[Dutchdivco]

Firstly, let me make it clear, I'm not faulting anyone who's trying to improve their mileage, by whatewver method, and regardless of whether their starting with a 'newer car' or not.
I was 11 y.o. in 1966, when the car co.'s began to respond to emission standards requirements, just when I was getting interested in cars. I watched the changes over the years, and the way emissions controls evolved is what i think of as "patchwork", (or Piss-Poor) problem solving.
Example; I saw a show on TV recently, about "Medical Marajiuana". A cancer survivor said "After the radiation therapy, the side effects were it made my hair fall out, (they told me to wear a hat or a WIG), depression, so they gave me an anti-depressant, and nausea, so they gave me a pill for that. The anti-nausea medicine made me constipated, so they gave me a pill for that, which gave me diarhea, so they gave me a pill for that.The anti-depressant had side effects, and the Dr. seemed embarassed, as they recomended an herb for that, cause apperantly they haven't come up with a pill for those side effects, yet. Anyway, I was venting to a friend about this and they said,"Let me get this straight; They're giving you a pill, to deal with the side effects of a pill, that they're giving you to deal with the side effects of a pill, that" etc. (You get the point). "They got the right idea when they suggested an herb, just the wrong one. Why don't you just smoke a little pot? It helps with the nausea, and the depression, and no pills to deal with the side effects!"Thats an example of PPS. At some point, you gotta ask, maybe the original solution was faulty, and I should go back to square 1.In the case of radiation therapy, the one guaranteed way to give someone cancer is to expose them to radiation. I have no doubt that in the future we'll look back on it the way we now look at the bloodletting of the past.
Anyway, heres the way I see the PPS of emissions controls;Unburned gasoline coming out the tailpipe, causing smog.So, put a CC in the exhaust, to cause a catalyctic reaction to break the unburned gas down into hydrogen and Methane, and burn it.Great, except that at some load/throttle settings, there wasn't ENOUGH unburned gas in the exhaust to trigger the reaction. So, need a pill. Put an O2 sensor in the exhaust which, despite its name, actually is measuring the amount of unburned gas in the exhaust.Send the signal to a computer, which will richen up the mixture enough to keep the CC "fed".Only carbs couldn't adequately respond to the signals, so Bye Bye Carbs, Hello fuel injection! Only,....theres a problem. (Need ANOTHER pill)This was putting so much 'extra' gas, over and above what the engine needed, that it was causing pre-ignition.So, they put knock sensors, to detect engine knock, (Pre-ignition) and send a signal to the ECU to lean it out, a hair.Still not enough, so the car companies went to the oil companies and said, "You got to make your gasoline less flamable."Now, I will concede that my 1965 Ford 223 has a compression ratio of 8:1, (stock) and that later engines increased the compression ratio.I haven't read anything that clearly spells out WHY the manufacturers increased the compression ratio.Was it to comply with emission controls, by getting more power from a smaller, and therfore lighter engine, and did this have to do with emissions, or the CAFE mileage standards that were also imposed? Oh, yeah, I think I remember. (After awile, its hard to keep track of what all the pills are for!)NOX, (not to be confused with pre-ignition) i.e.nitrous oxide is a result of slow combustion.The higher octane means slower combustion, which produces nitic oxide in the exhaust. So, the system they developed to deal with tailpipe emissions is actually adding a new gas to the mix! So, need another pill.Increase the combustion speed, by increasing the compression ratio. And, (another pill) and EGR valve, to feed a little exhaust into the intake, to lower NOX.
I do know that the oil companies complied, even tho it meant spending 10 million $ per refinery, to 'upgrade' them to produce the higher octane gas.Up until then, (when gas was 75 octane) there were independent gas stations, selling gas .03-.07 cents less than the 'name brands'. These stations bought their gas from independent producers, unaffiliated with the oil companies, who bought oil on the open market, refined it and then with their own tankers distributed it to the stations. When higher octane gas became required, all these independent refineries went out of business, and most of the independent stations, as well. The stations that remain have to buy their gas from the only game in town.Anyway, thats just a side effect of all this.
These older engines, with their lower compression ratios, seem to have no shortage of power.Makes me wonder whether the higher octane gas was to run higher compressions, or vice versa?Is the higher compression yet another pill; to get more power out of "less flamable" gasoline?
Another thing to consider; We all know that gas is made up of many fractions, and that they vaporise at different temps.As the flame kernal spreads, the temp in the combustion chamber rises dramatically, boiling off, (vaporising) and then burning the various fractions. There is a (volume-wise) small portion of gas which only vaporises at the highest temps. Seems to me logical, (could be wrong) the the unburned gas coming out the tailpipe is probably made up of these "heaviest" fractions.And yet, when the ECU puts more gas in, to 'feed' the CC it puts more gas, composed of all fractions, into the combustion chamber, even tho only the heaviest fractions of this 'extra gas' are liable to survive the combustion process, and end up in the exhaust, where they can 'feed' the converter.
This is why I'm doing what the car companies were unable/unwilling to do, going back to square 1, and seeing if I can find another way, the equivalent of 'medical marajiuana'.The problem with PPS, is if theirs enough momentum, and enough resources, (i.e. the car companies had enough $ to continue funding patch after patch, the medical establishment actually makes $ for each of their 'patches') and if the people involved don't have to deal with the negative consequences, their is no incentive, or a dis-incentive to do the difficult, painful thing of saying "even tho we've spent billions trying to make this work, we NEED to go back to square 1."Jim