The blends you cited show a significant amount of xylene, which is no less an aromatic than toluene. Remember that xylene is a crummier aromatic than toluene; every performance characteristic you might dislike about toluene is worse for xylene, so the blends you see with predominantly xylene as aromatic stock are worse off for containing it. Xylene has a lower octane rating, lower volatility than toluene, which as we both mentioned is already lower than the mean for gasoline, is a bit harder to burn thereby contributing more to unburned HC's and has slightly lower energy density. It is supposedly worse on various rubbers, too.
Aromatics are a bit worse for contributing unburned HC, CO and NOx emissions to the air compared with alkanes (parrafinics), but that is not what this discussion was about, at least not from my understanding. I thought this discussion was about a cheap and available way to get a fuel with boosted octane over standard pump gas. We don't want to blow anything up, or melt or crack any rubber, or have to re-tune everything to run this wonder gas, either. Toluene/pump gas blend fits the bill. If you run it, your engine will not blow up, seize, melt or even need new jets in the carbeurator.
Aromatics were not removed from unleaded fuels to improve performance, but rather to reduce emissions. The fact that modern fuel blends contain less aromatics means that adding them back in will have a greater octane boosting effect than it would have if you tried this a few years ago when the fuel was still 40% aromatic. The EPA goal is 20%, BTW.
I am not surprised that what the green wackos said about MMT turns out to be BS. They seem to run their political machine on a blend of about 90% BS, 10% everything else. (Check out these
facts on DDT, perhaps the safest and most effective pesticide ever banned:
http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm) MMT increases unburned HC too, BTW. The Bruce Hamilton document explains a lot of this. You can find a copy here:
http://www.type2.com/~keen/west/nodark/other/gas2
Both unburned HC's and Nox emissions(especially the latter) are really only environmental problems for ONE geographic area: the valleys of southern California:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/6576780.htm?1c
Yet the special needs of this state
somehow get pantographed onto the rest of us. Why should we follow that same practice when thinking of blending our own go juice? But wait, it gets worse. Many different controlled studies done over recent years have consistently proved than the vast majority of CO, NOx and HC comes form a tiny minority of cars, namely older cars in disrepair (one study showed that a typical 'out of tune' carbeurated V8 car will makes as much emissions as 100 modern EFI cars!). So the fuel people (in harmonious co-operation with gov't authorities) are again pantographing a solution to this unfortunate situation onto the
entire national motor fleet!
And we really are breathing cleaner air now than 10-20 years ago:
"Air quality in the U.S. generally, and in New Jersey specifically, has improved dramatically in recent years thanks to falling car and truck emissions, economic and technological change, and new federal controls on power plants and industrial boilers. EPA statistics regarding the six principal sources of air pollution in 1998* show:
Nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions are lower than they were 25 years ago, despite significant
increases in population and industrial activity.
Carbon monoxide (CO) emissions are roughly 20 percent lower than 1970 levels.
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions are down roughly 37 percent from 1970 levels, and are lower
today than at any time since the Great Depression.
* EPA, National Air Pollutant Trends, 1900-1998, Executive Summary."
On the subject of oxygenates being partially burned HC's:
(from the above cited Bruce Hamilton document)
"4.5 What are oxygenates?
Oxygenates are just pre-used hydrocarbons. They contain oxygen, which
can not provide energy, but their structure provides a reasonable
anti-knock value, thus they are good substitutes for aromatics, and they
may also reduce the smog-forming tendencies of the exhaust gases [11]."
And a little further down the page, a great synopsis of why aromatics are being removed from fuels, why oxygenates are being added (and why you should not worry about aromatics in your go-juice):
"Oxygenates that are added to gasoline function in two ways. Firstly they
have high blending octane, and so can replace high octane aromatics in the
fuel. These aromatics are responsible for disproportionate amounts of CO
and HC exhaust emissions. This is called the "aromatic substitution
effect". Oxygenates also cause engines without sophisticated engine
management systems to move to the lean side of stoichiometry, thus reducing
emissions of CO ( 2% oxygen can reduce CO by 16% ) and HC ( 2% oxygen can
reduce HC by 10%). However, on vehicles with engine management systems, the
fuel volume will be increased to bring the stoichiometry back to the
preferred optimum setting. Oxygen in the fuel can not contribute energy,
consequently the fuel has less energy content. For the same efficiency and
power output, more fuel has to be burnt, and the slight improvements in
efficiency that oxygenates provide on some engines usually do not
completely compensate for the oxygen [12]."
This last paragraph is in agreement with your last paragraph WRT older cars running cleaner (leaner) with oxygenates and EFI compensating for them. Note that this is not a performance improvement, or even a delay in the onset of detonation compared to a fuel blended with more volatiles. It is simply a way to remove volatile content without destroying the engine with detonation, albeit at a lower engine output. I guess this keeps those older sleds chugging along without belching out too much black smoke
Again, notice the reason that the aromatics are being removed. No mention of any performance problems. In fact, I could not find any mention of any performance/power output problems with aromatics in gasoline
anywhere. OK, I guess in a perfect world of fuel, we could all run gas with <20% aromatics and the balance highly refined parrafinics and some TEL kicker. Such a fuel would have both a high octane rating
AND higher energy density than either aromatics or oxygenates. But that fuel does not exist right now for less than $5-6 a gallon. You can do the toluene thing for about $3.
The bottom line is if we are looking for good, cheap, safe, high octane gas, toluene/pump gas blends fit the bill. On this point you will
never prove me wrong!
Jimbo
It's going to take me a week to sort through all of this and chase down all these links. In ten words or less what would you pick as the best performing fuel for 2 strokes for let's say low end torque and for high RPM. 
:bang: 
