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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.