Hiya Ted Hart
(?It would kill their profits! ?)
Yup , Exactly.!!
(Your "lower evaporation temperature"...didn't you mean "vapor pressure"?)
Well .Yes , but as soon as you say vapor pressure you lose the majority of people reading this.
I used the term ?lower evaporation temperature? as its easier for others to understand but the process correctly stated is as you say , a lower "vapor pressure".
As written on Chevron.com ?A more volatile fuel has a higher vapor pressure and distills at lower temperatures.? , it is somewhat temperature related but is not the only factor to be considered.
(.they wanted a "safer" gas)
Yeah , I believe that - NOT
If they really wanted a safety they would have switched to alcohols whose fires can be put out with water.(eventually) or insisted on superior gas tanks (foam filled , baffled etc) both in cars and at the service stations.
A non open venting fill system also could have been arranged so no (or minimal) fumes can escape during filling.
These are standard issue on racing cars.
This would have been much safer than changing the fuels make up. - it still goes bang quite easily.
(So, if it won't go "bang" as readily outside...what's the same stuff gonna do inside the engine?)
Well thats rite - water doesn't go bang readily outside either and it also doesnt make much power when put in a gas tank.