Regular Gas in a Premium Engine

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:25:55 GMT, "Michael Arber"
<thearbers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds great! But in
>the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp engine uses premium 91 octane
>fuel. Although it seems you can use regular 87 octane without harming the
>engine, you won't get 280 hp. My question is how much horsepower and torque
>would the engine make with 87 octane fuel?
>
>I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their maximum
>horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such engine - how much
>power would be lost when using regular fuel?
>
>Thanks in advance!
>Michael
>
Michael,

Use premium fuel. You shouldn't have to worry about fuel cost if you
have an 05 Avalon.

In article <TKwSd.257887$w62.58629@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Michael Arber" <thearbers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds great! But
> in
> the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp engine uses premium 91
> octane
> fuel. Although it seems you can use regular 87 octane without harming the
> engine, you won't get 280 hp. My question is how much horsepower and torque
> would the engine make with 87 octane fuel?
>
> I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their maximum
> horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such engine - how much
> power would be lost when using regular fuel?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Michael

I've used both in my 04 Sienna and can notice a performance difference
and a bit of gas mileage difference too. I prefer to use 91 when I can
get it for only a penny more than 87 at my local gas for less place,
otherwise 87 does the job.

To answer your question I don't know. I would think you could get it on
a dyno and do a comparison, but why bother.
--

diel@spam.com wrote:

> In article <TKwSd.257887$w62.58629@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Michael Arber" <thearbers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds great! But
>>in
>>the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp engine uses premium 91
>>octane
>>fuel. Although it seems you can use regular 87 octane without harming the
>>engine, you won't get 280 hp. My question is how much horsepower and torque
>>would the engine make with 87 octane fuel?
>>
>>I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their maximum
>>horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such engine - how much
>>power would be lost when using regular fuel?
>>
>>Thanks in advance!
>>Michael
>
>
> I've used both in my 04 Sienna and can notice a performance difference
> and a bit of gas mileage difference too. I prefer to use 91 when I can
> get it for only a penny more than 87 at my local gas for less place,
> otherwise 87 does the job.

As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.

250-260HP is still a lot. Most people couldn't tell the difference
between 250HP and 280 anyways - it's a lot of power. HP to weight
ratio-wise, it's better than most V8 muscle cars from the 60s and
70s.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> diel@spam.com wrote:
>snip<
>> I've used both in my 04 Sienna and can notice a performance
>> difference and a bit of gas mileage difference too. I prefer to use 91
>> when I
>> can get it for only a penny more than 87 at my local gas for less place,
>> otherwise 87 does the job.
>
> As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
> to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
> powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
> you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.

Now Joey ... how far up your ass did you reach to pull out that "5-10%"
figure? Eh?
--

- Philip

C. E. White wrote:

>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
>>As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
>>to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
>>powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
>>you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.
>
>
> Do you have a reference for your statement that "it has to
> be able to run on regular gas to be sold?"

Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.

Now, it won't run as well, but it will run.

Philip wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>diel@spam.com wrote:
>>snip<
>>
>>>I've used both in my 04 Sienna and can notice a performance
>>>difference and a bit of gas mileage difference too. I prefer to use 91
>>>when I
>>>can get it for only a penny more than 87 at my local gas for less place,
>>>otherwise 87 does the job.
>>
>>As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
>>to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
>>powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
>>you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.
>
> Now Joey ... how far up your ass did you reach to pull out that "5-10%"
> figure? Eh?

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.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> 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.

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. These factors can allow an engine to develop more
power (all other things being equal). In the really old
days, gas with higher octane actually had less "power"
(energy) per unit volume than regular gas. These days that
is not necessarily true. However, unless your vehicle has
some method for taking advantage of the higher octane (like
a knock sensor, that allows the PCM to advance the timing),
then there is no power advantage attributable directly to
the use of higher octane gas. A few years back, Ford
acknowledged that the 5.4L V-8 installed in trucks could
gain 5 to 10 horsepower if premium fuel was used instead of
the regular specified (because the PCM would adjust the
timing based on the knock sensor input). This is a 2% to 4%
increase. I tried premium in my Expedition for a significant
period of time (15,000 miles). I never could detect the
increased power and the gas mileage was not detectably
different. On the other hand, if your vehicle can't
compensate for the use of regular gas when premium is
specified (insufficient timing adjustment available to the
PCM), then the use of regular gas in an engine intended to
run on premium gas can result in engine damage due to pre
ignition. Since almost all vehicles that specify premium gas
include knock sensor, damage is unlikely unless you highly
stress the engine (towing heavy loads, driving at very high
speeds, lots of hard acceleration runs, etc.).

Ed

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> C. E. White wrote:
>
> >
> > Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> >
> >
> >>As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
> >>to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
> >>powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
> >>you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.
> >
> >
> > Do you have a reference for your statement that "it has to
> > be able to run on regular gas to be sold?"
>
> Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
> sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
> putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.

So this is just a suposition on your part? I was hoping it
was some sort of EPA rule. If you had not noticed, the
diesel nozzle will fit in the unleaded gas filler neck on
your car. Now that is real liability!

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>
>Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>> As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
>> to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
>> powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
>> you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.
>
>Do you have a reference for your statement that "it has to
>be able to run on regular gas to be sold?"
>
>Ed

Gotta agree with Philip and Ed here Joe...I'd say that you have a
pretty active imagination with your statements...try to appear
sensible, don't make statements like that, everyone knows that
you have no frickin idea how much HP you lose...if the
manufacturer says use premium then use premium. I'll guarantee
that he knows more about his engine than you ever will.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fOJSd.3409$873.398@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
>
>
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>>diel@spam.com wrote:
>>>snip<
>>>
>>>>I've used both in my 04 Sienna and can notice a performance
>>>>difference and a bit of gas mileage difference too. I prefer to use 91
>>>>when I
>>>>can get it for only a penny more than 87 at my local gas for less place,
>>>>otherwise 87 does the job.
>>>
>>>As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
>>>to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
>>>powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
>>>you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.
>>
>> Now Joey ... how far up your ass did you reach to pull out that "5-10%"
>> figure? Eh?
>
> 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.
>
Joseph,

Making uninformed, purely speculative guesses and posting them as if they
are facts is something Cliff from Cheers would do.

Think about the price of premium gas vs. the price of regular unleaded. In
Chicago, premium costs in the neighborhood of 3% to 6% more than regular
unleaded. Wouldn't it be logical that every car manufacturer would spec
premium gas if a 6% investment in gas got you 10% or 16% more horsepower?

What do you mean when you say "the computers compensate quite a bit?"
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Michael Arber wrote:
> I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds
> great! But in the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp
> engine uses premium 91 octane fuel. Although it seems you can use
> regular 87 octane without harming the engine, you won't get 280 hp.
> My question is how much horsepower and torque would the engine make
> with 87 octane fuel?
>
> I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their
> maximum horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such
> engine - how much power would be lost when using regular fuel?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Michael

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-07-30-premiumgas_x.htm
Automakers say they don't test premium engines on regular to check the
difference, but some auto engineers estimate that power declines roughly
5%.

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
"Michael Arber" <thearbers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:TKwSd.257887$w62.58629@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds great! But
>in
> the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp engine uses premium 91
> octane
> fuel. Although it seems you can use regular 87 octane without harming the
> engine, you won't get 280 hp. My question is how much horsepower and
> torque
> would the engine make with 87 octane fuel?
>
> I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their maximum
> horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such engine - how
> much
> power would be lost when using regular fuel?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Michael
>
>

Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip
>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.

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.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:

>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

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.

<sigh>

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
> snip
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

I know this, which is why, even with the knock sensor kicking
in and the computers compensating - it can't be more than 10-15%
power loss or else the engine wouldn't run correctly.

Ray O wrote:

> Making uninformed, purely speculative guesses and posting them as if they
> are facts is something Cliff from Cheers would do.
>
> Think about the price of premium gas vs. the price of regular unleaded. In
> Chicago, premium costs in the neighborhood of 3% to 6% more than regular
> unleaded. Wouldn't it be logical that every car manufacturer would spec
> premium gas if a 6% investment in gas got you 10% or 16% more horsepower?

It turns out it's closer to 5% difference in power unless you are
running a really big, blown-out engine with a turbo or supercharger
the size of a basketball.

I find that oxygenated gas is a far bigger power-killer than what
octane is in my car.

C. E. White wrote:

>>Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
>>sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
>>putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.
>
> So this is just a suposition on your part? I was hoping it
> was some sort of EPA rule. If you had not noticed, the
> diesel nozzle will fit in the unleaded gas filler neck on
> your car. Now that is real liability!

They had to resize one way or the other, and it's far far
more likely to accidently put gas into your diesel by mistake
than the reverse.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>> Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
>>> sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
>>> putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.
>>
>> So this is just a suposition on your part? I was hoping it
>> was some sort of EPA rule. If you had not noticed, the
>> diesel nozzle will fit in the unleaded gas filler neck on
>> your car. Now that is real liability!
>
> They had to resize one way or the other, and it's far far
> more likely to accidently put gas into your diesel by mistake
> than the reverse.

No Joey. I have a little diesel powered Datsun truck for hauling junk
around. NEVER have I mistaken the gasoline nozzle for the diesel nozzle ...
not EVER. For openers, the diesel nozzle never has one of those vapor
recapture bellows. Next, the diesel nozzle is nearly always a different
color ... even at the crappiest private label fuel station. Finally, there
is usually a "patina" all around the diesel nozzle where it fits back on the
pump. In the past year, I've had nearly a dozen well meaning / concerned
people point out that I am pumping DIESEL into this little old Datsun truck.
I've developed a couple of humorous comebacks ranging from "It's a diesel"
to "This thing rattles so much, it SHOULD run on diesel!"
--

- Philip

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IRYSd.3617$MY6.2093@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>
> Ray O wrote:
>
>> Making uninformed, purely speculative guesses and posting them as if they
>> are facts is something Cliff from Cheers would do.
>>
>> Think about the price of premium gas vs. the price of regular unleaded.
>> In Chicago, premium costs in the neighborhood of 3% to 6% more than
>> regular unleaded. Wouldn't it be logical that every car manufacturer
>> would spec premium gas if a 6% investment in gas got you 10% or 16% more
>> horsepower?
>
> It turns out it's closer to 5% difference in power unless you are
> running a really big, blown-out engine with a turbo or supercharger
> the size of a basketball.
>
> I find that oxygenated gas is a far bigger power-killer than what
> octane is in my car.
>

Toyota does not publish horsepower or torque ratings for engines using
anything other than their recommended grade of fuel. They could have saved
tens of millions in equipment to measure horsepower, torque, fuel analysis,
purchasing and storing test fuel, etc. and just called you for the info!

According to the EPA's studies on oxygenated fuel, a more likely cause of
your loss of power is the mechanical condition of your car. I pasted a
section from their report on oxygenated fuels:
3-11

ENGINE PERFORMANCE ISSUES

Fuel-related sources of engine performance problems include excessively high
or low

volatility, water absorption, improper storage and handling, enleanment,
reduced motor

octane, and materials compatibility. Performance problems can occur for a
variety of

reasons, and tracing performance problems to a specific cause is difficult,
and often

impossible. Potential engine performance problems resulting from
fuel-related sources

include rough engine operation, overheating, damaged pistons, vapor lock,
starting

difficulty, plugged fuel filters, fouled spark plugs, fuel leaks, hesitation
during acceleration,

flooding, stalling, and engine fires.

Most engine performance problems are, however, the result of non-fuel
factors related to

vehicle age or mileage, operating conditions, or maintenance history. In
general, the

normal changes in engine tune up parameters that occur over time, the wear
caused by hard

use, severe weather conditions, and improper maintenance, are much more
significant than

the contribution of an oxygenated fuel, if any, to the occurrence of
performance problems.

Most performance problems can be mitigated by operator preventative or
corrective

actions.

Oxygenated gasolines are very similar to many nonoxygenated gasolines in
terms of

composition and physical and chemical properties. In those cases where
performance

problems are related to fuel characteristics, no performance problems have
been found that

Oxygenated Fuels

happen solely with oxygenated fuels and not with nonoxygenated
(conventional) fuels.

Certain small engine manufacturers have found that problems can occur if
oxygenate

blends are not blended to appropriate ASTM specifications, especially for
volatility

characteristics. The information available from automotive and
non-automotive engine

manufacturers suggests that performance problems directly attributable to
oxygenate use

are unlikely when ASTM gasoline standards are complied with.

All automobile manufacturers allow or recommend oxygenated gasolines up to
the legally

allowed oxygenate limits . Most non-automotive engine manufacturers' owner's
manuals 5

also include oxygenated fuels in their list of acceptable or recommended
fuels and will not

void their warranties if gasolines containing oxygenates within the allowed
limits are used.

However, some manufacturers acknowledge that because only limited testing
with

oxygenated gasolines on non-automotive engines has been completed, they are
not

completely certain of the effects, if any, of oxygenated gasolines on their
engine

components or performance.

Mixtures of gasolines containing different oxygenates and mixtures of
oxygenated and

nonoxygenated gasolines are likely to occur in consumers' fuel tanks.
However, such

mixtures should not impact engine performance any differently than
nonoxygenated fuels

or mixtures of fuels containing the same oxygenate. Overblends, that is,
gasolines

containing oxygenates at greater than the legally allowed limits, could
adversely affect

engine performance, depending on the volume of oxygenate used. However, for
a number

of technical and economic reasons, such blends are unlikely to be
encountered in the

marketplace.


--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Ray O wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:IRYSd.3617$MY6.2093@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>>
>>Ray O wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Making uninformed, purely speculative guesses and posting them as if
they
>>>are facts is something Cliff from Cheers would do.
>>>
>>>Think about the price of premium gas vs. the price of regular unleaded.
>>>In Chicago, premium costs in the neighborhood of 3% to 6% more than
>>>regular unleaded. Wouldn't it be logical that every car manufacturer
>>>would spec premium gas if a 6% investment in gas got you 10% or 16%
more
>>>horsepower?
>>
>>It turns out it's closer to 5% difference in power unless you are
>>running a really big, blown-out engine with a turbo or supercharger
>>the size of a basketball.
>>
>>I find that oxygenated gas is a far bigger power-killer than what
>>octane is in my car.
>
> Toyota does not publish horsepower or torque ratings for engines using
> anything other than their recommended grade of fuel. They could
have saved
> tens of millions in equipment to measure horsepower, torque, fuel
analysis,
> purchasing and storing test fuel, etc. and just called you for the info!

I was quoting the article that was URL'd her a day or so ago.
It says that experts figure it's maybe 5% unless you run
a turbo or supercharger, where the computers and anti-knock
sensors might not be able to compensate enough if you
suddenly floor it.

The 16% I said was a mathematical worst case scenario. It's
unlikely that a 4% loss on octane would ever do more than
square its effect. Most likely, a doubling is as much as you'd
ever see - and that would probably be in a non-FI engine.

Of course, do any cars come with carbs anymore?

> According to the EPA's studies on oxygenated fuel, a more likely
cause of
> your loss of power is the mechanical condition of your car. I pasted a
> section from their report on oxygenated fuels:
> 3-11

> However, some manufacturers acknowledge that because only limited
testing
> with
> oxygenated gasolines on non-automotive engines has been completed,
they are
> not
> completely certain of the effects, if any, of oxygenated gasolines on
their
> engine
> components or performance.

The common findings of consumers is that the oxygenated stuff provides
about 10-15% less power, but that most consumers drive by speed and
not horsepower, so they subconsciously push the gas a bit harder
to maintain the same performance. So, it drives exactly the same.

Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
jumps to normal.

Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
to the environment isn't pretty, either).

Of course, diesel emissions are many times worse.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:26:09 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
<josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>>Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
>>>sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
>>>putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.
>>
>> So this is just a suposition on your part? I was hoping it
>> was some sort of EPA rule. If you had not noticed, the
>> diesel nozzle will fit in the unleaded gas filler neck on
>> your car. Now that is real liability!
>
>They had to resize one way or the other, and it's far far
>more likely to accidently put gas into your diesel by mistake
>than the reverse.

Not if you live in Rio Linda California...


--
Scott in Florida

Ray O wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:u54Td.4201$873.2711@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
>> car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
>> they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
>> and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
>> they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
>> jumps to normal.
>
> I'll admit that it's been over 10 years since I have visited the LA
> area so I guess the climate must have changed dramatically. When I
> used to visit LA, the weather tended to be in the 80's during the
> summer and in the 60's during the winter.

RayO. All of the designated "smog counties" in California get oxygenated
fuel year round.

>> Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
>> saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
>> in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
>> to the environment isn't pretty, either).
>
> Why is it that 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants but 4% less
> octane means double or quintuple less power?

Joey just pulls crap/facts out of his ass for convienence (chronic
diverticulitis perhaps). There is no hand in hand relationship between MPG
and pollutants. So says the EPA.

> You should let the federal and state EPAs, and oil companies in on
> your discovery so that they don't continue to waste billions of
> dollars on an effort that has no effect. Or, could it be that the
> winter fuel blends are formulated to burn cleanly enough so that
> there is a net reduction in pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?

If Joey ever stops making up nonsense to post, he won't be posting anywhere
at all. LOL
--

- Philip

"Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:

snippereau

>
> Or, could it be that the winter fuel blends are
>formulated to burn cleanly enough so that there is a net reduction in
>pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?

Christ Ray, don't encourage him!...

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Gord Beaman" <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
news:sm2q11trqpgg7es5sikk1kb9sd70of4f1b@4ax.com...
> "Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
> snippereau
>
>>
>> Or, could it be that the winter fuel blends are
>>formulated to burn cleanly enough so that there is a net reduction in
>>pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?
>
> Christ Ray, don't encourage him!...
>
> --
>
> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)

Yeah, I'm beginning to think that he is just a clever troll!
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Regular Gas in a Premium Engine

> No Joey. I have a little diesel powered Datsun truck for hauling junk
> around. NEVER have I mistaken the gasoline nozzle for the diesel nozzle
....
> not EVER. For openers, the diesel nozzle never has one of those vapor
> recapture bellows. Next, the diesel nozzle is nearly always a different
> color ... even at the crappiest private label fuel station.

Well I actually know of multiple cases of people adding diesel to a gasoline
tank and one very recent case of someone adding gasoline to a diesel tank
(it was in my friends shop today). Around here we don't have the vapor
recovery bellows. And yes, the diesel nozzles are green and the gasoline
nozzles are red. However, in many station both nozzles are attached to the
same pump, and at least at one station I frequent, they have four nozzles in
a row. If you are in a hurry it is not all that hard to grab the wrong one.
Particularly since it seems to me that stations that have multiple nozzles
per pump deliberately vary the location of the nozzles for the various
grades of gasoline. One station has the a different arrangement on every
pump. I think it is deliberate - a way of having people accidentally
purchase premium.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t>
> Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Regular Gas in a Premium Engine
>
>> No Joey. I have a little diesel powered Datsun truck for hauling
>> junk around. NEVER have I mistaken the gasoline nozzle for the
>> diesel nozzle ... not EVER. For openers, the diesel nozzle never
>> has one of those vapor recapture bellows. Next, the diesel nozzle
>> is nearly always a different color ... even at the crappiest private
>> label fuel station.
>
> Well I actually know of multiple cases of people adding diesel to a
> gasoline tank and one very recent case of someone adding gasoline to
> a diesel tank (it was in my friends shop today). Around here we don't
> have the vapor recovery bellows. And yes, the diesel nozzles are
> green and the gasoline nozzles are red. However, in many station both
> nozzles are attached to the same pump, and at least at one station I
> frequent, they have four nozzles in a row. If you are in a hurry it
> is not all that hard to grab the wrong one. Particularly since it
> seems to me that stations that have multiple nozzles per pump
> deliberately vary the location of the nozzles for the various grades
> of gasoline. One station has the a different arrangement on every
> pump. I think it is deliberate - a way of having people accidentally
> purchase premium.
>
> Ed

In the USA, ALL gasoline nozzels have a smaller diameter pipe than diesel
AND ALL cars have a nozzel pipe restrictor in the fuel tank inlet to match.
So unless Canada is different, no accidental misfueling of a gasoline car
with diesel is possible. If you DELIBERATELY misfuel ... that is a
different discussion. However, one can fairly easily misfuel a diesel
vehicle with gasoline.

"We" also have those multi fuel dispensers with one hose for each grade and
other dispensers with only one hose for each of three grades of gasoline.
However, diesel is always a separate hose although it may be connected to
the same dispenser.

So I have to question what you believe about contaminating gasoline with
diesel fuel.
--

- Philip

>>I was quoting the article that was URL'd her a day or so ago.
>>It says that experts figure it's maybe 5% unless you run
>>a turbo or supercharger, where the computers and anti-knock
>>sensors might not be able to compensate enough if you
>>suddenly floor it.
>
> Your sentence makes no sense. Are you saying 5% more or less horsepower?
> It sounds like you are saying that if the engine is turbo or supercharged
> the computers and sensors won't compensate enough so you get nothing.

The article that was posted in this group a couple of days ago
(URL to it, actually), said that maybe 5% less power from
87 octane gas as the knock sensors and computers would
compensate - that is, unless you had a large supercharger and
floored it, in which case, it might cause a problem.

>>The common findings of consumers is that the oxygenated stuff provides
>>about 10-15% less power, but that most consumers drive by speed and
>>not horsepower, so they subconsciously push the gas a bit harder
>>to maintain the same performance. So, it drives exactly the same.
>
> Are consumers taking their cars to dynomometers to measure horsepower? Are
> they timing 0-60 runs? How are consumers finding out that the oxygenated
> fuel provides 10-15% less power?

People have tested their cars, actually. The problem is that
gasoline is sold by volume and oxygenated gasoline has more
oxygen and less combustable material in it - so it creates
less pollution(neat trick - kind of how they put extra air
into cheap ice cream compared to the super-dense premium stuff)

>>Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
>>car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
>>they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
>>and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
>>they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
>>jumps to normal.
>
> I'll admit that it's been over 10 years since I have visited the LA area so
> I guess the climate must have changed dramatically. When I used to visit
> LA, the weather tended to be in the 80's during the summer and in the 60's
> during the winter.

Which is close enough so that it hardly makes a difference
(compared to the Midwest, where 40 degree winter days are
considered a heat wave).

>>Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
>>saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
>>in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
>>to the environment isn't pretty, either).
>
> Why is it that 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants but 4% less
> octane means double or quintuple less power?

Actually, it doesn't. Maybe 5%(I was way off). My guess is that
it's closer to 1% per octane, or thereabouts. Hardly worth mentioning
compared to the oxygenated gas.

> You should let the federal and state EPAs, and oil companies in on your
> discovery so that they don't continue to waste billions of dollars on an
> effort that has no effect. Or, could it be that the winter fuel blends are
> formulated to burn cleanly enough so that there is a net reduction in
> pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?

Not more evenly - just less gas. Remember, gas is sold by volume,
and dispensed by volume in your engine, so pumping extra air into
it(chemically doing the same thing, of course), effectively thins
it out. Less burnt means less pollution as long as your smog
equipment can handle the extra NOx emissions.

It also causes huge environmental problems. The stuff is very
pervaseive and toxic once it gets into the water supply.

Philip wrote:

> So I have to question what you believe about contaminating gasoline with
> diesel fuel.

Question it all you want. I know of verifiable cases, not
hearsay. A couple of years back my neighoor's wife filled
her Chevy Blazer (the samll one) with diesel fuel. She was
saved from damaging the vehicle when the cashier commented
that she didn't know you could get a diesel in one of the
little Blazers. After realizing her mistake, she called her
husband and he had the vehicle hauled to the dealer on a
flatbed truck. Earlier this week I stopped by a friend's
repair shop to pick-up some oil. He had a Dodge Ram Diesel
truck in the shop. They were draning the fuel tank. The
owner had pumped gasoline into his fuel tank. This may have
been from a farm tank and not a retail establishment - I did
not ask. But few farmers even have a "gasoline" storage tank
anymore.

I've heard of other cases of diesel fuel being added to
gasoline cars. In fact, there was one in one of the
newsgroups earlier this month. However, I don't know the
people involved, so I can't be sure they are true.

Ed

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
> saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
> in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
> to the environment isn't pretty, either).

It depends on what you consider "pollutants." If CO2 and H20
are pollutants, then your logic works. However, if you are
willing to consider them benign, and are really trying to
control CO, HC, NOx, and SO2, then 10% worse mileage might
not cause a corresponding increase in "pollutants." A lot of
the changes to reduce NOx actually hurt gas mileage, but
they did greatly reduce the amount of NOx created.

Regards,

Ed White

C. E. White wrote:
> Philip wrote:

>>In the USA, ALL gasoline nozzels have a smaller diameter pipe than diesel
>>AND ALL cars have a nozzel pipe restrictor in the fuel tank inlet to
>>match.
>>So unless Canada is different, no accidental misfueling of a gasoline car
>>with diesel is possible. If you DELIBERATELY misfuel ... that is a
>>different discussion. However, one can fairly easily misfuel a diesel
>>vehicle with gasoline.
>>
>>"We" also have those multi fuel dispensers with one hose for each grade
>>and
>>other dispensers with only one hose for each of three grades of gasoline.
>>However, diesel is always a separate hose although it may be connected to
>>the same dispenser.
>>
>>So I have to question what you believe about contaminating gasoline with
>>diesel fuel.
>>--
>> Philip

> Question it all you want. I know of verifiable cases, not
> hearsay. A couple of years back my neighoor's wife filled
> her Chevy Blazer (the samll one) with diesel fuel. She was
> saved from damaging the vehicle when the cashier commented
> that she didn't know you could get a diesel in one of the
> little Blazers. After realizing her mistake, she called her
> husband and he had the vehicle hauled to the dealer on a
> flatbed truck. Earlier this week I stopped by a friend's
> repair shop to pick-up some oil. He had a Dodge Ram Diesel
> truck in the shop. They were draning the fuel tank. The
> owner had pumped gasoline into his fuel tank. This may have
> been from a farm tank and not a retail establishment - I did
> not ask. But few farmers even have a "gasoline" storage tank
> anymore.
>
> I've heard of other cases of diesel fuel being added to
> gasoline cars. In fact, there was one in one of the
> newsgroups earlier this month. However, I don't know the
> people involved, so I can't be sure they are true.
>
> Ed

Ed. I'm going to SPOON FEED this to you:

1). In Canada, do gasoline cars requiring UNLEADED fuel have a nozzle
restrictor in the gas tank filler neck?

2). In Canada, does the UNLEADED fuel nozzle have the same diameter .... or
a smaller diameter ... nozzle pipe ... than .... the ... diesel ... nozzle
pipe?

3). Do you believe you can put a large nozzle into a small hole without
noticing something is not right? Please don't sexualize your answer.

Consider your answers carefully.
--

- Philip

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qFdTd.4253$MY6.763@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
>
>>>I was quoting the article that was URL'd her a day or so ago.
>>>It says that experts figure it's maybe 5% unless you run
>>>a turbo or supercharger, where the computers and anti-knock
>>>sensors might not be able to compensate enough if you
>>>suddenly floor it.
>>
>> Your sentence makes no sense. Are you saying 5% more or less horsepower?
>> It sounds like you are saying that if the engine is turbo or supercharged
>> the computers and sensors won't compensate enough so you get nothing.
>
> The article that was posted in this group a couple of days ago
> (URL to it, actually), said that maybe 5% less power from
> 87 octane gas as the knock sensors and computers would
> compensate - that is, unless you had a large supercharger and
> floored it, in which case, it might cause a problem.
>
>>>The common findings of consumers is that the oxygenated stuff provides
>>>about 10-15% less power, but that most consumers drive by speed and
>>>not horsepower, so they subconsciously push the gas a bit harder
>>>to maintain the same performance. So, it drives exactly the same.
>>
>> Are consumers taking their cars to dynomometers to measure horsepower?
>> Are they timing 0-60 runs? How are consumers finding out that the
>> oxygenated fuel provides 10-15% less power?
>
> People have tested their cars, actually. The problem is that
> gasoline is sold by volume and oxygenated gasoline has more
> oxygen and less combustable material in it - so it creates
> less pollution(neat trick - kind of how they put extra air
> into cheap ice cream compared to the super-dense premium stuff)
>
>>>Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
>>>car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
>>>they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
>>>and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
>>>they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
>>>jumps to normal.
>>
>> I'll admit that it's been over 10 years since I have visited the LA area
>> so I guess the climate must have changed dramatically. When I used to
>> visit LA, the weather tended to be in the 80's during the summer and in
>> the 60's during the winter.
>
> Which is close enough so that it hardly makes a difference
> (compared to the Midwest, where 40 degree winter days are
> considered a heat wave).
>
>>>Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
>>>saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
>>>in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
>>>to the environment isn't pretty, either).
>>
>> Why is it that 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants but 4% less
>> octane means double or quintuple less power?
>
> Actually, it doesn't. Maybe 5%(I was way off). My guess is that
> it's closer to 1% per octane, or thereabouts. Hardly worth mentioning
> compared to the oxygenated gas.
>
>> You should let the federal and state EPAs, and oil companies in on your
>> discovery so that they don't continue to waste billions of dollars on an
>> effort that has no effect. Or, could it be that the winter fuel blends
>> are formulated to burn cleanly enough so that there is a net reduction in
>> pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?
>
> Not more evenly - just less gas. Remember, gas is sold by volume,
> and dispensed by volume in your engine, so pumping extra air into
> it(chemically doing the same thing, of course), effectively thins
> it out. Less burnt means less pollution as long as your smog
> equipment can handle the extra NOx emissions.
>
> It also causes huge environmental problems. The stuff is very
> pervaseive and toxic once it gets into the water supply.

I had a co-worker who used to say that it was better to be quiet and let
people think you're an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt. You
should seriously consider that advice or admit you're just trolling.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Ray O wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:qFdTd.4253$MY6.763@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
>>
>>>> I was quoting the article that was URL'd her a day or so ago.
>>>> It says that experts figure it's maybe 5% unless you run
>>>> a turbo or supercharger, where the computers and anti-knock
>>>> sensors might not be able to compensate enough if you
>>>> suddenly floor it.
>>>
>>> Your sentence makes no sense. Are you saying 5% more or less
>>> horsepower? It sounds like you are saying that if the engine is
>>> turbo or supercharged the computers and sensors won't compensate
>>> enough so you get nothing.
>>
>> The article that was posted in this group a couple of days ago
>> (URL to it, actually), said that maybe 5% less power from
>> 87 octane gas as the knock sensors and computers would
>> compensate - that is, unless you had a large supercharger and
>> floored it, in which case, it might cause a problem.
>>
>>>> The common findings of consumers is that the oxygenated stuff
>>>> provides about 10-15% less power, but that most consumers drive by
>>>> speed and not horsepower, so they subconsciously push the gas a bit
>>>> harder
>>>> to maintain the same performance. So, it drives exactly the same.
>>>
>>> Are consumers taking their cars to dynomometers to measure
>>> horsepower? Are they timing 0-60 runs? How are consumers finding
>>> out that the oxygenated fuel provides 10-15% less power?
>>
>> People have tested their cars, actually. The problem is that
>> gasoline is sold by volume and oxygenated gasoline has more
>> oxygen and less combustable material in it - so it creates
>> less pollution(neat trick - kind of how they put extra air
>> into cheap ice cream compared to the super-dense premium stuff)
>>
>>>> Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
>>>> car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
>>>> they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
>>>> and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
>>>> they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
>>>> jumps to normal.
>>>
>>> I'll admit that it's been over 10 years since I have visited the LA
>>> area so I guess the climate must have changed dramatically. When I
>>> used to visit LA, the weather tended to be in the 80's during the
>>> summer and in the 60's during the winter.
>>
>> Which is close enough so that it hardly makes a difference
>> (compared to the Midwest, where 40 degree winter days are
>> considered a heat wave).
>>
>>>> Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
>>>> saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
>>>> in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
>>>> to the environment isn't pretty, either).
>>>
>>> Why is it that 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants but 4%
>>> less octane means double or quintuple less power?
>>
>> Actually, it doesn't. Maybe 5%(I was way off). My guess is that
>> it's closer to 1% per octane, or thereabouts. Hardly worth
>> mentioning compared to the oxygenated gas.
>>
>>> You should let the federal and state EPAs, and oil companies in on
>>> your discovery so that they don't continue to waste billions of
>>> dollars on an effort that has no effect. Or, could it be that the
>>> winter fuel blends are formulated to burn cleanly enough so that
>>> there is a net reduction in pollutants, even with more fuel
>>> consumed?
>>
>> Not more evenly - just less gas. Remember, gas is sold by volume,
>> and dispensed by volume in your engine, so pumping extra air into
>> it(chemically doing the same thing, of course), effectively thins
>> it out. Less burnt means less pollution as long as your smog
>> equipment can handle the extra NOx emissions.
>>
>> It also causes huge environmental problems. The stuff is very
>> pervaseive and toxic once it gets into the water supply.
>
> I had a co-worker who used to say that it was better to be quiet and
> let people think you're an idiot than open your mouth and remove all
> doubt. You should seriously consider that advice or admit you're
> just trolling.

Joey will do neither, although he may take a couple of days off to let the
new medication work.
--

- Philip

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v5qTd.4710$MY6.19@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>
>
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Joey will do neither, although he may take a couple of days off to let
>> the new medication work.
>
> I'm not trolling. Do an online search for MBTE and Ethanol and
> see what pops up when it comes to performance and mileage
> (let alone what the stuff does to the environment)

Joe,

No offense, but you are taking facts and interpreting the info incorrectly
or mixing your incorrect assumptions with the facts. I don't know what your
automotive background or training is but you come across as what my
co-workers used to call the "Road & Track/Motor Trend engineers," people who
read auto buff magazines and dispense incorrect or inaccurate advice and
information, a phenomenon we used to see in sales departments. If you're
trying to save face, it's backfiring and instead of coming across as some
authority on how cars work, you are smack dab in the middle of auto
magazine "expert" territory.

I don't consider myself in the same league as some of those co-workers
although I pride myself in having to call on their expertese only twice in
15 years to fix something I couldn't figure out. Other than those 2 cars, I
somehow managed to muddle through and deal with every other problem car that
a dealer technician had trouble with at the dealers I called on put in front
of me.

>
> They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
> to affect performance and mileage.
>
> http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
> Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
> gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
> engines to run poorly)

Couldn't open the link.

> 15% additives is going to reduce the actual amount
> of combustable energy in that gallon of fuel, which
> will lead to lower emissions, but also less power
> for more fuel burnt.
>
> I pay for 128 fl ounces of 87 octane fuel and get 109 fl
> ounces of fuel and 19 ounces of crap that artificially
> boosts the octane rating, much like the lead they used to
> put in gas 30 years ago.
>
> http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/oxy-fuel/enrgycon.shtml
> Chevron's own site - actual numbers for energy
> contained in each formulation.
>
> 93,500 btus of energy per gallon of MBTE.
> 115,000 btus of energy per gallon of regular gas.
> A 15% blend is 111,800 btus, which means about a 3%
> lower MPG figure and 3% less power, or close to 8-9%
> total fuel differnece if the computers do their job and
> up the fuel ratio to maintain the same power levels.
>

Where are you getting this 8-9% total fuel difference from a 3% lower MPG?
According to the Chevron site, a fuel blend with 15% MBTE gets in the
neighborhood of 3% less power and 3% less MPG. I did not see any reference
to total fuel difference.

I think you are making the assumption that a computer "does it's job" by
trying to "up the fuel ratio to maintain the same power levels". This
assumption is incorrect.

A car's computer is not designed to measure or track engine power so it does
not make any attempt to maintain power levels. The ECU cannot measure or
analyze the composition or BTU content of the fuel running to the engine.

At the most basic level, engines need 3 things to operate: air, fuel, and a
source of ignition, all at the appropriate amounts, ratios, and times. The
ECU in a car is designed give measure how much air is going to the engine
and mix the right amount of fuel so you get the correct air/fuel ratio, then
supply a spark to burn the air/fuel mixture. If the mixture is not burning
cleanly, as determined by O2 sensors, it will adjust the amount of fuel or
spark timing. If the mixture is not burning at the correct time, as
determined by knock sensors, it will adjust the timing of the spark.
Electronic spark advance and distributorless ignitions have made spark
timing easier and more precise than mechanical and vacuum spark advance.

You postulated that that a computer is measuring power, and in a perverse
sense, you are correct. The operator controls power by determining how much
throttle to apply. If the operator wants to go faster, the operator
depresses the throttle pedal further.

> ie - the computers in your engine defeat the emissions
> reduction of the reformulated fuel.

This is incorrect speculation/postulation on yhour part.

In the end, it just
> means the gas companies sell more fuel per year AND can
> charge more money doing it. Not surprizing, actually.
> They tried this tactic years ago with Ethanol, remember?
> Cheap to produce, but as the URL above shows, 76,000 bts
> was a far cry from normal gas. Now, they've gotten trickier
> about it, but it's the same tactic of thinning out the
> fuel to make more money.
>

Ethanol is a "renewable" resource, alcohol made from agricultural products.
Since the U.S. is pretty good at producing agricultural products then in
theory, the more ethanol is burned, the less oil needs to be imported or
extracted from the ground. That reasoning, along with backing from
farmers, made ethanol something worth pursuing as a fuel. More farmers vote
than oil barons.

> OTOH...
> The reformulated gas *does* reduce emissions and gives no
> worse mileage(or hardly noticeable) if your car has
> carbs or is a motorcycle or leafblower or boat or
> something without computers micro-managing the ratios.

Read about computers above!

> Since boats and small engines and older cars tend to produce
> pollutants on the order of several hundreds of times more
> than a typical new car(especially 2-stroke engines), this is
> probably a net gain in smog reduction.
>
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:26:09 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>>> Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
>>>> sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
>>>> putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.
>>>
>>> So this is just a suposition on your part? I was hoping it
>>> was some sort of EPA rule. If you had not noticed, the
>>> diesel nozzle will fit in the unleaded gas filler neck on
>>> your car. Now that is real liability!
>>
>> They had to resize one way or the other, and it's far far
>> more likely to accidently put gas into your diesel by mistake
>> than the reverse.
>
> Not if you live in Rio Linda California...

Scott ... EVEN WHEN you live in Rio Linda, CA (still in the USA) .... a
diesel nozzle does not fit into the smaller diameter fuel tank restrictor in
all unleaded gasoline cars.
--

- Philip

>Scott ... EVEN WHEN you live in Rio Linda, CA (still in the USA) .... a
>diesel nozzle does not fit into the smaller diameter fuel tank restrictor in
>all unleaded gasoline cars.

But not motorcycles:)

Travelling to Sturgis this year, a friend shoved the green nozzle in
his Harley. It was fuel injected, so it took a while for us to sort
it out.

Lesson learned!

In Canada, some outlets use green nozzles for gas; for example, I
fuelled up at a Mohawk station today which used a combination of blue
and green nozzles for gas.

Gary
Please remove XXX in email address if email reply is desired.

G Mulcaster wrote:
>> Scott ... EVEN WHEN you live in Rio Linda, CA (still in the USA)
>> .... a diesel nozzle does not fit into the smaller diameter fuel
>> tank restrictor in all unleaded gasoline cars.
>
> But not motorcycles:)
>
> Travelling to Sturgis this year, a friend shoved the green nozzle in
> his Harley. It was fuel injected, so it took a while for us to sort
> it out.
>
> Lesson learned!
>
> In Canada, some outlets use green nozzles for gas; for example, I
> fuelled up at a Mohawk station today which used a combination of blue
> and green nozzles for gas.
>
> Gary

Since Ed has gone into reclusion and because you have been to Canada
recently, is the nozzle diameter of unleaded gasoline smaller than the
diesel nozzle as it is across the USA?
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:3cnTd.10375$x53.1057@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
> Ed. I'm going to SPOON FEED this to you:
>
> 1). In Canada, do gasoline cars requiring UNLEADED fuel have a nozzle
> restrictor in the gas tank filler neck?
>
> 2). In Canada, does the UNLEADED fuel nozzle have the same diameter ....
or
> a smaller diameter ... nozzle pipe ... than .... the ... diesel ... nozzle
> pipe?
>
> 3). Do you believe you can put a large nozzle into a small hole without
> noticing something is not right? Please don't sexualize your answer.
>
> Consider your answers carefully.

I know very little of Canada. I have not crossed the border into Canada
since 1978. Last time I was there, leaded gas was still available and my
1975 Datsun ran on leaded gas. I have never owned a diesel road vehicle. I
have no idea what sort of nozzles they have in Canada. Until tonight I
assumed they were similar to the ones in use in the US. Please enlighten me
if they are different.

I looked at a diesel nozzle this evening (Texaco Station, US-1A, Wake
Forest, NC, USA), and it was the same size as the unleaded nozzle. I
searched the EPA rules, and there is not a current rule that specifies the
diesel fuel dispenser nozzle size. Unleaded gas nozzles are to be less than
0.840" in diameter. Leaded gasoline nozzles are required to be greater than
0.930 inches in diameter. That is all they had to say on the subject of fuel
dispenser nozzle diameters. I did notice that at least one state (Arkansas)
was recommending the adoption of a standard for diesel fuel nozzle
diameters. They were recommending a minimum size of 0.930". The
recommendation specifically stated that this change was intended to prevent
adding diesel fuel to vehicles that required unleaded gasoline.

Regards,

Ed White

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:3cnTd.10375$x53.1057@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> Ed. I'm going to SPOON FEED this to you:
>
> 1). In Canada, do gasoline cars requiring UNLEADED fuel have a nozzle
> restrictor in the gas tank filler neck?
>
> 2). In Canada, does the UNLEADED fuel nozzle have the same diameter ....
or
> a smaller diameter ... nozzle pipe ... than .... the ... diesel ... nozzle
> pipe?
>
> 3). Do you believe you can put a large nozzle into a small hole without
> noticing something is not right? Please don't sexualize your answer.
>
> Consider your answers carefully.

Take a look at these:

http://tinyurl.com/65l4v
http://tinyurl.com/4yt8p
http://tinyurl.com/45hkl


Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:3cnTd.10375$x53.1057@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
>> Ed. I'm going to SPOON FEED this to you:
>>
>> 1). In Canada, do gasoline cars requiring UNLEADED fuel have a
>> nozzle restrictor in the gas tank filler neck?
>>
>> 2). In Canada, does the UNLEADED fuel nozzle have the same diameter
>> .... or a smaller diameter ... nozzle pipe ... than .... the ...
>> diesel ... nozzle pipe?
>>
>> 3). Do you believe you can put a large nozzle into a small hole
>> without noticing something is not right? Please don't sexualize
>> your answer.
>>
>> Consider your answers carefully.
>
> I know very little of Canada. I have not crossed the border into
> Canada since 1978. Last time I was there, leaded gas was still
> available and my 1975 Datsun ran on leaded gas. I have never owned a
> diesel road vehicle. I have no idea what sort of nozzles they have in
> Canada. Until tonight I assumed they were similar to the ones in use
> in the US. Please enlighten me if they are different.

Then please scooozame, I was under the impression you were in Canada and
that all this "misfueling" you've witnessed was also in Canada.

> I looked at a diesel nozzle this evening (Texaco Station, US-1A, Wake
> Forest, NC, USA), and it was the same size as the unleaded nozzle. I
> searched the EPA rules, and there is not a current rule that
> specifies the diesel fuel dispenser nozzle size. Unleaded gas nozzles
> are to be less than
> 0.840" in diameter. Leaded gasoline nozzles are required to be
> greater than
> 0.930 inches in diameter. That is all they had to say on the subject
> of fuel dispenser nozzle diameters. I did notice that at least one
> state (Arkansas) was recommending the adoption of a standard for
> diesel fuel nozzle diameters. They were recommending a minimum size
> of 0.930". The recommendation specifically stated that this change
> was intended to prevent adding diesel fuel to vehicles that required
> unleaded gasoline.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White

Interesting. Thank you. If you visit a truck stop, you will find the
truck refueling island nozzles having a larger nozzle size than the
passenger car island diesel pump nozzles. The unleaded gasoline nozzle is
smaller yet. In all my years driving OTR (12 western states for the most
part), I NEVER saw the small unleaded gasoline nozzle dispensing diesel.
--

- Philip

C. E. White wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:3cnTd.10375$x53.1057@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
>>
>> Ed. I'm going to SPOON FEED this to you:
>>
>> 1). In Canada, do gasoline cars requiring UNLEADED fuel have a
>> nozzle restrictor in the gas tank filler neck?
>>
>> 2). In Canada, does the UNLEADED fuel nozzle have the same diameter
>> .... or a smaller diameter ... nozzle pipe ... than .... the ...
>> diesel ... nozzle pipe?
>>
>> 3). Do you believe you can put a large nozzle into a small hole
>> without noticing something is not right? Please don't sexualize
>> your answer.
>>
>> Consider your answers carefully.
>
> Take a look at these:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/65l4v
> http://tinyurl.com/4yt8p
> http://tinyurl.com/45hkl
>
>
> Ed

In the first link, nothing was mentioned about nozzle size but , considering
the vehicle is a late model Honda, then either the Unleaded nozzle was
deliberately misfitted or the owner was able insert the larger diesel
nozzle. Not really sure here.

In second link, there was impropriety at that particular station.

In the third link, is similar to the second.

These all have a similarity in that the individual station owner had put an
unleaded gasoline nozzle on the diesel pump. I don't see a statewide
conspiracy to induce misfueling.

--

- Philip

Ray O wrote:

>>They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>to affect performance and mileage.
>>
>>http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>engines to run poorly)
>
> Couldn't open the link.

Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.

> A car's computer is not designed to measure or track engine power so it does
> not make any attempt to maintain power levels. The ECU cannot measure or
> analyze the composition or BTU content of the fuel running to the engine.

No, but the whole point of the MTBE is to add oxygen to the burn cycle,
which does get measured. More oxygen compounds and less burning of
fuel will trip the sensors to deliver more fuel to compensate, as
it will think it's burning too lean.(which it is)

You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.

>>means the gas companies sell more fuel per year AND can
>>charge more money doing it. Not surprizing, actually.
>>They tried this tactic years ago with Ethanol, remember?
>>Cheap to produce, but as the URL above shows, 76,000 bts
>>was a far cry from normal gas. Now, they've gotten trickier
>>about it, but it's the same tactic of thinning out the
>>fuel to make more money.
>>
>
> Ethanol is a "renewable" resource, alcohol made from agricultural products.
> Since the U.S. is pretty good at producing agricultural products then in
> theory, the more ethanol is burned, the less oil needs to be imported or
> extracted from the ground.

That I actually have no problem with. I'd love a car that ran on
ethanol and less of our futures tied up overseas. But, MBTE
isn't ethanol, and so it offers no benefits.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 04:55:39 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>G Mulcaster wrote:
>>> Scott ... EVEN WHEN you live in Rio Linda, CA (still in the USA)
>>> .... a diesel nozzle does not fit into the smaller diameter fuel
>>> tank restrictor in all unleaded gasoline cars.
>>
>> But not motorcycles:)
>>
>> Travelling to Sturgis this year, a friend shoved the green nozzle in
>> his Harley. It was fuel injected, so it took a while for us to sort
>> it out.
>>
>> Lesson learned!
>>
>> In Canada, some outlets use green nozzles for gas; for example, I
>> fuelled up at a Mohawk station today which used a combination of blue
>> and green nozzles for gas.
>>
>> Gary
>
>Since Ed has gone into reclusion and because you have been to Canada
>recently, is the nozzle diameter of unleaded gasoline smaller than the
>diesel nozzle as it is across the USA?

Don't know, but I will see what I can find out.
Gary
Please remove XXX in email address if email reply is desired.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Ray O wrote:
>
>>> They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>> to affect performance and mileage.
>>>
>>> http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>> Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>> gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>> engines to run poorly)
>>
>> Couldn't open the link.
>
> Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.
>
>> A car's computer is not designed to measure or track engine power so
>> it does not make any attempt to maintain power levels. The ECU
>> cannot measure or analyze the composition or BTU content of the fuel
>> running to the engine.
>
> No, but the whole point of the MTBE is to add oxygen to the burn
> cycle, which does get measured. More oxygen compounds and less
> burning of fuel will trip the sensors to deliver more fuel to compensate,
> as
> it will think it's burning too lean.(which it is)
>
> You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.
>
>>> means the gas companies sell more fuel per year AND can
>>> charge more money doing it. Not surprizing, actually.
>>> They tried this tactic years ago with Ethanol, remember?
>>> Cheap to produce, but as the URL above shows, 76,000 bts
>>> was a far cry from normal gas. Now, they've gotten trickier
>>> about it, but it's the same tactic of thinning out the
>>> fuel to make more money.
>>>
>>
>> Ethanol is a "renewable" resource, alcohol made from agricultural
>> products. Since the U.S. is pretty good at producing agricultural
>> products then in theory, the more ethanol is burned, the less oil
>> needs to be imported or extracted from the ground.
>
> That I actually have no problem with. I'd love a car that ran on
> ethanol and less of our futures tied up overseas. But, MBTE
> isn't ethanol, and so it offers no benefits.

If E85 became the national motor fuel of choice next week, it would not be
long before the EPA, ARB, and a few other environmental agencies would have
to justify their existence by finding horrendously toxic compounds in E85
exhaust ... like formaldehyde.
--

- Philip

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7BATd.5170$MY6.4220@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>
> Ray O wrote:
>
>>>They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>>to affect performance and mileage.
>>>
>>>http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>>Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>>gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>>engines to run poorly)
>> Couldn't open the link.
>
> Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.
>

OK, I was able to open the link today. I don't recall the writer mentioning
ARCO gas.

>> A car's computer is not designed to measure or track engine power so it
>> does not make any attempt to maintain power levels. The ECU cannot
>> measure or analyze the composition or BTU content of the fuel running to
>> the engine.
>
> No, but the whole point of the MTBE is to add oxygen to the burn cycle,
> which does get measured. More oxygen compounds and less burning of
> fuel will trip the sensors to deliver more fuel to compensate, as
> it will think it's burning too lean.(which it is)
>
> You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.

Not only are your logic and assumptions incorrect, you keep changing your
story and reasoning.

You were saying before that a vehicle's computers and sensors were
compensating to maintain power, now you are swaying that the computers and
sensors are compensating because the reformulated gas (RFG) is too lean.

You say there is not net gain, and are unclear in what you are not gaining.
Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should take into
consideration that the air quality in the areas that are using RFG have
experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert, there is no net gain
in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air quality in those cities get
better?
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Ray O wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7BATd.5170$MY6.4220@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>>
>>
>> Ray O wrote:
>>
>>>> They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>>> to affect performance and mileage.
>>>>
>>>> http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>>> Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>>> gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>>> engines to run poorly)
>>> Couldn't open the link.
>>
>> Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.
>>
>
> OK, I was able to open the link today. I don't recall the writer
> mentioning ARCO gas.
>
>>> A car's computer is not designed to measure or track engine power
>>> so it does not make any attempt to maintain power levels. The ECU
>>> cannot measure or analyze the composition or BTU content of the
>>> fuel running to the engine.
>>
>> No, but the whole point of the MTBE is to add oxygen to the burn
>> cycle, which does get measured. More oxygen compounds and less
>> burning of fuel will trip the sensors to deliver more fuel to compensate,
>> as
>> it will think it's burning too lean.(which it is)
>>
>> You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.
>
> Not only are your logic and assumptions incorrect, you keep changing
> your story and reasoning.
>
> You were saying before that a vehicle's computers and sensors were
> compensating to maintain power, now you are swaying that the
> computers and sensors are compensating because the reformulated gas
> (RFG) is too lean.
> You say there is not net gain, and are unclear in what you are not
> gaining. Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should
> take into consideration that the air quality in the areas that are
> using RFG have experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert,
> there is no net gain in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air
> quality in those cities get better?

Changes in weather patterns, rain .... stuff the air quality bureaucrats
want to take credit for.
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:

> If E85 became the national motor fuel of choice next week, it would not be
> long before the EPA, ARB, and a few other environmental agencies would have
> to justify their existence by finding horrendously toxic compounds in E85
> exhaust ... like formaldehyde.

I'd rather deal with that than have our shorts in the vise of
even more foriegn oil. You'll note that the last few thiings that
the interim leader in Iraq did beofre he was kicked out this
week was to secure contracts with U.S. oil companies - literally
within a 48 hour time period.

It was about the oil, and will be until we can move away from it
to a better fuel source.

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. It would be
exactly like putting a gallon of injector cleaner in every
time I filled up.(actually about 1.5 gallons for my tank, but
mine's a bit larger than an Echo's - lol)

Ray O wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7BATd.5170$MY6.4220@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>>
>>Ray O wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>>>to affect performance and mileage.
>>>>
>>>>http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>>>Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>>>gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>>>engines to run poorly)
>>>
>>> Couldn't open the link.
>>
>>Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.
>>
>
>
> OK, I was able to open the link today. I don't recall the writer mentioning
> ARCO gas.

ARCO keeps the price down on its gas by putting in the cheaper
cleaning compounds. My car runs noticeably poorer after a
tank or two of it, and a switch to Shell or Chevron gets my
engine happy again. Of course, that's to be expected given
the dime less it costs. You get what you pay for, afterall.


>>You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.
>
> Not only are your logic and assumptions incorrect, you keep changing your
> story and reasoning.
>
> You were saying before that a vehicle's computers and sensors were
> compensating to maintain power, now you are swaying that the computers and
> sensors are compensating because the reformulated gas (RFG) is too lean.

Well, in a way, they are - or at least in newer cars. They see that the
copression is a bit different than expected(less energy means the piston
is moving a bit less forceably - less compression). The computers
naturally compensate, just like they do when you put 87 in a premium
fuel engine.

> You say there is not net gain, and are unclear in what you are not gaining.

The savings in pollution is only a few percent, yet to go 100 miles,
you use more fuel - so that it's literally only a 1-2% or so savings
in net pollution(if you don't factor in the pollution in making the MBTE
and what it does to the enviroment)

I remember a thread about this in I think the Volvo group a few years
ago - they ran the numbers and it shrunk to nearly nothing. All
it does is make the companies more money and also the government
as well. It's typical government-mandated feel-good science to
look like they are doing something.

Cleaning up diesel emissions - that's the real problem we should
be addressing. Millions of unregulated, belching, heavy-duty
tucks, busses, and pieces of heavy machinery.

> Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should take into
> consideration that the air quality in the areas that are using RFG have
> experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert, there is no net gain
> in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air quality in those cities get
> better?

Mostly via a switch to less polluting public transportation and
controls on emissions from light industry. A single old school
bus or bulldozer with no emissions controls pollutes more than
a thousand new cars do. Or even a thousand slightly out of tune
ten year old cars do. The rest - from less polluting new cars
and programs to trade in old hulk-mobiles.

Just wait until the new diesel fuel and smog controls go into
effect next year - the numbers will drop like a rock in most
major cities.

Philip wrote:

>>You say there is not net gain, and are unclear in what you are not
>>gaining. Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should
>>take into consideration that the air quality in the areas that are
>>using RFG have experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert,
>>there is no net gain in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air
>>quality in those cities get better?
>
>
> Changes in weather patterns, rain .... stuff the air quality bureaucrats
> want to take credit for.

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.

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. And, so far, about half of the
meter/parking ticket vehicles as well as the entire city
maintainence vehicle fleet The pay to crush your
old rotting non-passable car program also is a success.
Though, it is killing a lot of nice classic vehicles
that could be useful for at least parts.

They also made the entire subway and new light rail system
electric. Only the main lines in and out of town use
the big diesel engines anymore.

They even forced the big container ships to stop offshore
a few miles and they get pulled in by tugs instead of
powering their way in and out like they used to.(though
I think this is now over a decade they have been doing this)

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:uVzTd.14146$x53.7909@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...

> > Take a look at these:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/65l4v
> > http://tinyurl.com/4yt8p
> > http://tinyurl.com/45hkl
> >
> >
> > Ed
>
> In the first link, nothing was mentioned about nozzle size but ,
considering
> the vehicle is a late model Honda, then either the Unleaded nozzle was
> deliberately misfitted or the owner was able insert the larger diesel
> nozzle. Not really sure here.
>
> In second link, there was impropriety at that particular station.
>
> In the third link, is similar to the second.
>
> These all have a similarity in that the individual station owner had put
an
> unleaded gasoline nozzle on the diesel pump. I don't see a statewide
> conspiracy to induce misfueling.


No conspiracy needed. As far as I can determine there is no US nationwide
rule that specifies the size of diesel fuel nozzles. I personally verified
that a local station has the same size nozzle for diesel and unleaded
gasoline. I gave you three newgroups references where diesel was pumped into
gasoline vehicles. I have a personal friend who did it. I searched the
Federal Register for a rule specifying the size of diesel nozzles and
could not find one. I even found a proposed change to a state's rules to add
one (surely proof that one does not yet exist). In the absence of a rule it
is obvious, at least to me, that stations are free to use whatever size
nozzle they want on diesel pumps. The fact that using the smaller unleaded
nozzle on a diesel pump has been done and is being done seems to have
escaped you.

Ed

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:P3KTd.5411$MY6.327@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> Ray O wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:7BATd.5170$MY6.4220@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>>
>>>
>>>Ray O wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>>>>to affect performance and mileage.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>>>>Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>>>>gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>>>>engines to run poorly)
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't open the link.
>>>
>>>Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK, I was able to open the link today. I don't recall the writer
>> mentioning ARCO gas.
>
> ARCO keeps the price down on its gas by putting in the cheaper
> cleaning compounds. My car runs noticeably poorer after a
> tank or two of it, and a switch to Shell or Chevron gets my
> engine happy again. Of course, that's to be expected given
> the dime less it costs. You get what you pay for, afterall.
>

IMO, using non name-brand gas is a gamble. Besides differences in
performance, there is the potential of injector fouling, water and
contaminants in the gas, etc., and the cost to diagnose and fix the problems
could exceed the savings in gas cost, especially if the savings is 2 or 3
cents a gallon.


>>>You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.
>>
>> Not only are your logic and assumptions incorrect, you keep changing your
>> story and reasoning.
>>
>> You were saying before that a vehicle's computers and sensors were
>> compensating to maintain power, now you are swaying that the computers
>> and sensors are compensating because the reformulated gas (RFG) is too
>> lean.
>
> Well, in a way, they are - or at least in newer cars. They see that the
> copression is a bit different than expected(less energy means the piston
> is moving a bit less forceably - less compression). The computers
> naturally compensate, just like they do when you put 87 in a premium
> fuel engine.
>
Older and newer ECU's do NOT measure compression or how forcibly the piston
is moving or power so there is no compensation. Regardless of RPM or
air/fuel ratio or whatever other variable you can think of, compression does
not change in an engine unless you factor in deposits on the piston, valves,
or wear.

ECU's do not measure octane or fuel grade directly either. Indirectly, they
can detect engine knock caused by high heat and/or lower octane fuel and
retard the ignition timing but there is no fuel/air ratio adjustment tied
into the knock sensor.

I suspect that you think that automotive ECU's are more elaborate than they
really are. Basically, they are designed to measure air flow and squirt the
right amount of gas for a given amount of air and then supply the spark to
burn the air/fuel mixture. They take into account variables like engine
temperature, engine RPM, throttle position, and emissions to adjust either
fuel or spark. The power produced by an engine is what it is and is
optimized by using burning the fuel as efficiently as possible.

>> You say there is not net gain, and are unclear in what you are not
>> gaining.
>
> The savings in pollution is only a few percent, yet to go 100 miles,
> you use more fuel - so that it's literally only a 1-2% or so savings
> in net pollution(if you don't factor in the pollution in making the MBTE
> and what it does to the enviroment)
>
> I remember a thread about this in I think the Volvo group a few years
> ago - they ran the numbers and it shrunk to nearly nothing. All
> it does is make the companies more money and also the government
> as well. It's typical government-mandated feel-good science to
> look like they are doing something.
>
> Cleaning up diesel emissions - that's the real problem we should
> be addressing. Millions of unregulated, belching, heavy-duty
> tucks, busses, and pieces of heavy machinery.
>
>> Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should take into
>> consideration that the air quality in the areas that are using RFG have
>> experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert, there is no net
>> gain in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air quality in those
>> cities get better?
>
> Mostly via a switch to less polluting public transportation and
> controls on emissions from light industry. A single old school
> bus or bulldozer with no emissions controls pollutes more than
> a thousand new cars do. Or even a thousand slightly out of tune
> ten year old cars do. The rest - from less polluting new cars
> and programs to trade in old hulk-mobiles.
>
> Just wait until the new diesel fuel and smog controls go into
> effect next year - the numbers will drop like a rock in most
> major cities.
>
Trying to determine whether some idea to lower emissions results in a true
net gain, when you take into consideration production costs, resources,
energy, etc. is a little beyond my background and so all I can do is listen
to the real experts and try to decide.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> If E85 became the national motor fuel of choice next week, it would
>> not be long before the EPA, ARB, and a few other environmental
>> agencies would have to justify their existence by finding
>> horrendously toxic compounds in E85 exhaust ... like formaldehyde.
>
> I'd rather deal with that than have our shorts in the vise of
> even more foriegn oil.

You usually are unappreciative of the Big Picture.

> 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.

What evidence do you have supporting that claim?

> It would be
> exactly like putting a gallon of injector cleaner in every
> time I filled up

Explain how this is so. Is motor fuel grade alcohol known for cleaning
injectors? Injector cleaners are volitile especially when atomized.
--

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Ray O wrote:
>> Not only are your logic and assumptions incorrect, you keep changing
>> your story and reasoning.
>>
>> You were saying before that a vehicle's computers and sensors were
>> compensating to maintain power, now you are saying that the
>> computers and sensors are compensating because the reformulated gas
>> (RFG) is too lean.
>
> Well, in a way, they are - or at least in newer cars. They see that
> the copression is a bit different than expected(less energy means the
> piston is moving a bit less forceably - less compression). The computers
> naturally compensate, just like they do when you put 87 in a premium
> fuel engine.

Joey ... RayO has busted you ... again. Joey ... there are no compression
sensors. Good grief. You MIGHT get out a dictionary and look up all multi
syllable words you intend to use. Really.

> Cleaning up diesel emissions - that's the real problem we should
> be addressing. Millions of unregulated, belching, heavy-duty
> tucks, busses, and pieces of heavy machinery.

Pretty much done. Look around at current technology diesels in Europe.

>> Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should take into
>> consideration that the air quality in the areas that are using RFG
>> have experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert, there is
>> no net gain in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air quality
>> in those cities get better?
>
> Mostly via a switch to less polluting public transportation and
> controls on emissions from light industry. A single old school
> bus or bulldozer with no emissions controls pollutes more than
> a thousand new cars do. Or even a thousand slightly out of tune
> ten year old cars do. The rest - from less polluting new cars
> and programs to trade in old hulk-mobiles.

RayO. Joey does not get out much. He hasn't seen a belching RTD bus in many
years but to him ... they still roam the streams of all major cities.

> Just wait until the new diesel fuel and smog controls go into
> effect next year - the numbers will drop like a rock in most
> major cities.

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.
--

- Philip

C. E. White wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:uVzTd.14146$x53.7909@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
>>> Take a look at these:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/65l4v
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4yt8p
>>> http://tinyurl.com/45hkl
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> In the first link, nothing was mentioned about nozzle size but ,
>> considering the vehicle is a late model Honda, then either the
>> Unleaded nozzle was deliberately misfitted or the owner was able
>> insert the larger diesel nozzle. Not really sure here.
>>
>> In second link, there was impropriety at that particular station.
>>
>> In the third link, is similar to the second.
>>
>> These all have a similarity in that the individual station owner had
>> put
> an
>> unleaded gasoline nozzle on the diesel pump. I don't see a
>> statewide conspiracy to induce misfueling.
>
>
> No conspiracy needed. As far as I can determine there is no US
> nationwide rule that specifies the size of diesel fuel nozzles.

A tour around the country like I used to do suggests otherwise.

> I
> personally verified that a local station has the same size nozzle for
> diesel and unleaded gasoline.

Then REPORT the station to their Corporate office and to the Bureau of
Weights and Measures (the state agency that certifies the delivery accuracy
of fuel pumps).
--

- Philip

Ray O wrote:
> Older and newer ECU's do NOT measure compression or how forcibly the
> piston is moving or power so there is no compensation.

Well .... that's not perfectly true. VW's TDI diesels use a technology that
measures crankshaft rotation acceleration after each injector firing when
the engine is at low (idle) rpm. Compensations are calculated and executed
on the next cycle to ensure an equal amount of acceleration from each
cylinder. This ensures a smoother idle and better emissions (VW says).
Some gasoline vehicles having a coil on each spark plug may also have this
capability of varying ignition timing and/or injection timing individually
at low engine rpm.

--

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> 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.

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.

> 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.

So WHY did you claim earlier that there are untold herds of belching sooty
buses running all over the place?
--

- Philip

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Regular Gas in a Premium Engine


> > No conspiracy needed. As far as I can determine there is no US
> > nationwide rule that specifies the size of diesel fuel nozzles.
>
> A tour around the country like I used to do suggests otherwise.
>
> > I
> > personally verified that a local station has the same size nozzle for
> > diesel and unleaded gasoline.
>
> Then REPORT the station to their Corporate office and to the Bureau of
> Weights and Measures (the state agency that certifies the delivery
accuracy
> of fuel pumps).

On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule? Because you wish there
was a rule? Can you show me one credible reference that supports your
assertion that their is a rule? Wishing there was one, assuming there is
one, or just BSing are not substitutes for facts. I can believe you've seen
pumps that use the leaded gasoline size nozzles for diesel fuel. This seem
entirely reasonable since there is no US government rule (at least that I
can find) governing the size of diesel fuel nozzles. There must be millions
of old leaded gasoline nozzle laying around. Why do find it so hard to
swallow your pride and acknowledge, that in the absence of concrete rules,
it is also equally possible some stations are using the smaller unleaded
fuel nozzles? I've seen them with my own eyes. I only had to find one to be
right. You have to check millions to prove me wrong. Why not drive to Wake
Forest, NC and start at the Texaco Station on 1A? After that you can check
the Citgo Station on Glenwood Avenue in Raleigh, NC. They also have a diesel
pump with the smaller nozzle.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mudspring.com> wrote in message
news:lQPTd.2808$r55.781@attbi_s52...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t>
> Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Regular Gas in a Premium Engine
>
>
>> > No conspiracy needed. As far as I can determine there is no US
>> > nationwide rule that specifies the size of diesel fuel nozzles.
>>
>> A tour around the country like I used to do suggests otherwise.
>>
>> > I
>> > personally verified that a local station has the same size nozzle for
>> > diesel and unleaded gasoline.
>>
>> Then REPORT the station to their Corporate office and to the Bureau of
>> Weights and Measures (the state agency that certifies the delivery
> accuracy
>> of fuel pumps).
>
> On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?
snip
> Ed

YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one does not
mean there is no such regulation.
--

- Philip

----- 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
> > On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?

> YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one does not
> mean there is no such regulation.

Prove that there is one! I searched through the Federal Registry. I easily
found the rules for the size of unleaded gasoline nozzles and the rule for
leaded gasoline nozzles. I found plenty of rules on diesel fuel. But not one
mention of diesel fuel nozzle sizes. I went so far as to find a proposed
rule (not yet in force) by one state. You have never even tried to prove
that there is a rule with regards to diesel pump nozzle sizes. You just
believe there is one, based on nothing but seeing large ones at some pumps.
That proves zero. As I have repeatedly stated, I have personally seen two
different station with "small" diesel pump nozzles. In fact that is 100% of
the pumps I have actually checked. Until you made the unsubstatiated claim
that diesel pumps were required to use the large nozzles, I had never even
thought to look at diesel pump nozzles.

Ed

Philip wrote:

>>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.
>
>
> What evidence do you have supporting that claim?

That MBTE is a toxic substance is easy to verify. They
claim it doesn't get into the groundwater. It has. They
claim it is safe. It isn't even close. It looks like a
typical CYA move by the industry and the government agencies
who like to pass this sort of nonsnese legislation.

>>It would be
>>exactly like putting a gallon of injector cleaner in every
>>time I filled up
>
> Explain how this is so. Is motor fuel grade alcohol known for cleaning
> injectors? Injector cleaners are volitile especially when atomized.

The point is that the injector cleaner is crud that you
put in that dilutes the gas if you were to say, put in 1.5 gallons
in a 16 gallon fillup - to a point where it would likely be
noticeable. I see no need to put 15% MBTE in my gas when
the real trick to getting less emissions is to keep the
car in good mechanical shape. It's not broken, yet they
want to fix it.

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.

Philip wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> So WHY did you claim earlier that there are untold herds of belching sooty
> buses running all over the place?

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:
> Philip wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> What evidence do you have supporting that claim?
>
> That MBTE is a toxic substance is easy to verify.

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?

>> Explain how this is so. Is motor fuel grade alcohol known for
>> cleaning injectors? Injector cleaners are volitile especially when
>> atomized.
>
> The point is that the injector cleaner is crud...

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:
> ----- 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
>>> On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?
>
>> YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one does
>> not mean there is no such regulation.
>
> Prove that there is one!
snip

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

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> 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.

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:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> So WHY did you claim earlier that there are untold herds of belching
>> sooty buses running all over the place?
>
> 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.

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.

http://www.theaircar.com/index.html
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:

> 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?

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:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

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:

>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

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:
>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.

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:

> Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
> snip
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

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:

> "jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:
>
>
>>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
>
>
> 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.

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

> 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.

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:
> Philip wrote:
> >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.
>
> 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.

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

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> 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.

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

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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

- Philip

Gord Beaman wrote:

> y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.

OK - I knew I missed something. However - the main difference
is that it's a uncontrolled explosion, when normally one would
want a controlled, relatively slow burn pushing the the cylinder
along.

Philip wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>Philip wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Rubbish. You have been caught fabricating BS again.

You obviously don't know even how many gears a typical
big-rig has. Watch it go through the gears sometime -
and see how much black junk gets spewed forth.

Even an inefficient large SUV - you can't see the
emissions by comparison.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>> Philip wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Rubbish. You have been caught fabricating BS again.
>
> You obviously don't know even how many gears a typical
> big-rig has. Watch it go through the gears sometime -
> and see how much black junk gets spewed forth.

The number of gears is irrelevent. For all you know the truck could have
anything from a 6 speed Allison automatic to to a 18 speed Road Ranger to a
four speed with a brownie. You appear to have forgotten what I used to do
for a living before retirement. LOL

> Even an inefficient large SUV - you can't see the
> emissions by comparison.

CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 are not visble gases. So the only thing you can be
spewing gibberish about is soot. And once again ... for your feeble recall
resouces, clouds of visible soot is a characteristic of very old diesels or
those that have their emissions system tampered with.
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:MXYTd.7359$Ba3.3082@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> C. E. White wrote:
> > ----- 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
> >>> On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?
> >
> >> YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one does
> >> not mean there is no such regulation.
> >
> > Prove that there is one!
> snip
>
> "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
> --

You have no evidence at all. Just because you THINK all diesel nozzles are
large doesn't make it so. Just because you have seen some large diesel
nozzle doesn't make them all large. Just because you want to believe there
is a federal rule requiring large diesel nozzles does not make the rule
exist. I've seen small diesel nozzles. Touched them with my own hands.
Fitted them into my own unleaded gas filler neck. This trumps all your BSing
and wishing. A little evidence beats the hell out of total BS! However I can
confirm that there is no consistency in my area. The diesel nozzles at the
Kangaroo Station on Capital Blvd in Raleigh, NC are too large to fit in an
unleaded filler neck. So as of now, only 66% of the stations I have checked
have small diesel fuel nozzles.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:MXYTd.7359$Ba3.3082@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> ----- 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
>>>>> On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?
>>>
>>>> YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one
>>>> does not mean there is no such regulation.
>>>
>>> Prove that there is one!
>> snip
>>
>> "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
>> --
>
> You have no evidence at all. Just because you THINK all diesel
> nozzles are large doesn't make it so. Just because you have seen some
> large diesel nozzle doesn't make them all large. Just because you
> want to believe there is a federal rule requiring large diesel
> nozzles does not make the rule exist. I've seen small diesel nozzles.
> Touched them with my own hands. Fitted them into my own unleaded gas
> filler neck.

You're anecdotal experience does not preclude a legal violation by that
particular station that is going unnoticed.

snip
> The diesel nozzles at the
> Kangaroo Station on Capital Blvd in Raleigh, NC are too large to fit
> in an unleaded filler neck. So as of now, only 66% of the stations I
> have checked have small diesel fuel nozzles.
>
> Ed

"Kangaroo Station ... in Raleigh. OhhhhhKay. Suggest you take a driving
vacation to some other states.
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:

> The number of gears is irrelevent. For all you know the truck could have
> anything from a 6 speed Allison automatic to to a 18 speed Road Ranger to a
> four speed with a brownie. You appear to have forgotten what I used to do
> for a living before retirement. LOL

My point is that every time they shift, I see a big cloud of
stuff spewing forth. Now, I suppose if they all used automatic
transmissions, it would be less of a problem.

> CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 are not visble gases. So the only thing you can be
> spewing gibberish about is soot. And once again ... for your feeble recall
> resouces, clouds of visible soot is a characteristic of very old diesels or
> those that have their emissions system tampered with.

As I said, about half of all trucks in Los Angeles do this. They
are incredibly lax on controlling emissions.

y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>Gord Beaman wrote:
>
>> y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>OK - I knew I missed something. However - the main difference
>is that it's a uncontrolled explosion, when normally one would
>want a controlled, relatively slow burn pushing the the cylinder
>along.

Precisely...(almost)...pushing the "piston" along... :)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>> CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 are not visble gases. So the only thing you can
>> be spewing gibberish about is soot. And once again ... for your
>> feeble recall resouces, clouds of visible soot is a characteristic
>> of very old diesels or those that have their emissions system
>> tampered with.
>
> As I said, about half of all trucks in Los Angeles do this. They
> are incredibly lax on controlling emissions.

Nonsense, Joey. You are making up crap. If only half of all your posts were
convenient fabrications, I could write you off as an attention seaking kook.
But you rate much higher.
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>Philip wrote:
>>
>>>CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 are not visble gases. So the only thing you can
>>>be spewing gibberish about is soot. And once again ... for your
>>>feeble recall resouces, clouds of visible soot is a characteristic
>>>of very old diesels or those that have their emissions system
>>>tampered with.
>>
>>As I said, about half of all trucks in Los Angeles do this. They
>>are incredibly lax on controlling emissions.
>
>
> Nonsense, Joey. You are making up crap. If only half of all your posts were
> convenient fabrications, I could write you off as an attention seaking kook.
> But you rate much higher.

I live here. I deal with the smog and soot and thousands of
ancient diesel trucks every day. More pollution is from
this than passenger vehicles(barring the old classics that
are smog-exempt)

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>> Philip wrote:
>>>
>>>> CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 are not visble gases. So the only thing you
>>>> can be spewing gibberish about is soot. And once again ... for your
>>>> feeble recall resouces, clouds of visible soot is a characteristic
>>>> of very old diesels or those that have their emissions system
>>>> tampered with.
>>>
>>> As I said, about half of all trucks in Los Angeles do this. They
>>> are incredibly lax on controlling emissions.
>>
>>
>> Nonsense, Joey. You are making up crap. If only half of all your
>> posts were convenient fabrications, I could write you off as an
>> attention seaking kook. But you rate much higher.
>
> I live here. I deal with the smog and soot and thousands of
> ancient diesel trucks every day. More pollution is from
> this than passenger vehicles(barring the old classics that
> are smog-exempt)

You live IN Los Angeles downtown, eh? The West Hollywood Lefties polluted
your brain, not diesel trucks. You do not have diesel powered buses in LA
and the remaining fleet of local diesel commercial delivery trucks are
seldom kept for more than 7 years so ... that leaves only transient
out-of-state trucks and even those have very few that smoke like you claim.
--

- Philip

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pxUTd.6118$873.5050@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>
> Philip wrote:
>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> What evidence do you have supporting that claim?
>
> That MBTE is a toxic substance is easy to verify. They
> claim it doesn't get into the groundwater. It has. They
> claim it is safe. It isn't even close. It looks like a
> typical CYA move by the industry and the government agencies
> who like to pass this sort of nonsnese legislation.
>
>>>It would be
>>>exactly like putting a gallon of injector cleaner in every
>>>time I filled up
>> Explain how this is so. Is motor fuel grade alcohol known for cleaning
>> injectors? Injector cleaners are volitile especially when atomized.
>
> The point is that the injector cleaner is crud that you
> put in that dilutes the gas if you were to say, put in 1.5 gallons
> in a 16 gallon fillup - to a point where it would likely be
> noticeable. I see no need to put 15% MBTE in my gas when
> the real trick to getting less emissions is to keep the
> car in good mechanical shape. It's not broken, yet they
> want to fix it.
>
Joe,

I thought the discussion was about oxygenated fuels and MBTE, then you
brought in the subject of injector cleaner and seem to be inferring that
MBTE is injector cleaner and that injector cleaner dilutes gas.

First of all, MBTE is not injector cleaner. Second, you do not get anywhere
near a gallon of injector cleaner in a 16 gallon fillup. That high a
concentration of injector cleaner would cause start dissolving flexible fuel
lines and seals and cause all sorts of problems. Go to an auto parts store
and take a look at the various injector cleaners on the shelf. That stuff
is in quantities like 6 or 10 ounces and if you read the instructions on
most of them, you are supposed to use up the tank that you add the cleaner
to as soon as possible. That is because those few ounces will start causing
problems if left in the system for a long time. If every tank had gallons
of the stuff in it, the fuel delivery system would self-destruct.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Philip wrote:

> You live IN Los Angeles downtown, eh? The West Hollywood Lefties polluted
> your brain, not diesel trucks. You do not have diesel powered buses in LA
> and the remaining fleet of local diesel commercial delivery trucks are
> seldom kept for more than 7 years so ... that leaves only transient
> out-of-state trucks and even those have very few that smoke like you claim.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? But the heavy haulers and
construction equipment is almost always kept running
up to nearly two decades, or until it can't be made to run
anymore. Fixing the emissions equipment is the last thing
they care about since they don't really have to.

Just head down towards the ports - check out the traffic
in and out sometime. How many are belching smoke every
time they shift? (or during rush hour traffic)

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> You live IN Los Angeles downtown, eh? The West Hollywood Lefties
>> polluted your brain, not diesel trucks. You do not have diesel
>> powered buses in LA and the remaining fleet of local diesel
>> commercial delivery trucks are seldom kept for more than 7 years so
>> ... that leaves only transient out-of-state trucks and even those
>> have very few that smoke like you claim.
>
> You'd think that, wouldn't you? But the heavy haulers and
> construction equipment is almost always kept running
> up to nearly two decades, or until it can't be made to run
> anymore. Fixing the emissions equipment is the last thing
> they care about since they don't really have to.
>
> Just head down towards the ports - check out the traffic
> in and out sometime. How many are belching smoke every
> time they shift? (or during rush hour traffic)

Joey ... trucking was my business and the rail head over on Washington, west
of 710 was a frequent drop/pickup point. Since all you do is travel between
I-5 and the Long Beach Harbor, I can see how you could extrapolate the
entire state being over run by belching diesel trucks. Seems that such is
the weakness and limitations of your thought processes. ALL the regulations
to come will not take those aging cockroach trucks off the road. That's like
putting you on a diet so your wife will lose weight. There is no biannual
smog test for commercial trucks, largely because UNLIKE personal vehicles,
COMMERCIAL trucks contribute disproportionately to the movement of finished
goods and raw materials and food. The environment always takes a back seat
to the strength of the economy. We vote for all this green stuff when jobs
and discretionary funds are plentiful. When the pendulum swings the other
way, "green concerns" get pushed back for time or you get what we've got
with the electricity generating plants and petroleum refineries in this
socialist state.
--

- Philip

I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds great! But in
the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp engine uses premium 91 octane
fuel. Although it seems you can use regular 87 octane without harming the
engine, you won't get 280 hp. My question is how much horsepower and torque
would the engine make with 87 octane fuel?

I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their maximum
horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such engine - how much
power would be lost when using regular fuel?

Thanks in advance!
Michael

On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 02:25:55 GMT, "Michael Arber"
<thearbers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds great! But in
>the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp engine uses premium 91 octane
>fuel. Although it seems you can use regular 87 octane without harming the
>engine, you won't get 280 hp. My question is how much horsepower and torque
>would the engine make with 87 octane fuel?
>
>I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their maximum
>horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such engine - how much
>power would be lost when using regular fuel?
>
>Thanks in advance!
>Michael
>
Michael,

Use premium fuel. You shouldn't have to worry about fuel cost if you
have an 05 Avalon.

In article <TKwSd.257887$w62.58629@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Michael Arber" <thearbers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds great! But
> in
> the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp engine uses premium 91
> octane
> fuel. Although it seems you can use regular 87 octane without harming the
> engine, you won't get 280 hp. My question is how much horsepower and torque
> would the engine make with 87 octane fuel?
>
> I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their maximum
> horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such engine - how much
> power would be lost when using regular fuel?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Michael

I've used both in my 04 Sienna and can notice a performance difference
and a bit of gas mileage difference too. I prefer to use 91 when I can
get it for only a penny more than 87 at my local gas for less place,
otherwise 87 does the job.

To answer your question I don't know. I would think you could get it on
a dyno and do a comparison, but why bother.
--

diel@spam.com wrote:

> In article <TKwSd.257887$w62.58629@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Michael Arber" <thearbers@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds great! But
>>in
>>the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp engine uses premium 91
>>octane
>>fuel. Although it seems you can use regular 87 octane without harming the
>>engine, you won't get 280 hp. My question is how much horsepower and torque
>>would the engine make with 87 octane fuel?
>>
>>I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their maximum
>>horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such engine - how much
>>power would be lost when using regular fuel?
>>
>>Thanks in advance!
>>Michael
>
>
> I've used both in my 04 Sienna and can notice a performance difference
> and a bit of gas mileage difference too. I prefer to use 91 when I can
> get it for only a penny more than 87 at my local gas for less place,
> otherwise 87 does the job.

As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.

250-260HP is still a lot. Most people couldn't tell the difference
between 250HP and 280 anyways - it's a lot of power. HP to weight
ratio-wise, it's better than most V8 muscle cars from the 60s and
70s.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> diel@spam.com wrote:
>snip<
>> I've used both in my 04 Sienna and can notice a performance
>> difference and a bit of gas mileage difference too. I prefer to use 91
>> when I
>> can get it for only a penny more than 87 at my local gas for less place,
>> otherwise 87 does the job.
>
> As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
> to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
> powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
> you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.

Now Joey ... how far up your ass did you reach to pull out that "5-10%"
figure? Eh?
--

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
> to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
> powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
> you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.

Do you have a reference for your statement that "it has to
be able to run on regular gas to be sold?"

Ed

C. E. White wrote:

>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
>>As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
>>to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
>>powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
>>you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.
>
>
> Do you have a reference for your statement that "it has to
> be able to run on regular gas to be sold?"

Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.

Now, it won't run as well, but it will run.

Philip wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>diel@spam.com wrote:
>>snip<
>>
>>>I've used both in my 04 Sienna and can notice a performance
>>>difference and a bit of gas mileage difference too. I prefer to use 91
>>>when I
>>>can get it for only a penny more than 87 at my local gas for less place,
>>>otherwise 87 does the job.
>>
>>As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
>>to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
>>powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
>>you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.
>
> Now Joey ... how far up your ass did you reach to pull out that "5-10%"
> figure? Eh?

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.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> 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.

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. These factors can allow an engine to develop more
power (all other things being equal). In the really old
days, gas with higher octane actually had less "power"
(energy) per unit volume than regular gas. These days that
is not necessarily true. However, unless your vehicle has
some method for taking advantage of the higher octane (like
a knock sensor, that allows the PCM to advance the timing),
then there is no power advantage attributable directly to
the use of higher octane gas. A few years back, Ford
acknowledged that the 5.4L V-8 installed in trucks could
gain 5 to 10 horsepower if premium fuel was used instead of
the regular specified (because the PCM would adjust the
timing based on the knock sensor input). This is a 2% to 4%
increase. I tried premium in my Expedition for a significant
period of time (15,000 miles). I never could detect the
increased power and the gas mileage was not detectably
different. On the other hand, if your vehicle can't
compensate for the use of regular gas when premium is
specified (insufficient timing adjustment available to the
PCM), then the use of regular gas in an engine intended to
run on premium gas can result in engine damage due to pre
ignition. Since almost all vehicles that specify premium gas
include knock sensor, damage is unlikely unless you highly
stress the engine (towing heavy loads, driving at very high
speeds, lots of hard acceleration runs, etc.).

Ed

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
> C. E. White wrote:
>
> >
> > Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> >
> >
> >>As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
> >>to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
> >>powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
> >>you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.
> >
> >
> > Do you have a reference for your statement that "it has to
> > be able to run on regular gas to be sold?"
>
> Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
> sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
> putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.

So this is just a suposition on your part? I was hoping it
was some sort of EPA rule. If you had not noticed, the
diesel nozzle will fit in the unleaded gas filler neck on
your car. Now that is real liability!

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@nospam.com> wrote:

>
>
>Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>> As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
>> to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
>> powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
>> you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.
>
>Do you have a reference for your statement that "it has to
>be able to run on regular gas to be sold?"
>
>Ed

Gotta agree with Philip and Ed here Joe...I'd say that you have a
pretty active imagination with your statements...try to appear
sensible, don't make statements like that, everyone knows that
you have no frickin idea how much HP you lose...if the
manufacturer says use premium then use premium. I'll guarantee
that he knows more about his engine than you ever will.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fOJSd.3409$873.398@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
>
>
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>>diel@spam.com wrote:
>>>snip<
>>>
>>>>I've used both in my 04 Sienna and can notice a performance
>>>>difference and a bit of gas mileage difference too. I prefer to use 91
>>>>when I
>>>>can get it for only a penny more than 87 at my local gas for less place,
>>>>otherwise 87 does the job.
>>>
>>>As much as it says "requires premium fuel", it has to be able
>>>to run on regular gas to be sold. So it will be a bit less
>>>powerful, but maybe 5-10%. Hardly worth mentioning unless
>>>you push your car hard and/or have a manual transmission.
>>
>> Now Joey ... how far up your ass did you reach to pull out that "5-10%"
>> figure? Eh?
>
> 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.
>
Joseph,

Making uninformed, purely speculative guesses and posting them as if they
are facts is something Cliff from Cheers would do.

Think about the price of premium gas vs. the price of regular unleaded. In
Chicago, premium costs in the neighborhood of 3% to 6% more than regular
unleaded. Wouldn't it be logical that every car manufacturer would spec
premium gas if a 6% investment in gas got you 10% or 16% more horsepower?

What do you mean when you say "the computers compensate quite a bit?"
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Michael Arber wrote:
> I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds
> great! But in the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp
> engine uses premium 91 octane fuel. Although it seems you can use
> regular 87 octane without harming the engine, you won't get 280 hp.
> My question is how much horsepower and torque would the engine make
> with 87 octane fuel?
>
> I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their
> maximum horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such
> engine - how much power would be lost when using regular fuel?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Michael

Here is an interesting article:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2003-07-30-premiumgas_x.htm
Automakers say they don't test premium engines on regular to check the
difference, but some auto engineers estimate that power declines roughly
5%.

it's better than most V8 muscle cars from the 60s and
> 70s.
>

Perhaps the Japanese muscle cars from the 60's and 70's

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
"Michael Arber" <thearbers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:TKwSd.257887$w62.58629@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>I was just reading about the new 2005 Toyota Avalon. It sounds great! But
>in
> the literature I noticed they point out the 280 hp engine uses premium 91
> octane
> fuel. Although it seems you can use regular 87 octane without harming the
> engine, you won't get 280 hp. My question is how much horsepower and
> torque
> would the engine make with 87 octane fuel?
>
> I suppose many engines run fine on 87 octane but only get their maximum
> horsepower with premium fuel. So in general - on any such engine - how
> much
> power would be lost when using regular fuel?
>
> Thanks in advance!
> Michael
>
>

Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
snip
>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.

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.
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:

>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

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.

<sigh>

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Gord Beaman wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
> snip
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

I know this, which is why, even with the knock sensor kicking
in and the computers compensating - it can't be more than 10-15%
power loss or else the engine wouldn't run correctly.

Ray O wrote:

> Making uninformed, purely speculative guesses and posting them as if they
> are facts is something Cliff from Cheers would do.
>
> Think about the price of premium gas vs. the price of regular unleaded. In
> Chicago, premium costs in the neighborhood of 3% to 6% more than regular
> unleaded. Wouldn't it be logical that every car manufacturer would spec
> premium gas if a 6% investment in gas got you 10% or 16% more horsepower?

It turns out it's closer to 5% difference in power unless you are
running a really big, blown-out engine with a turbo or supercharger
the size of a basketball.

I find that oxygenated gas is a far bigger power-killer than what
octane is in my car.

C. E. White wrote:

>>Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
>>sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
>>putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.
>
> So this is just a suposition on your part? I was hoping it
> was some sort of EPA rule. If you had not noticed, the
> diesel nozzle will fit in the unleaded gas filler neck on
> your car. Now that is real liability!

They had to resize one way or the other, and it's far far
more likely to accidently put gas into your diesel by mistake
than the reverse.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>>> Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
>>> sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
>>> putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.
>>
>> So this is just a suposition on your part? I was hoping it
>> was some sort of EPA rule. If you had not noticed, the
>> diesel nozzle will fit in the unleaded gas filler neck on
>> your car. Now that is real liability!
>
> They had to resize one way or the other, and it's far far
> more likely to accidently put gas into your diesel by mistake
> than the reverse.

No Joey. I have a little diesel powered Datsun truck for hauling junk
around. NEVER have I mistaken the gasoline nozzle for the diesel nozzle ...
not EVER. For openers, the diesel nozzle never has one of those vapor
recapture bellows. Next, the diesel nozzle is nearly always a different
color ... even at the crappiest private label fuel station. Finally, there
is usually a "patina" all around the diesel nozzle where it fits back on the
pump. In the past year, I've had nearly a dozen well meaning / concerned
people point out that I am pumping DIESEL into this little old Datsun truck.
I've developed a couple of humorous comebacks ranging from "It's a diesel"
to "This thing rattles so much, it SHOULD run on diesel!"
--

- Philip

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IRYSd.3617$MY6.2093@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>
> Ray O wrote:
>
>> Making uninformed, purely speculative guesses and posting them as if they
>> are facts is something Cliff from Cheers would do.
>>
>> Think about the price of premium gas vs. the price of regular unleaded.
>> In Chicago, premium costs in the neighborhood of 3% to 6% more than
>> regular unleaded. Wouldn't it be logical that every car manufacturer
>> would spec premium gas if a 6% investment in gas got you 10% or 16% more
>> horsepower?
>
> It turns out it's closer to 5% difference in power unless you are
> running a really big, blown-out engine with a turbo or supercharger
> the size of a basketball.
>
> I find that oxygenated gas is a far bigger power-killer than what
> octane is in my car.
>

Toyota does not publish horsepower or torque ratings for engines using
anything other than their recommended grade of fuel. They could have saved
tens of millions in equipment to measure horsepower, torque, fuel analysis,
purchasing and storing test fuel, etc. and just called you for the info!

According to the EPA's studies on oxygenated fuel, a more likely cause of
your loss of power is the mechanical condition of your car. I pasted a
section from their report on oxygenated fuels:
3-11

ENGINE PERFORMANCE ISSUES

Fuel-related sources of engine performance problems include excessively high
or low

volatility, water absorption, improper storage and handling, enleanment,
reduced motor

octane, and materials compatibility. Performance problems can occur for a
variety of

reasons, and tracing performance problems to a specific cause is difficult,
and often

impossible. Potential engine performance problems resulting from
fuel-related sources

include rough engine operation, overheating, damaged pistons, vapor lock,
starting

difficulty, plugged fuel filters, fouled spark plugs, fuel leaks, hesitation
during acceleration,

flooding, stalling, and engine fires.

Most engine performance problems are, however, the result of non-fuel
factors related to

vehicle age or mileage, operating conditions, or maintenance history. In
general, the

normal changes in engine tune up parameters that occur over time, the wear
caused by hard

use, severe weather conditions, and improper maintenance, are much more
significant than

the contribution of an oxygenated fuel, if any, to the occurrence of
performance problems.

Most performance problems can be mitigated by operator preventative or
corrective

actions.

Oxygenated gasolines are very similar to many nonoxygenated gasolines in
terms of

composition and physical and chemical properties. In those cases where
performance

problems are related to fuel characteristics, no performance problems have
been found that

Oxygenated Fuels

happen solely with oxygenated fuels and not with nonoxygenated
(conventional) fuels.

Certain small engine manufacturers have found that problems can occur if
oxygenate

blends are not blended to appropriate ASTM specifications, especially for
volatility

characteristics. The information available from automotive and
non-automotive engine

manufacturers suggests that performance problems directly attributable to
oxygenate use

are unlikely when ASTM gasoline standards are complied with.

All automobile manufacturers allow or recommend oxygenated gasolines up to
the legally

allowed oxygenate limits . Most non-automotive engine manufacturers' owner's
manuals 5

also include oxygenated fuels in their list of acceptable or recommended
fuels and will not

void their warranties if gasolines containing oxygenates within the allowed
limits are used.

However, some manufacturers acknowledge that because only limited testing
with

oxygenated gasolines on non-automotive engines has been completed, they are
not

completely certain of the effects, if any, of oxygenated gasolines on their
engine

components or performance.

Mixtures of gasolines containing different oxygenates and mixtures of
oxygenated and

nonoxygenated gasolines are likely to occur in consumers' fuel tanks.
However, such

mixtures should not impact engine performance any differently than
nonoxygenated fuels

or mixtures of fuels containing the same oxygenate. Overblends, that is,
gasolines

containing oxygenates at greater than the legally allowed limits, could
adversely affect

engine performance, depending on the volume of oxygenate used. However, for
a number

of technical and economic reasons, such blends are unlikely to be
encountered in the

marketplace.


--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Ray O wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:IRYSd.3617$MY6.2093@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>>
>>Ray O wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Making uninformed, purely speculative guesses and posting them as if
they
>>>are facts is something Cliff from Cheers would do.
>>>
>>>Think about the price of premium gas vs. the price of regular unleaded.
>>>In Chicago, premium costs in the neighborhood of 3% to 6% more than
>>>regular unleaded. Wouldn't it be logical that every car manufacturer
>>>would spec premium gas if a 6% investment in gas got you 10% or 16%
more
>>>horsepower?
>>
>>It turns out it's closer to 5% difference in power unless you are
>>running a really big, blown-out engine with a turbo or supercharger
>>the size of a basketball.
>>
>>I find that oxygenated gas is a far bigger power-killer than what
>>octane is in my car.
>
> Toyota does not publish horsepower or torque ratings for engines using
> anything other than their recommended grade of fuel. They could
have saved
> tens of millions in equipment to measure horsepower, torque, fuel
analysis,
> purchasing and storing test fuel, etc. and just called you for the info!

I was quoting the article that was URL'd her a day or so ago.
It says that experts figure it's maybe 5% unless you run
a turbo or supercharger, where the computers and anti-knock
sensors might not be able to compensate enough if you
suddenly floor it.

The 16% I said was a mathematical worst case scenario. It's
unlikely that a 4% loss on octane would ever do more than
square its effect. Most likely, a doubling is as much as you'd
ever see - and that would probably be in a non-FI engine.

Of course, do any cars come with carbs anymore?

> According to the EPA's studies on oxygenated fuel, a more likely
cause of
> your loss of power is the mechanical condition of your car. I pasted a
> section from their report on oxygenated fuels:
> 3-11

> However, some manufacturers acknowledge that because only limited
testing
> with
> oxygenated gasolines on non-automotive engines has been completed,
they are
> not
> completely certain of the effects, if any, of oxygenated gasolines on
their
> engine
> components or performance.

The common findings of consumers is that the oxygenated stuff provides
about 10-15% less power, but that most consumers drive by speed and
not horsepower, so they subconsciously push the gas a bit harder
to maintain the same performance. So, it drives exactly the same.

Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
jumps to normal.

Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
to the environment isn't pretty, either).

Of course, diesel emissions are many times worse.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:26:09 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
<josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>
>C. E. White wrote:
>
>>>Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
>>>sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
>>>putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.
>>
>> So this is just a suposition on your part? I was hoping it
>> was some sort of EPA rule. If you had not noticed, the
>> diesel nozzle will fit in the unleaded gas filler neck on
>> your car. Now that is real liability!
>
>They had to resize one way or the other, and it's far far
>more likely to accidently put gas into your diesel by mistake
>than the reverse.

Not if you live in Rio Linda California...


--
Scott in Florida

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u54Td.4201$873.2711@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>
> Ray O wrote:
>
> > "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > news:IRYSd.3617$MY6.2093@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
> >
> >>
> >>Ray O wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Making uninformed, purely speculative guesses and posting them as if
> they
> >>>are facts is something Cliff from Cheers would do.
> >>>
> >>>Think about the price of premium gas vs. the price of regular unleaded.
> >>>In Chicago, premium costs in the neighborhood of 3% to 6% more than
> >>>regular unleaded. Wouldn't it be logical that every car manufacturer
> >>>would spec premium gas if a 6% investment in gas got you 10% or 16%
> more
> >>>horsepower?
> >>
> >>It turns out it's closer to 5% difference in power unless you are
> >>running a really big, blown-out engine with a turbo or supercharger
> >>the size of a basketball.
> >>
> >>I find that oxygenated gas is a far bigger power-killer than what
> >>octane is in my car.
> >
> > Toyota does not publish horsepower or torque ratings for engines using
> > anything other than their recommended grade of fuel. They could
> have saved
> > tens of millions in equipment to measure horsepower, torque, fuel
> analysis,
> > purchasing and storing test fuel, etc. and just called you for the info!
>
> I was quoting the article that was URL'd her a day or so ago.
> It says that experts figure it's maybe 5% unless you run
> a turbo or supercharger, where the computers and anti-knock
> sensors might not be able to compensate enough if you
> suddenly floor it.

Your sentence makes no sense. Are you saying 5% more or less horsepower?
It sounds like you are saying that if the engine is turbo or supercharged
the computers and sensors won't compensate enough so you get nothing.

> The 16% I said was a mathematical worst case scenario. It's
> unlikely that a 4% loss on octane would ever do more than
> square its effect.

Do you know what the effect of octane is?
Where did you find that an X percent loss or gain in octane has a multiple
of X percent in it's effect?

Most likely, a doubling is as much as you'd
> ever see - and that would probably be in a non-FI engine.
>

Fuel delivery method has absolutely nothing to do with the effect of octane.

> Of course, do any cars come with carbs anymore?
>
Probably not, but there are many applications for internal combustion
engines besides cars and many other applications use carburetors.

> > According to the EPA's studies on oxygenated fuel, a more likely
> cause of
> > your loss of power is the mechanical condition of your car. I pasted a
> > section from their report on oxygenated fuels:
> > 3-11
>
> > However, some manufacturers acknowledge that because only limited
> testing
> > with
> > oxygenated gasolines on non-automotive engines has been completed,
> they are
> > not
> > completely certain of the effects, if any, of oxygenated gasolines on
> their
> > engine
> > components or performance.
>
> The common findings of consumers is that the oxygenated stuff provides
> about 10-15% less power, but that most consumers drive by speed and
> not horsepower, so they subconsciously push the gas a bit harder
> to maintain the same performance. So, it drives exactly the same.

Are consumers taking their cars to dynomometers to measure horsepower? Are
they timing 0-60 runs? How are consumers finding out that the oxygenated
fuel provides 10-15% less power?

>
> Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
> car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
> they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
> and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
> they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
> jumps to normal.

I'll admit that it's been over 10 years since I have visited the LA area so
I guess the climate must have changed dramatically. When I used to visit
LA, the weather tended to be in the 80's during the summer and in the 60's
during the winter.

>
> Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
> saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
> in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
> to the environment isn't pretty, either).

Why is it that 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants but 4% less
octane means double or quintuple less power?

You should let the federal and state EPAs, and oil companies in on your
discovery so that they don't continue to waste billions of dollars on an
effort that has no effect. Or, could it be that the winter fuel blends are
formulated to burn cleanly enough so that there is a net reduction in
pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?

--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Ray O wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:u54Td.4201$873.2711@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>> Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
>> car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
>> they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
>> and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
>> they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
>> jumps to normal.
>
> I'll admit that it's been over 10 years since I have visited the LA
> area so I guess the climate must have changed dramatically. When I
> used to visit LA, the weather tended to be in the 80's during the
> summer and in the 60's during the winter.

RayO. All of the designated "smog counties" in California get oxygenated
fuel year round.

>> Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
>> saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
>> in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
>> to the environment isn't pretty, either).
>
> Why is it that 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants but 4% less
> octane means double or quintuple less power?

Joey just pulls crap/facts out of his ass for convienence (chronic
diverticulitis perhaps). There is no hand in hand relationship between MPG
and pollutants. So says the EPA.

> You should let the federal and state EPAs, and oil companies in on
> your discovery so that they don't continue to waste billions of
> dollars on an effort that has no effect. Or, could it be that the
> winter fuel blends are formulated to burn cleanly enough so that
> there is a net reduction in pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?

If Joey ever stops making up nonsense to post, he won't be posting anywhere
at all. LOL
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:Tj6Td.5366$Ba3.3532@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> Ray O wrote:
>> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:u54Td.4201$873.2711@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>>> Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
>>> car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
>>> they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
>>> and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
>>> they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
>>> jumps to normal.
>>
>> I'll admit that it's been over 10 years since I have visited the LA
>> area so I guess the climate must have changed dramatically. When I
>> used to visit LA, the weather tended to be in the 80's during the
>> summer and in the 60's during the winter.
>
> RayO. All of the designated "smog counties" in California get oxygenated
> fuel year round.

Aha! That means that Joe's 2-4 MPG reduction, factored with the 10% more
pollutants and the 16% difference in octane performance must be due to the
magnetic alignment of El Nino with the molecular structure of the chromium
reverse catylitic substrate.
>
>>> Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
>>> saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
>>> in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
>>> to the environment isn't pretty, either).
>>
>> Why is it that 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants but 4% less
>> octane means double or quintuple less power?
>
> Joey just pulls crap/facts out of his ass for convienence (chronic
> diverticulitis perhaps). There is no hand in hand relationship between
> MPG and pollutants. So says the EPA.
>
> > You should let the federal and state EPAs, and oil companies in on
>> your discovery so that they don't continue to waste billions of
>> dollars on an effort that has no effect. Or, could it be that the
>> winter fuel blends are formulated to burn cleanly enough so that
>> there is a net reduction in pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?
>
> If Joey ever stops making up nonsense to post, he won't be posting
> anywhere at all. LOL
> --
>
> - Philip
Joey and Jeff (are they the same person) have very similar posting styles
and their ability to make stuff up is in the same league as the used car
salespeople I used to run into (No offense Hachi)
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

"Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:

snippereau

>
> Or, could it be that the winter fuel blends are
>formulated to burn cleanly enough so that there is a net reduction in
>pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?

Christ Ray, don't encourage him!...

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Gord Beaman" <gord@islandtelecom.com> wrote in message
news:sm2q11trqpgg7es5sikk1kb9sd70of4f1b@4ax.com...
> "Ray O" <rokigawa@tristarassociatesDOTcom> wrote:
>
> snippereau
>
>>
>> Or, could it be that the winter fuel blends are
>>formulated to burn cleanly enough so that there is a net reduction in
>>pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?
>
> Christ Ray, don't encourage him!...
>
> --
>
> -Gord.
> (use gordon in email)

Yeah, I'm beginning to think that he is just a clever troll!
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: Regular Gas in a Premium Engine

> No Joey. I have a little diesel powered Datsun truck for hauling junk
> around. NEVER have I mistaken the gasoline nozzle for the diesel nozzle
....
> not EVER. For openers, the diesel nozzle never has one of those vapor
> recapture bellows. Next, the diesel nozzle is nearly always a different
> color ... even at the crappiest private label fuel station.

Well I actually know of multiple cases of people adding diesel to a gasoline
tank and one very recent case of someone adding gasoline to a diesel tank
(it was in my friends shop today). Around here we don't have the vapor
recovery bellows. And yes, the diesel nozzles are green and the gasoline
nozzles are red. However, in many station both nozzles are attached to the
same pump, and at least at one station I frequent, they have four nozzles in
a row. If you are in a hurry it is not all that hard to grab the wrong one.
Particularly since it seems to me that stations that have multiple nozzles
per pump deliberately vary the location of the nozzles for the various
grades of gasoline. One station has the a different arrangement on every
pump. I think it is deliberate - a way of having people accidentally
purchase premium.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t>
> Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 9:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Regular Gas in a Premium Engine
>
>> No Joey. I have a little diesel powered Datsun truck for hauling
>> junk around. NEVER have I mistaken the gasoline nozzle for the
>> diesel nozzle ... not EVER. For openers, the diesel nozzle never
>> has one of those vapor recapture bellows. Next, the diesel nozzle
>> is nearly always a different color ... even at the crappiest private
>> label fuel station.
>
> Well I actually know of multiple cases of people adding diesel to a
> gasoline tank and one very recent case of someone adding gasoline to
> a diesel tank (it was in my friends shop today). Around here we don't
> have the vapor recovery bellows. And yes, the diesel nozzles are
> green and the gasoline nozzles are red. However, in many station both
> nozzles are attached to the same pump, and at least at one station I
> frequent, they have four nozzles in a row. If you are in a hurry it
> is not all that hard to grab the wrong one. Particularly since it
> seems to me that stations that have multiple nozzles per pump
> deliberately vary the location of the nozzles for the various grades
> of gasoline. One station has the a different arrangement on every
> pump. I think it is deliberate - a way of having people accidentally
> purchase premium.
>
> Ed

In the USA, ALL gasoline nozzels have a smaller diameter pipe than diesel
AND ALL cars have a nozzel pipe restrictor in the fuel tank inlet to match.
So unless Canada is different, no accidental misfueling of a gasoline car
with diesel is possible. If you DELIBERATELY misfuel ... that is a
different discussion. However, one can fairly easily misfuel a diesel
vehicle with gasoline.

"We" also have those multi fuel dispensers with one hose for each grade and
other dispensers with only one hose for each of three grades of gasoline.
However, diesel is always a separate hose although it may be connected to
the same dispenser.

So I have to question what you believe about contaminating gasoline with
diesel fuel.
--

- Philip

>>I was quoting the article that was URL'd her a day or so ago.
>>It says that experts figure it's maybe 5% unless you run
>>a turbo or supercharger, where the computers and anti-knock
>>sensors might not be able to compensate enough if you
>>suddenly floor it.
>
> Your sentence makes no sense. Are you saying 5% more or less horsepower?
> It sounds like you are saying that if the engine is turbo or supercharged
> the computers and sensors won't compensate enough so you get nothing.

The article that was posted in this group a couple of days ago
(URL to it, actually), said that maybe 5% less power from
87 octane gas as the knock sensors and computers would
compensate - that is, unless you had a large supercharger and
floored it, in which case, it might cause a problem.

>>The common findings of consumers is that the oxygenated stuff provides
>>about 10-15% less power, but that most consumers drive by speed and
>>not horsepower, so they subconsciously push the gas a bit harder
>>to maintain the same performance. So, it drives exactly the same.
>
> Are consumers taking their cars to dynomometers to measure horsepower? Are
> they timing 0-60 runs? How are consumers finding out that the oxygenated
> fuel provides 10-15% less power?

People have tested their cars, actually. The problem is that
gasoline is sold by volume and oxygenated gasoline has more
oxygen and less combustable material in it - so it creates
less pollution(neat trick - kind of how they put extra air
into cheap ice cream compared to the super-dense premium stuff)

>>Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
>>car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
>>they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
>>and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
>>they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
>>jumps to normal.
>
> I'll admit that it's been over 10 years since I have visited the LA area so
> I guess the climate must have changed dramatically. When I used to visit
> LA, the weather tended to be in the 80's during the summer and in the 60's
> during the winter.

Which is close enough so that it hardly makes a difference
(compared to the Midwest, where 40 degree winter days are
considered a heat wave).

>>Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
>>saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
>>in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
>>to the environment isn't pretty, either).
>
> Why is it that 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants but 4% less
> octane means double or quintuple less power?

Actually, it doesn't. Maybe 5%(I was way off). My guess is that
it's closer to 1% per octane, or thereabouts. Hardly worth mentioning
compared to the oxygenated gas.

> You should let the federal and state EPAs, and oil companies in on your
> discovery so that they don't continue to waste billions of dollars on an
> effort that has no effect. Or, could it be that the winter fuel blends are
> formulated to burn cleanly enough so that there is a net reduction in
> pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?

Not more evenly - just less gas. Remember, gas is sold by volume,
and dispensed by volume in your engine, so pumping extra air into
it(chemically doing the same thing, of course), effectively thins
it out. Less burnt means less pollution as long as your smog
equipment can handle the extra NOx emissions.

It also causes huge environmental problems. The stuff is very
pervaseive and toxic once it gets into the water supply.

Philip wrote:

> So I have to question what you believe about contaminating gasoline with
> diesel fuel.

Question it all you want. I know of verifiable cases, not
hearsay. A couple of years back my neighoor's wife filled
her Chevy Blazer (the samll one) with diesel fuel. She was
saved from damaging the vehicle when the cashier commented
that she didn't know you could get a diesel in one of the
little Blazers. After realizing her mistake, she called her
husband and he had the vehicle hauled to the dealer on a
flatbed truck. Earlier this week I stopped by a friend's
repair shop to pick-up some oil. He had a Dodge Ram Diesel
truck in the shop. They were draning the fuel tank. The
owner had pumped gasoline into his fuel tank. This may have
been from a farm tank and not a retail establishment - I did
not ask. But few farmers even have a "gasoline" storage tank
anymore.

I've heard of other cases of diesel fuel being added to
gasoline cars. In fact, there was one in one of the
newsgroups earlier this month. However, I don't know the
people involved, so I can't be sure they are true.

Ed

Joseph Oberlander wrote:

> Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
> saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
> in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
> to the environment isn't pretty, either).

It depends on what you consider "pollutants." If CO2 and H20
are pollutants, then your logic works. However, if you are
willing to consider them benign, and are really trying to
control CO, HC, NOx, and SO2, then 10% worse mileage might
not cause a corresponding increase in "pollutants." A lot of
the changes to reduce NOx actually hurt gas mileage, but
they did greatly reduce the amount of NOx created.

Regards,

Ed White

C. E. White wrote:
> Philip wrote:

>>In the USA, ALL gasoline nozzels have a smaller diameter pipe than diesel
>>AND ALL cars have a nozzel pipe restrictor in the fuel tank inlet to
>>match.
>>So unless Canada is different, no accidental misfueling of a gasoline car
>>with diesel is possible. If you DELIBERATELY misfuel ... that is a
>>different discussion. However, one can fairly easily misfuel a diesel
>>vehicle with gasoline.
>>
>>"We" also have those multi fuel dispensers with one hose for each grade
>>and
>>other dispensers with only one hose for each of three grades of gasoline.
>>However, diesel is always a separate hose although it may be connected to
>>the same dispenser.
>>
>>So I have to question what you believe about contaminating gasoline with
>>diesel fuel.
>>--
>> Philip

> Question it all you want. I know of verifiable cases, not
> hearsay. A couple of years back my neighoor's wife filled
> her Chevy Blazer (the samll one) with diesel fuel. She was
> saved from damaging the vehicle when the cashier commented
> that she didn't know you could get a diesel in one of the
> little Blazers. After realizing her mistake, she called her
> husband and he had the vehicle hauled to the dealer on a
> flatbed truck. Earlier this week I stopped by a friend's
> repair shop to pick-up some oil. He had a Dodge Ram Diesel
> truck in the shop. They were draning the fuel tank. The
> owner had pumped gasoline into his fuel tank. This may have
> been from a farm tank and not a retail establishment - I did
> not ask. But few farmers even have a "gasoline" storage tank
> anymore.
>
> I've heard of other cases of diesel fuel being added to
> gasoline cars. In fact, there was one in one of the
> newsgroups earlier this month. However, I don't know the
> people involved, so I can't be sure they are true.
>
> Ed

Ed. I'm going to SPOON FEED this to you:

1). In Canada, do gasoline cars requiring UNLEADED fuel have a nozzle
restrictor in the gas tank filler neck?

2). In Canada, does the UNLEADED fuel nozzle have the same diameter .... or
a smaller diameter ... nozzle pipe ... than .... the ... diesel ... nozzle
pipe?

3). Do you believe you can put a large nozzle into a small hole without
noticing something is not right? Please don't sexualize your answer.

Consider your answers carefully.
--

- Philip

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qFdTd.4253$MY6.763@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
>
>>>I was quoting the article that was URL'd her a day or so ago.
>>>It says that experts figure it's maybe 5% unless you run
>>>a turbo or supercharger, where the computers and anti-knock
>>>sensors might not be able to compensate enough if you
>>>suddenly floor it.
>>
>> Your sentence makes no sense. Are you saying 5% more or less horsepower?
>> It sounds like you are saying that if the engine is turbo or supercharged
>> the computers and sensors won't compensate enough so you get nothing.
>
> The article that was posted in this group a couple of days ago
> (URL to it, actually), said that maybe 5% less power from
> 87 octane gas as the knock sensors and computers would
> compensate - that is, unless you had a large supercharger and
> floored it, in which case, it might cause a problem.
>
>>>The common findings of consumers is that the oxygenated stuff provides
>>>about 10-15% less power, but that most consumers drive by speed and
>>>not horsepower, so they subconsciously push the gas a bit harder
>>>to maintain the same performance. So, it drives exactly the same.
>>
>> Are consumers taking their cars to dynomometers to measure horsepower?
>> Are they timing 0-60 runs? How are consumers finding out that the
>> oxygenated fuel provides 10-15% less power?
>
> People have tested their cars, actually. The problem is that
> gasoline is sold by volume and oxygenated gasoline has more
> oxygen and less combustable material in it - so it creates
> less pollution(neat trick - kind of how they put extra air
> into cheap ice cream compared to the super-dense premium stuff)
>
>>>Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
>>>car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
>>>they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
>>>and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
>>>they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
>>>jumps to normal.
>>
>> I'll admit that it's been over 10 years since I have visited the LA area
>> so I guess the climate must have changed dramatically. When I used to
>> visit LA, the weather tended to be in the 80's during the summer and in
>> the 60's during the winter.
>
> Which is close enough so that it hardly makes a difference
> (compared to the Midwest, where 40 degree winter days are
> considered a heat wave).
>
>>>Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
>>>saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
>>>in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
>>>to the environment isn't pretty, either).
>>
>> Why is it that 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants but 4% less
>> octane means double or quintuple less power?
>
> Actually, it doesn't. Maybe 5%(I was way off). My guess is that
> it's closer to 1% per octane, or thereabouts. Hardly worth mentioning
> compared to the oxygenated gas.
>
>> You should let the federal and state EPAs, and oil companies in on your
>> discovery so that they don't continue to waste billions of dollars on an
>> effort that has no effect. Or, could it be that the winter fuel blends
>> are formulated to burn cleanly enough so that there is a net reduction in
>> pollutants, even with more fuel consumed?
>
> Not more evenly - just less gas. Remember, gas is sold by volume,
> and dispensed by volume in your engine, so pumping extra air into
> it(chemically doing the same thing, of course), effectively thins
> it out. Less burnt means less pollution as long as your smog
> equipment can handle the extra NOx emissions.
>
> It also causes huge environmental problems. The stuff is very
> pervaseive and toxic once it gets into the water supply.

I had a co-worker who used to say that it was better to be quiet and let
people think you're an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt. You
should seriously consider that advice or admit you're just trolling.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Ray O wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:qFdTd.4253$MY6.763@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
>>
>>>> I was quoting the article that was URL'd her a day or so ago.
>>>> It says that experts figure it's maybe 5% unless you run
>>>> a turbo or supercharger, where the computers and anti-knock
>>>> sensors might not be able to compensate enough if you
>>>> suddenly floor it.
>>>
>>> Your sentence makes no sense. Are you saying 5% more or less
>>> horsepower? It sounds like you are saying that if the engine is
>>> turbo or supercharged the computers and sensors won't compensate
>>> enough so you get nothing.
>>
>> The article that was posted in this group a couple of days ago
>> (URL to it, actually), said that maybe 5% less power from
>> 87 octane gas as the knock sensors and computers would
>> compensate - that is, unless you had a large supercharger and
>> floored it, in which case, it might cause a problem.
>>
>>>> The common findings of consumers is that the oxygenated stuff
>>>> provides about 10-15% less power, but that most consumers drive by
>>>> speed and not horsepower, so they subconsciously push the gas a bit
>>>> harder
>>>> to maintain the same performance. So, it drives exactly the same.
>>>
>>> Are consumers taking their cars to dynomometers to measure
>>> horsepower? Are they timing 0-60 runs? How are consumers finding
>>> out that the oxygenated fuel provides 10-15% less power?
>>
>> People have tested their cars, actually. The problem is that
>> gasoline is sold by volume and oxygenated gasoline has more
>> oxygen and less combustable material in it - so it creates
>> less pollution(neat trick - kind of how they put extra air
>> into cheap ice cream compared to the super-dense premium stuff)
>>
>>>> Well, other than getting worse mileage. I can verify that my
>>>> car gets 2-4MPG less during the fall and winter months when
>>>> they use the stuff than in the summer. Identical driving,
>>>> and living in Los Angeles, simmilar temperatures. The second
>>>> they change over in the spring here, my mileage immediately
>>>> jumps to normal.
>>>
>>> I'll admit that it's been over 10 years since I have visited the LA
>>> area so I guess the climate must have changed dramatically. When I
>>> used to visit LA, the weather tended to be in the 80's during the
>>> summer and in the 60's during the winter.
>>
>> Which is close enough so that it hardly makes a difference
>> (compared to the Midwest, where 40 degree winter days are
>> considered a heat wave).
>>
>>>> Of course, 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants, so
>>>> saving 10% on emissions - it really does virtually nothing
>>>> in the end other than cost more.(plus what the stuff does
>>>> to the environment isn't pretty, either).
>>>
>>> Why is it that 10% worse mileage means 10% more pollutants but 4%
>>> less octane means double or quintuple less power?
>>
>> Actually, it doesn't. Maybe 5%(I was way off). My guess is that
>> it's closer to 1% per octane, or thereabouts. Hardly worth
>> mentioning compared to the oxygenated gas.
>>
>>> You should let the federal and state EPAs, and oil companies in on
>>> your discovery so that they don't continue to waste billions of
>>> dollars on an effort that has no effect. Or, could it be that the
>>> winter fuel blends are formulated to burn cleanly enough so that
>>> there is a net reduction in pollutants, even with more fuel
>>> consumed?
>>
>> Not more evenly - just less gas. Remember, gas is sold by volume,
>> and dispensed by volume in your engine, so pumping extra air into
>> it(chemically doing the same thing, of course), effectively thins
>> it out. Less burnt means less pollution as long as your smog
>> equipment can handle the extra NOx emissions.
>>
>> It also causes huge environmental problems. The stuff is very
>> pervaseive and toxic once it gets into the water supply.
>
> I had a co-worker who used to say that it was better to be quiet and
> let people think you're an idiot than open your mouth and remove all
> doubt. You should seriously consider that advice or admit you're
> just trolling.

Joey will do neither, although he may take a couple of days off to let the
new medication work.
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:

> Joey will do neither, although he may take a couple of days off to let the
> new medication work.

I'm not trolling. Do an online search for MBTE and Ethanol and
see what pops up when it comes to performance and mileage
(let alone what the stuff does to the environment)

They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
to affect performance and mileage.

http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
engines to run poorly)

15% additives is going to reduce the actual amount
of combustable energy in that gallon of fuel, which
will lead to lower emissions, but also less power
for more fuel burnt.

I pay for 128 fl ounces of 87 octane fuel and get 109 fl
ounces of fuel and 19 ounces of crap that artificially
boosts the octane rating, much like the lead they used to
put in gas 30 years ago.

http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/oxy-fuel/enrgycon.shtml
Chevron's own site - actual numbers for energy
contained in each formulation.

93,500 btus of energy per gallon of MBTE.
115,000 btus of energy per gallon of regular gas.
A 15% blend is 111,800 btus, which means about a 3%
lower MPG figure and 3% less power, or close to 8-9%
total fuel differnece if the computers do their job and
up the fuel ratio to maintain the same power levels.

ie - the computers in your engine defeat the emissions
reduction of the reformulated fuel. In the end, it just
means the gas companies sell more fuel per year AND can
charge more money doing it. Not surprizing, actually.
They tried this tactic years ago with Ethanol, remember?
Cheap to produce, but as the URL above shows, 76,000 bts
was a far cry from normal gas. Now, they've gotten trickier
about it, but it's the same tactic of thinning out the
fuel to make more money.

OTOH...
The reformulated gas *does* reduce emissions and gives no
worse mileage(or hardly noticeable) if your car has
carbs or is a motorcycle or leafblower or boat or
something without computers micro-managing the ratios.
Since boats and small engines and older cars tend to produce
pollutants on the order of several hundreds of times more
than a typical new car(especially 2-stroke engines), this is
probably a net gain in smog reduction.

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:v5qTd.4710$MY6.19@newsread1.news.pas.earthlin k.net...
>
>
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Joey will do neither, although he may take a couple of days off to let
>> the new medication work.
>
> I'm not trolling. Do an online search for MBTE and Ethanol and
> see what pops up when it comes to performance and mileage
> (let alone what the stuff does to the environment)

Joe,

No offense, but you are taking facts and interpreting the info incorrectly
or mixing your incorrect assumptions with the facts. I don't know what your
automotive background or training is but you come across as what my
co-workers used to call the "Road & Track/Motor Trend engineers," people who
read auto buff magazines and dispense incorrect or inaccurate advice and
information, a phenomenon we used to see in sales departments. If you're
trying to save face, it's backfiring and instead of coming across as some
authority on how cars work, you are smack dab in the middle of auto
magazine "expert" territory.

I don't consider myself in the same league as some of those co-workers
although I pride myself in having to call on their expertese only twice in
15 years to fix something I couldn't figure out. Other than those 2 cars, I
somehow managed to muddle through and deal with every other problem car that
a dealer technician had trouble with at the dealers I called on put in front
of me.

>
> They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
> to affect performance and mileage.
>
> http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
> Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
> gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
> engines to run poorly)

Couldn't open the link.

> 15% additives is going to reduce the actual amount
> of combustable energy in that gallon of fuel, which
> will lead to lower emissions, but also less power
> for more fuel burnt.
>
> I pay for 128 fl ounces of 87 octane fuel and get 109 fl
> ounces of fuel and 19 ounces of crap that artificially
> boosts the octane rating, much like the lead they used to
> put in gas 30 years ago.
>
> http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/oxy-fuel/enrgycon.shtml
> Chevron's own site - actual numbers for energy
> contained in each formulation.
>
> 93,500 btus of energy per gallon of MBTE.
> 115,000 btus of energy per gallon of regular gas.
> A 15% blend is 111,800 btus, which means about a 3%
> lower MPG figure and 3% less power, or close to 8-9%
> total fuel differnece if the computers do their job and
> up the fuel ratio to maintain the same power levels.
>

Where are you getting this 8-9% total fuel difference from a 3% lower MPG?
According to the Chevron site, a fuel blend with 15% MBTE gets in the
neighborhood of 3% less power and 3% less MPG. I did not see any reference
to total fuel difference.

I think you are making the assumption that a computer "does it's job" by
trying to "up the fuel ratio to maintain the same power levels". This
assumption is incorrect.

A car's computer is not designed to measure or track engine power so it does
not make any attempt to maintain power levels. The ECU cannot measure or
analyze the composition or BTU content of the fuel running to the engine.

At the most basic level, engines need 3 things to operate: air, fuel, and a
source of ignition, all at the appropriate amounts, ratios, and times. The
ECU in a car is designed give measure how much air is going to the engine
and mix the right amount of fuel so you get the correct air/fuel ratio, then
supply a spark to burn the air/fuel mixture. If the mixture is not burning
cleanly, as determined by O2 sensors, it will adjust the amount of fuel or
spark timing. If the mixture is not burning at the correct time, as
determined by knock sensors, it will adjust the timing of the spark.
Electronic spark advance and distributorless ignitions have made spark
timing easier and more precise than mechanical and vacuum spark advance.

You postulated that that a computer is measuring power, and in a perverse
sense, you are correct. The operator controls power by determining how much
throttle to apply. If the operator wants to go faster, the operator
depresses the throttle pedal further.

> ie - the computers in your engine defeat the emissions
> reduction of the reformulated fuel.

This is incorrect speculation/postulation on yhour part.

In the end, it just
> means the gas companies sell more fuel per year AND can
> charge more money doing it. Not surprizing, actually.
> They tried this tactic years ago with Ethanol, remember?
> Cheap to produce, but as the URL above shows, 76,000 bts
> was a far cry from normal gas. Now, they've gotten trickier
> about it, but it's the same tactic of thinning out the
> fuel to make more money.
>

Ethanol is a "renewable" resource, alcohol made from agricultural products.
Since the U.S. is pretty good at producing agricultural products then in
theory, the more ethanol is burned, the less oil needs to be imported or
extracted from the ground. That reasoning, along with backing from
farmers, made ethanol something worth pursuing as a fuel. More farmers vote
than oil barons.

> OTOH...
> The reformulated gas *does* reduce emissions and gives no
> worse mileage(or hardly noticeable) if your car has
> carbs or is a motorcycle or leafblower or boat or
> something without computers micro-managing the ratios.

Read about computers above!

> Since boats and small engines and older cars tend to produce
> pollutants on the order of several hundreds of times more
> than a typical new car(especially 2-stroke engines), this is
> probably a net gain in smog reduction.
>
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Scott in Florida wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 10:26:09 GMT, Joseph Oberlander
> <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>
>>>> Simple liability. Otherwise, they'd have to make a different
>>>> sized pump nozzle like they do for diesel fuel, to keep you from
>>>> putting sometihng in that will damage the engine.
>>>
>>> So this is just a suposition on your part? I was hoping it
>>> was some sort of EPA rule. If you had not noticed, the
>>> diesel nozzle will fit in the unleaded gas filler neck on
>>> your car. Now that is real liability!
>>
>> They had to resize one way or the other, and it's far far
>> more likely to accidently put gas into your diesel by mistake
>> than the reverse.
>
> Not if you live in Rio Linda California...

Scott ... EVEN WHEN you live in Rio Linda, CA (still in the USA) .... a
diesel nozzle does not fit into the smaller diameter fuel tank restrictor in
all unleaded gasoline cars.
--

- Philip

>Scott ... EVEN WHEN you live in Rio Linda, CA (still in the USA) .... a
>diesel nozzle does not fit into the smaller diameter fuel tank restrictor in
>all unleaded gasoline cars.

But not motorcycles:)

Travelling to Sturgis this year, a friend shoved the green nozzle in
his Harley. It was fuel injected, so it took a while for us to sort
it out.

Lesson learned!

In Canada, some outlets use green nozzles for gas; for example, I
fuelled up at a Mohawk station today which used a combination of blue
and green nozzles for gas.

Gary
Please remove XXX in email address if email reply is desired.

G Mulcaster wrote:
>> Scott ... EVEN WHEN you live in Rio Linda, CA (still in the USA)
>> .... a diesel nozzle does not fit into the smaller diameter fuel
>> tank restrictor in all unleaded gasoline cars.
>
> But not motorcycles:)
>
> Travelling to Sturgis this year, a friend shoved the green nozzle in
> his Harley. It was fuel injected, so it took a while for us to sort
> it out.
>
> Lesson learned!
>
> In Canada, some outlets use green nozzles for gas; for example, I
> fuelled up at a Mohawk station today which used a combination of blue
> and green nozzles for gas.
>
> Gary

Since Ed has gone into reclusion and because you have been to Canada
recently, is the nozzle diameter of unleaded gasoline smaller than the
diesel nozzle as it is across the USA?
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:3cnTd.10375$x53.1057@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
> Ed. I'm going to SPOON FEED this to you:
>
> 1). In Canada, do gasoline cars requiring UNLEADED fuel have a nozzle
> restrictor in the gas tank filler neck?
>
> 2). In Canada, does the UNLEADED fuel nozzle have the same diameter ....
or
> a smaller diameter ... nozzle pipe ... than .... the ... diesel ... nozzle
> pipe?
>
> 3). Do you believe you can put a large nozzle into a small hole without
> noticing something is not right? Please don't sexualize your answer.
>
> Consider your answers carefully.

I know very little of Canada. I have not crossed the border into Canada
since 1978. Last time I was there, leaded gas was still available and my
1975 Datsun ran on leaded gas. I have never owned a diesel road vehicle. I
have no idea what sort of nozzles they have in Canada. Until tonight I
assumed they were similar to the ones in use in the US. Please enlighten me
if they are different.

I looked at a diesel nozzle this evening (Texaco Station, US-1A, Wake
Forest, NC, USA), and it was the same size as the unleaded nozzle. I
searched the EPA rules, and there is not a current rule that specifies the
diesel fuel dispenser nozzle size. Unleaded gas nozzles are to be less than
0.840" in diameter. Leaded gasoline nozzles are required to be greater than
0.930 inches in diameter. That is all they had to say on the subject of fuel
dispenser nozzle diameters. I did notice that at least one state (Arkansas)
was recommending the adoption of a standard for diesel fuel nozzle
diameters. They were recommending a minimum size of 0.930". The
recommendation specifically stated that this change was intended to prevent
adding diesel fuel to vehicles that required unleaded gasoline.

Regards,

Ed White

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:3cnTd.10375$x53.1057@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
> Ed. I'm going to SPOON FEED this to you:
>
> 1). In Canada, do gasoline cars requiring UNLEADED fuel have a nozzle
> restrictor in the gas tank filler neck?
>
> 2). In Canada, does the UNLEADED fuel nozzle have the same diameter ....
or
> a smaller diameter ... nozzle pipe ... than .... the ... diesel ... nozzle
> pipe?
>
> 3). Do you believe you can put a large nozzle into a small hole without
> noticing something is not right? Please don't sexualize your answer.
>
> Consider your answers carefully.

Take a look at these:

http://tinyurl.com/65l4v
http://tinyurl.com/4yt8p
http://tinyurl.com/45hkl


Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:3cnTd.10375$x53.1057@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
>> Ed. I'm going to SPOON FEED this to you:
>>
>> 1). In Canada, do gasoline cars requiring UNLEADED fuel have a
>> nozzle restrictor in the gas tank filler neck?
>>
>> 2). In Canada, does the UNLEADED fuel nozzle have the same diameter
>> .... or a smaller diameter ... nozzle pipe ... than .... the ...
>> diesel ... nozzle pipe?
>>
>> 3). Do you believe you can put a large nozzle into a small hole
>> without noticing something is not right? Please don't sexualize
>> your answer.
>>
>> Consider your answers carefully.
>
> I know very little of Canada. I have not crossed the border into
> Canada since 1978. Last time I was there, leaded gas was still
> available and my 1975 Datsun ran on leaded gas. I have never owned a
> diesel road vehicle. I have no idea what sort of nozzles they have in
> Canada. Until tonight I assumed they were similar to the ones in use
> in the US. Please enlighten me if they are different.

Then please scooozame, I was under the impression you were in Canada and
that all this "misfueling" you've witnessed was also in Canada.

> I looked at a diesel nozzle this evening (Texaco Station, US-1A, Wake
> Forest, NC, USA), and it was the same size as the unleaded nozzle. I
> searched the EPA rules, and there is not a current rule that
> specifies the diesel fuel dispenser nozzle size. Unleaded gas nozzles
> are to be less than
> 0.840" in diameter. Leaded gasoline nozzles are required to be
> greater than
> 0.930 inches in diameter. That is all they had to say on the subject
> of fuel dispenser nozzle diameters. I did notice that at least one
> state (Arkansas) was recommending the adoption of a standard for
> diesel fuel nozzle diameters. They were recommending a minimum size
> of 0.930". The recommendation specifically stated that this change
> was intended to prevent adding diesel fuel to vehicles that required
> unleaded gasoline.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ed White

Interesting. Thank you. If you visit a truck stop, you will find the
truck refueling island nozzles having a larger nozzle size than the
passenger car island diesel pump nozzles. The unleaded gasoline nozzle is
smaller yet. In all my years driving OTR (12 western states for the most
part), I NEVER saw the small unleaded gasoline nozzle dispensing diesel.
--

- Philip

C. E. White wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:3cnTd.10375$x53.1057@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
>>
>> Ed. I'm going to SPOON FEED this to you:
>>
>> 1). In Canada, do gasoline cars requiring UNLEADED fuel have a
>> nozzle restrictor in the gas tank filler neck?
>>
>> 2). In Canada, does the UNLEADED fuel nozzle have the same diameter
>> .... or a smaller diameter ... nozzle pipe ... than .... the ...
>> diesel ... nozzle pipe?
>>
>> 3). Do you believe you can put a large nozzle into a small hole
>> without noticing something is not right? Please don't sexualize
>> your answer.
>>
>> Consider your answers carefully.
>
> Take a look at these:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/65l4v
> http://tinyurl.com/4yt8p
> http://tinyurl.com/45hkl
>
>
> Ed

In the first link, nothing was mentioned about nozzle size but , considering
the vehicle is a late model Honda, then either the Unleaded nozzle was
deliberately misfitted or the owner was able insert the larger diesel
nozzle. Not really sure here.

In second link, there was impropriety at that particular station.

In the third link, is similar to the second.

These all have a similarity in that the individual station owner had put an
unleaded gasoline nozzle on the diesel pump. I don't see a statewide
conspiracy to induce misfueling.

--

- Philip

Ray O wrote:

>>They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>to affect performance and mileage.
>>
>>http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>engines to run poorly)
>
> Couldn't open the link.

Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.

> A car's computer is not designed to measure or track engine power so it does
> not make any attempt to maintain power levels. The ECU cannot measure or
> analyze the composition or BTU content of the fuel running to the engine.

No, but the whole point of the MTBE is to add oxygen to the burn cycle,
which does get measured. More oxygen compounds and less burning of
fuel will trip the sensors to deliver more fuel to compensate, as
it will think it's burning too lean.(which it is)

You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.

>>means the gas companies sell more fuel per year AND can
>>charge more money doing it. Not surprizing, actually.
>>They tried this tactic years ago with Ethanol, remember?
>>Cheap to produce, but as the URL above shows, 76,000 bts
>>was a far cry from normal gas. Now, they've gotten trickier
>>about it, but it's the same tactic of thinning out the
>>fuel to make more money.
>>
>
> Ethanol is a "renewable" resource, alcohol made from agricultural products.
> Since the U.S. is pretty good at producing agricultural products then in
> theory, the more ethanol is burned, the less oil needs to be imported or
> extracted from the ground.

That I actually have no problem with. I'd love a car that ran on
ethanol and less of our futures tied up overseas. But, MBTE
isn't ethanol, and so it offers no benefits.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 04:55:39 GMT, "Philip"
<1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote:

>G Mulcaster wrote:
>>> Scott ... EVEN WHEN you live in Rio Linda, CA (still in the USA)
>>> .... a diesel nozzle does not fit into the smaller diameter fuel
>>> tank restrictor in all unleaded gasoline cars.
>>
>> But not motorcycles:)
>>
>> Travelling to Sturgis this year, a friend shoved the green nozzle in
>> his Harley. It was fuel injected, so it took a while for us to sort
>> it out.
>>
>> Lesson learned!
>>
>> In Canada, some outlets use green nozzles for gas; for example, I
>> fuelled up at a Mohawk station today which used a combination of blue
>> and green nozzles for gas.
>>
>> Gary
>
>Since Ed has gone into reclusion and because you have been to Canada
>recently, is the nozzle diameter of unleaded gasoline smaller than the
>diesel nozzle as it is across the USA?

Don't know, but I will see what I can find out.
Gary
Please remove XXX in email address if email reply is desired.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Ray O wrote:
>
>>> They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>> to affect performance and mileage.
>>>
>>> http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>> Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>> gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>> engines to run poorly)
>>
>> Couldn't open the link.
>
> Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.
>
>> A car's computer is not designed to measure or track engine power so
>> it does not make any attempt to maintain power levels. The ECU
>> cannot measure or analyze the composition or BTU content of the fuel
>> running to the engine.
>
> No, but the whole point of the MTBE is to add oxygen to the burn
> cycle, which does get measured. More oxygen compounds and less
> burning of fuel will trip the sensors to deliver more fuel to compensate,
> as
> it will think it's burning too lean.(which it is)
>
> You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.
>
>>> means the gas companies sell more fuel per year AND can
>>> charge more money doing it. Not surprizing, actually.
>>> They tried this tactic years ago with Ethanol, remember?
>>> Cheap to produce, but as the URL above shows, 76,000 bts
>>> was a far cry from normal gas. Now, they've gotten trickier
>>> about it, but it's the same tactic of thinning out the
>>> fuel to make more money.
>>>
>>
>> Ethanol is a "renewable" resource, alcohol made from agricultural
>> products. Since the U.S. is pretty good at producing agricultural
>> products then in theory, the more ethanol is burned, the less oil
>> needs to be imported or extracted from the ground.
>
> That I actually have no problem with. I'd love a car that ran on
> ethanol and less of our futures tied up overseas. But, MBTE
> isn't ethanol, and so it offers no benefits.

If E85 became the national motor fuel of choice next week, it would not be
long before the EPA, ARB, and a few other environmental agencies would have
to justify their existence by finding horrendously toxic compounds in E85
exhaust ... like formaldehyde.
--

- Philip

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7BATd.5170$MY6.4220@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>
> Ray O wrote:
>
>>>They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>>to affect performance and mileage.
>>>
>>>http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>>Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>>gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>>engines to run poorly)
>> Couldn't open the link.
>
> Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.
>

OK, I was able to open the link today. I don't recall the writer mentioning
ARCO gas.

>> A car's computer is not designed to measure or track engine power so it
>> does not make any attempt to maintain power levels. The ECU cannot
>> measure or analyze the composition or BTU content of the fuel running to
>> the engine.
>
> No, but the whole point of the MTBE is to add oxygen to the burn cycle,
> which does get measured. More oxygen compounds and less burning of
> fuel will trip the sensors to deliver more fuel to compensate, as
> it will think it's burning too lean.(which it is)
>
> You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.

Not only are your logic and assumptions incorrect, you keep changing your
story and reasoning.

You were saying before that a vehicle's computers and sensors were
compensating to maintain power, now you are swaying that the computers and
sensors are compensating because the reformulated gas (RFG) is too lean.

You say there is not net gain, and are unclear in what you are not gaining.
Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should take into
consideration that the air quality in the areas that are using RFG have
experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert, there is no net gain
in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air quality in those cities get
better?
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Ray O wrote:
> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7BATd.5170$MY6.4220@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>>
>>
>> Ray O wrote:
>>
>>>> They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>>> to affect performance and mileage.
>>>>
>>>> http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>>> Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>>> gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>>> engines to run poorly)
>>> Couldn't open the link.
>>
>> Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.
>>
>
> OK, I was able to open the link today. I don't recall the writer
> mentioning ARCO gas.
>
>>> A car's computer is not designed to measure or track engine power
>>> so it does not make any attempt to maintain power levels. The ECU
>>> cannot measure or analyze the composition or BTU content of the
>>> fuel running to the engine.
>>
>> No, but the whole point of the MTBE is to add oxygen to the burn
>> cycle, which does get measured. More oxygen compounds and less
>> burning of fuel will trip the sensors to deliver more fuel to compensate,
>> as
>> it will think it's burning too lean.(which it is)
>>
>> You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.
>
> Not only are your logic and assumptions incorrect, you keep changing
> your story and reasoning.
>
> You were saying before that a vehicle's computers and sensors were
> compensating to maintain power, now you are swaying that the
> computers and sensors are compensating because the reformulated gas
> (RFG) is too lean.
> You say there is not net gain, and are unclear in what you are not
> gaining. Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should
> take into consideration that the air quality in the areas that are
> using RFG have experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert,
> there is no net gain in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air
> quality in those cities get better?

Changes in weather patterns, rain .... stuff the air quality bureaucrats
want to take credit for.
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:

> If E85 became the national motor fuel of choice next week, it would not be
> long before the EPA, ARB, and a few other environmental agencies would have
> to justify their existence by finding horrendously toxic compounds in E85
> exhaust ... like formaldehyde.

I'd rather deal with that than have our shorts in the vise of
even more foriegn oil. You'll note that the last few thiings that
the interim leader in Iraq did beofre he was kicked out this
week was to secure contracts with U.S. oil companies - literally
within a 48 hour time period.

It was about the oil, and will be until we can move away from it
to a better fuel source.

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. It would be
exactly like putting a gallon of injector cleaner in every
time I filled up.(actually about 1.5 gallons for my tank, but
mine's a bit larger than an Echo's - lol)

Ray O wrote:

> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:7BATd.5170$MY6.4220@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>>
>>Ray O wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>>>to affect performance and mileage.
>>>>
>>>>http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>>>Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>>>gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>>>engines to run poorly)
>>>
>>> Couldn't open the link.
>>
>>Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.
>>
>
>
> OK, I was able to open the link today. I don't recall the writer mentioning
> ARCO gas.

ARCO keeps the price down on its gas by putting in the cheaper
cleaning compounds. My car runs noticeably poorer after a
tank or two of it, and a switch to Shell or Chevron gets my
engine happy again. Of course, that's to be expected given
the dime less it costs. You get what you pay for, afterall.


>>You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.
>
> Not only are your logic and assumptions incorrect, you keep changing your
> story and reasoning.
>
> You were saying before that a vehicle's computers and sensors were
> compensating to maintain power, now you are swaying that the computers and
> sensors are compensating because the reformulated gas (RFG) is too lean.

Well, in a way, they are - or at least in newer cars. They see that the
copression is a bit different than expected(less energy means the piston
is moving a bit less forceably - less compression). The computers
naturally compensate, just like they do when you put 87 in a premium
fuel engine.

> You say there is not net gain, and are unclear in what you are not gaining.

The savings in pollution is only a few percent, yet to go 100 miles,
you use more fuel - so that it's literally only a 1-2% or so savings
in net pollution(if you don't factor in the pollution in making the MBTE
and what it does to the enviroment)

I remember a thread about this in I think the Volvo group a few years
ago - they ran the numbers and it shrunk to nearly nothing. All
it does is make the companies more money and also the government
as well. It's typical government-mandated feel-good science to
look like they are doing something.

Cleaning up diesel emissions - that's the real problem we should
be addressing. Millions of unregulated, belching, heavy-duty
tucks, busses, and pieces of heavy machinery.

> Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should take into
> consideration that the air quality in the areas that are using RFG have
> experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert, there is no net gain
> in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air quality in those cities get
> better?

Mostly via a switch to less polluting public transportation and
controls on emissions from light industry. A single old school
bus or bulldozer with no emissions controls pollutes more than
a thousand new cars do. Or even a thousand slightly out of tune
ten year old cars do. The rest - from less polluting new cars
and programs to trade in old hulk-mobiles.

Just wait until the new diesel fuel and smog controls go into
effect next year - the numbers will drop like a rock in most
major cities.

Philip wrote:

>>You say there is not net gain, and are unclear in what you are not
>>gaining. Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should
>>take into consideration that the air quality in the areas that are
>>using RFG have experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert,
>>there is no net gain in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air
>>quality in those cities get better?
>
>
> Changes in weather patterns, rain .... stuff the air quality bureaucrats
> want to take credit for.

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.

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. And, so far, about half of the
meter/parking ticket vehicles as well as the entire city
maintainence vehicle fleet The pay to crush your
old rotting non-passable car program also is a success.
Though, it is killing a lot of nice classic vehicles
that could be useful for at least parts.

They also made the entire subway and new light rail system
electric. Only the main lines in and out of town use
the big diesel engines anymore.

They even forced the big container ships to stop offshore
a few miles and they get pulled in by tugs instead of
powering their way in and out like they used to.(though
I think this is now over a decade they have been doing this)

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:uVzTd.14146$x53.7909@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...

> > Take a look at these:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/65l4v
> > http://tinyurl.com/4yt8p
> > http://tinyurl.com/45hkl
> >
> >
> > Ed
>
> In the first link, nothing was mentioned about nozzle size but ,
considering
> the vehicle is a late model Honda, then either the Unleaded nozzle was
> deliberately misfitted or the owner was able insert the larger diesel
> nozzle. Not really sure here.
>
> In second link, there was impropriety at that particular station.
>
> In the third link, is similar to the second.
>
> These all have a similarity in that the individual station owner had put
an
> unleaded gasoline nozzle on the diesel pump. I don't see a statewide
> conspiracy to induce misfueling.


No conspiracy needed. As far as I can determine there is no US nationwide
rule that specifies the size of diesel fuel nozzles. I personally verified
that a local station has the same size nozzle for diesel and unleaded
gasoline. I gave you three newgroups references where diesel was pumped into
gasoline vehicles. I have a personal friend who did it. I searched the
Federal Register for a rule specifying the size of diesel nozzles and
could not find one. I even found a proposed change to a state's rules to add
one (surely proof that one does not yet exist). In the absence of a rule it
is obvious, at least to me, that stations are free to use whatever size
nozzle they want on diesel pumps. The fact that using the smaller unleaded
nozzle on a diesel pump has been done and is being done seems to have
escaped you.

Ed

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:P3KTd.5411$MY6.327@newsread1.news.pas.earthli nk.net...
> Ray O wrote:
>
>> "Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:7BATd.5170$MY6.4220@newsread1.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>>
>>>
>>>Ray O wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>They allow as much as 15% MBTE here in CA, which is enough
>>>>>to affect performance and mileage.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://hostingprod.com/@aa1car.com/library/us10325.htm
>>>>>Here's a nice article on gas problems(and why cheap
>>>>>gas like ARCO's 87 octane stuff tends to cause many
>>>>>engines to run poorly)
>>>>
>>>> Couldn't open the link.
>>>
>>>Try again. It works fine in Netscape and IE for me.
>>>
>>
>>
>> OK, I was able to open the link today. I don't recall the writer
>> mentioning ARCO gas.
>
> ARCO keeps the price down on its gas by putting in the cheaper
> cleaning compounds. My car runs noticeably poorer after a
> tank or two of it, and a switch to Shell or Chevron gets my
> engine happy again. Of course, that's to be expected given
> the dime less it costs. You get what you pay for, afterall.
>

IMO, using non name-brand gas is a gamble. Besides differences in
performance, there is the potential of injector fouling, water and
contaminants in the gas, etc., and the cost to diagnose and fix the problems
could exceed the savings in gas cost, especially if the savings is 2 or 3
cents a gallon.


>>>You use as much fuel as you save on pollution. No net gain.
>>
>> Not only are your logic and assumptions incorrect, you keep changing your
>> story and reasoning.
>>
>> You were saying before that a vehicle's computers and sensors were
>> compensating to maintain power, now you are swaying that the computers
>> and sensors are compensating because the reformulated gas (RFG) is too
>> lean.
>
> Well, in a way, they are - or at least in newer cars. They see that the
> copression is a bit different than expected(less energy means the piston
> is moving a bit less forceably - less compression). The computers
> naturally compensate, just like they do when you put 87 in a premium
> fuel engine.
>
Older and newer ECU's do NOT measure compression or how forcibly the piston
is moving or power so there is no compensation. Regardless of RPM or
air/fuel ratio or whatever other variable you can think of, compression does
not change in an engine unless you factor in deposits on the piston, valves,
or wear.

ECU's do not measure octane or fuel grade directly either. Indirectly, they
can detect engine knock caused by high heat and/or lower octane fuel and
retard the ignition timing but there is no fuel/air ratio adjustment tied
into the knock sensor.

I suspect that you think that automotive ECU's are more elaborate than they
really are. Basically, they are designed to measure air flow and squirt the
right amount of gas for a given amount of air and then supply the spark to
burn the air/fuel mixture. They take into account variables like engine
temperature, engine RPM, throttle position, and emissions to adjust either
fuel or spark. The power produced by an engine is what it is and is
optimized by using burning the fuel as efficiently as possible.

>> You say there is not net gain, and are unclear in what you are not
>> gaining.
>
> The savings in pollution is only a few percent, yet to go 100 miles,
> you use more fuel - so that it's literally only a 1-2% or so savings
> in net pollution(if you don't factor in the pollution in making the MBTE
> and what it does to the enviroment)
>
> I remember a thread about this in I think the Volvo group a few years
> ago - they ran the numbers and it shrunk to nearly nothing. All
> it does is make the companies more money and also the government
> as well. It's typical government-mandated feel-good science to
> look like they are doing something.
>
> Cleaning up diesel emissions - that's the real problem we should
> be addressing. Millions of unregulated, belching, heavy-duty
> tucks, busses, and pieces of heavy machinery.
>
>> Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should take into
>> consideration that the air quality in the areas that are using RFG have
>> experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert, there is no net
>> gain in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air quality in those
>> cities get better?
>
> Mostly via a switch to less polluting public transportation and
> controls on emissions from light industry. A single old school
> bus or bulldozer with no emissions controls pollutes more than
> a thousand new cars do. Or even a thousand slightly out of tune
> ten year old cars do. The rest - from less polluting new cars
> and programs to trade in old hulk-mobiles.
>
> Just wait until the new diesel fuel and smog controls go into
> effect next year - the numbers will drop like a rock in most
> major cities.
>
Trying to determine whether some idea to lower emissions results in a true
net gain, when you take into consideration production costs, resources,
energy, etc. is a little beyond my background and so all I can do is listen
to the real experts and try to decide.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> If E85 became the national motor fuel of choice next week, it would
>> not be long before the EPA, ARB, and a few other environmental
>> agencies would have to justify their existence by finding
>> horrendously toxic compounds in E85 exhaust ... like formaldehyde.
>
> I'd rather deal with that than have our shorts in the vise of
> even more foriegn oil.

You usually are unappreciative of the Big Picture.

> 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.

What evidence do you have supporting that claim?

> It would be
> exactly like putting a gallon of injector cleaner in every
> time I filled up

Explain how this is so. Is motor fuel grade alcohol known for cleaning
injectors? Injector cleaners are volitile especially when atomized.
--

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Ray O wrote:
>> Not only are your logic and assumptions incorrect, you keep changing
>> your story and reasoning.
>>
>> You were saying before that a vehicle's computers and sensors were
>> compensating to maintain power, now you are saying that the
>> computers and sensors are compensating because the reformulated gas
>> (RFG) is too lean.
>
> Well, in a way, they are - or at least in newer cars. They see that
> the copression is a bit different than expected(less energy means the
> piston is moving a bit less forceably - less compression). The computers
> naturally compensate, just like they do when you put 87 in a premium
> fuel engine.

Joey ... RayO has busted you ... again. Joey ... there are no compression
sensors. Good grief. You MIGHT get out a dictionary and look up all multi
syllable words you intend to use. Really.

> Cleaning up diesel emissions - that's the real problem we should
> be addressing. Millions of unregulated, belching, heavy-duty
> tucks, busses, and pieces of heavy machinery.

Pretty much done. Look around at current technology diesels in Europe.

>> Assuming that you are talking about air quality, you should take into
>> consideration that the air quality in the areas that are using RFG
>> have experienced improved air quality. If, as you assert, there is
>> no net gain in air pollution from RFGs, then how did the air quality
>> in those cities get better?
>
> Mostly via a switch to less polluting public transportation and
> controls on emissions from light industry. A single old school
> bus or bulldozer with no emissions controls pollutes more than
> a thousand new cars do. Or even a thousand slightly out of tune
> ten year old cars do. The rest - from less polluting new cars
> and programs to trade in old hulk-mobiles.

RayO. Joey does not get out much. He hasn't seen a belching RTD bus in many
years but to him ... they still roam the streams of all major cities.

> Just wait until the new diesel fuel and smog controls go into
> effect next year - the numbers will drop like a rock in most
> major cities.

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.
--

- Philip

C. E. White wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:uVzTd.14146$x53.7909@newsread3.news.atl.earth link.net...
>
>>> Take a look at these:
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/65l4v
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4yt8p
>>> http://tinyurl.com/45hkl
>>>
>>>
>>> Ed
>>
>> In the first link, nothing was mentioned about nozzle size but ,
>> considering the vehicle is a late model Honda, then either the
>> Unleaded nozzle was deliberately misfitted or the owner was able
>> insert the larger diesel nozzle. Not really sure here.
>>
>> In second link, there was impropriety at that particular station.
>>
>> In the third link, is similar to the second.
>>
>> These all have a similarity in that the individual station owner had
>> put
> an
>> unleaded gasoline nozzle on the diesel pump. I don't see a
>> statewide conspiracy to induce misfueling.
>
>
> No conspiracy needed. As far as I can determine there is no US
> nationwide rule that specifies the size of diesel fuel nozzles.

A tour around the country like I used to do suggests otherwise.

> I
> personally verified that a local station has the same size nozzle for
> diesel and unleaded gasoline.

Then REPORT the station to their Corporate office and to the Bureau of
Weights and Measures (the state agency that certifies the delivery accuracy
of fuel pumps).
--

- Philip

Ray O wrote:
> Older and newer ECU's do NOT measure compression or how forcibly the
> piston is moving or power so there is no compensation.

Well .... that's not perfectly true. VW's TDI diesels use a technology that
measures crankshaft rotation acceleration after each injector firing when
the engine is at low (idle) rpm. Compensations are calculated and executed
on the next cycle to ensure an equal amount of acceleration from each
cylinder. This ensures a smoother idle and better emissions (VW says).
Some gasoline vehicles having a coil on each spark plug may also have this
capability of varying ignition timing and/or injection timing individually
at low engine rpm.

--

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> 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.

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.

> 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.

So WHY did you claim earlier that there are untold herds of belching sooty
buses running all over the place?
--

- Philip

----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t>
Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: Regular Gas in a Premium Engine


> > No conspiracy needed. As far as I can determine there is no US
> > nationwide rule that specifies the size of diesel fuel nozzles.
>
> A tour around the country like I used to do suggests otherwise.
>
> > I
> > personally verified that a local station has the same size nozzle for
> > diesel and unleaded gasoline.
>
> Then REPORT the station to their Corporate office and to the Bureau of
> Weights and Measures (the state agency that certifies the delivery
accuracy
> of fuel pumps).

On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule? Because you wish there
was a rule? Can you show me one credible reference that supports your
assertion that their is a rule? Wishing there was one, assuming there is
one, or just BSing are not substitutes for facts. I can believe you've seen
pumps that use the leaded gasoline size nozzles for diesel fuel. This seem
entirely reasonable since there is no US government rule (at least that I
can find) governing the size of diesel fuel nozzles. There must be millions
of old leaded gasoline nozzle laying around. Why do find it so hard to
swallow your pride and acknowledge, that in the absence of concrete rules,
it is also equally possible some stations are using the smaller unleaded
fuel nozzles? I've seen them with my own eyes. I only had to find one to be
right. You have to check millions to prove me wrong. Why not drive to Wake
Forest, NC and start at the Texaco Station on 1A? After that you can check
the Citgo Station on Glenwood Avenue in Raleigh, NC. They also have a diesel
pump with the smaller nozzle.

Ed

"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mudspring.com> wrote in message
news:lQPTd.2808$r55.781@attbi_s52...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t>
> Newsgroups: alt.autos.toyota
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 7:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Regular Gas in a Premium Engine
>
>
>> > No conspiracy needed. As far as I can determine there is no US
>> > nationwide rule that specifies the size of diesel fuel nozzles.
>>
>> A tour around the country like I used to do suggests otherwise.
>>
>> > I
>> > personally verified that a local station has the same size nozzle for
>> > diesel and unleaded gasoline.
>>
>> Then REPORT the station to their Corporate office and to the Bureau of
>> Weights and Measures (the state agency that certifies the delivery
> accuracy
>> of fuel pumps).
>
> On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?
snip
> Ed

YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one does not
mean there is no such regulation.
--

- Philip

----- 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
> > On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?

> YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one does not
> mean there is no such regulation.

Prove that there is one! I searched through the Federal Registry. I easily
found the rules for the size of unleaded gasoline nozzles and the rule for
leaded gasoline nozzles. I found plenty of rules on diesel fuel. But not one
mention of diesel fuel nozzle sizes. I went so far as to find a proposed
rule (not yet in force) by one state. You have never even tried to prove
that there is a rule with regards to diesel pump nozzle sizes. You just
believe there is one, based on nothing but seeing large ones at some pumps.
That proves zero. As I have repeatedly stated, I have personally seen two
different station with "small" diesel pump nozzles. In fact that is 100% of
the pumps I have actually checked. Until you made the unsubstatiated claim
that diesel pumps were required to use the large nozzles, I had never even
thought to look at diesel pump nozzles.

Ed

Philip wrote:

>>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.
>
>
> What evidence do you have supporting that claim?

That MBTE is a toxic substance is easy to verify. They
claim it doesn't get into the groundwater. It has. They
claim it is safe. It isn't even close. It looks like a
typical CYA move by the industry and the government agencies
who like to pass this sort of nonsnese legislation.

>>It would be
>>exactly like putting a gallon of injector cleaner in every
>>time I filled up
>
> Explain how this is so. Is motor fuel grade alcohol known for cleaning
> injectors? Injector cleaners are volitile especially when atomized.

The point is that the injector cleaner is crud that you
put in that dilutes the gas if you were to say, put in 1.5 gallons
in a 16 gallon fillup - to a point where it would likely be
noticeable. I see no need to put 15% MBTE in my gas when
the real trick to getting less emissions is to keep the
car in good mechanical shape. It's not broken, yet they
want to fix it.

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.

Philip wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> So WHY did you claim earlier that there are untold herds of belching sooty
> buses running all over the place?

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:
> Philip wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> What evidence do you have supporting that claim?
>
> That MBTE is a toxic substance is easy to verify.

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?

>> Explain how this is so. Is motor fuel grade alcohol known for
>> cleaning injectors? Injector cleaners are volitile especially when
>> atomized.
>
> The point is that the injector cleaner is crud...

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:
> ----- 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
>>> On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?
>
>> YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one does
>> not mean there is no such regulation.
>
> Prove that there is one!
snip

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

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> 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.

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:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> So WHY did you claim earlier that there are untold herds of belching
>> sooty buses running all over the place?
>
> 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.

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.

http://www.theaircar.com/index.html
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:

> 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?

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:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

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:

>
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

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:
>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.

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:

> Joseph Oberlander <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote:
> snip
>
>>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.
>
>
> 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.

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:

> "jor" <jor@jor.com> wrote:
>
>
>>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
>
>
> 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.

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

> 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.

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:
> Philip wrote:
> >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.
>
> 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.

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

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> 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?
>
> 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.

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

- Philip

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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.

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

- Philip

Gord Beaman wrote:

> y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
> 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.

OK - I knew I missed something. However - the main difference
is that it's a uncontrolled explosion, when normally one would
want a controlled, relatively slow burn pushing the the cylinder
along.

Philip wrote:

> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>Philip wrote:
>> >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.
>>
>>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.
>
>
> Rubbish. You have been caught fabricating BS again.

You obviously don't know even how many gears a typical
big-rig has. Watch it go through the gears sometime -
and see how much black junk gets spewed forth.

Even an inefficient large SUV - you can't see the
emissions by comparison.

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>> Philip wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Rubbish. You have been caught fabricating BS again.
>
> You obviously don't know even how many gears a typical
> big-rig has. Watch it go through the gears sometime -
> and see how much black junk gets spewed forth.

The number of gears is irrelevent. For all you know the truck could have
anything from a 6 speed Allison automatic to to a 18 speed Road Ranger to a
four speed with a brownie. You appear to have forgotten what I used to do
for a living before retirement. LOL

> Even an inefficient large SUV - you can't see the
> emissions by comparison.

CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 are not visble gases. So the only thing you can be
spewing gibberish about is soot. And once again ... for your feeble recall
resouces, clouds of visible soot is a characteristic of very old diesels or
those that have their emissions system tampered with.
--

- Philip

"Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
news:MXYTd.7359$Ba3.3082@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
> C. E. White wrote:
> > ----- 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
> >>> On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?
> >
> >> YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one does
> >> not mean there is no such regulation.
> >
> > Prove that there is one!
> snip
>
> "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
> --

You have no evidence at all. Just because you THINK all diesel nozzles are
large doesn't make it so. Just because you have seen some large diesel
nozzle doesn't make them all large. Just because you want to believe there
is a federal rule requiring large diesel nozzles does not make the rule
exist. I've seen small diesel nozzles. Touched them with my own hands.
Fitted them into my own unleaded gas filler neck. This trumps all your BSing
and wishing. A little evidence beats the hell out of total BS! However I can
confirm that there is no consistency in my area. The diesel nozzles at the
Kangaroo Station on Capital Blvd in Raleigh, NC are too large to fit in an
unleaded filler neck. So as of now, only 66% of the stations I have checked
have small diesel fuel nozzles.

Ed

C. E. White wrote:
> "Philip" <1chip-state1@earthlink.n0t> wrote in message
> news:MXYTd.7359$Ba3.3082@newsread2.news.atl.earthl ink.net...
>> C. E. White wrote:
>>> ----- 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
>>>>> On what basis? The violation of a non-existent rule?
>>>
>>>> YOU DO NOT KNOW if there is no rule. That you did not find one
>>>> does not mean there is no such regulation.
>>>
>>> Prove that there is one!
>> snip
>>
>> "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
>> --
>
> You have no evidence at all. Just because you THINK all diesel
> nozzles are large doesn't make it so. Just because you have seen some
> large diesel nozzle doesn't make them all large. Just because you
> want to believe there is a federal rule requiring large diesel
> nozzles does not make the rule exist. I've seen small diesel nozzles.
> Touched them with my own hands. Fitted them into my own unleaded gas
> filler neck.

You're anecdotal experience does not preclude a legal violation by that
particular station that is going unnoticed.

snip
> The diesel nozzles at the
> Kangaroo Station on Capital Blvd in Raleigh, NC are too large to fit
> in an unleaded filler neck. So as of now, only 66% of the stations I
> have checked have small diesel fuel nozzles.
>
> Ed

"Kangaroo Station ... in Raleigh. OhhhhhKay. Suggest you take a driving
vacation to some other states.
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:

> The number of gears is irrelevent. For all you know the truck could have
> anything from a 6 speed Allison automatic to to a 18 speed Road Ranger to a
> four speed with a brownie. You appear to have forgotten what I used to do
> for a living before retirement. LOL

My point is that every time they shift, I see a big cloud of
stuff spewing forth. Now, I suppose if they all used automatic
transmissions, it would be less of a problem.

> CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 are not visble gases. So the only thing you can be
> spewing gibberish about is soot. And once again ... for your feeble recall
> resouces, clouds of visible soot is a characteristic of very old diesels or
> those that have their emissions system tampered with.

As I said, about half of all trucks in Los Angeles do this. They
are incredibly lax on controlling emissions.

y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>Gord Beaman wrote:
>
>> y_p_w <y_p_w@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>OK - I knew I missed something. However - the main difference
>is that it's a uncontrolled explosion, when normally one would
>want a controlled, relatively slow burn pushing the the cylinder
>along.

Precisely...(almost)...pushing the "piston" along... :)
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>> CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 are not visble gases. So the only thing you can
>> be spewing gibberish about is soot. And once again ... for your
>> feeble recall resouces, clouds of visible soot is a characteristic
>> of very old diesels or those that have their emissions system
>> tampered with.
>
> As I said, about half of all trucks in Los Angeles do this. They
> are incredibly lax on controlling emissions.

Nonsense, Joey. You are making up crap. If only half of all your posts were
convenient fabrications, I could write you off as an attention seaking kook.
But you rate much higher.
--

- Philip

Philip wrote:
> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>
>>Philip wrote:
>>
>>>CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 are not visble gases. So the only thing you can
>>>be spewing gibberish about is soot. And once again ... for your
>>>feeble recall resouces, clouds of visible soot is a characteristic
>>>of very old diesels or those that have their emissions system
>>>tampered with.
>>
>>As I said, about half of all trucks in Los Angeles do this. They
>>are incredibly lax on controlling emissions.
>
>
> Nonsense, Joey. You are making up crap. If only half of all your posts were
> convenient fabrications, I could write you off as an attention seaking kook.
> But you rate much higher.

I live here. I deal with the smog and soot and thousands of
ancient diesel trucks every day. More pollution is from
this than passenger vehicles(barring the old classics that
are smog-exempt)

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>> Joseph Oberlander wrote:
>>
>>> Philip wrote:
>>>
>>>> CO, HC, NOx, and CO2 are not visble gases. So the only thing you
>>>> can be spewing gibberish about is soot. And once again ... for your
>>>> feeble recall resouces, clouds of visible soot is a characteristic
>>>> of very old diesels or those that have their emissions system
>>>> tampered with.
>>>
>>> As I said, about half of all trucks in Los Angeles do this. They
>>> are incredibly lax on controlling emissions.
>>
>>
>> Nonsense, Joey. You are making up crap. If only half of all your
>> posts were convenient fabrications, I could write you off as an
>> attention seaking kook. But you rate much higher.
>
> I live here. I deal with the smog and soot and thousands of
> ancient diesel trucks every day. More pollution is from
> this than passenger vehicles(barring the old classics that
> are smog-exempt)

You live IN Los Angeles downtown, eh? The West Hollywood Lefties polluted
your brain, not diesel trucks. You do not have diesel powered buses in LA
and the remaining fleet of local diesel commercial delivery trucks are
seldom kept for more than 7 years so ... that leaves only transient
out-of-state trucks and even those have very few that smoke like you claim.
--

- Philip

"Joseph Oberlander" <josephoberlander@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:pxUTd.6118$873.5050@newsread3.news.pas.earthl ink.net...
>
>
> Philip wrote:
>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>> What evidence do you have supporting that claim?
>
> That MBTE is a toxic substance is easy to verify. They
> claim it doesn't get into the groundwater. It has. They
> claim it is safe. It isn't even close. It looks like a
> typical CYA move by the industry and the government agencies
> who like to pass this sort of nonsnese legislation.
>
>>>It would be
>>>exactly like putting a gallon of injector cleaner in every
>>>time I filled up
>> Explain how this is so. Is motor fuel grade alcohol known for cleaning
>> injectors? Injector cleaners are volitile especially when atomized.
>
> The point is that the injector cleaner is crud that you
> put in that dilutes the gas if you were to say, put in 1.5 gallons
> in a 16 gallon fillup - to a point where it would likely be
> noticeable. I see no need to put 15% MBTE in my gas when
> the real trick to getting less emissions is to keep the
> car in good mechanical shape. It's not broken, yet they
> want to fix it.
>
Joe,

I thought the discussion was about oxygenated fuels and MBTE, then you
brought in the subject of injector cleaner and seem to be inferring that
MBTE is injector cleaner and that injector cleaner dilutes gas.

First of all, MBTE is not injector cleaner. Second, you do not get anywhere
near a gallon of injector cleaner in a 16 gallon fillup. That high a
concentration of injector cleaner would cause start dissolving flexible fuel
lines and seals and cause all sorts of problems. Go to an auto parts store
and take a look at the various injector cleaners on the shelf. That stuff
is in quantities like 6 or 10 ounces and if you read the instructions on
most of them, you are supposed to use up the tank that you add the cleaner
to as soon as possible. That is because those few ounces will start causing
problems if left in the system for a long time. If every tank had gallons
of the stuff in it, the fuel delivery system would self-destruct.
--
Ray O
correct the return address punctuation to reply

Philip wrote:

> You live IN Los Angeles downtown, eh? The West Hollywood Lefties polluted
> your brain, not diesel trucks. You do not have diesel powered buses in LA
> and the remaining fleet of local diesel commercial delivery trucks are
> seldom kept for more than 7 years so ... that leaves only transient
> out-of-state trucks and even those have very few that smoke like you claim.

You'd think that, wouldn't you? But the heavy haulers and
construction equipment is almost always kept running
up to nearly two decades, or until it can't be made to run
anymore. Fixing the emissions equipment is the last thing
they care about since they don't really have to.

Just head down towards the ports - check out the traffic
in and out sometime. How many are belching smoke every
time they shift? (or during rush hour traffic)

Joseph Oberlander wrote:
> Philip wrote:
>
>> You live IN Los Angeles downtown, eh? The West Hollywood Lefties
>> polluted your brain, not diesel trucks. You do not have diesel
>> powered buses in LA and the remaining fleet of local diesel
>> commercial delivery trucks are seldom kept for more than 7 years so
>> ... that leaves only transient out-of-state trucks and even those
>> have very few that smoke like you claim.
>
> You'd think that, wouldn't you? But the heavy haulers and
> construction equipment is almost always kept running
> up to nearly two decades, or until it can't be made to run
> anymore. Fixing the emissions equipment is the last thing
> they care about since they don't really have to.
>
> Just head down towards the ports - check out the traffic
> in and out sometime. How many are belching smoke every
> time they shift? (or during rush hour traffic)

Joey ... trucking was my business and the rail head over on Washington, west
of 710 was a frequent drop/pickup point. Since all you do is travel between
I-5 and the Long Beach Harbor, I can see how you could extrapolate the
entire state being over run by belching diesel trucks. Seems that such is
the weakness and limitations of your thought processes. ALL the regulations
to come will not take those aging cockroach trucks off the road. That's like
putting you on a diet so your wife will lose weight. There is no biannual
smog test for commercial trucks, largely because UNLIKE personal vehicles,
COMMERCIAL trucks contribute disproportionately to the movement of finished
goods and raw materials and food. The environment always takes a back seat
to the strength of the economy. We vote for all this green stuff when jobs
and discretionary funds are plentiful. When the pendulum swings the other
way, "green concerns" get pushed back for time or you get what we've got
with the electricity generating plants and petroleum refineries in this
socialist state.
--

- Philip