Failed Califoria smog test.
01-24-2005, 01:34 PM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: It Passed
As a teenager, you never won any street races, did you?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
> moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
> (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
> Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only difference
> is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
> would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in emissions?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Lee Ayrton wrote:
>
> The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
> moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
> (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
> Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only difference
> is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
> would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in emissions?
01-24-2005, 03:36 PM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: It Passed
But Bill, if one _needs_ high octane gas, they have a high performance
engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
actually produce said performance.
High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
higher octane.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F53FCE.1E0187DD@***.net...
> As a teenager, you never won any street races, did you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> > The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
> > moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
> > (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
> > Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only
difference
> > is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
> > would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in
emissions?
engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
actually produce said performance.
High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
higher octane.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F53FCE.1E0187DD@***.net...
> As a teenager, you never won any street races, did you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> > The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
> > moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
> > (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
> > Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only
difference
> > is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
> > would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in
emissions?
01-24-2005, 03:36 PM
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: It Passed
But Bill, if one _needs_ high octane gas, they have a high performance
engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
actually produce said performance.
High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
higher octane.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F53FCE.1E0187DD@***.net...
> As a teenager, you never won any street races, did you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> > The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
> > moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
> > (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
> > Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only
difference
> > is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
> > would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in
emissions?
engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
actually produce said performance.
High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
higher octane.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F53FCE.1E0187DD@***.net...
> As a teenager, you never won any street races, did you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> > The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
> > moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
> > (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
> > Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only
difference
> > is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
> > would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in
emissions?
01-24-2005, 03:36 PM
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: It Passed
But Bill, if one _needs_ high octane gas, they have a high performance
engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
actually produce said performance.
High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
higher octane.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F53FCE.1E0187DD@***.net...
> As a teenager, you never won any street races, did you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> > The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
> > moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
> > (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
> > Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only
difference
> > is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
> > would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in
emissions?
engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
actually produce said performance.
High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
higher octane.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41F53FCE.1E0187DD@***.net...
> As a teenager, you never won any street races, did you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
> >
> > The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
> > moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
> > (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
> > Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only
difference
> > is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
> > would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in
emissions?
01-24-2005, 06:26 PM
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: It Passed
In my `62 Econoline? Hahahahoooo. That thing would slow down from 60MPH
downhill, with the clutch in.
Seriously, why should a higher octane fuel have any positive effect on
tailpipe emissions?
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, L.W.([iso-8859-1] ßill) ------ III wrote:
> As a teenager, you never won any street races, did you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>
>> The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
>> moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
>> (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
>> Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only difference
>> is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
>> would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in emissions?
>
--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.
01-24-2005, 06:26 PM
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: It Passed
In my `62 Econoline? Hahahahoooo. That thing would slow down from 60MPH
downhill, with the clutch in.
Seriously, why should a higher octane fuel have any positive effect on
tailpipe emissions?
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, L.W.([iso-8859-1] ßill) ------ III wrote:
> As a teenager, you never won any street races, did you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>
>> The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
>> moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
>> (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
>> Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only difference
>> is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
>> would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in emissions?
>
--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.
01-24-2005, 06:26 PM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: It Passed
In my `62 Econoline? Hahahahoooo. That thing would slow down from 60MPH
downhill, with the clutch in.
Seriously, why should a higher octane fuel have any positive effect on
tailpipe emissions?
On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, L.W.([iso-8859-1] ßill) ------ III wrote:
> As a teenager, you never won any street races, did you?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Lee Ayrton wrote:
>>
>> The "half a tank of premium gas" caught my eye. Disregarding for the
>> moment the differences in additive formulations between manufacturers,
>> (the gasoline "slug" in the pipeline is the same if it goes to the
>> Exxon/Mobil plant or the Shell plant or the BP plant, the only difference
>> is in what they add to it before it goes out in the tanker truck)
>> would/should higher octane gas make any positive difference in emissions?
>
--
"I defer to your plainly more vivid memories of topless women with
whips....r"
R. H. Draney recalls AFU in the Good Old Days.
01-24-2005, 06:45 PM
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: It Passed
We're not going to change each others minds. But, you should know
octane is not the only difference between premium and your cheap
regular.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> But Bill, if one _needs_ high octane gas, they have a high performance
> engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
> actually produce said performance.
>
> High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
> money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
> actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
> not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
> line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
> higher octane.
octane is not the only difference between premium and your cheap
regular.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> But Bill, if one _needs_ high octane gas, they have a high performance
> engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
> actually produce said performance.
>
> High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
> money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
> actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
> not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
> line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
> higher octane.
01-24-2005, 06:45 PM
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: It Passed
We're not going to change each others minds. But, you should know
octane is not the only difference between premium and your cheap
regular.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> But Bill, if one _needs_ high octane gas, they have a high performance
> engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
> actually produce said performance.
>
> High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
> money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
> actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
> not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
> line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
> higher octane.
octane is not the only difference between premium and your cheap
regular.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> But Bill, if one _needs_ high octane gas, they have a high performance
> engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
> actually produce said performance.
>
> High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
> money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
> actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
> not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
> line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
> higher octane.
01-24-2005, 06:45 PM
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: It Passed
We're not going to change each others minds. But, you should know
octane is not the only difference between premium and your cheap
regular.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> But Bill, if one _needs_ high octane gas, they have a high performance
> engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
> actually produce said performance.
>
> High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
> money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
> actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
> not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
> line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
> higher octane.
octane is not the only difference between premium and your cheap
regular.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jeff Strickland wrote:
>
> But Bill, if one _needs_ high octane gas, they have a high performance
> engine. They need the octane to boost performance in a motor that can
> actually produce said performance.
>
> High octane in a motor that does not need it is wasteful. Mostly, it wastes
> money. Indeed, there is a strong argument that high octane gas might
> actually boost the emissions because it hasn't been burned completely. I am
> not sure I buy into that particular argument, but it's out there. The bottom
> line, boosting octane is of little value when the motor does not demand the
> higher octane.