On 3/21/2017 1:06 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Jack writes:
On 3/20/2017 7:32 PM, Leon wrote:
On 3/20/2017 4:45 PM, Jack wrote:

Well, anything over 300,000 is considered large.

Maybe to you. I grew up in corpus Christi, Tx. I consider it a
small place, 305,000.

Not to me, the National league of Cities.

Leon did, indeed, qualify his statement. He made no claims about
either you, or the National League of Cities.

Perhaps you missed where he said "Maybe to you" I simply clarified it
was not my claim, it was the National League of Cities claim. According
to them, any city over 300,000 is a very, very large city.

You want to argue that, you can tell them.

I don't believe Leon indicated any desire to argue the topic with
anyone, much less the National League of Cities.

By disagreeing with my statement he is in reality arguing with me. I
simply pointed out it was the opinion of the National League of Cities
he was arguing with, not me.

That is why we have the special fuels that don't last.

A great reason to not live in Houston Metro. If my gas suddenly started
to go bad like it used to in the 1920's, I'd be looking for some

What relevence do the 1920's have in this context? Not even you
were driving then.

Fuel went bad in the early days. Since then, refineries have developed
methods to keep fuel from going bad so quickly. I know this from 1st
hand experience, and from my brother, who worked in a research lab for
Gulf Oil as a Chemical engineer. No need to drive cars in the 1920's to
have a clue.

explanations from someone. Is everything in Texas this backward?

What's your problem? There are many places in the country that require
special fuel blends for various reasons (climate, smog abatement, politics, et
alia).

I don't have a problem, my engines have been running like a top with no
stabilizer whatsoever for over 60 years. How about your's?

Perhaps all the chemical plants are affecting judgement?

Or perhaps you simply don't understand the problem and the current
set of solutions.

Right, I'm not a chemical engineer in a major oil companies lab. My
brother was, and he uses no stabilizer in his engines w/o a problem.

Would seem to me that if adding stabilizers to fuel fixed the problem,
then why on earth would the refractories not do it for you, like they
have been doing for us for over 50 years?

You do realize, I'm sure, that you are posting in a thread which is
discussing the long-term storage of gasoline motor fuels, right?

Welp, Honda apparently thinks anything over a month old requires adding
stabilizer. If your fuel goes bad in a month, I'd say you are storing
it out doors in the rain without a lid...

Why
would the refineries want to spend to add an additive to all gasoline when the
by far vast majority of it is burned up with a few days of refining?

I dunno, ask them, they have been putting additives in fuel for a very,
very long time. If one company sold fuel that lasted a month before
gumming up your engine, and another fuel that lasted a year, at the same
price, what do you think would happen in a competitive economy?

At any rate, just because Houston has problems, doesn't mean the rest of
the country does.

But it does.

But it doesn't.

Look at any large metro area, whether it is the NYC area,
Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, Los Angeles or the SF bay area - all of which
use fuel blends designed to reduce smog.

As I'm sure Pgh. also does. It is after all, a "large" city with a
history of pollution. So what? Are you saying because areas have
pollution, refineries quit adding additives to fuel to make it last more
than a month? If so, what evidence do you have of that? I have 60+
years of experience that says it ain't so in my "very large", polluted
city. You have a silly ass manual written by a marketing/lawyer team at
Honda with no empirical evidence, which holds as much weight as a cancer
warning on a plastic flashlight in California...
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com