magley64

Not sure what you're saying, the epa number is just a reference. It compares the typical fuel usage of 1 vehicle to other vehicles using a standard testing method. Driving habits, traffic conditions, weather, vehicle maintenance, and terrain all have an effect on the mileage any individual driver is going to experience. My Eldorado has a combined mpg rating of 18, and if I did more city traffic with stop and go, and ran the tires at the specified pressure, as well as using the brakes more often, that number would probably be pretty accurate. As it stands, most of my driving is country roads, I anticipate most of my stops and coast to them, and I run my tires at 44 psi. My average mpg is around 30.

Gotta go through government conspiracy theory to get there, but you never know how a trolling thread will get hijacked.

Atomization begins at the jet, or at the injector, that's what they are designed to do.

No, they have a standard testing method, so they can compare vehicles for a wide range of uses. Your mileage will vary, I know people that routinely double the epa mileage in their cars, still others will never see the numbers as high as the epa rated numbers, there is a ton of variability.

Your anecdotal mileage isn't the same as EPA rated mileage. My v8 Eldorado consistently gets 30 to 35 mpg, but that's not even close to what it was rated by the epa.

My car takes a healthy 8 quarts...

The high pressure Injectors increase the surface area of the fuel, atomization occurs, and increases the rate of vaporizing, that's why you want clean Injectors, if it just squirted a stream in there, your engine would run shitty.

The more you know... http://auto.howstuffworks.com/5-ways-modern-car-engines-differ-from-older-car-engines.htm#page=1

Injectors use pressure and a nozzle to atomize fuel, Carburetors use a venturi to achieve the same effect.Cmon man, you know engines don't run for shit unless the fuel is atomized and well blended with air.

Not only that, but if a couple of old rednecks managed to get better fuel economy and more power out of less fuel, you don't think engineers with doctorates in chemical engineering, physics, material science and the like could have replicated the results in the past 40 years? Hmmm? Use your brain man... seriously.

Because I understand physics?

if you refuse to do the math regarding the carnot engine, and maximum efficiency... Which puts this theory to bed immediately, then consider modern engine tuners Yes gasoline burns most efficiently when mixed with air at the proper stoichiometry, this is why we have carburetors, and fuel injectors... these devices vaporize fuel, and mix them with air at the proper stoichiometry to be burned in an engine... This magical carburetor would have "in theory" run the engine extroardinarily lean, this does produce more energy, and by all means you can tune your current car to run very lean indeed, the problem with running lean is overheating, ask any engine tuner. Lean is mean, but lean is HOT. There is a science to this

I did that on my very first truck, dad said "fill it up" i thought he meant to the top... Didn't hurt it, but it spit oil out the filler tube and coated the engine, smoked like hell for a while from under the hood, but ran fine.

Clearly you've never studied physics... Please do some reading and look into the carnot engine.. it's an IDEAL purely theoretical version of the modern internal combustion engine. It should easily put to rest your conspiracy theory regarding these "insane mpg" cars that were "hushed" The X files was a "fictional" tv show. it's a really simple conservation of energy problem... the energy of combusting fossil fuels is your maximum, and even in a perfect theoretical world you can't get all of that energy out to propel a vehicle. not even close... that's why electricity is the way to go, because you can routinely get 90% efficiency, with internal combustion we will be lucky if we ever achieve half that.

yep, you're right. how convenient that they built a center stand for that purpose... I'll have to go home and see if it makes a difference between center stand and side stand... I've already checked hot to cold oil, and it makes zero difference on the dipstick. I seem to remember checking center to side stand before, and IIRC it was the same reading because the dipstick hits pretty close to the center of the reservoir.

My bike is Side stand, Level ground, Cold engine. Unscrew dipstick, wipe with clean rag or paper towel, insert dipstick straight into hole without engaging any threads, remove dipstick and check level. if it were upright, it did come factory with a center stand, but that is not the method on my bike.

My bike is Side stand, Level ground, Cold engine. Unscrew dipstick, wipe with clean rag or paper towel, insert dipstick straight into hole without engaging any threads, remove dipstick and check level. if it were upright, it did come factory with a center stand, but that is not the method on my bike.

that's a better option than trying to jam a wire in a fuse blade socket... The only concern I'd have, and the reason I'd go dedicated circuit is in case you get a short in your lighter socket. If you do, you're going to lose your headlights until you can get it sorted out. (Water ingress would be a typical cause) If you decide to anyway, for normal use you might want to bump up your headlight fuse 5 amps for the additional draw on the circuit that your phone or gps will be drawing. It shouldn't be more than a couple amps. (if you had a 15 amp headlight fuse, bump it up to 20 amps)

I've done it before, it's not a very reliable connection method. I'd advise using a wire tap onto the fused side of whatever circuit you're leeching for the positive side, rather than jamming into your fuse box. They are pretty cheap and make a more reliable connection. Another method would be to wire directly to the battery with an inline fuse holder. You could tap off a switched circuit with this method as well.

My cadillac gives me OBD codes over the dash display, no code reader needed.

Yes, the universe is complex... Given, very very very complex, and inconceivably huge, and nuanced. Science is our best tool currently to understanding it, and through science we have unlocked many many mysteries of the universe. Are there more to unlock? of course. Will we ever understand everything? Probably not Thankfully there are people who dedicate their lives and their careers into understanding small portions of it, so that collectively we understand much much more than we ever have. What is your alternative? "fuck it, it's too complicated" Thankfully there are these patient and diligent individuals toiling away in obscurity, dragging our collective understanding up the mountain of knowledge using the ropes and hooks of science... Maybe there is nothing we can do to avoid our own extinction, but if there are steps we can take to delay it rather than to speed it up, why not? Why not allow a few more generations of human beings enjoy the "supremely agreeable, but generally under-appreciated state known as existence"? (in the words of Bill Bryson).

so where are your peer reviewed studies to back up those assertions?

in 1970 they were missing the climate data we now have for the past 40 years... At that time, the big environmental hazard was the widespread use of CFCs. We banned the use of CFCs and saved our ozone layer. Had we lost the ozone layer, (barring all of the co2 we've dumped into the atmosphere) we would have been looking at another ice age. Just because science is fluid doesn't mean it's wrong. in fact, the very reason it's fluid is the reason I find it so reliable. Constantly adapting to new data.

So you've got a blogger who says the consensus is bunk... How about NASA? http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus I mean, you can stuff your face in the sand all day, but the evidence is piling on. more and more research has been done, and it's becoming more and more conclusive... Back in 1970 you could say "well the science isn't in yet" but here, in 2014, you're just being disingenuous or pandering.

again apples and oranges, I could care less what the general population believes, but i do care what the peer reviewed data overwhelmingly supports.