E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
#111
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
>Not exactly correct... To many drivers
Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single
occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as
you have. I see it from the ***-end of the logic chain: cut the number
of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem
altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right;
we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.
I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn
many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their
DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves
any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners
are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so
they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.
Bah. My solution? Move to the suburbs - to hell with big-city-revenue
mentality. It's worked pretty well so far. I'm long-since tired of
the smog, crime and noise anyway. The rats won the race a long time
ago. We just shuffle ---- around every 4 years is all; this country
was bought and paid for a LONG time ago, and ain't nothin' gonna
change!
Okay, time to take my meds...
Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single
occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as
you have. I see it from the ***-end of the logic chain: cut the number
of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem
altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right;
we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.
I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn
many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their
DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves
any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners
are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so
they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.
Bah. My solution? Move to the suburbs - to hell with big-city-revenue
mentality. It's worked pretty well so far. I'm long-since tired of
the smog, crime and noise anyway. The rats won the race a long time
ago. We just shuffle ---- around every 4 years is all; this country
was bought and paid for a LONG time ago, and ain't nothin' gonna
change!
Okay, time to take my meds...
#112
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
>Not exactly correct... To many drivers
Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single
occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as
you have. I see it from the ***-end of the logic chain: cut the number
of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem
altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right;
we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.
I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn
many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their
DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves
any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners
are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so
they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.
Bah. My solution? Move to the suburbs - to hell with big-city-revenue
mentality. It's worked pretty well so far. I'm long-since tired of
the smog, crime and noise anyway. The rats won the race a long time
ago. We just shuffle ---- around every 4 years is all; this country
was bought and paid for a LONG time ago, and ain't nothin' gonna
change!
Okay, time to take my meds...
Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single
occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as
you have. I see it from the ***-end of the logic chain: cut the number
of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem
altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right;
we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.
I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn
many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their
DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves
any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners
are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so
they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.
Bah. My solution? Move to the suburbs - to hell with big-city-revenue
mentality. It's worked pretty well so far. I'm long-since tired of
the smog, crime and noise anyway. The rats won the race a long time
ago. We just shuffle ---- around every 4 years is all; this country
was bought and paid for a LONG time ago, and ain't nothin' gonna
change!
Okay, time to take my meds...
#113
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
Far too many trucks on the road. That's why I haul'em aboard a train!
Ed
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1143508721.483943.81260@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> >Not exactly correct... To many drivers
>
> Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single
> occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as
> you have. I see it from the ***-end of the logic chain: cut the number
> of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem
> altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right;
> we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.
>
> I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn
> many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their
> DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves
> any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners
> are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so
> they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.
Ed
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1143508721.483943.81260@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> >Not exactly correct... To many drivers
>
> Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single
> occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as
> you have. I see it from the ***-end of the logic chain: cut the number
> of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem
> altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right;
> we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.
>
> I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn
> many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their
> DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves
> any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners
> are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so
> they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
Far too many trucks on the road. That's why I haul'em aboard a train!
Ed
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1143508721.483943.81260@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> >Not exactly correct... To many drivers
>
> Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single
> occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as
> you have. I see it from the ***-end of the logic chain: cut the number
> of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem
> altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right;
> we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.
>
> I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn
> many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their
> DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves
> any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners
> are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so
> they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.
Ed
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1143508721.483943.81260@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> >Not exactly correct... To many drivers
>
> Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single
> occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as
> you have. I see it from the ***-end of the logic chain: cut the number
> of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem
> altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right;
> we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.
>
> I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn
> many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their
> DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves
> any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners
> are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so
> they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
Far too many trucks on the road. That's why I haul'em aboard a train!
Ed
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1143508721.483943.81260@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> >Not exactly correct... To many drivers
>
> Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single
> occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as
> you have. I see it from the ***-end of the logic chain: cut the number
> of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem
> altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right;
> we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.
>
> I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn
> many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their
> DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves
> any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners
> are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so
> they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.
Ed
"JD Adams" <JDAdams@Softcom.Net> wrote in message
news:1143508721.483943.81260@u72g2000cwu.googlegro ups.com...
> >Not exactly correct... To many drivers
>
> Well, perhaps I should have clarified: too many cars with a single
> occupant. Some logically consider this to be 'too many drivers', as
> you have. I see it from the ***-end of the logic chain: cut the number
> of cars in half and you eliminate the 'too many drivers' problem
> altogether. We both know what the problem is and we're both right;
> we're just seeing it from differing perspectives.
>
> I see this from a trucker's point of view. There are just too damn
> many cars on the road that don't need to be there. Everyone and their
> DOG drives (not owns!) a car these days, and we're not doing ourselves
> any favors by driving somewhere alone anymore. Worse, city planners
> are more concerned with tax revenue than with traffic problems, so
> they're all in favor of packing 'em in like sardines.
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
As I understand it, Oxygenates do little for emissions in most modern
cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be
why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra
oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate
this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions
during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and
operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are
usually described in the FSM.
Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or in some
cases optional sizes are not available under EPA law. I ran into this on
an older Yamaha motorcycle which was cold-blooded on normal leaded gas
and undriveable on the oxygenated gas. I did find a solution. Some
machine and speed shops have jet drills, which can be used to make a
stock fuel jet richer. I went one size larger on both the main and pilot
jets and it runs much better. Unless replacement stock jets are
available, there's no going back so it's best to be conservative. The
cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home.
In article <e08qq7$eb8$1@reader2.panix.com>, layrton@REMOVE_ME.panix.com
says...
>
> It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was
> that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for
> Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the
> agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states
> started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis
> concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.
>
> Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the subject:
> <URL:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-md.mtbe17feb17001554,0,5399305.story?coll=bal-local-harford>
>
> Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives,
> it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state,
> has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.
>
> In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the
> additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil
> lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away
> from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves
> ethanol as the most likely replacement.
>
> I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be
> E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from
> a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's
> enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.
>
> Further reading:
> EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm>
>
> Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/motorgas/4_oxygenated-gasoline/>
>
> And an amusing one:
> "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on
> commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/nerl/nerlmtbe.htm>
> Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive
> Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.
>
>
cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be
why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra
oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate
this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions
during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and
operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are
usually described in the FSM.
Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or in some
cases optional sizes are not available under EPA law. I ran into this on
an older Yamaha motorcycle which was cold-blooded on normal leaded gas
and undriveable on the oxygenated gas. I did find a solution. Some
machine and speed shops have jet drills, which can be used to make a
stock fuel jet richer. I went one size larger on both the main and pilot
jets and it runs much better. Unless replacement stock jets are
available, there's no going back so it's best to be conservative. The
cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home.
In article <e08qq7$eb8$1@reader2.panix.com>, layrton@REMOVE_ME.panix.com
says...
>
> It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was
> that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for
> Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the
> agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states
> started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis
> concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.
>
> Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the subject:
> <URL:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-md.mtbe17feb17001554,0,5399305.story?coll=bal-local-harford>
>
> Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives,
> it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state,
> has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.
>
> In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the
> additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil
> lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away
> from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves
> ethanol as the most likely replacement.
>
> I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be
> E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from
> a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's
> enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.
>
> Further reading:
> EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm>
>
> Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/motorgas/4_oxygenated-gasoline/>
>
> And an amusing one:
> "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on
> commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/nerl/nerlmtbe.htm>
> Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive
> Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.
>
>
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
As I understand it, Oxygenates do little for emissions in most modern
cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be
why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra
oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate
this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions
during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and
operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are
usually described in the FSM.
Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or in some
cases optional sizes are not available under EPA law. I ran into this on
an older Yamaha motorcycle which was cold-blooded on normal leaded gas
and undriveable on the oxygenated gas. I did find a solution. Some
machine and speed shops have jet drills, which can be used to make a
stock fuel jet richer. I went one size larger on both the main and pilot
jets and it runs much better. Unless replacement stock jets are
available, there's no going back so it's best to be conservative. The
cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home.
In article <e08qq7$eb8$1@reader2.panix.com>, layrton@REMOVE_ME.panix.com
says...
>
> It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was
> that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for
> Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the
> agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states
> started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis
> concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.
>
> Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the subject:
> <URL:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-md.mtbe17feb17001554,0,5399305.story?coll=bal-local-harford>
>
> Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives,
> it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state,
> has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.
>
> In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the
> additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil
> lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away
> from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves
> ethanol as the most likely replacement.
>
> I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be
> E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from
> a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's
> enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.
>
> Further reading:
> EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm>
>
> Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/motorgas/4_oxygenated-gasoline/>
>
> And an amusing one:
> "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on
> commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/nerl/nerlmtbe.htm>
> Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive
> Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.
>
>
cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be
why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra
oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate
this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions
during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and
operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are
usually described in the FSM.
Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or in some
cases optional sizes are not available under EPA law. I ran into this on
an older Yamaha motorcycle which was cold-blooded on normal leaded gas
and undriveable on the oxygenated gas. I did find a solution. Some
machine and speed shops have jet drills, which can be used to make a
stock fuel jet richer. I went one size larger on both the main and pilot
jets and it runs much better. Unless replacement stock jets are
available, there's no going back so it's best to be conservative. The
cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home.
In article <e08qq7$eb8$1@reader2.panix.com>, layrton@REMOVE_ME.panix.com
says...
>
> It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was
> that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for
> Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the
> agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states
> started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis
> concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.
>
> Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the subject:
> <URL:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-md.mtbe17feb17001554,0,5399305.story?coll=bal-local-harford>
>
> Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives,
> it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state,
> has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.
>
> In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the
> additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil
> lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away
> from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves
> ethanol as the most likely replacement.
>
> I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be
> E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from
> a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's
> enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.
>
> Further reading:
> EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm>
>
> Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/motorgas/4_oxygenated-gasoline/>
>
> And an amusing one:
> "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on
> commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/nerl/nerlmtbe.htm>
> Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive
> Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.
>
>
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
As I understand it, Oxygenates do little for emissions in most modern
cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be
why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra
oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate
this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions
during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and
operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are
usually described in the FSM.
Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or in some
cases optional sizes are not available under EPA law. I ran into this on
an older Yamaha motorcycle which was cold-blooded on normal leaded gas
and undriveable on the oxygenated gas. I did find a solution. Some
machine and speed shops have jet drills, which can be used to make a
stock fuel jet richer. I went one size larger on both the main and pilot
jets and it runs much better. Unless replacement stock jets are
available, there's no going back so it's best to be conservative. The
cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home.
In article <e08qq7$eb8$1@reader2.panix.com>, layrton@REMOVE_ME.panix.com
says...
>
> It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was
> that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for
> Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the
> agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states
> started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis
> concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.
>
> Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the subject:
> <URL:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-md.mtbe17feb17001554,0,5399305.story?coll=bal-local-harford>
>
> Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives,
> it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state,
> has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.
>
> In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the
> additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil
> lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away
> from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves
> ethanol as the most likely replacement.
>
> I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be
> E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from
> a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's
> enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.
>
> Further reading:
> EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm>
>
> Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/motorgas/4_oxygenated-gasoline/>
>
> And an amusing one:
> "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on
> commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/nerl/nerlmtbe.htm>
> Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive
> Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.
>
>
cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be
why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra
oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate
this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions
during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and
operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are
usually described in the FSM.
Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or in some
cases optional sizes are not available under EPA law. I ran into this on
an older Yamaha motorcycle which was cold-blooded on normal leaded gas
and undriveable on the oxygenated gas. I did find a solution. Some
machine and speed shops have jet drills, which can be used to make a
stock fuel jet richer. I went one size larger on both the main and pilot
jets and it runs much better. Unless replacement stock jets are
available, there's no going back so it's best to be conservative. The
cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home.
In article <e08qq7$eb8$1@reader2.panix.com>, layrton@REMOVE_ME.panix.com
says...
>
> It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was
> that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for
> Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the
> agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states
> started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis
> concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.
>
> Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the subject:
> <URL:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/harford/bal-md.mtbe17feb17001554,0,5399305.story?coll=bal-local-harford>
>
> Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives,
> it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state,
> has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.
>
> In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the
> additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil
> lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away
> from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves
> ethanol as the most likely replacement.
>
> I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be
> E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from
> a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's
> enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.
>
> Further reading:
> EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm>
>
> Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:
> <URL:http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/motorgas/4_oxygenated-gasoline/>
>
> And an amusing one:
> "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on
> commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"
> <URL:http://www.epa.gov/nerl/nerlmtbe.htm>
> Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive
> Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.
>
>
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
"The cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home."
Not even if you can find a welding tip drill that just happens to be the
correct size. ;^)
Earle
"Al J" <ajsmail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e92f1566b7eb7b89898a7@news.xnet.com...
> As I understand it, Oxygenates do little for emissions in most modern
> cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be
> why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra
> oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate
> this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions
> during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and
> operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are
> usually described in the FSM.
>
> Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or in some
> cases optional sizes are not available under EPA law. I ran into this on
> an older Yamaha motorcycle which was cold-blooded on normal leaded gas
> and undriveable on the oxygenated gas. I did find a solution. Some
> machine and speed shops have jet drills, which can be used to make a
> stock fuel jet richer. I went one size larger on both the main and pilot
> jets and it runs much better. Unless replacement stock jets are
> available, there's no going back so it's best to be conservative. The
> cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home.
>
> In article <e08qq7$eb8$1@reader2.panix.com>, layrton@REMOVE_ME.panix.com
> says...
> >
> > It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was
> > that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for
> > Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the
> > agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states
> > started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis
> > concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.
> >
> > Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the
subject:
> >
<URL:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...e17feb17001554
,0,5399305.story?coll=bal-local-harford>
> >
> > Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives,
> > it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state,
> > has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.
> >
> > In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the
> > additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil
> > lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away
> > from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves
> > ethanol as the most likely replacement.
> >
> > I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be
> > E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from
> > a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's
> > enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.
> >
> > Further reading:
> > EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:
> > <URL:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm>
> >
> > Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:
> >
<URL:http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...otorgas/4_oxyg
enated-gasoline/>
> >
> > And an amusing one:
> > "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on
> > commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"
> > <URL:http://www.epa.gov/nerl/nerlmtbe.htm>
> > Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive
> > Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.
> >
> >
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Not even if you can find a welding tip drill that just happens to be the
correct size. ;^)
Earle
"Al J" <ajsmail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e92f1566b7eb7b89898a7@news.xnet.com...
> As I understand it, Oxygenates do little for emissions in most modern
> cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be
> why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra
> oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate
> this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions
> during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and
> operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are
> usually described in the FSM.
>
> Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or in some
> cases optional sizes are not available under EPA law. I ran into this on
> an older Yamaha motorcycle which was cold-blooded on normal leaded gas
> and undriveable on the oxygenated gas. I did find a solution. Some
> machine and speed shops have jet drills, which can be used to make a
> stock fuel jet richer. I went one size larger on both the main and pilot
> jets and it runs much better. Unless replacement stock jets are
> available, there's no going back so it's best to be conservative. The
> cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home.
>
> In article <e08qq7$eb8$1@reader2.panix.com>, layrton@REMOVE_ME.panix.com
> says...
> >
> > It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was
> > that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for
> > Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the
> > agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states
> > started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis
> > concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.
> >
> > Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the
subject:
> >
<URL:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...e17feb17001554
,0,5399305.story?coll=bal-local-harford>
> >
> > Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives,
> > it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state,
> > has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.
> >
> > In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the
> > additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil
> > lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away
> > from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves
> > ethanol as the most likely replacement.
> >
> > I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be
> > E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from
> > a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's
> > enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.
> >
> > Further reading:
> > EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:
> > <URL:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm>
> >
> > Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:
> >
<URL:http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...otorgas/4_oxyg
enated-gasoline/>
> >
> > And an amusing one:
> > "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on
> > commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"
> > <URL:http://www.epa.gov/nerl/nerlmtbe.htm>
> > Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive
> > Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.
> >
> >
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: E-10 Gasoline The New Standard April 1st
"The cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home."
Not even if you can find a welding tip drill that just happens to be the
correct size. ;^)
Earle
"Al J" <ajsmail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e92f1566b7eb7b89898a7@news.xnet.com...
> As I understand it, Oxygenates do little for emissions in most modern
> cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be
> why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra
> oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate
> this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions
> during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and
> operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are
> usually described in the FSM.
>
> Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or in some
> cases optional sizes are not available under EPA law. I ran into this on
> an older Yamaha motorcycle which was cold-blooded on normal leaded gas
> and undriveable on the oxygenated gas. I did find a solution. Some
> machine and speed shops have jet drills, which can be used to make a
> stock fuel jet richer. I went one size larger on both the main and pilot
> jets and it runs much better. Unless replacement stock jets are
> available, there's no going back so it's best to be conservative. The
> cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home.
>
> In article <e08qq7$eb8$1@reader2.panix.com>, layrton@REMOVE_ME.panix.com
> says...
> >
> > It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was
> > that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for
> > Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the
> > agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states
> > started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis
> > concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.
> >
> > Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the
subject:
> >
<URL:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...e17feb17001554
,0,5399305.story?coll=bal-local-harford>
> >
> > Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives,
> > it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state,
> > has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.
> >
> > In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the
> > additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil
> > lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away
> > from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves
> > ethanol as the most likely replacement.
> >
> > I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be
> > E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from
> > a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's
> > enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.
> >
> > Further reading:
> > EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:
> > <URL:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm>
> >
> > Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:
> >
<URL:http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...otorgas/4_oxyg
enated-gasoline/>
> >
> > And an amusing one:
> > "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on
> > commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"
> > <URL:http://www.epa.gov/nerl/nerlmtbe.htm>
> > Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive
> > Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.
> >
> >
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
Not even if you can find a welding tip drill that just happens to be the
correct size. ;^)
Earle
"Al J" <ajsmail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e92f1566b7eb7b89898a7@news.xnet.com...
> As I understand it, Oxygenates do little for emissions in most modern
> cars with O2 sensors and feedback fuel injection systems, which may be
> why the requirement is being dropped. The O2 sensor detects the extra
> oxygen and richens the mixture. When ethanol is used as the oxygenate
> this causes a double hit to mpg. There is some reduction in emissions
> during cold and warm starts when most systems ignore the O2 sensor and
> operate in a mode pre-programmed into the computer. Those modes are
> usually described in the FSM.
>
> Some older carbs from the 70s & early 80s have fixed jets or in some
> cases optional sizes are not available under EPA law. I ran into this on
> an older Yamaha motorcycle which was cold-blooded on normal leaded gas
> and undriveable on the oxygenated gas. I did find a solution. Some
> machine and speed shops have jet drills, which can be used to make a
> stock fuel jet richer. I went one size larger on both the main and pilot
> jets and it runs much better. Unless replacement stock jets are
> available, there's no going back so it's best to be conservative. The
> cost was very reasonable and you shouldn't try this at home.
>
> In article <e08qq7$eb8$1@reader2.panix.com>, layrton@REMOVE_ME.panix.com
> says...
> >
> > It /appears/ that the show may have misunderstood. What I found was
> > that the US EPA is dropping the oxygenation requirements for
> > Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) road fuel effective May, 2006. MTBE was the
> > agent that was most commonly used -- until individual USofA states
> > started banning it over groundwater contamination and carcinogenesis
> > concerns. This doesn't mean that they will require E-10 in its place.
> >
> > Here's a news article from Maryland that gives a quick gloss on the
subject:
> >
<URL:http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/loc...e17feb17001554
,0,5399305.story?coll=bal-local-harford>
> >
> > Individual states are free to continue to require oxygenate additives,
> > it is just that the Feds won't require it. Connecticut, my home state,
> > has used 5% ethanol for its RFG for several years.
> >
> > In addition, MTBE producers are shutting down production of the
> > additive, partly because they've failed to secure immunity from civil
> > lawsuits, partly over diminished demand as gasoline marketers run away
> > from it and individual states ban it as an additive. This leaves
> > ethanol as the most likely replacement.
> >
> > I can't find anything that says that the EPA will require all RFG to be
> > E-10, and it wouldn't make sense anyway when E-5 works just as well from
> > a tailpipe emissions point of view. And I'm not sure that there's
> > enough corn in the country to make that much ethanol right now anyway.
> >
> > Further reading:
> > EPA Regulations and Standards - Reformulated Gasoline:
> > <URL:http://www.epa.gov/otaq/rfg_regs.htm>
> >
> > Chevron - Oxygenated Gasoline:
> >
<URL:http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...otorgas/4_oxyg
enated-gasoline/>
> >
> > And an amusing one:
> > "Evaluation of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) as an interference on
> > commercial breath-alcohol analyzers"
> > <URL:http://www.epa.gov/nerl/nerlmtbe.htm>
> > Can excessive occupational exposure to MTBE result in false positive
> > Breath-a-lizer readings? Nope.
> >
> >
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***