Someone posted about this report on BITOG before.
I would point out that their methodology has got to be the most lame, psuedo-scientific explanation I've seen in a long time. Coming to conclusions based on the weight of nonvolatile residue left from evaporating gasoline is just silly. It would be like determining the capacity of a battery solely based on weighing the battery and not coming to any conclusions based on the individual chemistry (lithium/zinc/alkaline/other). Reminds me of the time that 20/20 did a report on shampoo, and they tried to determine how "concentrated" they were based on dehydrating them and weighing the residue, although that didn't really say how much was detergent/foaming agent/thickening agent/filler, and left completely out that many of the consumer brands used a different detergent (SLS vs ALS) that was more effective for a given weight. Not all detergent packages are as effective for a given residual mass. Not all use the same chemistry or combination of chemistries.
There's a reason why all the standards (CARB/EPA/Top Tier) require actual (and expensive) testing on real engines and specifications for the minimum amount needed to achieve that effectiveness. If you could simply pass a test by having a lab evaporate the hydrocarbons and weight the results, why not just use filler that doesn't evaporate and beat the methodology?
I would point out that their methodology has got to be the most lame, psuedo-scientific explanation I've seen in a long time. Coming to conclusions based on the weight of nonvolatile residue left from evaporating gasoline is just silly. It would be like determining the capacity of a battery solely based on weighing the battery and not coming to any conclusions based on the individual chemistry (lithium/zinc/alkaline/other). Reminds me of the time that 20/20 did a report on shampoo, and they tried to determine how "concentrated" they were based on dehydrating them and weighing the residue, although that didn't really say how much was detergent/foaming agent/thickening agent/filler, and left completely out that many of the consumer brands used a different detergent (SLS vs ALS) that was more effective for a given weight. Not all detergent packages are as effective for a given residual mass. Not all use the same chemistry or combination of chemistries.
There's a reason why all the standards (CARB/EPA/Top Tier) require actual (and expensive) testing on real engines and specifications for the minimum amount needed to achieve that effectiveness. If you could simply pass a test by having a lab evaporate the hydrocarbons and weight the results, why not just use filler that doesn't evaporate and beat the methodology?
