To your last point, I don't think politics has changed in the thousands of
years that have elapsed since we humans invented it. Throughout history and
today, there are only two kinds of people it attracts: 95% sleazeballs and 5%
well intentioned, idealistic crusaders who want to make the world a better
place. And despite their different intentions, I'm still not sure which group
causes the greater damage.
Thanks for the POV.
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
[mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Allendorfer, Mike
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 16:28
To: ba-autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: 91 octane gas
[ big snip ]
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.
|