was a meek compromise for E85 which GM jumped on big time.  Then later they filed for bankruptcy. 

[dirtyjeffer]

Anyone growing corn is putting on lots of fertilizer, that's part of the greenhouse gas issue

Lack of rotation can be a disease problem, but the soil will be fine

yes, but planting the same crop over and over depletes the soil of certain nutrients...for example, corn depletes nitrogen from the soil, so you might plant beans afterwards to return nitrogen to the soil.

[Noto]

Back to what ACTUALLY matters in this thread

I park outside as we only have a single car garage and the wife gets the garage because... Boobs?  (That's a scientific fact, unlike these purported discussions about corn )

With the 2010 Mazda, I didn't have heated mirrors.  The new one does, along with a wiper de-icer.  It also hasta up quicker (likely related to the extra 0.5L of displacement), but it was a breeze clearing the frozen rain off the windows this morning.  Fuel economy in cold city driving still hovers between 11-12L/100km incl idle time for clearing off the ice.  Not awful.

Still absolutely loving the car!

[JohnnyMac]

Back to what ACTUALLY matters in this thread

I park outside as we only have a single car garage and the wife gets the garage because... Boobs?  (That's a scientific fact, unlike these purported discussions about corn )

With the 2010 Mazda, I didn't have heated mirrors.  The new one does, along with a wiper de-icer.  It also hasta up quicker (likely related to the extra 0.5L of displacement), but it was a breeze clearing the frozen rain off the windows this morning.  Fuel economy in cold city driving still hovers between 11-12L/100km incl idle time for clearing off the ice.  Not awful.

Still absolutely loving the car!

So now that you replaced your Mazda 3 with a new one, what are the plans for the Forester?  It's getting a bit older and if your wife is anything like mine she'll want something new after driving you sweet ride.  I think a turbo Mazda CX-5 would be a great replacement.

[quadzilla]

I park outside as we only have a single car garage and the wife gets the garage because... Boobs?  (That's a scientific fact, unlike these purported discussions about corn )

   So true.

Fuel economy in cold city driving still hovers between 11-12L/100km incl idle time for clearing off the ice.  Not awful.

Curious how long your commute is. Also appreciate you give number from start where I swear some people reset once the car is warm and going downhill.

[aquadorhj]

Back to what ACTUALLY matters in this thread

I park outside as we only have a single car garage and the wife gets the garage because... Boobs?  (That's a scientific fact, unlike these purported discussions about corn )

With the 2010 Mazda, I didn't have heated mirrors.  The new one does, along with a wiper de-icer.  It also hasta up quicker (likely related to the extra 0.5L of displacement), but it was a breeze clearing the frozen rain off the windows this morning.  Fuel economy in cold city driving still hovers between 11-12L/100km incl idle time for clearing off the ice.  Not awful.

Still absolutely loving the car!

excellent!  mazda 3 looks great, and hopefully the new turbo 4 pot is reliable for you for your ownership duration!

separate note, calgary rarely gets freezing rain...  got one last year, it was a b*tch!!!!  i get why people want heated everything if you get that...

[Noto]

Fuel economy in cold city driving still hovers between 11-12L/100km incl idle time for clearing off the ice.  Not awful.

Curious how long your commute is. Also appreciate you give number from start where I swear some people reset once the car is warm and going downhill.

My commute is nil since I work 100% from home, but I'm on vacation for the remainder of the year (had unused vacation days due to COVID - can't go anywhere).  Due to construction at the wife's work, there are reduced parking spaces available so by the time she gets there at 7:45am, there are no spots available.

The trip is 5.2km one way.  The trip computer when I got there this morning was 16.1L/100km, which would have included some 4-5 mins of idling while clearing the windows.  By the time I got back home, it was 12.1L/100km.  Lifetime (410km) is 11.1L/100km still.

I have no plans on ever resetting the lifetime fuel economy avg since the car otherwise keeps a record of last trips in the main HMI screen.

I'm not driving aggressively, but definitely lean into the throttle once the car is warm cuz it's fun.

The rain from last night did freeze and the residential roads were slick, which I didn't notice but the n00b behind me slid straight into the intersection after me (thankfully missing me - he was also looking to turn right but the car just understeered straight into the intersection).  It did have winter tires, brand and condition unknown since there was no accident or reason for me to stop, but clearly a newer model Camry on steelies.  I'm liking the Hakkapeliitas more and more each day, but honestly, I think the Blizzaks are still the best (none were available when I purchased though).