pauldan@hou2e.UUCP (P.SAUNDERS) (03/07/85)
>> Well, now that the EPA is actually cracking down on leaded gas, let's be >> realistic and assume that soon (too soon) there will be no leaded gas >> available at all. What do I do with my wonderful old '68 VW Ghia that is >> so cheap, reliable, fun to drive (it's not quite stock!), etc? Replace >> the valves and run on unleaded? Find gas additives? Sell it quick? >RELAX! As I understand it, the only purpose of putting lead into gas is to >raise the octane rating--and one can do that without using lead. I think >EPA is to be commended for taking this step. Okay, but what about the lubricating properties of leaded gasoline? Not too many older engines are gonna survive the change to unleaded. Dan Masi AT&T Bell Laboratories Holmdel, NJ ***** INSERT YOUR OWN DISCLAIMER HERE ******
phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) (03/07/85)
Why get upset at the EPA? Dan Lundberg reported in his industry newsletter and on PBS's "Nightly Business Report" that due to the declining market for leaded gas the major distributors were going to stop selling it. He predicted that no major refinery would be producing leaded gasoline by late 1986 or early 1987 and it would then be made only by specialty firms for sale at $.50 to $.75 per gallon more than unleaded premium. He made this forecast about four months ago. He is usually pretty accurate. He was right on the money with his price predictions resulting from the oil glut this winter. When he made that prediction last summer gas was selling about $.30 a gallon more than it is now and he predicted a $.25+ drop. If Lundberg is correct again leaded gas would have pretty much have vanished from the neighborhood gas station in a year or so even if the EPA had done nothing. - Phil
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (03/09/85)
In article <496@hou2e.UUCP> pauldan@hou2e.UUCP (P.SAUNDERS) writes: > >>RELAX! As I understand it, the only purpose of putting lead into gas is to >>raise the octane rating--and one can do that without using lead. I think >>EPA is to be commended for taking this step. > >Okay, but what about the lubricating properties of leaded gasoline? Not too >many older engines are gonna survive the change to unleaded. Months ago, the articles I read in the papers stated that the amount of lead needed for proper lubrication was something like 2% of the amount now used. Supposedly, the eventual new level (assuming it stays > 0 :-) ) will be sufficient for all cars which need the lead for lubrication purposes. FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems UUCP: {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon {nsc, resonex, qubix, hplabs, leadsv, teklds}!cae780!gordon USNAIL: 1333 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 AT&T: (408)745-1440
rkd@ccice5.UUCP (R. K. Downes) (03/11/85)
> Months ago, the articles I read in the papers stated that the amount of lead > needed for proper lubrication was something like 2% of the amount now used. This would seem to agree with a figure I read in a BMWMOA (Motorcycle club) magazine - one tank of leaded gas every 5000 miles would provide enough lead for the valves. Perhaps this only applies to this brand/design of engines though ... -- Ray Downes Computer Consoles Inc. ccice5:rkd (CCI Central Engineering systems only)
keaton@nmtvax.UUCP (03/16/85)
*** MISPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR BUG. *** phl@drusd.UUCP (LavettePH) writes: >Why get upset at the EPA? > . . . >If Lundberg is correct again leaded gas would have pretty much have vanished >from the neighborhood gas station in a year or so even if the EPA had done >nothing. > >- Phil Wait a minute. Aren't you forgetting that the EPA is what forced the use of unleaded in the first place, and thus obsoleted all our leaded-preferring cars for us? If the EPA *really* had done nothing, we wouldn't have that drop in demand for leaded gas! Environmentalists. Good grief. -- [Nuke the gay whales.] David Keaton New Mexico Tech ucbvax!unmvax!nmtvax!keaton