that's the blend i was saying does not belong in the jeep it might run
okay for a little while but then the fuel rail will start to rust
internally and athe injectors will act up and thats just the beginning
just so u know the minivans with the 3.3 and 3.8 do run on the e85 fuel

Chris Lamb wrote:

> I don't know about that politics stuff those guys were talking about.
> I'm just trying to feed six kids and make ends meet. The stuff I am
> talking about putting into it says E-85 on the pump. It is $1.94 a
> gallon. Reg 87 at BP costs $2.49.
>
> On 11 Feb 2006 10:13:03 -0800, "larry"
> <larry.greenwood@minotstateu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Chris, I use it because of the higher octane rating in a GC 2001 V8.
> >But it is not cheaper up here in ND. It costs the same as regular.
> >According the GC owner's manual, its ok to use a 10% blend. I am not
> >sure if the mileage is any better over regular.
> >
> >Larry Greenwood
> >
> >God Bless America's Trees, Larry O|||||||O
> >

 

that's the blend i was saying does not belong in the jeep it might run
okay for a little while but then the fuel rail will start to rust
internally and athe injectors will act up and thats just the beginning
just so u know the minivans with the 3.3 and 3.8 do run on the e85 fuel

Chris Lamb wrote:

> I don't know about that politics stuff those guys were talking about.
> I'm just trying to feed six kids and make ends meet. The stuff I am
> talking about putting into it says E-85 on the pump. It is $1.94 a
> gallon. Reg 87 at BP costs $2.49.
>
> On 11 Feb 2006 10:13:03 -0800, "larry"
> <larry.greenwood@minotstateu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Chris, I use it because of the higher octane rating in a GC 2001 V8.
> >But it is not cheaper up here in ND. It costs the same as regular.
> >According the GC owner's manual, its ok to use a 10% blend. I am not
> >sure if the mileage is any better over regular.
> >
> >Larry Greenwood
> >
> >God Bless America's Trees, Larry O|||||||O
> >

 

that's the blend i was saying does not belong in the jeep it might run
okay for a little while but then the fuel rail will start to rust
internally and athe injectors will act up and thats just the beginning
just so u know the minivans with the 3.3 and 3.8 do run on the e85 fuel

Chris Lamb wrote:

> I don't know about that politics stuff those guys were talking about.
> I'm just trying to feed six kids and make ends meet. The stuff I am
> talking about putting into it says E-85 on the pump. It is $1.94 a
> gallon. Reg 87 at BP costs $2.49.
>
> On 11 Feb 2006 10:13:03 -0800, "larry"
> <larry.greenwood@minotstateu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Chris, I use it because of the higher octane rating in a GC 2001 V8.
> >But it is not cheaper up here in ND. It costs the same as regular.
> >According the GC owner's manual, its ok to use a 10% blend. I am not
> >sure if the mileage is any better over regular.
> >
> >Larry Greenwood
> >
> >God Bless America's Trees, Larry O|||||||O
> >

 

That and the endless General Inspections and tests to harass the
troops.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> We're drifting rapidly off-topic, but...
>
> If the Navy's motivation was from stock owners demanding increased
> profits then submersible boat plants wouldn't enjoy the safety record
> that they do.

 

That and the endless General Inspections and tests to harass the
troops.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> We're drifting rapidly off-topic, but...
>
> If the Navy's motivation was from stock owners demanding increased
> profits then submersible boat plants wouldn't enjoy the safety record
> that they do.

 

That and the endless General Inspections and tests to harass the
troops.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> We're drifting rapidly off-topic, but...
>
> If the Navy's motivation was from stock owners demanding increased
> profits then submersible boat plants wouldn't enjoy the safety record
> that they do.

 

That and the endless General Inspections and tests to harass the
troops.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> We're drifting rapidly off-topic, but...
>
> If the Navy's motivation was from stock owners demanding increased
> profits then submersible boat plants wouldn't enjoy the safety record
> that they do.

 

Remember Katrina?

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:19:39 -0500, "Matt Macchiarolo"
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:

>Then the project should be federalized. (flame suit on)
>
>"Lee Ayrton" <layrton@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dsnpf7$a9k$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> We're drifting rapidly off-topic, but...
>>
>> If the Navy's motivation was from stock owners demanding increased profits
>> then submersible boat plants wouldn't enjoy the safety record that they
>> do.
>>
>>
>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>> Would be a good use for all the military bases that are slated to
>>> close...put up nuclear power plants. GWB mentioned that a while back, but
>>> I haven't heard much about it since. Yes, Bill, I agree with something W
>>> said. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
>>>
>>> And we should assign the management of the plants to the Navy, since they
>>> have so much experience with nuclear power.
>>>
>>> "L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>>> news:43EE7F78.44C01486@***.net...
>>>
>>>> We must use nuclear energy. Even a wind mill cost a million dollars
>>>>worth of energy to make. Maybe asking the our Indians to use their
>>>>sovereign nations, to build around these liberal wackos, will solve our
>>>>problem. All we have to do is drop our use of petroleum by about ten
>>>>percent and gasoline will become a useless by-product again.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>>>
>>>>Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Or that it is pure government pork. It takes the energy of 2/3s of a
>>>>>gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of pump-ready ethanol. A gallon
>>>>>of ethanol holds 2/3s the energy of gasoline, so BTU-wise it is a wash.
>>>>> I'm all for workable alternative energy sources, but in this case we
>>>>>might just as well burn gasoline and pay farmers not to plant surplus
>>>>>corn.
>>>
>>>



-- msosborn at msosborn dot com

 

Remember Katrina?

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:19:39 -0500, "Matt Macchiarolo"
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:

>Then the project should be federalized. (flame suit on)
>
>"Lee Ayrton" <layrton@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dsnpf7$a9k$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> We're drifting rapidly off-topic, but...
>>
>> If the Navy's motivation was from stock owners demanding increased profits
>> then submersible boat plants wouldn't enjoy the safety record that they
>> do.
>>
>>
>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>> Would be a good use for all the military bases that are slated to
>>> close...put up nuclear power plants. GWB mentioned that a while back, but
>>> I haven't heard much about it since. Yes, Bill, I agree with something W
>>> said. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
>>>
>>> And we should assign the management of the plants to the Navy, since they
>>> have so much experience with nuclear power.
>>>
>>> "L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>>> news:43EE7F78.44C01486@***.net...
>>>
>>>> We must use nuclear energy. Even a wind mill cost a million dollars
>>>>worth of energy to make. Maybe asking the our Indians to use their
>>>>sovereign nations, to build around these liberal wackos, will solve our
>>>>problem. All we have to do is drop our use of petroleum by about ten
>>>>percent and gasoline will become a useless by-product again.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>>>
>>>>Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Or that it is pure government pork. It takes the energy of 2/3s of a
>>>>>gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of pump-ready ethanol. A gallon
>>>>>of ethanol holds 2/3s the energy of gasoline, so BTU-wise it is a wash.
>>>>> I'm all for workable alternative energy sources, but in this case we
>>>>>might just as well burn gasoline and pay farmers not to plant surplus
>>>>>corn.
>>>
>>>



-- msosborn at msosborn dot com

 

Remember Katrina?

On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 12:19:39 -0500, "Matt Macchiarolo"
<matt@nospamplease.com> wrote:

>Then the project should be federalized. (flame suit on)
>
>"Lee Ayrton" <layrton@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:dsnpf7$a9k$1@reader2.panix.com...
>> We're drifting rapidly off-topic, but...
>>
>> If the Navy's motivation was from stock owners demanding increased profits
>> then submersible boat plants wouldn't enjoy the safety record that they
>> do.
>>
>>
>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>> Would be a good use for all the military bases that are slated to
>>> close...put up nuclear power plants. GWB mentioned that a while back, but
>>> I haven't heard much about it since. Yes, Bill, I agree with something W
>>> said. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
>>>
>>> And we should assign the management of the plants to the Navy, since they
>>> have so much experience with nuclear power.
>>>
>>> "L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
>>> news:43EE7F78.44C01486@***.net...
>>>
>>>> We must use nuclear energy. Even a wind mill cost a million dollars
>>>>worth of energy to make. Maybe asking the our Indians to use their
>>>>sovereign nations, to build around these liberal wackos, will solve our
>>>>problem. All we have to do is drop our use of petroleum by about ten
>>>>percent and gasoline will become a useless by-product again.
>>>> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
>>>>mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>>>>
>>>>Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Or that it is pure government pork. It takes the energy of 2/3s of a
>>>>>gallon of gasoline to produce a gallon of pump-ready ethanol. A gallon
>>>>>of ethanol holds 2/3s the energy of gasoline, so BTU-wise it is a wash.
>>>>> I'm all for workable alternative energy sources, but in this case we
>>>>>might just as well burn gasoline and pay farmers not to plant surplus
>>>>>corn.
>>>
>>>



-- msosborn at msosborn dot com