There-in lies the root hypocrisy of the whole reformulated gas thing. When
cars had carburators and no feed-back from an O2 sensor, reformulated gas
made some sense. It also may help for that lawnmower you run a screaming 30
min/week, the motorcycle that gets ridden 3K/yr and the boat that
accumulates 50 hr/yr (if you're lucky), but your car doesn't care. The O2
sensor says "more fuel" and the FI happily complies, reducing your mileage
5-10% and pouring out more fractions that cause smog but don't produce any
power.
The politics of the deal revolve around Governer's wives on the board of the
oil companies selling MTBE and Presidents that want to please the farmers in
the midwest who happened to vote for them. Science and sense have no
application in this application. Money prevails and consumers aren't
informed enough or organized enough to have an impact in the forum where the
decisions are made.
Guess why our younger generation is turned off to politics.
Mike A,
96 Impala SS (the taxi driver)
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael R. Clements <mrclem@telocity.com>
To: David Rowney <daver@uclink4.berkeley.edu>; <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 10:33 AM
Subject: RE: 91 octane gas
>
>
> On the surface it would seem counterproductive, as all else being equal
> (though it usually is) 3.5% less fuel economy would mean roughly 3.5% more
> pollution. Their own tests confirm this:
>
> http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/oxy%2Dfuel/cfuelecn.shtml
>
> Why oh why would somebody who wants to make air cleaner, require gasoline
> formulations with lower fuel economy? Perhaps the pollution generated is
> chemically different as to be less harmful to the environment? But doesn't
> the car's EFI compensate and simply run a richer mixture? That would seem
to
> undermine the entire purpose of the oxygenated fuel.
|