The Lies Of Unleaded Petrol

[UKPulse]

Your weekend read....

The lies of unleaded petrol

Does this have a ring of truth, or is it just more conspiracy theory?

[Fidgits]

erm.. i havent read it, but if it says Unleaded fuel is a carcogen... then yes it's true...

[Rodders_UK]

Unleaded fuel contains Benzene, which is a carcinogen. In the US, petrol pumps have vacuum-gaitors around them to suck the fumes away while you fill up.

[Bazza-old]

what are these cardigan things then?

i presume there not to healthy

[Fidgits]

what are these cardigan things then?

i presume there not to healthy

Your right there Barrie...

Unleaded fuel is a lot more harmful than leaded.. while filling up at least.. of course, unleaded fuel releases less harmful gases through your exhaust...

[Monster-Mat]

Thanks for posting that,

i did briefly mention in another post the otherday about catalytic converters, and the results of why we have them.

yes we are being conned........

Supracharged-IS340  Posted: Aug 4 2003, 12:50 PM 

Optimax is 99 ron

removal of the pre-cats is not stipulated in law as they are only PRE CATS

its not even illegal to remove the main cat, but the car must be able to pass a MOT or roadside snap check

the pre cats only adjust the emmision untill the main cat warms up

lets have a chat about catalytic converters.

the idea of a cat was thought of many moons ago when cars ran with carbs.....and when Leaded fuel was changed to unleaded

it was decided that for unleaded fuels to be used and the best way to help the enviroment was the fittment of cats.

now goverments,oil companys and green activists got involved first in the US then all of europe decided that as of a certain date.....in the future......all cars will be fitted with cats

while it took the manufacturers nearly 15 years to perfect the cat, engine technology advanced somewhat.

actually making cats defunt the moment they are fitted!!!

the engine of a medern car CAN NOT produce the HydroCarbons that a cat is made to remove.

the average life span of a cat is 5-10 years...guess what, it takes on average 5- 10 years for a "modern engine" to become so worn that its emmisions are affected...

so..conclusion is.

the reason we have cats, is because the motor industry didnt inform goverments about the fast development of clean engines.....governments were to slow in not implkementing a law that is both pointless and burocratic

a cat is technically not required by a medern car....untill it is at least 5 years old 

[Bazza-old]

Thanks for posting that,

i did briefly mention in another post the otherday about catalytic converters, and the results of why we have them.

yes we are being conned........

thank you for posting the catylitic post

must have informed at least ten people now, they are beginning to think im clever

wifeys reaction was "i suppose you want to remove it then "

[bartkat]

The first emission controls in the US were crummy, exhaust gas rebreathers, etc. They also lowered the compression ratios. There was a transition period of a couple years before catalytic converters started being fitted. The result was engines that knocked, were slow, and got very poor gas mileage.

Catylitic converters fixed most of those problems and allowed the engines to be better tuned. That, along with electronic ignition and such.

But come to think about it, car engines just aren't safe. If they were, people wouldn't be able to commit suicide by running their car in a close garage.

[greeneyes]

Yes it's true. All those arguments were well thrashed out in the vintage car clubs at the time. No-one has ever had 'died of lead poisoning from petrol' written on their death certificate. However, politics is politics and generally policies are not sane.

Another recent argument looked at the deaths from skin and lung cancers, and found that they really started to rise as atmospheric atomic tests started. They blame the cancer rates on the tons of highly radioactive dust that now blow around the planet and the particles that settle on our skin or in our lungs. Of course the politicians blame the current politically-correct villians, the ozone 'hole' and smoking!

No matter what, the serfs in the street get shafted.

[UKPulse]

Thanks for posting that,

i did briefly mention in another post the otherday about catalytic converters, and the results of why we have them.

yes we are being conned........

No problem - your original post got me thinking, and that is when I found the "Lies of Unleaded" article, so thank you :)

[UltraViolet]

Back in the early 70's in the US, a series of emissions controls were introduced. They required all motor manufacturers to meet very (at that time) strict emission controls. There was general outrage as the collective of motor manufacturers threw their arms up and declared that this was not possible.

A small man at the back of the room put his hand in the air and quietly stated that he would have to contradict them. Not only was it possible.... but they had already achieved and excedded these requirements with their new small car - the Life/Civic.

(Illustration based on true events - but poetic licence used as I wasn't there to quote verbatum!)

No catalytic convertor was used (which was the method most others were trying to use to meet these targets) but a recirculation method. Basically the engineers decided that the error the other manufacturers was making was treating the harmful emissions after they had been emitted. They wanted to get to them much further down the process. The results was a very clean car without a Cat. Adding a Cat gains no benefit - yet we are forced to have them!

If the engineering was done right rather than relying on the Cat to clean it up later, we wouldn't need this blinkered and narrow minded law forcing us to use much of the scare resource of platinum, and have these power sapping devices stuck to our cars. Double whammy negative - extra weight and power sapping so you use more fuel to travel at the same speed etc. Plus a waste of scarce resource!

It is shocking (but not surprising) that those that make important decisions ignore the engineers and scientists in favour of the market researchers and PR men. I think most people are aware that Cancer now affects a higher proportion of the population than ever before..... wonder if this is linked with the loss of attendant service at petrol stations? Prob not - that will have been simple cost reduction too .... the employer wouldn't value his petrol pump assistant high enough to remove him from the risk just to preserve his health.......

/Cynic mode off/

[bartkat]

UltraViolet,

Thanks for mentioning that Honda Civic from the 1070's. (oops 1970's.) That prompted me to search. It jogs my memory and now I remember Honda advertisements of their CVCC engine cars. Here's an article I found.

"In 1970, the U.S. passed the Clean Air Act of 1970, which set the scene for emissions standards and emissions control equipment such as the catalytic converter. In Japan Soichiro Honda of Honda Motor Co. introduced the CVCC stratified-charge engine, which not only met the U.S. emission standards without a catalytic converter but also met the stringent Japanese emission standards."

The rest of the article is here:

http://www.sae.org/automag/bestcar/08.htm

Another article of interest:

" In 1975, Honda introduced its first high-fuel-economy, low-emissions achievement, the Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion (CVCC) Civic. It was the first vehicle to meet the 1970 Clean Air Act standards without using a catalytic converter, while running on regular gasoline. "

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive...vic/print.phtml

[Scorpion]

Thanks for mentioning that Honda Civic from the 1070's

Blimey!!!...........is the internal combustion engine really that old

B)

[bartkat]

Well before the Magna Carta. Hahaha Maybe king John enforced emission controls for horse poop. :D

That's what I get for using the top row number keys this early on Sunday morning.

[jac114]

I think that all of us on here know that the goverment always interfere with anything they think will lose revenue... For instance I read in the paper the other day that a group were just about to try and break a record for mpg using hydrogen...(the previous record) 10k+ per gallon.. do you think that if a companycould ever mass produced cars that can produce that kind of mpg . THE ANSWER IS NO . not because of cost but because of the politicians How much revenue would they lose? Imagine only using 2 gallons a year

jac

[bartkat]

Putting regs on pollution, which reduced gas mileage, then turning around right away and imposing mileage standards was a really dumb move by the governments. That put a lot more money into the price of cars for sure.

[UltraViolet]

More here if you'd like more memory lane stuff......

History of Honda - page 14 CVCC