Tue, 5 May 1998 15:27:30 +0100 - Message No. 2826
From: gmitropoulos@pnc.co.uk

Subject: RE: Catalysator, performance, blah, blah, blah...


Jorge,

Do you really believe emitions with and without cats are that simply
analyzed?
In my memo, I was questioning the use of unleaded fuel and super fuel
WITHOUT A CAT IN BOTH CASES. That is, what is the difference when you use
those two fuels on your AT as it is now. My AT does not have a cat, I
believe yours does not either. So if the emissions are the same in both
cases (unleaded fuel with and without a cat ) then why use the cat? Or if
cat is just "an obstacle to the gases" as you wrote, why do we use
different fuel (unleaded)? Is it because it is cheaper?

You wrote:
> Please, don't use too much your imagination and don't say that your bike
has more power with leaded fuel.

You accused me for using my imagination. My friend, I am sure your english
are quite good so please read again what I have written:

" ...Some engineers
also reckon that engines without a cat run much much better on super fuel
(and better performance), no matter the "unleaded" sticker on the top of
your tank..."



If you have or can access this info, can you please specify the residuals
in both cases?

I will try to find the article anyway and I will come back to you soon.


Thanks for your time to give me this info, I am sure though you could have
been a bit more polite, even if I am wrong.


Best Regards
George Mitropoulos
Environmental Science, BSc, MSc.






H2O, CO, CO2 and PbOx and some residuals more

if you use Unleaded fuel, the reaction products of the combustion will be:

H2O, CO, CO2 and some residuals more

as you can see, unleaded fuel without cat DOES NOT pollute more than leaded
fuel. Who says this doesn't know what is speaking.

Greetings from Portugal

Jorge Pereira




dipper@normans.isd.uni-stuttgart.de