Regular Gas in a Premium Engine

Philip wrote:
[color=blue]
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Philip wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Changes in weather patterns, rain .... stuff the air quality
>>>bureaucrats want to take credit for improving the air.[/color]
>>
>>Regulating previously uncontrolled emissions was the
>>largest part of it. There are good people working their
>>butts off trying to fix problems like this. Here in
>>Los Angeles, for instance, you can't buy a gas powered leaf
>>blower anymore. Or anything with a 2-stroke engine
>>other than a few types of yard equipment.
>>
>>I hear they want to get rid of 2-stroke engines entirely.[/color]
>
>
> I recall. The problem was NOISE and blowing DUST at the poor office workers
> outside of City Hall and in the Wilshire District. Exhaust pollution had
> nothing to do with it.
>
>[color=green]
>>They now have simple scrubbers on the vents of most
>>places to eat, and they replaced the entire L.A. metro
>>system with CNG busses.[/color]
>
>
> So WHY did you claim earlier that there are untold herds of belching sooty
> buses running all over the place?[/color]

I said school busses. Metro is prety decent, but all
of the rest of the trucking inductry and light transportation
- it's diesel powered. Most of it with zero emissions
equipment, no less.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> That said, if I pay for a gallon of gas, I shouldn't have to deal
>>> with three cups of it being some toxic compound/additive that
>>> does nothing but pollute the environment more.[/color]
>>
>>
>> What evidence do you have supporting that claim?[/color]
>
> That MBTE is a toxic substance is easy to verify.[/color]

AS a consumer, you have no choice about the presence of MTBE in your
environment. As a gasoline user, you have to take what is offered which in
many cases is gasoline that is oxygenated using MTBE or ... use an
alternative motor fuel. So ... does the presence of MTBE increase exhaust
pollution?
[color=blue][color=green]
>> Explain how this is so. Is motor fuel grade alcohol known for
>> cleaning injectors? Injector cleaners are volitile especially when
>> atomized.[/color]
>
> The point is that the injector cleaner is crud...[/color]

Oh GAWD.... will you ever get a brain? Until you do, there is a part for
you in the next Wizard of Oz remake.
--

- Philip

C. E. White wrote:[color=blue]
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t>
> Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 9:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Regular Gas in a Premium Engine[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?[/color][/color]
>[color=green]
>> YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one does
>> not mean there is no such regulation.[/color]
>
> Prove that there is one![/color]
snip

"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
--

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Not so. Sulfur in diesel fuel is in the 25-50ppm range now in
>> California. Other states, 75-200 ppm. Canada a bit higher yet from
>> what I have read recently. The new California mandate in 2006 will
>> be 15 ppm. That is not a huge drop unless you have no Big Picture
>> perspective.][/color]
>
> The other part of the mandate is that all diesel engines, including
> trucks, will require smog equipment on them. No more belching
> 18 wheelers - at least not the new ones.[/color]

All diesels have had "smog equipment" on them in the form of electronic
controls since the late 1980's. There have been no "belching 18 wheelers
since. Those few that do have been tweaked by diesel garages possessing
computer programming tools.

You wear straw pretty well.
--

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Philip wrote:
>>>
>>>> Changes in weather patterns, rain .... stuff the air quality
>>>> bureaucrats want to take credit for improving the air.
>>>
>>> Regulating previously uncontrolled emissions was the
>>> largest part of it. There are good people working their
>>> butts off trying to fix problems like this. Here in
>>> Los Angeles, for instance, you can't buy a gas powered leaf
>>> blower anymore. Or anything with a 2-stroke engine
>>> other than a few types of yard equipment.
>>>
>>> I hear they want to get rid of 2-stroke engines entirely.[/color]
>>
>>
>> I recall. The problem was NOISE and blowing DUST at the poor office
>> workers outside of City Hall and in the Wilshire District. Exhaust
>> pollution had nothing to do with it.
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>> They now have simple scrubbers on the vents of most
>>> places to eat, and they replaced the entire L.A. metro
>>> system with CNG busses.[/color]
>>
>>
>> So WHY did you claim earlier that there are untold herds of belching
>> sooty buses running all over the place?[/color]
>
> I said school busses. Metro is prety decent, but all
> of the rest of the trucking inductry and light transportation
> - it's diesel powered. Most of it with zero emissions
> equipment, no less.[/color]

You were not specific. Metro buses running straight CNG are not diesels at
all. There is a change-over process in place where duel fuel diesels are
preferred in many municipal systems. You are also in error by stating
"...but -all- the rest of the trucking industry and light transportation is
diesel powered" *followed* *by* "Most of it with zero emissions." More
Joey short circuiting.

HERE is something you can run with. The Air (drive) car.

[url]http://www.theaircar.com/index.html[/url]
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:
[color=blue]
> AS a consumer, you have no choice about the presence of MTBE in your
> environment. As a gasoline user, you have to take what is offered which in
> many cases is gasoline that is oxygenated using MTBE or ... use an
> alternative motor fuel. So ... does the presence of MTBE increase exhaust
> pollution?[/color]

I'd call a 1-2% reduction at most a poor way to reduce
smog. It's such a small difference that it's laughable.
Doubly so, when the total environmental cost is factored in.

Philip wrote:
[color=blue]
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>[color=green]
>>Philip wrote:
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Not so. Sulfur in diesel fuel is in the 25-50ppm range now in
>>>California. Other states, 75-200 ppm. Canada a bit higher yet from
>>>what I have read recently. The new California mandate in 2006 will
>>>be 15 ppm. That is not a huge drop unless you have no Big Picture
>>>perspective.][/color]
>>
>>The other part of the mandate is that all diesel engines, including
>>trucks, will require smog equipment on them. No more belching
>>18 wheelers - at least not the new ones.[/color]
>
>
> All diesels have had "smog equipment" on them in the form of electronic
> controls since the late 1980's. There have been no "belching 18 wheelers
> since. Those few that do have been tweaked by diesel garages possessing
> computer programming tools.[/color]

Electronic controls are junk compared to a real smog control
system like we have on something like a new Camry. Just
compare the emissions levels.

C. E. White wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Given the octane difference in percentages, it can't be more
>>than twice that. We're talking about 4 octane, afterall,
>>which is a very small amount. Even if it was squared,
>>which would be the largest impact likely possible, it would be
>>16% less power.
>>
>>So, let's say 16% less power. Out of 280HP. I get 235HP.
>>I doubt that it is even close to this much of a difference, though,
>>since the computers compensate quite a bit.[/color]
>
>
> You are losing me here. Octane has nothing to do with
> "power" except that higher octane gas is less likely to "pre
> ignite," which for a given engine configuration allows a
> higher compression ratio and/or more advanced ignition
> timing.[/color]

Preignition and detonation aren't the same thing, but both can
be avoided with the use of higher octane-rated fuel. I thought
preignition requires a residual heat source (like hot carbon
deposits or residual heat on the spark plug). Detonation is
where the fuel/air mixture explodes when compressed due to heat
and pressure. This is usually a second explosion after the
initial (spark) explosion, and the sound one hears is the two
explosions whacking into each other.

Philip wrote:[color=blue]
>systems. You are also in error by stating
> "...but -all- the rest of the trucking industry and light transportation is
> diesel powered" *followed* *by* "Most of it with zero emissions." More
> Joey short circuiting.[/color]

When I see a diesel truck in front of me literally belch
a black cloud every time it shifts gears... Every time
it shifts its over ten speed transmission. Compare a big
4-Runner to all of that black crap spewing forth.

Emissions are painfully lax on diesel engines, and
older trucks basically get a free pass. I can buy
a 20 year old Unimog, for instance, and run it
as-is. I can't do that with a twenty year old
Tercel, even - they would make me replace the entire
smog system until it passed(or I paid enough money
trying and they gave me a two year exemption)

But that's about to be changed to a system like
gasoline powered cars currently have. Well, in
California, at least. My plans, actually, are
to get a couple year old diesel powered vehicle
and use the new fuel when 2006 comes around.

45mpg and no MBTE.

Now, if only Toyota made their Pruis in a turbo-diesel
design. It would get 40-50mpg before the hybrid
part of the design was even factored in. The net
result would be about 60mpg real-world mileage.

Gord Beaman wrote:
[color=blue]
> Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
> snip
>[color=green]
>>Given the octane difference in percentages, it can't be more
>>than twice that. We're talking about 4 octane, afterall,
>>which is a very small amount. Even if it was squared,
>>which would be the largest impact likely possible, it would be
>>16% less power.
>>
>>So, let's say 16% less power. Out of 280HP. I get 235HP.
>>I doubt that it is even close to this much of a difference, though,
>>since the computers compensate quite a bit.[/color]
>
>
> Joe, you really do need to read up some...do you know that the
> higher the octane rating then the less volatile the fuel?,,,it's
> true, there's less energy in high octane fuel than there is in
> lower octane fuel. The increased HP is obtained by increasing the
> compression and increasing the fuel air charge with blowers and
> increasing the charge pressure by advancing the spark...BUT when
> you do all that you MUST increase the octane rating to prevent
> detonation. Modern automobile engines use a knock sensor which
> retards the ignition to prevent detonation.[/color]

There isn't necessarily a direct correlation between octane-rating
and energy content. It depends on how the higher octane fuel is
formulated. Adding oxygenates (MTBE or alcohols) boosts octane
rating but lowers energy content. Racing fuels use a different
mixture of hydrocarbons, and some ultra high-octane racing gas is
actually more volatile and burns faster than 87 (R+M)/2 octane pump
gas.

<http://www.wauknet.com/douthitt/gas.htm>

Gord Beaman wrote:
[color=blue]
> "jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>I think Ed's answer is best. The engine may knock with a lower octane fuel
>>and that is always undesirable. On the other side of the argument, I work
>>with several folks that insist on putting premium in their vehicles because
>>they feel it must somehow be better for their engines. I think it is best to
>>simply go with the manufacturer's recommendation in most cases.
>>jor[/color]
>
>
> OF COURSE!!...Jesus, when will people learn that after spending
> millions of dollars in research and development an automobile
> company's technical dept knows a huge amount about the engines
> that they manufactured and tweaked at great expense to make them
> as reliable and efficient as possible keeping inside very
> stringent design and expense specs?.
>
> They KNOW their engines, they know what fuel octane rating they
> need to operate properly. They know what oil specs are best. They
> know what oil change intervals to recommend. How could ANYONE who
> buys and operates one casually presume to know them BETTER? This
> makes one look like a flake to boldly get up on his hind legs and
> bray on in public stuff which makes NO SENSE to sensible
> people...and is often at large variance to recommendations of the
> manufacturer.[/color]

OTOH - often one gets jaded because the manufacturer decided that
brand X - model Y tire was OEM on a car because it provided a plush
ride or boosted fuel economy. A lot of selling a car is finding
the compromises that maximize the number of potential buyers while
minimizing the cost of making and warranting the product.

Now - a manufacturer's gasoline recommendations are usually solid
However - the engine oil recommendations are a one-size-fits-all
plan that doesn't take into account any number of different
variables, but ends up as use 5W-30 motor oil and change it after
X number of miles with this driving condition, and Z number of
miles in that driving condition.

y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

snip
[color=blue]
> Detonation is
>where the fuel/air mixture explodes when compressed due to heat
>and pressure. This is usually a second explosion after the
>initial (spark) explosion, and the sound one hears is the two
>explosions whacking into each other.[/color]

You almost got it...they aren't 'explosions' though...they're
expansion events, where the plug ignites the fuel/air charge and
the flame front progresses across the cylinder...the actual
detonation is a much faster event because the ignition of the
rest of the remaining fuel/air charge ignites 'all at once'
because of the heat rise caused by the expansion of the charge.

IOW, as the pressure rises in the cylinder because of the normal
advancing flame front the REMAINING unburned charge is heated
until it ignites 'all at once' (if the octane rating is too low).

This rapid spike of pressure is much too short (sharp) to provide
any useful 'push' on the piston because of it's inertia and
produces only heat and stress.


--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Joseph Oberlander wrote:[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:[color=green]
> >systems. You are also in error by stating
>> "...but -all- the rest of the trucking industry and light
>> transportation is diesel powered" *followed* *by* "Most of it with
>> zero emissions." More Joey short circuiting.[/color]
>
> When I see a diesel truck in front of me literally belch
> a black cloud every time it shifts gears... Every time
> it shifts its over ten speed transmission. Compare a big
> 4-Runner to all of that black crap spewing forth.[/color]

Rubbish. You have been caught fabricating BS again.
--

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:
>[color=green]
>> AS a consumer, you have no choice about the presence of MTBE in your
>> environment. As a gasoline user, you have to take what is offered
>> which in many cases is gasoline that is oxygenated using MTBE or ...
>> use an alternative motor fuel. So ... does the presence of MTBE
>> increase exhaust pollution?[/color]
>
> I'd call a 1-2% reduction at most a poor way to reduce
> smog. It's such a small difference that it's laughable.
> Doubly so, when the total environmental cost is factored in.[/color]

I may agree with you on this point ... although that agreement does not make
"us" factually correct.
--

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:[color=blue]
> Philip wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> Philip wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not so. Sulfur in diesel fuel is in the 25-50ppm range now in
>>>> California. Other states, 75-200 ppm. Canada a bit higher yet from
>>>> what I have read recently. The new California mandate in 2006 will
>>>> be 15 ppm. That is not a huge drop unless you have no Big Picture
>>>> perspective.]
>>>
>>> The other part of the mandate is that all diesel engines, including
>>> trucks, will require smog equipment on them. No more belching
>>> 18 wheelers - at least not the new ones.[/color]
>>
>>
>> All diesels have had "smog equipment" on them in the form of
>> electronic controls since the late 1980's. There have been no
>> "belching 18 wheelers since. Those few that do have been tweaked by
>> diesel garages possessing computer programming tools.[/color]
>
> Electronic controls are junk compared to a real smog control
> system like we have on something like a new Camry. Just
> compare the emissions levels.[/color]

You don't have the education or specific knowledge of diesel technology to
make that declaration.
--

- Philip