GAS emissions

Stop driving it? Or at least drive it less?

Go easy on the throttle, keep your car well tuned, car pool, ride your bike and walk when possible.

I've reduced my gas usage buy 30% doing these things.

Hello Ajani Huggins

Keep your car in the garage.

Use the most efficient transport ever discovered: The bicycle.

Rest each night, sleep well, knowing you have "saved all those CO₂ emissions".

Kind Regards....

If you are keeping your pollution machine, here are a few hints

The most important is keeping the engine clean and well maintained, and use high octane self cleaning gasoline.

I think the best idea would be to convert it to electric or get a bicycle.

High antiknock (octane)?? How so? Are you suggesting (as is implied) that a (standard compression engine equipped) vehicle which barely failed mandatory emissions test would or might have passed with Premum or Midgrade in the tank? By self cleaning, do you mean injector and valve cleaning? Clarification is appreciated.

Correct. The cleaner engine, (which includes injectors and valves) will burn more completely. It has been long established that the fuel will burn best in vapour form. Dirty injectors cause liquid fuel to be injected into the engine. During the short ignition time, not all the fuel will be burnt. The build-up of deposits in the valve area, and intake manifold will restrict the amount of air entering the engine and again result in an incomplete burn. Any time there is incomplete burning, the result is more CO and CO2.

The type of fuel used, will make a difference if it is used all the time. If you use low grade all the time, deposits will build up. If you use High grade self cleaning for the test only, it will still fail since the deposits are already present.

I have a vehicle that is 10 years old with over 500,000 km on it. I use high octane 75% of the time and mid grade 25% of the time. I also use Duralube in the crankcase and never have a problem passing the emissions test. I have also noticed that with the High Octane, I regularly get about 40mpg with my minivan. (Oldsmobile Silhouette) The fuels that I stick with are; Petro-Can which has a cleaner, Shell which also has a cleaner, and Ultramar which has the highest Octane (94).

Thanks, techno. Comparisons across borders can be problematic so, before we to on, can you provide a little more info?

• Your Olds Silhouette van...is the engine high-compression? I.e., does owner manual specify a minimum octane higher than standard 87?
• What locality (and altitude) in Canada? And do you have uniform emissions test pass standards? Or are regulations localized by province, region, etc.?

(Shell is the only one you list that we have here; I use it quite a lot as well...at least until recently with prices skyrocketing...and I just could keep staying with the price leader.)

Until then...

does owner manual specify a minimum octane higher than standard 87

Yes

• What locality (and altitude) in Canada? And do you have uniform emissions test pass standards? Or are regulations localized by province, region, etc.?

Although I am in Ontario, altitude ~500' , I regularly travel as far south as Florida, as far west as Milwaukee, and many places in between. Altitudes from sea level to ~ 1500' (wife is an artist and goes to allot of festivals) She has even done a few shows in Huston. Ontario has Drive clean Program

—does owner manual specify a minimum octane higher than standard 87 ... Yes

What locality (and altitude) in Canada? And do you have uniform emissions test pass standards? Or are regulations localized by province, region, etc.? ... Although I am in Ontario, altitude ~500' , I regularly travel as far south as Florida, as far west as Milwaukee, and many places in between. Altitudes from sea level to ~ 1500' (wife is an artist and goes to allot of festivals) She has even done a few shows in Huston. Ontario has Drive clean Program

Techno, So I see that your "emissions" regulation is provincial, much as it is state regulated in the US . . . and probably with Ministry of Environment providing national guidelines much the same as EPA over here. Scanning the MoE website you provided, the Ontario emissions testing program seems to work much the same—in fact it appears to conform to a more or less identical model—in both countries . . . with one exception that leads me (and my '87 pickup) to be envious:

In California one's car is not exempt from testing after its twentieth year . . . instead, if I recall correctly, it's more like 30 to 40 years before exemption kicks in (presumably on the theory that these would be collectibles and not driven a great deal; and do not collectors oftentimes also include community movers and shakers to whom politicians look for support?) . . . but some in government are trying to curtail even that exemption as well.

As I had guessed, we need not consider high altitude (around 1-mile elevation and up) as a factor in "across-border" comparisons. (A person [especially one given to following or exceeding his owner's manual fuel-octane specification] driving for the first time in the western mountains [say, in Colorado] is apt to be perplexed at first upon discovering Regular- and Premium-grade gasoline octane ratings displayed on sign posts at several points below those of their respective, 87- and 94-octane gasoline counterpoints at "normal" elevations; and also at finding no "mid-grade" gasoline product offered. Conversely, a mountain person might be equally surprised at the higher octane ratings, and the mid-grades, routinely sold to the 'flat landers.")

(If I may be allowed a further small digression-- I have wondered but never thought to ask until now—Anyone?—whether or not the fuels distributed in the mountains are actually formulated with lower octane ratings; or, instead, if the two mountain grades are not simply the same as "flatland" Regular and Mid grades . . . but that because of altitude and its effect on measurable (realizable) test antiknock properties, highland gas dealers are required to advertise a lower (than lowland lab-test-rated actual) octane rating. And that the reason a "middle grade" is not sold at high altitude . . . would not that simply reflect the fact that flatland mid grade will provide "premium" antiknock performance at high elevation . . . and that it would be pointless (as well as blatantly deceptive) to sell flatland "premium" (as opposed to mid grade) as "mountain" premium . . . since that fuel could not provide greater antiknock, for any engine, than rarefied air already does using flatland mid grade which is what mountain premium actually is?)

Now then, back to the gasoline grade (branding) issue . . . and how it might relate to your Oldsmobile--

Having never heard, and finding no technical reason that would explain how it would be (all things being equal) that "premium" (94 octane) would confer any advantage as to effectiveness of fuel burn—and after all, apart from antiknock additive (and leaving aside detergent additive for the moment), Premium, Mid-Grade, and Regular gasolines (by these and any other private label brandings) are one and the same thing—it occurred to me that your recommendation might reflect a personal interpretation based on ownership of a high-compression engine (which, as you now say, is in fact the case with your Olds) . . .

Thus your owner manual's mfr specification of "Premium" gasoline (premium being the latter day ad speak for what once was called "Ethel" (after the trade mark by its original patent holder [also, coincidentally, one of the landmark break-through inventions of automotive history]. If true, this might also cast your recommendation in an entirely different light . . . which is to say, that where "premium" is mfr-specified for a high-compression engine, then using regular grade could indeed have an adverse impact (not only on the relationship between smooth fuel burn and engine reliability/durability, but also) on attaining optimal mileage and emission test results over the long term. Whether or not (since the advent of electronically controlled sparking, and more recently of knock sensors, and still more recently of computer controlled ignition timing) this would be measurable in any practical (other than lab testing) way . . . that would probably be harder now than in the past to say with confidence.

While it was inevitably the case in earlier, mechanically timed high-compression engines that long-term use of "regular" octane portended rapid engine wear out, today I see that many—perhaps even a majority—use regular grade in high compression engines (such as VW) but report no ill effects from overlooking mfr specifications. I have even put the question to new (VW and other) car dealers and service departments, who generally confide that it's largely a matter of choice whether one wants to pay the high cost of premium.

All that said, I don't know enough to have an informed opinion respecting Canada. Whether or not engine compression enters in as a factor in answering the OP question—that remains to be seen.

Likewise, I am insufficiently informed to comment on how, if at all, gasoline detergent additives relate to octane ratings in Canada. During the '90s in the US, the impetus which drove the general incorporation of injector-cleaning additives into all brands and grades/octanes of gasoline was, as much as anything, a matter of curtailing growing liability arising out of warranty and legal actions against vehicle manufacturers . . . where it was held that purchasers should not continue to bear the burden of engines failing and/or needing expensive injector cleaning procedures shortly after car purchase, and several times after that during the (100K implied warranty) life of new vehicles . . . a situation that had prevailed through the '80s during and after the changeover to FI engines.

In the US, there has not in recent times (or ever to my knowledge) been any exclusivity as to which fuel octanes receive injector cleaning additives; they all do, as the virtually universal elimination of injection failures in the US fleet attests.

Some might opine that a person ought to be wary of gasoline not sold by the Major brands such as BP, EM, CP, CT, Hesse, ... However, such advise would fail to take into account that independent operators obtain their supplies from these same companies; for all practical purposes, there is no other gasoline source.

Likewise, I am insufficiently informed to comment on how, if at all, gasoline detergent additives relate to octane ratings in Canada

They are not related in Canada, however, Petrocan, does add more detergent with the higher Octane ratings. Shell has extra detergent in its premium gasoline.

Perhaps the detergent iis making the difference there, however, I have no explanation for Ultramar fuels

Many gasoline brands are now are Top Tier rated (for detergent package) in all grades. In these brands, paying extra for higher octane (when that higher octane is not required by the engine manufacturer) is a waste of money. Many brands used to put higher detergent levels only in the premium fuels to encourage (some would say "swindle") buyers to buy the premium product, even when not required for octane reasons.

Interestingly, Ford is not one of the manufacturers recommending the use of "Top Tier" rated gasolines, and instead recommends BP. They have gas cap placards to that effect. One could assume that this is simple payola: is BP gasoline "better" than Shell and Chevron and the other Top Tier products. I doubt it. The Top Tier gasolines must contain between 8 and 10 percent ethanol, which should reduce your fuel efficiency slightly, so perhaps Ford is saying that the ethanol addition is not a great thing. (However, around here I think BP is 10% ethanol, and in many locations 5.9% ethanol is required for oxygenation.)

ARCO (a division of BP) says this re octane:

• Do premium grades of gasoline really keep your car performing better?
• Your vehicle should perform at its best when the appropriate level of octane is being used for the engine in which it is being combusted. There is no benefit to using gasoline of a higher octane than the engine requires to perform knock-free.

Amoco is another BP brand. In hyping the Amoco Ultimate sub-brand, they claim that Amoco Ultimate improves performance over "regular" fuel. Only when you read the details can you see that they are testing in premium-fuel-required-vehicles. So what they are saying is that running the correct octane fuel improves performance when high octane is required (duh) -- but they are trying to imply that Amoco Premium is somehow special in this regard, which it is not.

The build-up of deposits in the valve area, and intake manifold will restrict the amount of air entering the engine and again result in an incomplete burn. Any time there is incomplete burning, the result is more CO and CO2.

This is not strictly true. As you say, with deposits, the amount of air is reduced, just as it is if you close the throttle ever so slightly. The mass airflow sensor detects the reduced air flow and immediately and continuously adjusts the mixture to keep it stoichiometric. The O2 sensor, located just after the exhaust port, double checks to ensure that the mixture is stoichiometric. Therefore, burning remains complete, but performance drops slightly, if the valves are really filthy. If the driver does not adjust his driving, and instead accepts slightly lower performance, then the amount of CO2 decreases slightly: the same effect that you would expect from driving slightly less aggressively. If the burn is seriously incomplete, for some other reason(s), then CO2 actually decreases (it reflects the amount of fuel burned) , and CO and HC increase (which reflect the amount of fuel partially burned or unburned).

Another GA Ken.

Yet even though, I am required to use min 87, the higher octane I use, the better mileage, I get. The difference is so much that it is actually cheaper, per mile, for me to use the premium then it is if I use regular.

Historically on regular (87 octane) I get 27 mpg, On mid grade (89) I get 32 mpg and on premium (92-94) I get 39mpg

To keep emissions to a minimum, use your ODB2 code reader and make sure there is no faults and it is running in closed loop mode. That would mean your engines computer is doing it's job. The other way is to inflate your tires until they are rock hard, this will reduce the sidewall flex thus reducing there rolling resistance. You could also reduce the wind drag and reduce the weight of the car.

Good Luck

Why not use hoarse drawn baggie you don't have to worry about emissions

crm

Have you ever followed a "baggie" in central park or on an open country road? When the "hoarse" deposits it's processed fuel it is pollution too. But this is still a great idea.

The processed fuel you mention would make an excellent source of Bio-fuel for generating electrical power or natural meanure for your garden!

crm

You are correct maybe we should tell Tank or Hari....LOL

Park your car and ride the trolley.

Assuming you are not going to substantially modify your car, then reducing fuel consumption reduces CO2 emissions (and most other emissions as well). CO2 is emitted in huge volumes as a product of combustion, and the other emissions are, in most places, limited by law to very tiny amounts.

So, anything you can do to reduce consumption reduces CO2 emissions. Plan trips, ride a bike or walk when you can, keep the car well-maintained, learn to drive more efficiently, replace the car with one that is more efficient*, replace the tires with low rolling resistance versions, etc, etc.

* in some cases you can replace your largish car with a much smaller used model, and pocket cash, while reducing your fuel usage.

first thing if the car emmiting more co2 means the engine wasting more fuel. so, first tune the engine. then avoid sudden acceleration and drive the car in optimized speed. also try magnetizer in fuel line it reduces emission step by step and also gives more milege.

Also, always minimize the number of passengers; and never take passengers in your car after they've eaten a big meal. After all, methane is also a green house gas.

CO2 is not a harmful gas.

When properly prepared it is cool and refreshing, and only $.99 per pound in a store in block form.