Fuel additive programs at crossroads of regulation, market dynamics
Fuel additive manufacturers, gasoline marketers and automakers seem to be forgetting about the power of the marketplace in their efforts to use additives to help reduce emissions and improve vehicle performance. Recall that the port fuel injector (PFI) and intake valve deposit (IVD) problems of the 1980s were addressed quickly by the fuels industry. In just a few months after the PFID problem surfaced, additive makers had detergents on the market, and fuel marketers followed up with an effective advertising campaign. Formal regulations came about a decade later. The solution to the BMW IVD problem was similar. BMW provided an enticing incentive for oil companies to differentiate through better additives and many did. Contrast those developments with the command-and-control approach that has been in effect since January 1995. EPA`s additive rule is working almost to perfection - if adherence to strict rules is considered. All gasolines in the US are additized, and a wide variety of packages have been developed that meet the regulatory standards. But by the measure of real-world performance, the circumstances can look quite different. And with industry finalizing a better IVD test and conducting research into the need for a combustion chamber deposit (CCD) regulation, now may be the time to limit the regulatory approach and let refiners and additive suppliers return to creating products that target excellence instead of regulatory minimums.
- OSTI ID:
- 588638
- Journal Information:
- Fuel Technology amp Management, Vol. 8, Issue 1; Other Information: PBD: Jan-Feb 1998
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
The effects of intake valve detergent structure on combustion chamber deposits (CCD)
An industry view: Market incentives