From: declrckd@rtsg.mot.com (Dan J. Declerck)
Subject: Re: More gasohol
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:21:37 GMT

In article <1992Sep24.234526.23683@athena.cs.uga.edu> stine@athena.cs.uga.edu (Elizabeth Stine) writes:
>In article <19ss7oINNb7t@sixgun.East.Sun.COM> egreen@east.sun.com writes:
>>
>>Call me cynical, but if Honda thought the stuff was bad for its engines
>>two years ago, the physics hasn't changed.  What has changed is some
>>arm twisting by the EPA and Honda's desire to continue to sell cars in
>>ethanol-only areas.
>>
>>Does anybody's motorcycle manual mention ethanol or MTBE?
>>
>>---
>>Ed Green, former Ninjaite |I was drinking last night with a biker,
>
>
>I don't know about this Ed. Here's a sit.
>
>
>What if the car manufacturers had a deal with some oil companies not to 
>advocate the use of gasahol in their engines?
>
>I know, this smacks of a conspiracy theory. But why have auto makers been so 
>against every anti-pollution law or fuel economy law? 
>
>Another point, what about all the fuss over leaded vs. unleaded gas?
>
>Engine makers said that the engines couldn't run unleaded gas because of valve
>burning. Yet, come to find out, most of the engines that had this warning 
>already had hardened valve seats and this whole mess was just a smoke screen.
>
>There is the old idea of social inertia (sp). People are resistant to change.
>


Uh, the auto industries hate regulation. regulation costs money.
Ever notice that all the cars sold in the U.S. have fuel injection??
They had to go to fuel injection to keep up with CAFE (why a 5.0L mustang
gets 24 mpg on the highway) and emissions legislation. Today's cars are more than
20 times more emissions free than 20 years ago. But this has cost, since fuel
injection has cost more than $1,000 per car in added cost over carbs. 
I personally like fuel injection, since it has made my 88 'stang the most
maintenance free rocket-cage I've ever owned. What I'd really like to see is
compressed natural gas (CNG), since this fuel has very few pollutants
and could be more cost effective than gasoline in the long run.

Another new aspect is the resurgence of the two-stroke, with the 
efficient Orbital engine techniques. The NR250 uses some of this technology,
and every major automaker has licensed the patents. I think we will see the fruits
of this technology (in production form) before the decade is out.
This looks very promising for both motorcycle and auto manufacturers.
(Harley Davidson, please take note).

The reason we got rid of lead from fuel was the toxicity of the emissions.
Yes, lead was a cheaper anti-knock compound, but the social cost was higher
(in terms of miscarriages in urban areas, etc). 

SAE (of which I am a member) publishes research papers on alternative fuels,
so I don't think there is some large "conspiracy" by the auto and oil companies.


>I'd like to see an impartial (yeah, right!) study on the effects of alcohol
>based fuels in gasoline engines before I start ragging the gov't. 
>
There are tons of backyard and professional racers who use alcohol.
NHRA has a special class of racing that is "alcohol only".
The oonly drawback to alcohol is the cost of replacing the rubber-based
sealants with other materials which cost more money to produce, thus a product
cost increase. 

The U.S. Automakers are clamoring for market share over the imports, and they are getting it..

Primarily due to price differences..

-Dan


-- 
=> Dan DeClerck                      |  EMAIL: dand%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com   <=
=> Motorola Intl Subscriber Group    |                                    <=
=>                                   |  Phone: (708) 632-4486             <=
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles