Hell of a theory, but I don't think so ;-) They do say that 90% of the auto
pollution is caused by less than 10% of the cars, enough so that Car &
Driver speculated that the State of Calif. could chase down every dirt-bag
driving a 60s era junker spewing smoke and smog and give them the pink slip
and keys to a new Cadillac and come out ahead of the millions that they are
spending on the electric car subsidies
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: Loughmiller, Scott <scott@radiate.com>
To: <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2001 5:00 PM
Subject: RE: 91 octane gas
> 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.
|