Conference back40::soapbox

    
    Terrie...
    
    Pay no attention...
    
    Mass Big Brother knows what's good for you...
    

    I am losing gas mileage too. I noticed it before I even heard about the     
    reformulated gas. There has been alot of news on this gas nation wide.
    
    According to many folks it has caused breathing problems, made people
    sick, lost vehicle perfomance for a number of reasons. Of course the
    EPA says nothing is wrong with it. But I expect answers like that from
    our arrogant bureaucratic sector. Massachusetts has sade they would
    look into it.

RE: 377.0 by NETCAD::WOODFORD "SoManyDipsticks/SoLittleOil."

> Well, the only thing thathas changed is the gas.  Massachusetts now has
> what they call 'reformulated' gasoline.  

As of about 6 months ago,  rather than a few weeks ago. 


Phil

    
    Actually, I noticed recently that my gas mileage has improved, and
    wondered if it was because of the reformulated gasoline.  Who knows. 
    Maybe I'm driving better 8^).

    
    
    I didn't say a few weeks ago.  I said sevral weeks ago.
    That's when I noticed it anyways....
    
    I started to notice the change some time in February.
    
    
    Terrie
    

	Terrie, it has been said in CARBUFFS that once the new gas came out,
that mileage has gone down for several people. But there are other reasons for
gas mileage to go down. If it's cold out, you tend to let your car warm up. For
*me*, anyway, I lose between 4-5 miles per gallon in the winter. But it goes
back to normal in the spring as I just get in, start it up, and I'm gone. I
have found that I lost an average of 50 miles per tankful since the new gas
came out in December. Until it stays warm enough so I don't have to warm the
car up, I won't know if it is partially the gas/cold, or just the gas, or just 
the cold.


Glen

    
    .6, Andy
    
    It could happen!  8^)

    Sadly, NH has it too.  We have a "gas eater" (Ford F250 350 4x4
    with extended cab and an 8 ft bed), and taking it anywhere since
    January has become, er, rather costly.  Unfortunately, we need
    it to haul antiques around.  We've lost about 5 mpg.
    
    Mary-Michael

    
    
    i don't know about the lost mileage as i don't check it all that often,
    but i have noticed my car running less smoothly the last few weeks. 
    but i do know that it could have nothing to do with the new gas, as i
    need new spark plug wires ... but you never know...it could all just be
    a conspiracy...
    
    
    it could happen...
    
    

    The only reason you drive better now Mz_Deb is that your neck is sore
    so you are not able to swivel around to see what's in your blind spot
    thus avoiding swerving into other lanes.  Nothing to do with the gas
    actually. 
    
    My around town mileage has gone down but on long highway trips it
    hasn't changed, maybe even gone up a tad.  
    
    Brian

	raq, in CARBUFFS they mentioned that their cars were running a little
rougher too. But it seemed that when this happened, it was more when they used
Mobil gas than with the others. Why? Don't know. But I can confirm that one
with my car.

    
    
    well, i generally go to the getty place that is right on my way to
    work, or at exxon, which can be on my way home....
    
    
    it could be this friggin' weather, too...
    
    

 We never had this problem before the OJ Simpson trial started!

    
    <------- heeheeheehee :*)
    
    
    Terrie
    

	Jim, you might be on to something there. People are staying home
watching the trial and aren't using their cars as much. The carbon buildup 
doesn't get a chance to burn off, so the cars run rougher! :-)

    i think his blood may have made it's way to the pumps, no?
    Chip

    Both my vehicles seem to be running worse. I'm not sure about
    the gas mileage, but they seem "sluggish". I do seem to be
    making more trips to the pump, but I can't directly equate
    it to the gas yet.

    I wonder if it had anything to do with the transmission in
    my truck dying? :-) :-)
    
    -b

	Brian, do you think your transmission dieing in your truck has caused
your other car to run rough & sluggish??? If so, please don't park near me...

As mentioned in SCAACT::CARBUFFS (KP-7 or Select to add to your notebook),
the reformulated gas will cause a decrease in gas mileage, rough running, and
decrease in performance.  How much of these you get, depends upon a bazillion
different things.  In other words, YMMV:-)

Bob

    Try an octane booster if your car is running roughly. It might help.

    >Try an octane booster if your car is running roughly. It might help.
    
    I drank two or three last night, and although I felt much better,
    my car still runs the same. :-) :-)
    
    Seriously though, thanks for the tip Glenn. I'll give it a try.
    
    -b

      Terri,
    
        Its a conspiracy!!  They're out to get us.  Hide!  ;-)
    
        Seriously, nothing the govt. does surprises me anymore.
    
        Gotta run...a gigantic hedgehog named Spiny Norman is
        on my trail...
    
    						Tony

                     ___   ~----._
            _______     ~~---.__  `-.
        --~~       ~~-----.__   `-.  \
        _,--------------._   ~---. \  `.
      '~  _,------------. ~~-     `.\  |
     _,--~      _____    `        _____|_
         _,---~~          -----         `-.            /##
      ,-~   __,---~~--.       `._____,',--.`.        ,'##/
    ,' _,--~  __,----.          `  () '' ()' :    _,-' `#'
     ,~   _,-'   ,' ,--          `---' \ `.__,)--'     ,'
       ,-'      -  (                                _,'
     .'   _-~ ,'    `--                          ,-'
    /  ,-'  ,'  __                        ___,--'    _______________
     ,'  ,'~ ,-~     /            ___.ooo88o  |    ,'               `.
    /  ,' ,-'    /               ' 8888888888,'   _|                 |
      /  /    /                 '  `888888888.`.  \    TONY!!!!      |
     /  /  /      /            '    `888888888 |   |                 |
       '      /     /         '       `888888','   `._______________,'
         /                   '           ~~~,'
        /   /  /            '            ,-'
         /           /                 ,'         


      re: -1
    
      Beautiful!  Much more than just a smile on my face!
    
    						Tony

You mean you have a smile somewhere else?

ME

    This troubles me.

	I see Tony smilin all over HLO! :-)

	Bob, I was wondering where carbuffs went to. :-)


Glen

    	Re octane boosters
    
    	What do these cost?  If I spend $16.00 on a tank fill-up, and
    	if I lose 10% in mileage to this new gas (so I lose $1.60),
    	if I spend $2.00 for the octane, what is the benefit to me?
    
    	Of course, if the octane booster is $.99, then I withdraw the
    	question.

    It's about $4.

    ....and it won't help out.  The octane rating of RFG has not changed. 
    You are better off buying a premium blend 92+.  Octane boost may be the
    ticket if you have a higher compression ratio than normal as found on
    some high performance modifications and cannot find blends over 94.   
    
    

I've been using a cheap ($.99/can) octane booster in my big Pontiac wagon
(Olds three-fifty-mumble engine) for over a year with a noticeable difference
in terms of knock/ping reduction but no appeciable difference in either
mileage or power. The new gas hasn't had any measureable effect on the
car, either.

Oddly, I've found that Texaco hi-test from a local dealer knocks like
crazy even with the octane booster, while, on my vacation last fall,
when I found Texaco to be THE prevalent fuel along the roadside in the
Southeast, it gave me no problems at all. I don't know whether that
was EPA fuel down there or not.

    I had noticed a difference also.  Like most people, my gas gauge is
    sectioned into quarters--I usually get about 100 miles per quarter
    section.  It takes half as much again to see me to 100 miles now.
    I also felt my engine was being sluggish and the car just not sounding
    quiet right.  I'm P**sd.  I can't afford a new car just yet but I might
    just find my self either buying or paying for repairs.
    
    This all means that we will have to buy more gas, the oil lobby must
    have worked long and hard for this one.  At least I know who to blame,
    it's all the 'publicans fault.
    

    .At least I know who to blame, it's all the 'publicans fault.
    
     With you, it's ALWAYS the republicans' fault.

    Can I help but call it as I see it?  I find using the duck rule
    helps a lot in routing out reality, if it looks like a duck, and
    walks like a duck then it's usually a 'publican, and he mostly has
    his foot stuck in his mouth as well.
    
    

    Mebbe you might try looking into the skinny end of the telescope; it'd
    do wonders for your sense of perspective.
    
     But just for my own edification, how do you consider this to be the
    republicans' fault?

    The last time I heard, Gov. Weld was republican.  He is the one
    who allowed reformulated gas to be sold in MA without informing
    us, the public. (Globe article a couple of weeks ago.)  
    
    I have a very clear view of reality, I don't need either end of a 
    telescope to see where this came from.  The gas industry must be
    holding a party.  They can make a bigger profit and not upset the
    public by raising the price.  I only hope they gave their lobby group a
    big bonus for a job well done.  They have managed to sell the idea that
    this is good for the environment without increasing the cost to the
    public.  That has all the devious smell of 'publican thinking to me.

    
    <-------
    
    Don't forget to check under your bed tonight...
    

    And what of the EPA, whose demands lead to the introduction of said
    gasoline? Who's in charge of them? And what happens to states that
    violate the Clean Air Act, anyway? Your "clear view of reality"
    miraculously neglects to include such crucial facts, probably since
    they don't support your ongoing diatribe against republicans (which
    must be maintained at all costs.) As for your "clear view," all I can
    say is don't light a match.

    RE: .37
    
    Ah yes, the Boston Globe ... that bastion of ultra-conservative hawks.
    Then it's no doubt an accurate piece of reporting. Sold me.
    
    :^)
    

    RE. 39
    
    The Boston Globe may be a liberal paper but it doesn't
    outright lie.
    
    Like every government agency, the EPA does what ever the most
    powerful group in government demands of it, or like OSHA they 
    risk having it's funding cut.
    
    Gas wasn't restructured to benefit the environment, heaven
    knows neither the oil industry, car industry nor government cares
    a fig for that.  It was done to benefit the oil industry, who
    can now make a higher profit from increased  gas sales, and the
    car industry who are trying to stifle the demand for electric
    cars.  Both industries  are desperately trying to maintain the
    status quo.  Unless emissions from car exhaust drops, they
    know that a sales quota of electric cars will be imposed.
    
    Now, electric cars would benefit the consumer as well as the
    environment.  They are cleaner, demand less maintenance and
    are cheaper to make and run.  The only draw back that I can
    see is that they don't have a huge range of miles-per-charge
    right now.  
    
    Conservatives have been trying to kill alternative energy 
    technology ever since Carter gave a tax brake for solar panels and 
    the oil industry saw their profits were in danger.  but, unless 
    America embraces alternative technology pretty soon, we will find 
    ourselves a day late and a doller short, forced to buy Japanese 
    electric cars, as they scoop the market once again.
    
    It's a pity that part of the conservative make up includes
    this fear of change, innovative thinking and new ideas. 
    After 12 years of Ronnie's rule, is it any wonder this
    country is now in such a mess.

    
    
    Man! You've got nothing on Binkley!!!
    

    Masterful dancing around the issues and concoction of a "reason" to
    further the anti-republican hatefest while managing to ignore questions
    whose answers might tend to make you uncomfortable. Well done,
    Rosemary!
    
     So who's in charge of the EPA? And the head of the EPA was named by
    whom? And this person is of which party?
    
     Cute electric car smokescreen, but at some point you might consider
    eschewing that urge to divert attention from the matter at hand in the
    hope that people will stop waiting for your answer. You picked up this
    technique from George, didn't you?

    >Gas wasn't restructured to benefit the environment [...] It was done to 
    >benefit the oil industry, who can now make a higher profit from
    >increased  gas sales
    
     I'd like you to support this contention with a little more than
    handwaving. First of all, how does the reformulated gasoline compare to
    the old gasoline, emissions-wise? I won't even wait for you to answer,
    since you don't answer questions that undermine your position. The
    emissions are lower. Ok- so given the fact that the emissions are
    lower, how can support your contention that the reformulation was done
    primarily for other reasons? (This oughtta be good!) And how does a
    higher price translate into increased gas sales? Seems to me that
    raising prices is a good way to discourage consumption.
    
    An additional drawback of electric cars is that they require
    significant additional sources of electricity in order to charge the
    batteries. In other words, if everyone had electric cars that they
    recharged at night, the demands on the power grid would increase on a
    massive scale. And how would _you_ like to generate that additional
    power? Nuclear energy? Fossil fuels? Another problem is disposal of the
    used up batteries. That's called toxic waste, Rosemary. Another "minor"
    issue- just ask the residents of Love Canal or Woburn.
    
    >Conservatives have been trying to kill alternative energy
    >technology 
    
     Hmmm. Seems to me that it was the democrats who killed the viability
    of nuclear power... Mebbe that's not alternative enough?

    People's driving habits change little with regards to gas price
    fluctuations.  Allegedly poorer gas mileage would spur increased
    consumption even if the driving rates stayed the same.  Coupled with 
    higher prices, this could produce a windfall for the oil cos. 
    	
    Brian

>    People's driving habits change little with regards to gas price
>    fluctuations.

You obviously weren't driving in the U.S. when they instituted odd/even
gas rationing.  I think it was 1978 or so.

    Yes, Gerald I was around and even driving by that time though I never
    had to worry about even/odd rationing days in my neck of the woods.  
    With the exception of rationing price fluctuations have had little 
    effect on gas consumption.  BTW the demand far outpaced the supply at 
    that time.  People still wanted to drive.  They just might not find any 
    fuel though.  It might change if we had to pay what Europeans or even 
    our Canadian neighbors do.  Even at $1.40 for super unleaded, it is a 
    bargain.  I admit that when the prices creep up like they have, I
    will use a mid grade versus premium but my total miles driven hasn't
    been effected.  
    
    Brian

    >>    People's driving habits change little with regards to gas price
    >>    fluctuations.
    
    This has been studied; there is a certain inelasticity of demand,
    people simply can't change the requirements they have to go buy
    groceries or go to work.  Over the longer term, though, consumer
    response to higher gas prices shows up in their vehicle purchasing
    decisions (they buy cars that get better mileage) and in their housing
    decisions (choosing to live closer to work, all other things being the
    same.)  Of course, all other things are seldom the same; close to work
    in many cases costs a lot more, or has lesser quality of life issues.
    So the point that consumers driving habits change little in direct
    response to gas prices, while true, does not really reflect that the
    price does influence other behaviors that then influence driving
    patterns.
    
    DougO

    Thanks for adding that Doug, you are correct.  I just didn't have the
    energy to add the rest. 

    >    People's driving habits change little with regards to gas price
    >    fluctuations.
    
    	I'm amazed that people's BUYING habits change little with regards
    	to gas price fluctuations -- particularly when the prices are in
    	a period of quick rises.  I don't know about the rest of the
    	country, but out here the prices drop slowly -- a penny or two
    	every 2nd or 3rd day -- and when they hit some threshold level
    	they all suddenly jump 15-20 cents per gallon almost uniformly
    	across the city.  The jump happens within a 36 hour window.  What
    	surprises me is that I see people filling up at a station that
    	is selling regular unleaded at the new higher price of $1.19 or
    	so, and right across the street is a station that has not yet
    	raised the prices.
    
    	I agree that gas consumption is relatively inelastic, especially
    	in the short term, but as long as people buy their gas without
    	regard to competitive prices, it creates a disincentive for
    	vendors to be competitive.

    >I admit that when the prices creep up like they have, I
    >will use a mid grade versus premium but my total miles driven
    >hasn't been effected.
    
     There is a big difference in the profit of each grade. When you buy a
    mid grade instead of hi-test, their per gallon profit goes down
    significantly.
    
     And it's affected. YVW. 

If I understand correctly the oxygenated gasolines only "help" for
a portion of the cars, the older ones.  If a car was carburated or
an older fuel injected car and was running "rich" the new gas will
make it run a little leaner, and they'll pollute less.  If it was
already running lean it'll run worse.

On the other hand most newer cars have oxygen sensors and
computers running the show.  When these cars are switched over
to the oxygenated gasolines the computer senses it's running leaner
and will squirt more fuel to get things back to where (it thinks)
it's supposed to be.  Net effect is not much change if any in pollution
but the mileage goes to hell.

-Mike

     .43
    
    <<Cute electric car smokescreen, but at some point you might consider
    eschewing that urge to divert attention from the matter at hand in
    the hope that people will stop waiting for your answer. You picked up
    this technique from George, didn't you?>>
    
    If you mean George Bush, then you are right on the mark.

    re .44
    
    << And how does a
        higher price translate into increased gas sales? Seems to me that
        raising prices is a good way to discourage consumption.>>
    
    Well Mark, if you had read my note carefully you would have seen
    that what I said was, 
    
    >> It was done to benefit the oil industry, who
        can now make a higher profit from increased  gas sales,<<
    
    I never mentioned increased prices, but I am sure that will follow soon.
    
    My last tank of gas was reformulated gas.  My Mazda 323 had recently
    a service and tune-up and I get on average 400 miles per tank full.  This
    time I only just managed to squeeze 340 miles before the needle hit
    "E".  60 miles less, that's about 2 gallons of gas, hardly a lot but over 
    the year it will cost me $150 extra a year, and that's not counting 
    shopping trips and vacations. It won't break me, and I wouldn't mind if 
    it was a real benefit to the environment.  I don't have the figures on 
    me, but the emissions savings aren't that great.
    
    <<An additional drawback of electric cars is that they require
      significant additional sources of electricity in order to charge
      the batteries. In other words, if everyone had electric cars that they
      recharged at night, the demands on the power grid would increase on
      a massive scale.>>
    
    The benefit of electric cars is that so many power sources can be used
    to generate electric.  Solar panels, wind, water, fossil fuel, and
    although it pains me to say it, Nuclear.  It is possible to generate
    power from solar panels on the roof, recharging batteries while the
    car is parked during the day.  And if it were profitable enough,
    someone would come out with a wind generated individual generator
    for home recharging at night.  
    
    It is possible to recycle old batteries.
    
    Of course, you are quiet right to be concerned with toxic waste,
    especially now Newt and the rest of his nut dish of friends have
    cut great holes in the clean water and environmental protection 
    regulations.  
    
    <<Hmmm. Seems to me that it was the democrats who killed the viability
        of nuclear power... Mebbe that's not alternative enough?>>
    
    Nuclear power isn't alternative energy, it generates mountains of waste
    and isn't "clean".  Alternative power is Water, Wind, and Solar.
    
    Ronnie Boy killed the effort to develop alternative energy by killing
    tax cuts for solar power devices.  And, the last anyone heard from
    Ronnie he was a consertative, but he flipped flopped so many times on
    so many things, I could be mistaken on that.
    

    
    RE: .54
    
    RE: "flip-flop"
    
    And of course... no recent president has ever done anything like
    that!!!

    .55
    
    Of course, there is a difference between someone who flip-flops
    and a person capable of flexible thinking.   Anyone who lives with
    a cat knows that flexible thinking is a survival tool, one that 
    all presidents need to employ.

    
    
    Ahhhh..... I see...
    
    Conservatives (Repubs) = "flip=flop"...
    
    Liberals (Dems)        = "flexible thinking"
    
    
     Thank you.... Now I see it!! How could I not!!
    

RE: 377.54 by TOOK::GASKELL

> Nuclear power isn't alternative energy, it generates mountains of waste
> and isn't "clean".  Alternative power is Water, Wind, and Solar.

Our society's main source of energy is fossil carbon.  Nuclear power is an
alternative to fossil,  and is the only alternative that could replace
fossil power without a major breakthrough in technology or real massive
reductions in lifestyle.  Water,  wind and solar power are useful in special 
cases with current technology.

As for "mountains of waste",  maybe if a hill the size of all the nuclear 
waste in the world was in Kansas the locals might call it a mountain.  


Phil

 flexible thinking? More like a flexible yardstick.

    
    Re: 377.54 
    
    Just some tidbits on alternative energy sources...
    
    o Hydroelectric is pretty tapped out.  And if you did try to generate
      more, you'd have to build a dam as the TVA did, but were prevented 
      to by a court order brought about by the environmental lobby to
      protect the darter snail. 
    
    o As to solar power, I'd ask you to actually do the math.  I'd
      not a viable solution.  The sun simply does not provide enough
      energy density (watts/meter^2) for it to be as practical as people
      think.  The math gets even worse in the New England region.
    
    o As to wind generators, they are only useful in locales that have
      fairly high average wind speeds, like that place in California.
      Again the issue is energy density.
    
    The biggest problem with alternative enrgy is the basic physics is 
    lacking.   That's what really keeps them from being viable.
    
    
    

    
    
      
     
    

    Um, that would be the Snail Darter, says so right on my T-shirt.  
    
    There is also.....
    
    Geothermal - limited by geography as to where this is feasible.  Works
    a treat in either OZ or Kiwi land as far as I've read.  Chele, Martin,
    can you confirm?
    
    Brian	
    

    	They could make an army of reflector satellites to concentrate
    	sun rays onto an army of pinpoint locations on the earth's 
    	surface to collect concentrated solar energy.  They could be
    	smart enough to reflect these rays to areas where weather would
    	permit the collection thereof.  We would just have to hope that
    	they would be accurate enough that they don't beam these
    	concentrated rays to the wrong place and burn up whole cities.

    Where's "The Man With the Golden Gun" when you need him?
    
    Out BOnding, no doubt,
    
    Dan

    >Hydroelectric is pretty tapped out.
    
     It's also ecologically nasty, particularly to birds and fish, and also
    to humans as natural predation patterns are disrupted allowing insect
    populations to explode.

    I wasn't actually thinking about fresh water power.  There is a
    wave generator, invented I believe by a fellow Brit, that works 
    off of wave power.  There is an additional benefit of decreased
    wave action on the back side of it which helps limit erosion of 
    the shore line.
    
    But there you chaps go again, one-stop solution.  Flexible thinking
    lads, flexible thinking.  Solar panels on the top of electric cars. 
    Solar panels on houses for electric and hot water.  Individual wind 
    power generators.  Wave generators for costal towns.  A little of 
    everything, not to product ALL of the power for America, but some of 
    that used by individuals.  
    
    Why is it that consertives like everything neatly tied with one ribbon.
    They seem to have as much of a problem dealing with multi solutions to
    a problem as they do to changing their mind when a better solution
    comes along.  Present company excepted I'm sure.
              

RE: 377.65 by TOOK::GASKELL

> I wasn't actually thinking about fresh water power.  There is a wave 
> generator, invented I believe by a fellow Brit, that works  off of wave 
> power.  

A neat toy.  Useful for an island off Scotland,  useless on a global scale.
Useless on the US East coast,  for example,  as only a few days per year
have waves big enough.


> A little of everything,  not to product ALL of the power for America, 
> but some of that used by individuals. 

Some,  right,  I agree.  And BTW,  it's also important to reduce usage by 
improving how we do things.  But wait,  what about the rest of the energy?  
Where does it come from?  Fusion,  maybe.  Space mounted solar,  maybe.
Ground mounted solar,  only with a breakthrough in energy storage.  Nuclear,  
can do.  Fossil,  can do,  but might cause a world wide climatic disaster.


Phil

    I forgot to mention the most renewable energy source of all, Methane.
    We could all have effluence digesters and produce our own power.
    In face, some noters may be able to produce enough to sell to their
    neighbours.
    
    The point is, that to accommodate the needs of certain parts of
    industry, we the consumer have been kept in the dark about the
    performance and quality of the gasoline we are purchasing. If the 
    environment is the concern, then there are other ways to decrease 
    air pollution without shortening the lives of our vehicles.  One
    way would be for the 'publicans to keep their hands off the clean 
    air act, sadly too late to anything about that now.  
    

    This is classic. On the one hand, Rosemary bellyaches about the loss of
    gas mileage she's getting with the reformulated gas. The reformulated
    gas exists to assist NE states to conform with the Clean Air Act.
    Somehow, she manages to blame republicans for this state of affairs.
    And yet she admonishes the republicans not to amend the Clean Air Act
    so that the reformulated gasoline will no longer be necessary.
    
     What a piece of work. Talk about being all over the map. The only
    consistency in Ms. Gaskell's noting is that she blames everything from
    bad weather to poor luck in the lottery on republicans.

    No such think Mark.  I blame the 'publicans for our deficit, the
    decline in GNP, for the Vietman war, for not "going all-the-way" in
    the Gulf War, for ripping the guts out of environmental protection,
    for allowing industry to sell our jobs overseas, for the castration 
    of OSHA, and much more. 
    
    However, I have never blamed my bad luck on the lottery on the 
    'publicans, or bad weather either.
    
    I am not bellyaching as much about the loss of gas miles as at finding 
    myself buying this reformulated gunk without being informed about the 
    change in the expected gas miles, the effect on my engine, and a choice 
    of staying with the other stuff.  I wonder who thought up the keeping it
    a secret. Ollie North? My guess is that they could save more pollution 
    by clamping down on truck drivers that belch out exhuast fumes up and 
    down 495 then by restructuring my gas supply.
    
    AND...I have only seen one set of figures on how much pollution the
    reformulated gas saves, and it wasn't much.  I will search for that
    piece in last weeks Globe and quote them next week, if there still
    around.
    
    The 'publicans are doing their best to kill the clean air act.  They
    don't like environmentalists.  It wasn't any Republican politicians
    that uncovered and fought for the cleanup of Love Canal.
    
    Bush accused the environmentalists of "declaring every little mud puddle
    as wetlands".   One of our neighbours built on "one of those little
    mud puddles" and found his house surrounded by water as soon as the
    snow melted.  Next election, he changed parties and supported the
    Democratic candidate.  My guess is, when the engines start coughing
    and dying after a few months of this reformulated cr*p, a lot of other
    people will following his example.
    
    So, you conservative slaves of the machine, enjoy your majority while
    you can.
    
    Have a great holiday weekend (if you are in Mass. and have Patriots day as
    a holiday), or have a good weekend anyway where ever you are.
    
                                     

    >I blame the 'publicans for our deficit
    
     Which is blatantly hypocritical given the bipartisan nature of its
    creation (though completely consistent with the rest of your behavior.)
    
    >the decline in GNP
    
     GDP is the measure currently used because it's more accurate, and it's
    consistently had a rising slope. This isn't even misplaced blame; it's
    blame for a nonexistent condition.
    
    >for ripping the guts out of environmental protection
    
     How? Who signed the Clean Air Act? Who signed the Clean Water Act?
    You are shockingly ignorant of the causes you profess to support so
    passionately. (Not to say that the republicans are great environmental
    supporters, but the fact is that your accusations are hollow.)
    
    >and much more.
    
     This is the truest statement yet.
    
     I am probably more perturbed about the reformulated gasoline, but at
    least I know where to direct my anger. Your blame function returns a
    constant, regardless of the arguments in the call.
    
    >The 'publicans are doing their best to kill the clean air act. 
    
     Pure melodrama. What specific parts of the act are they trying to
    change? You don't even know, do you? Not that a lack of knowledge would
    ever deter you from casting aspersions; gotta keep the blame server up
    and running.
    
    >Bush accused the environmentalists of "declaring every little mud
    >puddle as wetlands". 
    
     It's true. An area the size of your desktop that was in standing water
    for 7 days per year qualified land as "wetlands." Absurd. Meanwhile,
    they drain the Everglades to irrigate golf courses...
    
    >One of our neighbours built on "one of those little
    >mud puddles" and found his house surrounded by water as soon as the
    >snow melted.  Next election, he changed parties and supported the
    >Democratic candidate. 
    
     So he's doubly an idiot? Great example for your side. :-)

    
    It appears TOOK::GASKELL is not about to let reality get in
    the way of his/her little diatribe.
    

    
    Maybe TOOK::GASKELL and Meowski should go and count aircraft carriers
    re: the Viet Nam "Police Action"...

re: .70

Thanks for the humour.  I needed some cheering up today.

Bob

        Glad to have brought a smile to someones face today.  No, I have never
        let reality stand in the way of a good argument, any more than I
        believe that insufficient facts, reality, truth or logic are good
        reasons to give up on an argument either.  I'm British, brought up
        on the Goon Show, several other shows of similar ilk, Monty Python,
        Newcastle Brown Ale, Priminsters Question Time, rugby football, and
        cricket.  Why would I want to wander down avenues of reason, truth
        and logic.  I also like people who have buttons as easy to push as
        a few of those replying to this note.
    

    
    >I'm British...
    
    'splains alot....
    

       RFG has been in use in NJ and several other states for years. My
    sister who lives in NJ warned me to gas up before visiting her 2 years
    ago. She figured with a camper in TOW I needed NON-RFG. The sudden 
    change in performance recently experienced by several noters may well
    be due to the switch from winter grade to spring/summer?? It remains
    to be seen if the level of ozone in the lower levels of the atmosphere
    during those stagnant lazy days of summer will be less frequent. I know
    as a runner that ozone can be nasty stuff to breath..
    
    Bob

                                                 
    
           I have been using Mobil fuel purchased in NH for the past
         year. I have NOT noticed any decrease in performance or
         Mileage with RFG. Example:  A 700 mile trip to NJ/NY and
         back this weekend were I averaged 23.5 MPG with a loaded
         Grand Caravan and had plenty of power to climb the hills in 
         CT.)
           The only engine related problem I noticed recently was for
         a couple weeks in March, it took a few more cranks to get it
         started which I attributed to switching from the Winter blends.
         (maybe it was caused by RFG, who knows )
           Of course, my winter mileage decreased with warm ups, etc,
          but no more that other winters. 
      

    We have one supplier in Michigan who dispenses on;y RFG since last
    summer.  They said they only drawback should be harder starting in
    cold weather.  I have been using it since it came on with no worse
    gas milage than before.
    
    Dennis

    
    I confirmed it last week; my mileage has improved quite a bit.  I
    usually just manage to squeeze 300 miles out of a tank in my Isuzu
    before I begin to panic; when I filled the tank last week I was already
    quite a bit over 300 and not much under a 1/4 tank left, which doesn't
    hit panic mode for me.

>    I confirmed it last week; my mileage has improved quite a bit.  I
>    usually just manage to squeeze 300 miles out of a tank in my Isuzu
>    before I begin to panic; when I filled the tank last week I was already
>    quite a bit over 300 and not much under a 1/4 tank left, which doesn't
>    hit panic mode for me.

It's not the gas mileage, it's the Prozac.

 I noticed that the most recent tankfull I picked up (Saturday) has lasted
 longer than the more recent ones.  I got ~220 miles on half a tank, when I
 usually average about 200-210.





 Jim

	Well, part of it all (increase in gas mileage) might be that it's been 
warm enough to just start the car and drive. Of course if you had been doing
this all along, then this wouldn't apply to you. :-)  I know for me I get an
extra 2-2� miles per gallon since I stopped warming my car up.


Glen

    
      Ours has risen an average of over $.05, and we'll at least
     double that.  This has led to a storm of intitiatives for the
     government to "solve" the new "energy crisis".  The Republicans,
     predictably, called for a reduction of the gas tax (now 18.3 cents
     per gallon).  The Democrats, predictably, want an investigation
     of price gouging by the oil companies.  Clinton, predictably, has
     decided to release 12 gigagallons of the strategic oil reserve just
     till the elections.
    
      And of course, Americans long ago abandoned their brief fling
     with energy efficiency - the fad now is gaz guzzlers.
    
      bb

    Jason:
    
    We are regulating ourselves out of free enterprise and into socialism.
    
    -Jack

    
    
    	???
    
    	I heard on the news this morning that Clinton has requested
    	an inquiry as to why the gas prices are escalating....
    
    	In any case..... it inhales
    

    >The Democrats, predictably, want an investigation of price gouging 
    >by the oil companies.  
    
     Sounds likely to me. Create a false shortage then crank up the price
    (and profit).

Lower mileage gas? Which means you have to burn more to go the same distance?
Does this gas cost more to produce? Will buring more gas reduce the emmissions?

I'm confused ]:-{

Doug.

Supposedly a cause of the oil price hike is a deal was supposed to be worked
out allowing Iraqi oil to be sold again.  Oil importers held off imports until
the (cheap) Iraqi oil was available.  The deal fell through, suddenly there
was a scramble for what oil was available.  Also was the harsh winter depleting
fuel oil stocks.

Truth or scam?  I don't know.

re .92:

>    Another thing in short supply pretty soon -- grain.

Yet another possible shortage - a wide variety of fruits and vegetables.
Honeybees (used for pollination) have been ravaged by mites.  Wild honeybee
colonies are at least 80% wiped out.

You heard it here first.

>You heard it here first.

Wrong.

    tuna radio to NPR to get bumblebee info.

    You can rest assured Saddam is not paying the price, Jason.  I'd guess
    that it's the common people who live in Iraq.

    
    
    	s'okay.  In 30 years no one in the world will have any oil
    	left.  It amazes me that back in the 70's people were given
    	tax BREAKS for installing alternate sources of energy in their
    	homes (solar, etc.).  Now, in an age when our resources are
    	being depleted at an alarming rate, people get a tax HIKE
    	(as improvements on their property) for the same thing.
    
    	Stupid bureaucrats.

    
    	re: .98
    
    	Yes! a friend and I were discussing this just the other day.
    Considering all the technological advancements that have been made,
    suprisingly little advancement has been made in using renewable
    resources (solar, wind, hydro, etc). Why? 
    
    
    jim

    
			  (__)
                          (@@)
       <poot>      /-------\/ 
                  / |     || \ 
                 *  ||W---|| A gassy snarf! 
                    ~~    ~~  

    

    The economics still favour oil/gas by a large margin.

    Why?  Economics.  It is still cheaper to use fossil fuels an it is
    other sources of energy.  Some may argue that the economics are
    artificial and being promulgated by the oil co.s.  It is still cheaper
    in today's dollars to use oil.  Solar technologies are gaining some
    ground but the $/KW from solar generated electricity are still higher
    than hydro, oil fired or even nuke plants.  Nuclear could give oil a
    run for the money but there are far too many NIMBYs and nay sayers to
    allow the field to be properly developed and exploited.  We will be
    dependent upon oil up to the point where it is no longer cost effective
    to be so.  
    
    
    Brian

    > The economics still favour oil/gas by a large margin.
    
    yep. and when the Cosmic Gas Gauge points to the big "E", the howling
    will begin.
    
    (the point here being that when the CGG goes to empty, it don't matter
    how many dollars ya throw at it, the CGG is still. empty.)

    .103
    
    It's not as simple as that.  The technology requirements to exploit
    renewable resource will also consume resources and have questionable
    impact on the environment.    Wind farms, for example are costly to
    build and maintain, HEP and wave power can cause environmental damage.
    Solar electric panels take a lot of energy to manufacture and add to
    a home, but in the future a house might be built with solar panels
    in place of shingles, absorbing part of the outlay as a construction
    material costs.  There does not appear to be a good horse to bet on
    just yet.
    
    Right now, there's far better bang for the buck in conservation of current
    resources, but people want to drive low mileage gas guzzlers (see
    current trend in purchasing RVs).  People also want affordable houses
    and oppose mandated building regulations that result in low energy use.
    
    Colin
    
    
     

    What about hemp as fuel?  Anyone familiar with this process?
    -ss
    

    
    
    	yeah, it fuels the imagination. :)
    
    

    >Right now, there's far better bang for the buck in conservation of current
    >resources, but people want to drive low mileage gas guzzlers
    
     This conclusion is thrown around frequently, but I find it to be
    without merit. I don't think that given two identical cars, one that
    guzzled gas and one that drank gas at a miserly rate, anybody would
    pick the gas guzzler with all other things being equal. Indeed, I
    suspect a premium could be charged for the gas miser model. The issue,
    IMNSHO is power and torque, particularly as regards acceleration.
    People want to GO when they push on the gas, they don't want a car that
    says "I'll get back to you." When auto companies design engines that
    are more fuel efficient for a given amount of power, then people will
    buy cars with those engines. In the past car companies have simply
    stripped the heavy (read: durable and safe) parts off of cars and
    downsized the engines to improve economy. Yes, there have been strides
    in the right direction in terms of increased fuel efficiency in egine
    technology, but IMO much more development needs to go into these areas.

    
    Most of the data I've seen is that truck/SUV sales are up over all
    other categories.  These vehicles give neither fuel economy or
    performance - The most popular is the Explorer.   More frequently
    seen cruising the malls than climbing stone walls.  However, I never
    said that I thought it was "wrong", I just said that this is what
    people want. 
    
    Conservation of current resources can simply mean doing less
    unnecessary driving.  I try to do this, and the mean yearly mileage for
    my cars is 8625.  YMMV.
    
    
    Colin
    
    

    SUVs are an merely an extension of the family wagon these days.  In many
    cases there isn't as much room as the old Vista Cruiser namely the Jeep
    Cherokee.  Ditto the minivans which for all practical purposes make
    better grocery getters than the SUVs.  Which would I choose?  I'd go
    for the SUV in a heartbeat because of the styling alone.  It is a
    "lifestyle" vehicle.  
    
    Until there is a concerted effort to work on the infrastructure in the
    country and build better and more accessible mass transit options, we
    will continue to see cars, communting and traffic congestion as a way
    of life.  We will piss and moan about how high our ridiculously low
    fuel prices are and demand the gov't keep subsidizing our driving
    habits.  I might be convinced to use mass transit if it were convenient
    to me.  It isn't today.  

    Now I get the last laugh at those who called Cleo the Geo a
    pregrant roller skate ;-)  I'll take my 50 miles per gallon baby
    over the high HP, gas guzzler I traded in.
    
    

    
    	Believe me, Karen, you can keep it.  I, for 1, will not try to
    	take it away from you.  8^)
    

well Karen, you have to admit one thing, regardless
of the price of gas, it's still a Geo. :-)

    I'm glad you're happy with your tradeoff, Karen. Personally, I prefer
    30+ mpg & enough oomph to get out of its own way.

    Our Ford F250 (V8, 5.8L, 4X4, long bed, extended cab) is
    very consistent.  It gets a solid 10 mpg regardless of how
    much we load into it. :-)  It can, however, quite handily
    get out of its own way, regardless of the terrain or the 
    amount of junk in the back.
    
    Mary-Michael (whose "Cleo" isn't a Geo - she's a ferret :-)
    

    I wouldn't want my Geo if it weren't a 5-speed; this one does OK,
    though.
    
    I don't mind not paying $25 per week for gas just to get to and from
    ALF.
    
    

    Hi Karen..I just finished talking to bernadette and told her
    Wafflefartz called!!