NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/seattle/general/3803

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-21 | 3.7 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!nwnexus!beauty!rwing!pat
From: [e-mail] (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Oxi-fuel
Keywords: Oxi-fuel
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Nov 92 16:12:47 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Distribution: seattle
Organization: Totally Unorganized
Lines: 64

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (John Witters) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rick Eggers) writes:
>>
>>Does anyone out there know how can I prevent my truck
>>from "lurching/sputtering" as a result of this new
>>oxi-fuel?
>
>Don't drive it.

Is the above answer one that would be acceptable to you were you in the
poster's situation (like maybe that is the only transportation available
to him)?  If not, you really shouldn't be suggesting that others live with
alternatives that you would find unacceptable if you were in the same
situation.  I would suggest he drive to the nearest county with 'real'
gas, and load up there.  And write a letter to his congresscritter
telling him/her how wonderful this alky-fuel with no alternatives is.

This is what I find so obnoxious about so many 'wonderful' laws foisted
upon the public - those that create those laws invariably arrange for
themselves to be exempt from the restrictions.  For example, the gov't
vehicles are exempted from meeting the emission standards, and I bet
that they are using unadulterated gas, too.  Interestingly, the Olympia
area (where the congresscritters spend a good part of the year) is not
included in the alky-fuel areas.  This is no surprise to me.  If it were
treated like Everett, Olympia would also be in the area 'needing' to
use alky-fuel.  But that would mean the congresscritters and state
employees would have to live with this excuse for gasoline, too.  Not
likely to happen, unless they come up with another 'out' for themselves.

If a restriction is not acceptable for the gov't agencies and/or the
legislators, etc to abide by, then foisting such restrictions on the
'ordinary' people is rather hypocritical.  After all, they SAY the
effects of alky-gas are negligable, backed by STATE-run studies, so they
should be eager to serve as a good example.  'Course, independent studies
might paint a different picture ...

>>Can I go to Pierce or some other county and get "real" gas?
>
>Yup.  Of course, you'll use half a tank just driving to and from the gas
>station.

Wrong answer.  It takes about 1.5 to 2 gallons of gas for the drive
unless the vehicle is a real gas-eater.

Fill up a 5 gallon jerry can or two when you gas up, and top off when
you get back - that would make what you are driving on about 1 percent
ethanol, enough to prevent moisture from accumulating and possibly
freezing on a cold night, but not enough to have deleterious effects on
the way the car/truck runs.  Even if you top off again when you get half
empty, the percentage is still around only 5 percent, possibly low enough
the truck in question will run acceptably.  The jerry cans will allow
one to go a couple of weeks between gas trips (without filling back up
with alky-gas).  The drive is also beneficial for the engine - the cruise
of around 50 miles each way serves to allow things to fully warm up,
and drive out moisture and fuel accumulated in the oil from blow-by, as
well as clear the carbon accumulations resulting from city stop-and-go
driving.  The mileage experienced on the drive will be the full highway
mileage.

--
[e-mail]                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"