nrp wrote:
It seemed as though the AOPA article ignored the proven success of
MoGas, but it did point out the very limited success of 100LL
alternatives. I wonder if there are any more high compression engines
running in test cells trying replacement fuels. It sounded like there
was only one.

What is the proven success of Mogas? I mean, besides testimonials
from its users on this newsgroup, what proof is there of Mogas success,
and how would it be defined?

For example in their article on fuel, Aviation Consumer had a sidebar
on mogas saying it wasn't as good as advertised. They said several
shop owners told them that when they get engines or cylinders in for
work, they can immediately tell if the owner is running mogas by the
corroded camshafts and deposits on the valves and seats. These shop
owners claimed that the extra overhaul costs eliminate the mogas
savings, and attribute it to the "varying additives" used in mogas and
to the fact that most mogas sold doens't really meet the ASTM standards
dictated by the STC.

Personally I don't know, I have no experience with Mogas, all I have to
go on is what I read here and in other sources. It would be a pity if
this was correct, especially with rising 100LL prices.