wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (10/11/84)
There has been recent news coverage and discussion of plans to eliminate leaded gas from the marketplace, I believe by the EPA. This is of concern to people who still require leaded gas -- drivers of older cars, boaters, fliers, automobile collectors, etc. What I would expect is that these people would simply go to an auto-parts store and buy the "octane-booster" lead additives in a can, to make the unleaded gas they get at the pump back into the leaded gas they need. Has anyone seen any detailed information about the proposed regulations that would explain if such after-market additives would ALSO be made illegal? (If so, they'd become as hard to get as marijuana or moonshine...) What inspires this query is that the news articles and stories I've seen have ignored this simple solution to the problem, and only reported the worries and fears of the leaded-gas users. I don't know if this means that the solution is also being eliminated, or if the reporters, editors, and concerned individuals just don't know that the problem can be worked-around in this fashion. Comments? Will Martin seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
gant@convex.UUCP (10/15/84)
I agree that those people who need the extra octane of leaded gas will
probably add the octane boosters. However, it is my understanding that
the ban on leaded fuel is an attempt to stop a much larger group that
substitutes leaded fuel for unleaded to save the $.05 or so per gallon
cost difference. The change would in effect make leaded fuel MORE
expensive than unleaded.
Alan Gant, CONVEX Computer Corporation
{uiucdcs,allegra,ihnp4}!convex!gantjackh@zehntel.UUCP (jack hagerty) (10/16/84)
> What I would expect is that these > people would simply go to an auto-parts store and buy the "octane-booster" > lead additives in a can, to make the unleaded gas they get at the pump back > into the leaded gas they need. > > ... the news articles and stories I've seen > have ignored this simple solution to the problem, and only reported > the worries and fears of the leaded-gas users. > > Will Martin They have good reason to be afraid. Tetra-ethyl lead is *EXTREMELY* toxic! Also, the amount of lead in a tank is quite tiny. The ability of the general public to accurately measure it out on a per-tank basis without either poisoning themselves or runining their engines is doubtful. Jack Hagerty, Zehntel Inc. ... ihnp4!zehntel!jackh
rs55611@ihuxk.UUCP (Robert E. Schleicher) (10/22/84)
Again, it seems to me that the best solution to the leaded gas
controversy is to tax it at an appropriate amount to make leaded
gas more expensive than unleaded gas of approximately the same octane.
This would:
1. Remove the incentive for people to put leaded gas into their cars
which require unleaded gas (and thus lower the incidence of people
removing their catalytic converters).
2. Therefore greatly reduce the lead emissions levels, if we can believe
the proponents of a ledaded gas ban when they say that most of the
lead emissions are due to cars that were designed for unleaded gas,
but whose owners use leaded gas to save money.
3. Allow owners of older cars, antiques, etc. to continue to buy pump gas
without fear of long-term damage to valve trains, etc.
4. Won't hit poor people so hard (since they presumably own a higher percentage
of old cars still needing lead), in that they will have to pay higher gas
prices (not much different than if a straight ban was imposed), but
will still be able to drive their old cars.
I am amazed that with all the talk of leaded gas bans, I have yet to hear
anyone in govt. propose something like this, despite the fact that I can't
find anything really wrong with the idea. Obviously, it doesn't eliminate
lead completely, but there are a number of people (myself included) who
buy leaded gas because they sincerely feel that it might harm their car's
engine if they didn't use it. I'll be perfectly happy to pay a dime or so
more per gallon for leaded gas, and would propose that the money from this
tax be used for some good purpose, either for additional research on the
subject, or for treatment. Does anyone have any data on how much lead emissions
would decline if everyone who was supposed to use unleaded gas actually did
so? Also, would this reduction solve the problem? I also feel that it's likely
that leaded gas has more lead in it than is really necessary for valve lu-
brication. How much could the lead content be reduced without adversely
affecting the lubricating properties of the lead additive? Perhaps what
we really need is unleaded gas, and a new kind of "reduced-lead" leaded
gas, with the new leaded gas taxed to make it slightly more expensive.
Bob Schleicher
ihuxk!rs55611hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (10/25/84)
I, for one, ain't to big on a solution calling for paying an extra ten cents a gallon and then buying an octane booster on top of that. Just isn't my idea of economy. rick
mat@hou4b.UUCP (10/26/84)
Remember that many largish gasoline-fueled commercial vehicles (smaller
trucks, esp) are still being built with leaded-gas engines. This would
probably keep the market alive for the stuff.
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (10/31/84)
< Nami nami nami nami ... > > Remember that many largish gasoline-fueled commercial vehicles (smaller > trucks, esp) are still being built with leaded-gas engines. This would > probably keep the market alive for the stuff. > -- > > from Mole End Mark Terribile > (scrape .. dig ) hou4b!mat > ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*. Many imports are also running with leaded fuel. Rabbits (except GTI) used leaded fuel, and Audis still do. The market may stay alive, but the question is whether the government is willing to provide fuel at a reasonable price. A 10-cent/gallon, or 2.5-cent/litre surcharge (making leaded fuel slightly more expensive than unleaded) would be understandable; however, I don't think I should have to pay an extra dollar a tankful (I have a 40-litre gas tank) and get nothing in return. Instead, let us examine an alternate solution. Here goes: Problem: Leaded fuel is being used in cars designed for unleaded, because of lower cost. Problem: Many cars require leaded fuel, with its lubricating properties. Solution: Ban the leaded gas as it's known today, instead, allow manufacture of premium leaded fuel, with a 99-octane rating instead of the current 91 octanes. Price this about 15 cents/gallon or 4 cents/litre hugher than current leaded fuel. This will make it more expensive than unleaded, discouraging illegal use. It will, however, allow cars (both factory and home-tuned, where available (Off-road use only in California)) to use a higher compression ratio, achieving greater volumetric efficiency, and thereby producing more performance per dollar, litre and gallon. It would let us see true european high- performance and fuel economy engines with compression ratios in the 10.0 to 11.0 range. I for one am willing to pay extra for my fuel in order to get better performance (OK, Ernie, take .080 off those heads...). I would resent, though, paying that extra dollar per tankful just because some jerks are ruining their catalytic converters with leaded fuel. Tom Haapanen University of Waterloo (519) 744-2468 allegra \ clyde \ \ decvax ---- watmath --- watdcsu --- haapanen ihnp4 / / linus / The opinions herein are not those of my employers, of the University of Waterloo, and probably not of anybody else either.