Hi Ed, There IS a difference.. The additional weight is pretty much a fact admitted. We'll have to wait and see whether or not the promised "higher energy density" is more available in the "real world" than the unachievable mileage so prominently advanced by automotive manufacturers following testing promulgated and sanctioned by "our" EPA. ;<)
I believe the usual disclaimer is "Your results may vary". The likely range and direction of such variation was never disclosed (if such were ever actually determined). The difference between the unrealistic "EPA" figure and one approximately midway between genuine extremes of real-world loading, travel speeds (both city and highway), and driving habits is, quite literally, the difference between providing good-faith information upon which a vehicular purchasing decision might be rationally based and a conscious intent to deceive the public by providing the mere illusion of such information. Such active collusion of "our" government (or representatives thereof) and a majority of automotive "captains of industry" may explain why each is at or near bankruptcy. (off soap box), WRB -- On Aug 28, 2009, at 13:47, Ed Burkhead wrote: > > Bill wrote: >> I noted in the article that Swift fuel weighs 6.5 lbs./gallon. >> >> That would work out to twelve pounds useful load lost with a full >> 24-gallon fuel load of it in an Ercoupe ;<). > > > True, but the Swift fuel is supposed to have higher energy density > allowing > either a. longer range or, b. the same range with a slightly lower > gallon-count of fuel in the tanks (with, presumably, about the same > weight > as with gasoline). > > If the stuff works and can pass the hurdles, it might help protect us > from > future eco-targeting. > > I'm watching to see how it shakes out. > > Ed
