🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov4.180757.3498@mcnc.org>, kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof Kozminski) writes:
|> Does anybody know what counties near the Triangle still sell real gasoline
|> as opposed to the oxygenated gasohol inflicted on us here in Durham/RTP?
|>
|> My car's manufacturer warns against using gasohol in no uncertain words,
|> and I think that the environmental cost of replacing a blown engine (OK,
|> maybe I exagerrate a bit :-) might be significantly higher than a bit of
|> extra CO from a recently tuned engine...
|>

Please check with a dealer for your make of car first before you
start "bypassing" something that is being done for the good of
our environment.  What year is your car?  Anything made in the
past 5 years should be safe (regardless of manufacturer).  A
lot of manufacturer's warnings (in owner's manual) were not
"justified".



-- 
Ed McGee (saselm@unx.sas.com) J393 x7937

In article <1992Nov4.180757.3498@mcnc.org>, kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof Kozminski) writes:
>Does anybody know what counties near the Triangle still sell real gasoline
>as opposed to the oxygenated gasohol inflicted on us here in Durham/RTP?

You will find that because of the bad press of gasohol, most of the
major companies are using the MBTE (MTBE?) additive instead.  If a
pump is dispensing gasohol, it has to say so on the pump.  I would
agree to avoid gasohol -- motorcycles in particular tend to be
sensitive to it, I gather.

BP, for one, guarantees that if you have fuel system problems while
using their oxygenated fuel, they will pay for the repairs.  They have
a leaflet available at their gas stations detailing this.

I have had no problems so far running BP oxygenated regular unleaded
in both a 1990 Mazda Miata and a 1980 Yamaha XS1100 -- no drop in
performance and no perceptable drop in fuel economy.  The 1989 Ford
Aerostar has been a little sluggish within the first 100 yards of a
cold start, but runs normally thereafter (it could use a tune-up
anyway).

The fuel companies have been shipping oxygenated fuel to this area for
the last month or so, in order that all fuel sold after Nov.1 meets
the law.  You have probably been using oxygenated fuel and not
noticed!

Martyn
--------------sasmjw@unx.sas.com----(Martyn Wheeler)----DoD #293--------------
SAS Institute, Inc: (919) 677-8000 ext.7954    H: (919) 839-0092 (Raleigh, NC)
  "Too wimpy.  I'm gonna save up for a Harley" -- Gunny, _Major Dad_
-- 
Martyn
--------------sasmjw@unx.sas.com----(Martyn Wheeler)----DoD #293--------------
SAS Institute, Inc: (919) 677-8000 ext.7954    H: (919) 839-0092 (Raleigh, NC)
  "Too wimpy.  I'm gonna save up for a Harley" -- Gunny, _Major Dad_

In article <Bx7JLF.C2J@unx.sas.com> saselm@bronco.unx.sas.com (Edward McGee) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov4.180757.3498@mcnc.org>, kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof Kozminski) writes:
>|> Does anybody know what counties near the Triangle still sell real gasoline
>|> as opposed to the oxygenated gasohol inflicted on us here in Durham/RTP?
>|>
>|> My car's manufacturer warns against using gasohol in no uncertain words,
>|> and I think that the environmental cost of replacing a blown engine (OK,
>|> maybe I exagerrate a bit :-) might be significantly higher than a bit of
>|> extra CO from a recently tuned engine...
>|>
>
>Please check with a dealer for your make of car first before you
>start "bypassing" something that is being done for the good of
>our environment.  What year is your car?  Anything made in the
>past 5 years should be safe (regardless of manufacturer).  A
>lot of manufacturer's warnings (in owner's manual) were not
>"justified".
>
>-- 
>Ed McGee (saselm@unx.sas.com) J393 x7937
>

I HAVE checked with my dealer and manufacturer Ford Motor Company.  They
state that 10% (the State is mandating *15%*) MBTE or Ethanol is OK as
far as performance is concerned.

However, THEY WILL *NOT* HONOR THE WARRANTY IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG WHILE
USING SUCH FUEL.  One vehicle is a 1988 Lincoln Town Car the other is a
1991 Ford Ranger XLT.  Both have extended warranties and would be
expensive to repair without them.  Also, both vehicles have recently been
inspected and checked for emmissions and are orders of magnitude BELOW the
very strict requirements imposed.

According to my dealer some of the problems that may be caused by using
these fuels are:  1) deteriation of neoprene seals and fuel lines;  2)
waxy buildup in injectors which requires complete disassembly and
professional cleaning (not just running a can of injector cleaner through
the system).

Therefore, due to the foregoing I will offer the following information:
	Located in the area of Cole Park Plaza (in Chatham County) on 
	15/501 South of Chapel Hill there are three stations which will be
	selling REAL gasoline.  A Citgo, an Amoco and a Phillips 66.

I, for one, shall be using these stations until March 1, 1993.

Chuck Bennett                       INTERNET #1: uchuck@unc.oit.unc.edu
Medical Sciences Teaching Labs      INTERNET #2: uchuck@med.unc.edu
CB# 7520  University of NC          
Chapel Hill, NC  27599-7520         PHONE:       919-966-1134

In article <1992Nov4.180757.3498@mcnc.org> kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof Kozminski) writes:
>Does anybody know what counties near the Triangle still sell real gasoline
>as opposed to the oxygenated gasohol inflicted on us here in Durham/RTP?

The four counties in this area that require fuels to be oxygenated are
Durham, Orange, Wake, and Franklin.  There are 11 N.C. counties in all
affected by the requirements - the others are Davidson, Davy, Forsyth, 
Guilford, Randolph, Stokes, and Yadkin (i.e., Winston-Salem and Greensboro/
Asheboro areas).

  -joe
-- 
                You spend the night
            Like you were spending a dime

                   - Lyle Lovett

X-Spook-Fodder: CIA NSA FBI SBI Bush overthrow uprise assasinate anarchy

In <Bx7JLF.C2J@unx.sas.com> saselm@bronco.unx.sas.com (Edward McGee) writes:
>>
>>In Krzysztof Kozminski writes:
>>|[looking for non-oxygenated gas]
>>|> as opposed to the oxygenated gasohol inflicted on us here in Durham/RTP?
>>
>Please check with a dealer for your make of car first before you start
>"bypassing" something that is being done for the good of our environment.

The manual of my Mazda 626 warns that using gasohol may damage the
*emission control* systems.  "Good of our environment", indeed.
IMHO, just another example of a misguided miracle cure, force-fed to
us by pseudo-environmentalist politicians.

I have a strong suspicion that having a properly tuned engine is likely to
both increase the mileage and have more effect on the polluting components
in the exhaust than just the publicized 17% reduction in CO emissions from
the oxygenated fuel. And it would lower the gas expenses, too.

Convincing people to carpool just one day a week would reduce *all*
emissions by 20%, reduce the operating cost, and cause less inconvenience
than having to rebuild the engine (OK, not all, fuel distribution only).

Finally, the implementation of this "good of our environment" thing,
whereby everybody is forced to use the same stuff, is pure communism.
I'd be much more sympathetic to a solution using a higher tax on more
polluting fuels - provided, of course, that it could be trusted that
the proceedings will be used for environment improvement.  Hmm, this
kinda disqualifies the tax idea :-)

>What year is your car?  Anything made in the past 5 years should be safe
>(regardless of manufacturer).  A lot of manufacturer's warnings (in owner's
>manual) were not "justified".

The manual says that any resulting damage may not be covered by the
warranty.  Sounds like a good enough justification.  I'd rather spend
my $$ on planting some trees to take care of the CO I produce ...

KK

PS: another poster mentioned that I might have been using the stuff without
noticing - I doubt it.  As I noticed upon refueling my other car (which is
OK to use gasohol, except it get lower mileage), oxygenated gas STINKS
quite distinctively...
-- 
"Legalize freedom.  Vote libertarian"

In article <1992Nov5.151501.19657@mcnc.org> kk@mcnc.org (Krzysztof Kozminski) writes:
>The manual of my Mazda 626 warns that using gasohol may damage the
>*emission control* systems.  "Good of our environment", indeed.
>IMHO, just another example of a misguided miracle cure, force-fed to
>us by pseudo-environmentalist politicians.

*Very* pseudo-environmentalist.  My understanding has been that the Sierra
Club and other environmentalist groups are opposed to gasahol usage, but
that the Archer Daniel Midlands Corp (ADM, for those of you who watch
Face the Nation...;) got Bush's government to push thru gasahol legislation
to handle a potentially financially damaging corn surplus of the past 
couple years.  ADM is the major producer of grain alcohol for gasahol
production.

There are many better alternatives.  Gasahol reduces CO, but produces
other nasties...

/* disclaimer -- I have no documentation of this other than a conversation
with a friend of mine who keeps up with these things better than I do... */

Oh, and Granville county has regular gas, too...

-- 
Shava Nerad Averett				shava@unc.edu
/*  all original materials (c)1992, Shava Nerad Averett, and have nothing 
    significant to do with the University of North Carolina, a mostly owned 
    subsidiary of the NC Legislature, a mostly owned subsidiary of NC DOT. */

>
>The manual says that any resulting damage may not be covered by the
>warranty.  Sounds like a good enough justification.  I'd rather spend
>my $$ on planting some trees to take care of the CO I produce ...
                                                 ^^^^>

Trees use CO2 not CO. 

So there!  :)

andy