I don't buy what I'm about to say, but it at least seems plausible:
Is it possible that the older non-EFI cars still on the road, pollute so
much more than new cars that the increase in pollutants from new cars with
this gas is offset by a greater reduction in pollutants from older cars?
In theory if 2% (these numbers are coming right out of my ass) of the
vehicles on the road are non-EFI, "high emissions" vehicles, then they would
only have to be polluting 50x a newer vehicle for a gas change to still make
sense, from a pollution standpoint. This also assumes that a percentage
decrease in emissions from an older vehicle is equal to the percentage
increase from newer vehicles due to the gas change, which I'm sure is not
the case.
The only reason I thought this might be possible is that when I had a smog
check done on my 91 Miata, it scored so low it barely registered, so I
assume that there must be vehicles legally on the road that kick out like
1000x the emissions that my old Miata did. This also means that these "high
emission" vehicles would have to be pre 80s which means my 2% number should
be more like .2%, blah, blah, blah.
I'm sure this gives too much credit to the politicians, and government
officials that "work for us".
-Scott
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Allendorfer, Mike [mailto:mwa96imp@regionofdoom.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 16:28
> To: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: 91 octane gas
>
>
> 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.
|