Re: For those who don't like oxygenated gas:

[Kneale Brownson <knotnook@traverse.com>]

This is sort of like the federal regulations that all new toilets have the
minimal-water flush capacity (so you have to flush three times to remove
any solids) that were issued to save water about the same time the
government mandated anti-siphon bathtub spouts that emit a stream of water
whenever you shower.  Have you ever seen a bathtub spout placed below the
level of the rim of the tub?  In most bathrooms you'd have to flood the
entire room at least half a foot deep above the level of the tub rim in
order to get water to the tub spout so it could be siphoned back into the
"public's" water lines.  Next they'll require bathroom doors to seal
tightly enough to allow a flood to reach the antisiphon spout.

Kneale Brownson


At 04:57 PM 7/27/99 -0400, Eric Renneisen wrote:
>Steve Buchholz wrote:
>>> ... there are some studies that might dispute that last 
>>> statement as well
>
>Elliot Potter responded:
>> You're right, I mis-worded that a bit.  Studies *mostly* 
>> agree that it's cut down on Carbon Monoxide pollution, but 
>> *generally* agree that it hasn't done much else.
>
>I never understood this stuff. It's supposed to reduce 
>emissions, but it kills your gas mileage. So, you burn more 
>volume of fuel than you would without it. Does it cut down 
>emissions so much that it offsets the increased emissions 
>from burning more fuel per mile?
>
>Eric Renneisen
>'90 CQ 20V  -  my 'racing-iron'  ;^)
>Chattanooga, TN
>