I, too, question the validity based on the octane numbers he posted from Europe vs. the U.S. That said, the rest of the article is correct. I don't have a problem paying a few extra dollars for higher octane fuel if it increases the peformance (which it will if the engine is tuned for it and that's why so many of us tune our existing cars to optimize for the existing gasoline octane levels we put into it) and efficiency. That said, I see utter fail in the public's eyes coming. Any increase in price will be the shocker that installs ear plugs in the masses making everyone deaf to the explaination of its benefits and how it all works. The enviro-crazies want more effciency and cleaner air and this is just one way to easily help achieve both...too bad none of them will want to pay for it, let alone know how and why it works. They'll all be too fixated on the price and the fact that it's still a solution using a fossil fuel derivative while berrating anyone who wouldn't rather throw extra money into a less powerful, less enjoyable Hybrid Kia.
Quote:
|
Meanwhile in CA... the Air Resource Board looks to ban 91 and 89, as cars that require those fuel are higher performing and less economical. Also a 200% new car tax on anything not a Hybrid or Plug-In.
|
Link? I couldn't find anything about this.