LPG price?

[Damian]

What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!
Is it likely to go back to 55c again?
Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries and make it worthless to
own an LPG converted vehicle?

[Noddy]

On 12/02/14 10:22 PM, Damian wrote:
> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!

It makes the oil companies lots of money.

> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?

Probably. Or maybe not.

> Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries and make it worthless to
> own an LPG converted vehicle?

High prices have killed off the alternative fuels industry before.

As to the value of your vehicle, I don't think it's altered in any way
by the price of lpg.



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
news:ldfn4c$adr$2...@dont-email.me...

If most certainly has.
LPG converted vehicles do have extra value, specially when it comes to
engines that have been modified to suit
LPG fuel.
If I list my car for sale with added information of fantastic LPG conversion
with being able drive 'cheaply'.
It won't get as much as it would.
In other words, I can't demand extra money for the expensive LPG conversion,
it went through.
It's a hopeless situation.

[Damian]

"D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:52fb60c3$0$29966$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...

> The price goes up same time every year and every year someone complains
> about it.

That a fallacy.
It jumped from 55c to 90c overnight.
Any idiot can see that it is not typical holiday/end of year price hike.
They just cleverly timed it, so the idiots won't feel it as badly.

> Its due to the demand for LPG in the Northern Hemisphere winter.

Nope. That's just a story made up to bullshit us. There's much more going on
with the price jumps.

> Even if LPG was $1.00 per litre that would still mean its about 40-50cpl
> cheaper than petrol so still worth converting if you do a lot of kms.

Take into account the wear and tear on LPG converted engines, low
kilometers per litre, etc.
I bet you won't be spending thousands on an LPG conversion.
Compare it with the Petrol price and the power you get from Petrol engine.
conventional dual fuel engines produce less power with LPG.
Even EFI ones produce less power per RPM.
If I uderstand it correclty, majority of the LPG cost for the manufacturer
goes into storing it, and also special
means of transportation. Otherwise, it was a waste product.
My point.
It's due to crooked business decisions by major producers.

[Rod Speed]

Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote

> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!

The govt started to tax it.

> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?

Hard to say. We will see some effect of the boom in coal seam gas and
fracking.

> Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries

No, there are no industries that dependant on the LPG price.

Certainly some operations that are marginal will go bust
but that happens with any change in their circumstances.

> and make it worthless to own an LPG converted vehicle?

No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.

[Noddy]

On 13/02/14 2:15 AM, Damian wrote:

> If most certainly has.

Really?

Perhaps you could explain how it is that the price of LPG has changed
the value of your vehicle, and unless you were selling it tomorrow why
you would care?

> LPG converted vehicles do have extra value, specially when it comes to
> engines that have been modified to suit
> LPG fuel.

Can't say I've ever noticed it myself. I've never known anyone who
considered lpg on a used car to be anything but a bonus, and I've
certainly never come across anyone who was willing to pay extra for it.

> If I list my car for sale with added information of fantastic LPG conversion
> with being able drive 'cheaply'.
> It won't get as much as it would.
> In other words, I can't demand extra money for the expensive LPG conversion,
> it went through.

I don't know of a situation were you would be able to demand extra money
for it regardless.

LPG is pone of those mods that is beneficial to some people and hated by
others, but very few people seem to see it as something worth paying
"extra" for.

Check out places like ebay for used lpg kits. They often sell for next
to nothing, and you might be surprised to know just how many people buy
a used car with an lpg kit installed only to take it off and dispose of it.

> It's a hopeless situation.

No offence, but I think you make it out to be *far* worse than what it is.



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Damian]

"SG1" <Lo...@theraces.com> wrote in message
news:52fbf1ac$0$16971$c3e8da3$40d4...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> "Damian" <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ldg38n$hge$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>> <bru...@topmail.co.nz> wrote in message
>> news:0943d8f6-6b15-478f...@googlegroups.com...

>>> Import parity pricing.
>>> So the gas pipeline operators who strip "nuisance" propane and butane
>>> from natural gas are laughing when the overseas price goes up.
>>>
>> Well, I'm beginning to believe a Natural gas converted vehicle may be
>> cheaper.
>
> You are going to fart in the carby?????

I'm willing to put up with the stinking carby farts if it means economical
and less pollution. :-)
Methane aint that bad man. You aren't whining about the Natural Gas cooking
and heating.
There may be serious issues about how they produce it though.

Also, it's not too hard to put an EFI dongle on my car, and further tweak it
with mechanically and electronically to
work with natural gas.
What I dunno is, whether NG is cheaper or not.
I need to do some homework.
In da meantime, I'm riding my bike(Oh yeah)
Screw the oil companies(and the government)
I think this government should step in and cut the LPG excise(if there's
such thing) to save the alternative fuel industry or the gang should
move to Antarctica and setup a government there.
May be ACCC can do some work here.
They've been as quiet as a monkey fart, lately.

[Noddy]

On 13/02/14 2:50 AM, Damian wrote:

> Nope. That's just a story made up to bullshit us. There's much more going on
> with the price jumps.

Hang on a second. You originally *asked* why it was that the price has
jumped, and now you're *telling* everyone why?

> Take into account the wear and tear on LPG converted engines, low
> kilometers per litre, etc.

The wear rate of lpg engines is considerably less than it is on petrol
engines all else being equal.

> I bet you won't be spending thousands on an LPG conversion.

I can't speak for anyone else, but in the last 6 years I spent 5 grand
on lpg conversions on my own vehicles and I'd happily do so again
tomorrow if I had one that needed it.

The cost of the conversion in isolation isn't the critical factor. It's
how long it'll take you to recover the money and *then* go over onto the
savings side of the equation that is important.

> Compare it with the Petrol price and the power you get from Petrol engine.
> conventional dual fuel engines produce less power with LPG.
> Even EFI ones produce less power per RPM.

Rubbish :)

Until very recently I had two vehicles fitted with injected vapour lpg
systems. I still have one (with the same Prinns system being used on
both cars) and their performance is/was indistinguishable between gas
and petrol.

I've been using lpg powered vehicles for over 30 years and in that time
I've seen some *appallingly* bad conversions, but in almost every single
case the resulting performance loss was the fault of the installer in
doing a terrible job.

A vehicle fitted with a properly installed and tuned injected system
(either vapour or liquid) would be impossible to detect running on
either fuel.

> If I uderstand it correclty, majority of the LPG cost for the manufacturer
> goes into storing it, and also special
> means of transportation. Otherwise, it was a waste product.

LPG is a by-product of the crude oil refining process, but that's not
it's only source. It also comes from natural gas.

> My point.

I'm sorry, but it's not exactly clear what your point is, other than you
being unhappy with the current price.

> It's due to crooked business decisions by major producers.

Welcome to Capitalism. Enjoy your stay.



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:bm2b6s...@mid.individual.net...

> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>
>> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!
>
> The govt started to tax it.

Don't you think it's wrong?
There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.

>
>> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?
>
> Hard to say. We will see some effect of the boom in coal seam gas and
> fracking.

It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.
It's a technology that needs to take carefully.

>
>> Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries
>
> No, there are no industries that dependant on the LPG price.

What are you talkin about, man?
Alternative fuel Automotive industry alone relies on LPG price.

>
> Certainly some operations that are marginal will go bust
> but that happens with any change in their circumstances

There ain't anything marginal about LPG based industries.

>
>> and make it worthless to own an LPG converted vehicle?
>
> No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.

No, it's not. The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc makes
it worthless.

[Noddy]

On 13/02/14 2:00 PM, Damian wrote:

> Don't you think it's wrong?

Compared to.....

> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.

Such as?

> It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.
> It's a technology that needs to take carefully.

Sorry, but I don't understand what this actually means.

> What are you talkin about, man?
> Alternative fuel Automotive industry alone relies on LPG price.

The alternative fuel industry is very small, and it will survive as long
as lpg remains cheaper than petrol.

> There ain't anything marginal about LPG based industries.

Again I'm not sure what that means.

> No, it's not. The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc makes
> it worthless.

You're away with the fairies if you think it's worthless. It's "value"
as an alternative fuel depends on a host of variables, such as the cost
of the conversion, the price of the fuel and the number of miles you travel.

My conversions broke even in a bit over 12 months, and since then
they've been in the black compared to running on petrol.

Even today, it's *still* a cheaper option.



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Rod Speed]

Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote

>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote

>>> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!

>> The govt started to tax it.

> Don't you think it's wrong?

Nope. No reason why it should be taxed like petrol is.

> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.

Not a good enough reason to not tax it like petrol is.

There is a MUCH bigger industry that uses petrol and diesel.

>>> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?

>> Hard to say. We will see some effect of the boom in coal seam gas and
>> fracking.

> It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.

Bullshit.

> It's a technology that needs to take carefully.

Nope.

>>> Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries

>> No, there are no industries that dependant on the LPG price.

> What are you talkin about, man?
> Alternative fuel Automotive industry alone relies on LPG price.

It’s a fart in the bath.

>> Certainly some operations that are marginal will go bust
>> but that happens with any change in their circumstances

> There ain't anything marginal about LPG based industries.

I said OPERATIONS, not industrys.

>>> and make it worthless to own an LPG converted vehicle?

>> No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.

> No, it's not.

Corse it is.

> The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc makes it
> worthless.

Bullshit. The taxis still use it.

[jonz]

On 2/13/2014 5:39 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>
>>>> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!
>
>>> The govt started to tax it.
>
>> Don't you think it's wrong?
>
> Nope. No reason why it should be taxed like petrol is.
>
>> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.
>
> Not a good enough reason to not tax it like petrol is.
>
> There is a MUCH bigger industry that uses petrol and diesel.
>
>>>> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?
>
>>> Hard to say. We will see some effect of the boom in coal seam gas and
>>> fracking.
>
>> It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> It's a technology that needs to take carefully.
>
> Nope.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do yerself a favour, and check out the long term result of a short
term gain. (financial) The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism
eh?....aint it wonderful?.

>
>>>> Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries
>
>>> No, there are no industries that dependant on the LPG price.
>
>> What are you talkin about, man?
>> Alternative fuel Automotive industry alone relies on LPG price.
>
> It’s a fart in the bath.
>
>>> Certainly some operations that are marginal will go bust
>>> but that happens with any change in their circumstances
>
>> There ain't anything marginal about LPG based industries.
>
> I said OPERATIONS, not industrys.
>
>>>> and make it worthless to own an LPG converted vehicle?
>
>>> No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.
>
>> No, it's not.
>
> Corse it is.
>
>> The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc makes it
>> worthless.
>
> Bullshit. The taxis still use it.

--
“Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it”

[Rod Speed]

jonz <Du...@why.i.bother> wrote

> Rod Speed wrote
>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote

>>>>> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!

>>>> The govt started to tax it.

>>> Don't you think it's wrong?

>> Nope. No reason why it should be taxed like petrol is.

>>> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.

>> Not a good enough reason to not tax it like petrol is.

>> There is a MUCH bigger industry that uses petrol and diesel.

>>>>> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?

>>>> Hard to say. We will see some effect of the boom in coal seam gas and
>>>> fracking.

>>> It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.

>> Bullshit.

>>> It's a technology that needs to take carefully.

>> Nope.

> Do yerself a favour,

Don’t need to.

> and check out the long term result

That is fine.

> of a short term gain. (financial)

There is a lot more than short term financial gain.

> The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism eh?....aint it wonderful?.

Yep. A decent mix of capitalism and socialism
leaves all the other alternatives for dead.

[jonz]

On 2/13/2014 7:41 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> jonz <Du...@why.i.bother> wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>
>>>>>> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!
>
>>>>> The govt started to tax it.
>
>>>> Don't you think it's wrong?
>
>>> Nope. No reason why it should be taxed like petrol is.
>
>>>> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.
>
>>> Not a good enough reason to not tax it like petrol is.
>
>>> There is a MUCH bigger industry that uses petrol and diesel.
>
>>>>>> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?
>
>>>>> Hard to say. We will see some effect of the boom in coal seam gas
>>>>> and fracking.
>
>>>> It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.
>
>>> Bullshit.
>
>>>> It's a technology that needs to take carefully.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>> Do yerself a favour,
>
> Don’t need to.
>
>> and check out the long term result
>
> That is fine.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
What is fine?

>
>> of a short term gain. (financial)
>
> There is a lot more than short term financial gain.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah? like what>

>
>> The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism eh?....aint it wonderful?.
>
> Yep. A decent mix of capitalism and socialism
> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
So, what do have here?.

>
>>>>>> Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries
>
>>>>> No, there are no industries that dependant on the LPG price.
>
>>>> What are you talkin about, man?
>>>> Alternative fuel Automotive industry alone relies on LPG price.
>
>>> It’s a fart in the bath.
>
>>>>> Certainly some operations that are marginal will go bust
>>>>> but that happens with any change in their circumstances
>
>>>> There ain't anything marginal about LPG based industries.
>
>>> I said OPERATIONS, not industrys.
>
>>>>>> and make it worthless to own an LPG converted vehicle?
>
>>>>> No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.
>
>>>> No, it's not.
>
>>> Corse it is.
>
>>>> The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc makes it
>>>> worthless.
>
>>> Bullshit. The taxis still use it.
>
>

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldhbfp$q5v$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 13/02/14 2:15 AM, Damian wrote:
>
>> If most certainly has.
>
> Really?

Yes, really.

>
> Perhaps you could explain how it is that the price of LPG has changed the
> value of your vehicle, and

Very simple. It cost more to drive. The price hike is 60%+.
No rocket science. Do the simple math.

>unless you were selling it tomorrow why you would care?

I do care, 'cos it costs me extra 35c a litre.
What used to cost me less than $90 a week before, jumped overnight to $150
a week.
That's commuting.
I dont wanna get into the long trips across the country, 'cos perhaps I
shouldn't whinge about it 'cos the
government may not need to pay for your holiday expenditure savings on lpg.

>
>> LPG converted vehicles do have extra value, specially when it comes to
>> engines that have been modified to suit
>> LPG fuel.
>
> Can't say I've ever noticed it myself. I've never known anyone who
> considered lpg on a used car to be anything but a bonus, and I've
> certainly never come across anyone who was willing to pay extra for it.

Then you know very little about cars, I afraid, specially duel fuel ones.
There's no golden rule about it.
Some cars do get condemned for having LPG 'cos that car shouldn't have been
on lpg in the first place.
Other cars have higher value due to LPG conversion.
It's all depend on the type of car+quality of LPG conversion.

>
>> If I list my car for sale with added information of fantastic LPG
>> conversion
>> with being able drive 'cheaply'.
>> It won't get as much as it would.
>> In other words, I can't demand extra money for the expensive LPG
>> conversion,
>> it went through.
>
> I don't know of a situation were you would be able to demand extra money
> for it regardless.

Then you need to do your homework.
Get to know about the large passenger cars and SUVs that are suitable for
LPG conversion.
The ones properly converted always had extra value for private passenger
cars.
The key word is 'suitable'.
You get a Toyota Corolla and stupidly convert it to LPG and expect huge
savings and higher car value,
then you're dreaming.

You do have a point in one sense.
Last fifteen years, the LPG price has been rapidly rising, and that
comparing to the petrol and diesel price as well.
So, proportionately LPG prices has been rising steadily as well.
In anyway, LPG alternative fuel industry is getting killed obviously by the
government and certain lobbysts.
They are closing the LPG conversion subsidy scheme in a few months time.
It's pretty obvious.
LPG as a cheaper, environmentally sound altnerative fuel in cars is becoming
history, unless a future government decide to do things differently
and put the system back again.

>
> LPG is pone of those mods that is beneficial to some people and hated by
> others,

Taht 'cos they buy cars stupidly converted to LPG or stupidly convert their
existing cars without doing proper homework.
Then end up spending a fortune on repairs due to LPG fuel use. That being on
top of the savings from driving on LPG.
An installer usually will convert any vehicle you take to them, 'cos it's
lot of money for them.
So, they won't tell you that you car ain't worth LPG conversion

> but very few people seem to see it as something worth paying "extra" for.

Only if you've done your homework before buying a converted one or
converting a one you already have.
Some car motors will get stuffed up by LPG conversion, simply 'cos they are
either unsuitable or the
conversion is done cheaply without modifying the internal engine parts(and
external).

>
> Check out places like ebay for used lpg kits. They often sell for next to
> nothing,

Used anything can sell next to nothing on ebay, specially LPG kits.
They aren't safe for average user and most installers won't touch them.
Somebody like me, sometime purchase them for peanuts and discard the bad
bits and keep the good bits to replace the worn out ones.
For example, I replaced my old worn out converter with a used one I bought
off ebay. Installers usually don't like that.
AFAIK, used hoses aren't allowed by law in many states, but there's nothing
can be done about you from replacing old ones with better quality used ones.


Automotive LPG industry needs some restructuring, obviously, not a kill.
Specially installers rorting it by not providing information to the
commuters, about certain cars, that ain't worth lpg conversion.

> and you might be surprised to know just how many people buy a used car
> with an lpg kit installed only to take it off and dispose of it.

I won't be surprised by many things, 'cos I've been in close contact with
automotive industry for enough long time.
Anybody, who take off a properly converted(factory LPG) LPG system in car
they just bought would be ignorant and silly.
If the person believes it's no good for the motor, they can simply leave it
and drive on petrol(if dual fuel).
But there's no solution if the person is paranoid about lpg explosions and
leaks.
And BTW, removing and lpg system has to be done by a licensed installer.
It's unlikely average Joe would know how to do it safely.

And buying a badly installed lpg converted car is even sillier, 'cos the
damage is done already, in most cases.

>
>> It's a hopeless situation.
>
> No offence,

Non taken.

>but I think you make it out to be *far* worse than what it is.

How so? Look at the facts.
The price jumped from 55c(which I was already whinging about) to 90c. That's
60% price leap, happened over night.
You wait and see.
They are closing the subsidy scheme in few months. I ain't making it up.
No private owner would bother to own an LPG car without the subsidy and the
rising LPG price(comparing to petrol and diesel).
For me, my Patrol on LPG is close to useless already.
I'm seriously considering putting on an EFI dongle to improve mileage, even
though I love the good old age carby technology.

[Noddy]

On 13/02/14 9:18 PM, Damian wrote:

> Very simple. It cost more to drive. The price hike is 60%+.
> No rocket science. Do the simple math.

I can understand it changing your running costs, but how does it change
the value of your vehicle?

> I do care, 'cos it costs me extra 35c a litre.
> What used to cost me less than $90 a week before, jumped overnight to $150
> a week.
> That's commuting.

The price has jumped for everyone. Not just you.

> I dont wanna get into the long trips across the country, 'cos perhaps I
> shouldn't whinge about it 'cos the
> government may not need to pay for your holiday expenditure savings on lpg.

Not sure I understand what you're on about.

> Then you know very little about cars, I afraid, specially duel fuel ones.
> There's no golden rule about it.

Is there really?

> Some cars do get condemned for having LPG 'cos that car shouldn't have been
> on lpg in the first place.
> Other cars have higher value due to LPG conversion.
> It's all depend on the type of car+quality of LPG conversion.

Can't say I ever noticed it myself, and I'd bet my left one I've seen
more lpg equipped cars that you have pal :)

> Then you need to do your homework.

My homework is just fine, thanks.

> Get to know about the large passenger cars and SUVs that are suitable for
> LPG conversion.
> The ones properly converted always had extra value for private passenger
> cars.
> The key word is 'suitable'.
> You get a Toyota Corolla and stupidly convert it to LPG and expect huge
> savings and higher car value,
> then you're dreaming.

Uh-huh.

> You do have a point in one sense.
> Last fifteen years, the LPG price has been rapidly rising, and that
> comparing to the petrol and diesel price as well.
> So, proportionately LPG prices has been rising steadily as well.
> In anyway, LPG alternative fuel industry is getting killed obviously by the
> government and certain lobbysts.
> They are closing the LPG conversion subsidy scheme in a few months time.
> It's pretty obvious.
> LPG as a cheaper, environmentally sound altnerative fuel in cars is becoming
> history, unless a future government decide to do things differently
> and put the system back again.

It will always be around. As soon as the subsidy drops the cost of your
average conversion will fall by a similar amount.

Just like the cost of conversions *rose* by a similar amount as soon as
the subsidy was implemented :)

> Taht 'cos they buy cars stupidly converted to LPG or stupidly convert their
> existing cars without doing proper homework.
> Then end up spending a fortune on repairs due to LPG fuel use. That being on
> top of the savings from driving on LPG.
> An installer usually will convert any vehicle you take to them, 'cos it's
> lot of money for them.
> So, they won't tell you that you car ain't worth LPG conversion

I don't know where you get this crap from, but any car that runs on
petrol will run equally well on lpg. The only argument is whether or not
a conversion is cost effective, and that can only be answered by the
individual owner.

I've seen Hyundai Excels converted to lpg that were very profitable
ventures, and I've seen Ford Falcons and Holden Commodores that lost money.

> Only if you've done your homework before buying a converted one or
> converting a one you already have.
> Some car motors will get stuffed up by LPG conversion, simply 'cos they are
> either unsuitable or the
> conversion is done cheaply without modifying the internal engine parts(and
> external).

There isn't a car motor built in the last 20 years that isn't suitable
for lpg.

> Used anything can sell next to nothing on ebay, specially LPG kits.
> They aren't safe for average user and most installers won't touch them.

Rubbish.

Most installers won't touch used kits because (a) they lose their profit
margin in selling you a new kit, and (b) they won't warranty used
equipment they know nothing about (and I wouldn't either).

> Somebody like me, sometime purchase them for peanuts and discard the bad
> bits and keep the good bits to replace the worn out ones.
> For example, I replaced my old worn out converter with a used one I bought
> off ebay. Installers usually don't like that.

Why would they? Why would they bother fucking around with a used one
when the most expensive *new* one is a couple hundred bucks of which
they get a slice of the price as profit?

> AFAIK, used hoses aren't allowed by law in many states, but there's nothing
> can be done about you from replacing old ones with better quality used ones.

There is nothing that can be done to stop *you*, the owner* from using
used hoses, but a licensed gas fitter isn't going to use them if they're
not legal.

> Automotive LPG industry needs some restructuring, obviously, not a kill.
> Specially installers rorting it by not providing information to the
> commuters, about certain cars, that ain't worth lpg conversion.

I don't know what you're on about here, and I don't think you do either.

You can't just drive into any lpg installer with any old car and have it
converted. There needs to be a complianced kit to suit the particular
car in question, and the only way such kits become available is because
there is a demand for it.

So, if there exists a kit for a Toyota Corolla, it's because enough
people have requested them to be fitted for the kit makers to bother
putting one together.

> I won't be surprised by many things, 'cos I've been in close contact with
> automotive industry for enough long time.

In what capacity?

> Anybody, who take off a properly converted(factory LPG) LPG system in car
> they just bought would be ignorant and silly.
> If the person believes it's no good for the motor, they can simply leave it
> and drive on petrol(if dual fuel).
> But there's no solution if the person is paranoid about lpg explosions and
> leaks.
> And BTW, removing and lpg system has to be done by a licensed installer.
> It's unlikely average Joe would know how to do it safely.

The average joe who removes one would probably be unaware of that, or
couldn't give a rats if they were.

> And buying a badly installed lpg converted car is even sillier, 'cos the
> damage is done already, in most cases.

The average Joe is unlikely to know if a car's been converted well,
poorly or otherwise.

> How so? Look at the facts.
> The price jumped from 55c(which I was already whinging about) to 90c. That's
> 60% price leap, happened over night.

Yep. And.....

> You wait and see.

Wait and see what exactly?

> They are closing the subsidy scheme in few months. I ain't making it up.

It's old news. The end of the subsidy has been known for a long time. So
what?

> No private owner would bother to own an LPG car without the subsidy and the
> rising LPG price(comparing to petrol and diesel).

You don't understand the effects the subsidies have had on the industry.

All giving owners a subsidy to fit gas kits did was to increase the
price of the kit by the amount of the subsidy grant. For example, when
the 2 thousand buck grant was offered about 5 years ago, all that
happened was the price of every conversion rose by 2 thousand bucks
overnight. For gas installers it was the best thing since sliced bread,
as the cost of the conversion was still effectively the same for the car
owner, and the gas converter got an extra 2 large in his pocket for nothing.

When the subsidy is eventually removed nothing will change as far as the
car owner is concerned. He'll still be out of pocket by the same amount.

> For me, my Patrol on LPG is close to useless already.

It must be seriously fucked up if running it on gas is more expensive
than running it on petrol. Even at today's prices.

> I'm seriously considering putting on an EFI dongle to improve mileage, even
> though I love the good old age carby technology.

"Carby" and "technology" aren't generally two words I would use in the
same sentence :)



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldhc6f$th4$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 13/02/14 2:50 AM, Damian wrote:
>
>> Nope. That's just a story made up to bullshit us. There's much more going
>> on
>> with the price jumps.
>
> Hang on a second. You originally *asked* why it was that the price has
> jumped, and now you're *telling* everyone why?

I'm not telling anthing man.
Just unloading what I've 'discovered' so far while the thread expands.

>
>> Take into account the wear and tear on LPG converted engines, low
>> kilometers per litre, etc.
>
> The wear rate of lpg engines is considerably less than it is on petrol
> engines all else being equal.

I'm sorry man. You have no idea what you're talking about.
You can argue about being equal for a properly converted ones
But, no way for the majority of poorly converted dual fuel ones.
Have you seen and heard of owners whinging about the saving being not worth
it,
'cos of the higher and less than earlier expected repair costs on some lpg
cars?

Most dual fuel ones aren't properly tuned for both lpg and petrol. And some
cars like mine,
it's not even possible. That's why I have it tuned for lpg and drive couple
of kms a day on petrol, just
to make sure petrol side of it doesn't get stuffed up by non use.

Just google it. LPG causes extra wear on many parts of the internals and
externals of the engine.
Having to rev the motor high to get the same amount of power is enough
reason alone.
Imagine doing it first thing in the morning when the motor is cold and most
critical parts aren't properly lubricated due to being just started.
This is why straight gas cars are usually better, 'cos they usually get
modified for that.
Dual fuel is dodgy, 'cos most installers do the el cheapo and handover the
car to the owner.

>
>> I bet you won't be spending thousands on an LPG conversion.
>
> I can't speak for anyone else, but in the last 6 years I spent 5 grand on
> lpg conversions on my own vehicles and I'd happily do so again tomorrow if
> I had one that needed it.

I bet you won't be 'happily' doing it once the subsidy is gone.
Wait until June and 'enjoy' it after.

>
> The cost of the conversion in isolation isn't the critical factor. It's
> how long it'll take you to recover the money and *then* go over onto the
> savings side of the equation that is important.

Yes. It's not worth it for a commuter who does limited amount of kms a week
and live near the city and work there.

>
>> Compare it with the Petrol price and the power you get from Petrol
>> engine.
>> conventional dual fuel engines produce less power with LPG.
>> Even EFI ones produce less power per RPM.
>
> Rubbish :)

You have to prove it with data. I ain't buying your word.
I haven't seen a single installer, manufacturer of conversion kits who'll
guarantee more power from their kits/conversions.

Theoritically, you can always argue with your claws and teeth that it's
feasible. But, in reality, Petrol combusts better and produce more
horsepower.
That's the equation I know.
If you wanna prove me wrong, you gonna have to better than bringing in your
subjective experience.

>
> Until very recently I had two vehicles fitted with injected vapour lpg
> systems. I still have one (with the same Prinns system being used on both
> cars) and their performance is/was indistinguishable between gas and
> petrol.

Rubbish.
Indistinguishable as you say, not better. And you have spend a fortune on
the conversion to get that result.
And you won't be getting your money back, unless you're a really high
mileage commuter.

Furthermore, haven't measured the HP to come to that conclusion. Just
heresay based on your subjective experience.
Reality for the majority of the cars are far different from what you are
conveying.

It is possible for LPG to match the HP of Petrol. But, you have to give
considerable attention to ignition system and fuel system modifications to
achieve that.
Most installers won't go anywhere near that trouble, but doing the best with
what they have to make their money.

Find me an installer or conversion kit that guarantee better HP per
volume(or rather weight) of fuel unit, I will zip my mouth, and won't argue
with you.

>
> I've been using lpg powered vehicles for over 30 years and in that time
> I've seen some *appallingly* bad conversions,

Now you're talking

> but in almost every single case the resulting performance loss was the
> fault of the installer in doing a terrible job.

Finally we're agreeing on something.

>
> A vehicle fitted with a properly installed and tuned injected system
> (either vapour or liquid) would be impossible to detect running on either
> fuel.

Not impossible, but acceptable.
But, how about the cost of such conversions my man.
Does the subsidy cover anywhere near the total cost of such good
conversions?
And add that to the subsidy going kaput soon and price of lpg keeps sky
rocketing.
You won't be laughing..

>
>> If I uderstand it correclty, majority of the LPG cost for the
>> manufacturer
>> goes into storing it, and also special
>> means of transportation. Otherwise, it was a waste product.
>
> LPG is a by-product of the crude oil refining process, but that's not it's
> only source. It also comes from natural gas.

I know that. Regardless of some daydreamers like to believe, it ain't
forever.

>
>> My point.
>
> I'm sorry, but it's not exactly clear what your point is, other than you
> being unhappy with the current price.

That is my point man.
The ridiculously rising price is only the tip of the iceberg.
And I can see clearly where it's heading. It's been happening for years.
It doesn't make any sense economically to apply high excise on a relatively
clean source of fuel, that doesn't cost heaps extra to produce it, but only
to store it.
It's a depleting source of energy. We ought to do a better job with it and
we can do far better job with our policies.

>
>> It's due to crooked business decisions by major producers.
>
> Welcome to Capitalism. Enjoy your stay.

Well.......same to you. :-)

My issue is not with corporations. They are doing what they were invented
for and good at, which is being predatory.

It's the government doing a lousy job with the their economic policies.
Extremely short sighted and hopeless.

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldhlp4$41m$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 13/02/14 2:00 PM, Damian wrote:
>
>> Don't you think it's wrong?
>
> Compared to.....

Whatever you wanna! Try Petrol and diesel.

>
>> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.
>
> Such as?

You don't think the automotive industry is big enough?!!
We are losing all our local car manufacturing industries, arent' we?
Obviously no big problem.
There are speicific industries and farming industries that use LPG in
machinery.
You gonna have to do your own homework if you want all the details.

>
>> It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.
>> It's a technology that needs to take carefully.
>
> Sorry, but I don't understand what this actually means.

Coal seam gas needs deep drilling AFAIK.
Many land and properties around those drillings suffered heavy contamination
of water and soil as a result,
leaving the land useless and toxic to live in. What follows is disease,
cancer, death.

>
>> What are you talkin about, man?
>> Alternative fuel Automotive industry alone relies on LPG price.
>
> The alternative fuel industry is very small, and it will survive as long
> as lpg remains cheaper than petrol.

Absolute rubbish.

The price of a litre of LPG getting close to a litre of Petrol leaves it's
useless as a cheaper and less polluting source of energy.

Mileage you get from a litre of LPG is ALWAYS lower than or equal to a
litre of Petrol, for a given HP.
In my case, it's roughly equal.
What makes LPG more effective is the cheaper price and less pollution.
All the strict laws of emmision control does not apply to LPG vehicles 'cos
of that.
In other words systems like EGR system, etc is not mandatory in LPG vehicles
and may even reduce the performance of the engine.
Bottomline?
LPG price has to stay one third of the petrol/diesel price or below that,
for it to be effective economically for commuters and industries.
Otherwise conversion cost and maintenance cost, renders it useless
economically, even though it's still a sound alternative economically.

>
>> There ain't anything marginal about LPG based industries.
>
> Again I'm not sure what that means.

You need to ask the Rod what he meant by 'marginal' first.

>
>> No, it's not. The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc
>> makes
>> it worthless.
>
> You're away with the fairies if you think it's worthless.

It's a general statement based on my observations of average commuters and
small businesses that rely on LPG being cheaper.
Far better sounding observation than your fantasies of LPG being economical
regardless of jumping from 55c to 90c overnight.

> It's "value" as an alternative fuel depends on a host of variables, such
> as the cost of the conversion, the price of the fuel and the number of
> miles you travel.

You don't need to parrot me about things I already know.
And the price of the fuel aint' an argument 'cos every idiot out there knows
about LPG price.
Miles you travel affects people like me, taxis, many small businesses,
transport companies, etc.
Conversion cost is higher for more effective and proper LPG conversions.

>
> My conversions broke even in a bit over 12 months,

So much for your LPG injected high tech installations!

> and since then they've been in the black compared to running on petrol.

I didn't understand a word of it.

>
> Even today, it's *still* a cheaper option.

For you, it's possible, depends on the humongous number of kms you do and
how good you are with your number accounting.

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bm37mc...@mid.individual.net...

> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>
>>>> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!
>
>>> The govt started to tax it.
>
>> Don't you think it's wrong?
>
> Nope. No reason why it should be taxed like petrol is.
>
>> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.
>
> Not a good enough reason to not tax it like petrol is.
>
> There is a MUCH bigger industry that uses petrol and diesel.
>
>>>> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?
>
>>> Hard to say. We will see some effect of the boom in coal seam gas and
>>> fracking.
>
>> It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.
>
> Bullshit.

A known fact, unless you live underground.

>
>> It's a technology that needs to take carefully.
>
> Nope

Yep.

>
>>>> Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries
>
>>> No, there are no industries that dependant on the LPG price.
>
>> What are you talkin about, man?
>> Alternative fuel Automotive industry alone relies on LPG price.
>
> It’s a fart in the bath.

That 'cos you don't have much of the colon left.

>
>>> Certainly some operations that are marginal will go bust
>>> but that happens with any change in their circumstances
>
>> There ain't anything marginal about LPG based industries.
>
> I said OPERATIONS, not industrys.

Define OPERATIONS

>
>>>> and make it worthless to own an LPG converted vehicle?
>
>>> No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.
>
>> No, it's not.
>
> Corse it is.
>
>> The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc makes it
>> worthless.
>
> Bullshit. The taxis still use it.

Bullshit. 35c price hike means far less money for them. They will start
whinging and hit the road patrols to allow raising the fare.
If they don't that 'cos they get it other ways via bureaucracy.
The fact they haven't done that already may mean they may have been
compensated other ways.

[Damian]

"jonz" <Du...@why.i.bother> wrote in message
news:ldhqc1$lh0$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 2/13/2014 5:39 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>
>>>>> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!
>>
>>>> The govt started to tax it.
>>
>>> Don't you think it's wrong?
>>
>> Nope. No reason why it should be taxed like petrol is.
>>
>>> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.
>>
>> Not a good enough reason to not tax it like petrol is.
>>
>> There is a MUCH bigger industry that uses petrol and diesel.
>>
>>>>> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?
>>
>>>> Hard to say. We will see some effect of the boom in coal seam gas and
>>>> fracking.
>>
>>> It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>>
>>> It's a technology that needs to take carefully.
>>
>> Nope.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Do yerself a favour, and check out the long term result of a short term
> gain. (financial)

Rod is already doing himself the best favour he could ever do.
He's stayling alive just to post here.
Without usenet, he got no reasons to live, well....other than fartbook, of
course! :-)

>The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism eh?....aint it wonderful?.

Yep. It's exhileratingly fantastic. :-)

We are in the best time in History of Autralia. By that I meant man history
of some 60k years. :-))
By that I meant, the time right now. :-))

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bm3epo...@mid.individual.net...

There is no such animal.(" a decent mixture"). It's just a mixture, if
there's any socialism in it at all.

> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.

What other alternatives?!!

[Damian]

"jonz" <Du...@why.i.bother> wrote in message

news:ldi25t$pol$1...@dont-email.me...

Nothing is fine, AFAIK, at least about LPG price.
Every stupidly conservative, hopelessly right wing government who has in
their blood to serve large corporations(only)
will always look into things like fuel excise to raise revenue when they run
out of bullshit.

>>
>>> of a short term gain. (financial)
>>
>> There is a lot more than short term financial gain.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Yeah? like what>

Like.......... zero, niente, nada, nichego, kitu, etc etc.

>>
>>> The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism eh?....aint it wonderful?.
>>
>> Yep. A decent mix of capitalism and socialism
>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
> So, what do have here?.

A bastardized version of capitalism, rapidly gaining on yanks and will
surpass them sometime soon.
So, keep counting on having to get bank loans for higher education at
beautifully attractive interest rates and
and having to remortgage for emergency+other medical expenses or prepare to
lose your fingers and toes.

Crap!
Now I'm talking too much!

A.........h, BTW, I'm taking GAMSAT to become a medical practitioner, 'cos
more private hospitals will be opening than ever.
Also I will take a crash course in Casino jobs. A day job and a night job to
support each seperate families I'm planning to raise in
each state.

Crap!
Now I'm really pushing it!

Ok, I'm zipping it now!

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldihj3$bmo$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 13/02/14 9:18 PM, Damian wrote:
>
>> Very simple. It cost more to drive. The price hike is 60%+.
>> No rocket science. Do the simple math.
>
> I can understand it changing your running costs, but how does it change
> the value of your vehicle?

Come on man.
Why do you think we have a high demand for little fuel efficient car's than
ever in history?
That is simply 'cos of the cost of fuel rapidly rising.
Average Joe can't afford to have fuel guzzlers anymore.
When LPG price goes up, the value of LPG cars go down.
What to understand there?

>
>> I do care, 'cos it costs me extra 35c a litre.
>> What used to cost me less than $90 a week before, jumped overnight to
>> $150
>> a week.
>> That's commuting.
>
> The price has jumped for everyone. Not just you.

Where did I indicate I'm a narcissistic?
My words may represent many bums, just like me.

>
>> I dont wanna get into the long trips across the country, 'cos perhaps I
>> shouldn't whinge about it 'cos the
>> government may not need to pay for your holiday expenditure savings on
>> lpg.
>
> Not sure I understand what you're on about.

I just said, I do long trips for educational and other type of fun. It saves
me heaps 'cos of the car's on LPG.
And it ain't directly helping economy when I go on long trips, yet I enjoy
the relatively
lesser fuel cost. It would've cost me heaps more if my car's driven on
petrol.
I consider it's a privilege to have cheaper LPG fuel when it comes to
holidaying, but consider it's my right
when it comes to commuting.
Privilges can be taken away, rights can't(in an ideal world)

>
>> Then you know very little about cars, I afraid, specially duel fuel ones.
>> There's no golden rule about it.
>
> Is there really?

There ain't really!

>
>> Some cars do get condemned for having LPG 'cos that car shouldn't have
>> been
>> on lpg in the first place.
>> Other cars have higher value due to LPG conversion.
>> It's all depend on the type of car+quality of LPG conversion.
>
> Can't say I ever noticed it myself, and I'd bet my left one I've seen more
> lpg equipped cars that you have pal :)

You've just lost your bet pal(even if you're hundred years older than me),
unless you're an LPG techie, which I don't think you are :-)

It's likely you just lost your 'left one' and may have to send it to me via
express post.

You can't guarantee that.

>
> Just like the cost of conversions *rose* by a similar amount as soon as
> the subsidy was implemented :)

Yes. But dunno about 'similar' amount though.
ACCC must have been asleep when that happened.

They(ACCC) obviously on a self induced coma right now.

>
>> Taht 'cos they buy cars stupidly converted to LPG or stupidly convert
>> their
>> existing cars without doing proper homework.
>> Then end up spending a fortune on repairs due to LPG fuel use. That being
>> on
>> top of the savings from driving on LPG.
>> An installer usually will convert any vehicle you take to them, 'cos it's
>> lot of money for them.
>> So, they won't tell you that you car ain't worth LPG conversion
>
> I don't know where you get this crap from,

From being in Automotive industry.
And you're right. I do get lot of 'crap' from there.
Like what I'm getting right now.

>but any car that runs on petrol will run equally well on lpg.

That's absolute 100% rubbish.
Either you're an LPG installer or you're being duped by a one.

You can win that argument in theory, 'cos any car can be made to withstand
LPG fuel by making
considerable modifications.
But, the million dollar quesiton is that, "Is it worth it economically"?
The answer is, "It is not worth the trouble for many cars".

> The only argument is whether or not a conversion is cost effective, and
> that can only be answered by the individual owner.
>
> I've seen Hyundai Excels converted to lpg that were very profitable
> ventures,

I would love to see that Hyuandai Excel LPG car that profited from that
conversion.
'cos I haven't been able to find a one yet.
Can you direct me to the owner of that car?

>and I've seen Ford Falcons and Holden Commodores that lost money.

Falcons Ok if you do it properly.
Commodores are a tricky business, depend on the model.
VLs, and before models ok. VS, VTs aren't a good choice for LPG conversions
unless you're ready to spend fair bit of money to modify it properly.

Personally, I wouldn't bother with LPG conversion on late model commodores.

>
>> Only if you've done your homework before buying a converted one or
>> converting a one you already have.
>> Some car motors will get stuffed up by LPG conversion, simply 'cos they
>> are
>> either unsuitable or the
>> conversion is done cheaply without modifying the internal engine
>> parts(and
>> external).
>
> There isn't a car motor built in the last 20 years that isn't suitable for
> lpg.

That means since 1994.
You are dead wrong about that.
You would be really silly to put LPG on Holden Barinas, Huandai Getz, Mazda
2 and 3, etc, etc.

But again, if you're arguing theoritically, you'll be the winner, but the
loser economically.

>
>> Used anything can sell next to nothing on ebay, specially LPG kits.
>> They aren't safe for average user and most installers won't touch them.
>
> Rubbish

Fact.

>
> Most installers won't touch used kits because (a) they lose their profit
> margin in selling you a new kit, and (b) they won't warranty used
> equipment they know nothing about (and I wouldn't either).

So, why is it 'rubbish' then? did you lose your plot?!

>
>> Somebody like me, sometime purchase them for peanuts and discard the bad
>> bits and keep the good bits to replace the worn out ones.
>> For example, I replaced my old worn out converter with a used one I
>> bought
>> off ebay. Installers usually don't like that.
>
> Why would they? Why would they bother fucking around with a used one when
> the most expensive *new* one is a couple hundred bucks of which they get a
> slice of the price as profit?

Just a tiny slice man. Most of their earnings come from labour, not from the
friggin brand new parts.
I know that for a fact, 'cos I used to work for a one, and I was his friggin
bookkeeper for a very short period.

>
>> AFAIK, used hoses aren't allowed by law in many states, but there's
>> nothing
>> can be done about you from replacing old ones with better quality used
>> ones.
>
> There is nothing that can be done to stop *you*, the owner* from using
> used hoses, but a licensed gas fitter isn't going to use them if they're
> not legal.

Correct, in theory.
But, I do know some of the small operators do use, used ones in acceptable
quality. :-))
Don't waste your time arguing about it with me,
We won't get anywhere. :-))

>
>> Automotive LPG industry needs some restructuring, obviously, not a kill.
>> Specially installers rorting it by not providing information to the
>> commuters, about certain cars, that ain't worth lpg conversion.
>
> I don't know what you're on about here,

I think you do know, but you dont wanna talk about it.

> and I don't think you do either.

I most certainly have some good idea what I'm talking about.

>
> You can't just drive into any lpg installer with any old car and have it
> converted.

Compliance is an Umbrella term.
States regulations govern what an owner or installer can/can't do.
And owner/installer bend the rules whereever they can.
You can convert 'any' old car, provided it fits in with the state reguations
of safety.
And there're many ways to do that when some cars don't seem to fit with
that.
Most of those issues are roadworthy related.

>There needs to be a complianced kit to suit the particular car in question,
>and the only way such kits become available is because there is a demand
>for it.

I dunno where you get your information from. But these compliance plate laws
are
regulated by states.

Perhaps you might care to elaborate on what you specifically meant by a
"Compliance kit" to "suit a particular car"?!!!

>
> So, if there exists a kit for a Toyota Corolla, it's because enough people
> have requested them to be fitted for the kit makers to bother putting one
> together.

I dunno how they do it in your area?
A particular compliance kit for each car model?!!!
What did you mean by a compliance kit?
I prefer to talk about conversion kits.
Conversion kits can be different for the same model as well.

>
>> I won't be surprised by many things, 'cos I've been in close contact with
>> automotive industry for enough long time.
>
> In what capacity?

Technical capacity.
And sometime, due to my stupidity, management and bookkeeping capacity.

>
>> Anybody, who take off a properly converted(factory LPG) LPG system in car
>> they just bought would be ignorant and silly.
>> If the person believes it's no good for the motor, they can simply leave
>> it
>> and drive on petrol(if dual fuel).
>> But there's no solution if the person is paranoid about lpg explosions
>> and
>> leaks.
>> And BTW, removing and lpg system has to be done by a licensed installer.
>> It's unlikely average Joe would know how to do it safely.
>
> The average joe who removes one would probably be unaware of that, or
> couldn't give a rats if they were.

If you've seen what I've seen, you wouldn't say that.

>
>> And buying a badly installed lpg converted car is even sillier, 'cos the
>> damage is done already, in most cases.
>
> The average Joe is unlikely to know if a car's been converted well, poorly
> or otherwise.

Correct.
That's a good reason not to fiddle with a well known danger of fiddling with
LPG installations.

>
>> How so? Look at the facts.
>> The price jumped from 55c(which I was already whinging about) to 90c.
>> That's
>> 60% price leap, happened over night.
>
> Yep. And.....

And........what more do you want? Petrol price = LPG price?!!!

>
>> You wait and see.
>
> Wait and see what exactly?

Petrol price = LPG price
The inevitable death of LPG cars, provided the LPG prices comparatively keep
rising the way it is.

>
>> They are closing the subsidy scheme in few months. I ain't making it up.
>
> It's old news.

Yeah, right.

>The end of the subsidy has been known for a long time. So what?

How long have you known of it?

>
>> No private owner would bother to own an LPG car without the subsidy and
>> the
>> rising LPG price(comparing to petrol and diesel).
>
> You don't understand the effects the subsidies have had on the industry.
>
> All giving owners a subsidy to fit gas kits did was to increase the price
> of the kit by the amount of the subsidy grant. For example, when the 2
> thousand buck grant was offered about 5 years ago, all that happened was
> the price of every conversion rose by 2 thousand bucks overnight. For gas
> installers it was the best thing since sliced bread, as the cost of the
> conversion was still effectively the same for the car owner, and the gas
> converter got an extra 2 large in his pocket for nothing.

Are you saying that's the way exactly that happened?!!!
Basically, the kit builders or the intallers jacked the price up double,
while obviously ripping off the
commuters and government of their money?
And the good government sat on their fat arse and did nothing about it?!!!
And ACCC voluntarily took self inducing coma injectiongs during that
time?!!!

>
> When the subsidy is eventually removed nothing will change as far as the
> car owner is concerned. He'll still be out of pocket by the same amount.

You're making promises about things you have no control of and perhaps no
idea about.

>
>> For me, my Patrol on LPG is close to useless already.
>
> It must be seriously fucked up if running it on gas is more expensive than
> running it on petrol. Even at today's prices.

Nope. The government's fucked up decision to allow the price hike to fuck up
people like me,
which in return may fuck up the car as well.

And I never said it's more expensive, at least not yet, but worthless.
By the time I put an EFI dongle and tune it properly, I won't bother with
LPG.
By that time Petrol price = LPG price.
So, sit tight and enjoy it.

>
>> I'm seriously considering putting on an EFI dongle to improve mileage,
>> even
>> though I love the good old age carby technology.
>
> "Carby" and "technology" aren't generally two words I would use in the
> same sentence :)

Man, if you wanna debate semantics, there are other NGs. :-))

[Rod Speed]

> What is fine?

The long term result.

>>> of a short term gain. (financial)

>> There is a lot more than short term financial gain.

> Yeah? like what>

We get gas to use as a transport fuel and source of
energy for a lot longer than if we did not do that.

>>> The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism eh?....aint it wonderful?.

>> Yep. A decent mix of capitalism and socialism
>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.

> So, what do have here?.

A decent mix of capitalism and socialism and
controls on the worst excesses of capitalism.

[Rod Speed]

Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote

>>>>> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!

>>>> The govt started to tax it.

>>> Don't you think it's wrong?

>> Nope. No reason why it should be taxed like petrol is.

>>> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.

>> Not a good enough reason to not tax it like petrol is.

>> There is a MUCH bigger industry that uses petrol and diesel.

>>>>> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?

>>>> Hard to say. We will see some effect of the boom in coal seam gas and
>>>> fracking.

>>> It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.

>> Bullshit.

> A known fact,

Bullshit.

> unless you live underground.

More bullshit.

>>> It's a technology that needs to take carefully.

>> Nope

> Yep.

Nope.

>>>>> Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries

>>>> No, there are no industries that dependant on the LPG price.

>>> What are you talkin about, man?
>>> Alternative fuel Automotive industry alone relies on LPG price.

>> It’s a fart in the bath.

> That 'cos you don't have much of the colon left.

Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

>>>> Certainly some operations that are marginal will go bust
>>>> but that happens with any change in their circumstances

>>> There ain't anything marginal about LPG based industries.

>> I said OPERATIONS, not industrys.

> Define OPERATIONS

Try a dictionary.

>>>>> and make it worthless to own an LPG converted vehicle?

>>>> No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.

>>> No, it's not.

>> Corse it is.

>>> The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc makes it
>>> worthless.

>> Bullshit. The taxis still use it.

> Bullshit.

Fact.

> 35c price hike means far less money for them.

Irrelevant to whether it is still better value than petrol for them.

> They will start whinging and hit the road patrols to allow raising the
> fare.

And will get an obscene gesture in their general
direction from the govt when they try that.

> If they don't that 'cos they get it other ways via bureaucracy.

Pure fantasy.

> The fact they haven't done that already may mean they may have been
> compensated other ways.

Pure fantasy.

[Rod Speed]

Bullshit.

> It's just a mixture, if there's any socialism in it at all.

There always is, even in HongKong
before it was handed back to China.

>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.

> What other alternatives?!!

Communism, anarchy, no socialism at all, unfettered capitalism etc etc etc.

[Rod Speed]

"Damian" <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldisto$g6u$1...@dont-email.me...

Bullshit. There is no reason why the likes of you
should not be taxed just like everyone else is.

> Every stupidly conservative, hopelessly right wing government who has in
> their blood to serve large corporations(only) will always look into things
> like fuel excise to raise revenue when they run out of bullshit.

It was your clowns that started taxing LPG.

>>>
>>>> of a short term gain. (financial)
>>>
>>> There is a lot more than short term financial gain.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Yeah? like what>
>
> Like.......... zero, niente, nada, nichego, kitu, etc etc.
>
>>>
>>>> The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism eh?....aint it wonderful?.
>>>
>>> Yep. A decent mix of capitalism and socialism
>>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
>> So, what do have here?.

> A bastardized version of capitalism,

Even sillier.

> rapidly gaining on yanks and will surpass them sometime soon.

Even sillier with health care alone.

> So, keep counting on having to get bank loans for higher education

Another lie.

> at beautifully attractive interest rates and and having to remortgage for
> emergency+other medical expenses

Another lie. It didn’t cost me a cent when I needed that
except for the newspapers.

> or prepare to lose your fingers and toes.

Even sillier.

> Crap!
> Now I'm talking too much!

Crapping as always do.

> A.........h, BTW, I'm taking GAMSAT to become a medical practitioner, 'cos
> more private hospitals will be opening than ever.
> Also I will take a crash course in Casino jobs. A day job and a night job
> to support each seperate families I'm planning to raise in
> each state.
>
> Crap!
> Now I'm really pushing it!
>
> Ok, I'm zipping it now!

We flushed him where he belongs.

[Xeno Lith]

On 14/02/2014 5:16 AM, Damian wrote:
> "Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ldihj3$bmo$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 13/02/14 9:18 PM, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> Very simple. It cost more to drive. The price hike is 60%+.
>>> No rocket science. Do the simple math.
>>
>> I can understand it changing your running costs, but how does it change
>> the value of your vehicle?
>
> Come on man.
> Why do you think we have a high demand for little fuel efficient car's than
> ever in history?
> That is simply 'cos of the cost of fuel rapidly rising.
> Average Joe can't afford to have fuel guzzlers anymore.
> When LPG price goes up, the value of LPG cars go down.
> What to understand there?
>

If you go back in history, you will find the price of petrol, relative
to average income, isn't dearer by any significant margin. The greatest
advantage we have these days is cars that are cheaper, more powerful and
more fuel efficient.

<snip>

>>
>> Not sure I understand what you're on about.
>
> I just said, I do long trips for educational and other type of fun. It saves
> me heaps 'cos of the car's on LPG.
> And it ain't directly helping economy when I go on long trips, yet I enjoy
> the relatively
> lesser fuel cost. It would've cost me heaps more if my car's driven on
> petrol.
> I consider it's a privilege to have cheaper LPG fuel when it comes to
> holidaying, but consider it's my right
> when it comes to commuting.
> Privilges can be taken away, rights can't(in an ideal world)
>

The ability to buy fuel, at whatever price, has always been a privilege.

>>
>>> Then you know very little about cars, I afraid, specially duel fuel ones.
>>> There's no golden rule about it.
>>
>> Is there really?
>
> There ain't really!
>
>>
>>> Some cars do get condemned for having LPG 'cos that car shouldn't have
>>> been
>>> on lpg in the first place.
>>> Other cars have higher value due to LPG conversion.
>>> It's all depend on the type of car+quality of LPG conversion.
>>
>> Can't say I ever noticed it myself, and I'd bet my left one I've seen more
>> lpg equipped cars that you have pal :)
>
> You've just lost your bet pal(even if you're hundred years older than me),
> unless you're an LPG techie, which I don't think you are :-)
>
> It's likely you just lost your 'left one' and may have to send it to me via
> express post.
>

I think Noddy lost both of them. That's why he needs the "pills".

>>
>>> Then you need to do your homework.
>>

<snip>

>>
>> It will always be around. As soon as the subsidy drops the cost of your
>> average conversion will fall by a similar amount.
>
> You can't guarantee that.
>

History does guarantee it however.

>>
>> Just like the cost of conversions *rose* by a similar amount as soon as
>> the subsidy was implemented :)
>
> Yes. But dunno about 'similar' amount though.
> ACCC must have been asleep when that happened.
>
> They(ACCC) obviously on a self induced coma right now.
>

And have been for a long time! They have the same sized balls as Noddy -
invisible.

>>
>>> Taht 'cos they buy cars stupidly converted to LPG or stupidly convert
>>> their
>>> existing cars without doing proper homework.
>>> Then end up spending a fortune on repairs due to LPG fuel use. That being
>>> on
>>> top of the savings from driving on LPG.
>>> An installer usually will convert any vehicle you take to them, 'cos it's
>>> lot of money for them.
>>> So, they won't tell you that you car ain't worth LPG conversion
>>
>> I don't know where you get this crap from,
>
> From being in Automotive industry.
> And you're right. I do get lot of 'crap' from there.
> Like what I'm getting right now.
>
>> but any car that runs on petrol will run equally well on lpg.
>
> That's absolute 100% rubbish.
> Either you're an LPG installer or you're being duped by a one.
>
> You can win that argument in theory, 'cos any car can be made to withstand
> LPG fuel by making
> considerable modifications.

All cars made since the intro of unleaded can handle LPG fuel with no
great drama.

> But, the million dollar quesiton is that, "Is it worth it economically"?
> The answer is, "It is not worth the trouble for many cars".
>
>> The only argument is whether or not a conversion is cost effective, and
>> that can only be answered by the individual owner.
>>
>> I've seen Hyundai Excels converted to lpg that were very profitable
>> ventures,
>
> I would love to see that Hyuandai Excel LPG car that profited from that
> conversion.
> 'cos I haven't been able to find a one yet.
> Can you direct me to the owner of that car?

Depends on the mileage the car does.

>
>> and I've seen Ford Falcons and Holden Commodores that lost money.
>
> Falcons Ok if you do it properly.
> Commodores are a tricky business, depend on the model.
> VLs, and before models ok. VS, VTs aren't a good choice for LPG conversions
> unless you're ready to spend fair bit of money to modify it properly.
>
> Personally, I wouldn't bother with LPG conversion on late model commodores.
>

I wouldn't own a Commodore so that point is moot as far as I'm
concerned. My Toyota Corolla runs perfectly fine on unleaded so I'm
quite happy not to dick with it. It's not like I do a huge mileage
anyway. I was going to do a 3,000 kilometre round trip to Melbourne
earlier this week for my annual cancer checkup but found it was cheaper
and much more convenient to simply fly down. $300 return airfare, $8.50
bus fare to the airport from here, $35 each way from Melb airport to
Nunawading, a $22 taxi fare from airport to home on return. The fuel
alone would have cost me more than that for the whole trip and would
have been stressful to boot.

>>
>>> Only if you've done your homework before buying a converted one or
>>> converting a one you already have.
>>> Some car motors will get stuffed up by LPG conversion, simply 'cos they
>>> are
>>> either unsuitable or the
>>> conversion is done cheaply without modifying the internal engine
>>> parts(and
>>> external).
>>
>> There isn't a car motor built in the last 20 years that isn't suitable for
>> lpg.
>
> That means since 1994.
> You are dead wrong about that.
> You would be really silly to put LPG on Holden Barinas, Huandai Getz, Mazda
> 2 and 3, etc, etc.
>
> But again, if you're arguing theoritically, you'll be the winner, but the
> loser economically.
>
>>
>>> Used anything can sell next to nothing on ebay, specially LPG kits.
>>> They aren't safe for average user and most installers won't touch them.
>>
>> Rubbish
>
> Fact.
>

You need to be a certified LPG installer to fit a kit, even if it is
used. Either that or you need to get a certified bod to sign off on your
conversion if you aren't certified. The biggest issue with used kits is
the age of the tank. Over 10 years old since new or last inspection and
it's suddenly much less viable.

Acceptable quality? How do they determine this? Since their reputation
and, might I add, their certification, is on the line, no reputable
installer will feel particularly comfortable using used plumbing.

>>
>>> Automotive LPG industry needs some restructuring, obviously, not a kill.
>>> Specially installers rorting it by not providing information to the
>>> commuters, about certain cars, that ain't worth lpg conversion.
>>

<snip>

>>
>>> No private owner would bother to own an LPG car without the subsidy and
>>> the
>>> rising LPG price(comparing to petrol and diesel).
>>
>> You don't understand the effects the subsidies have had on the industry.
>>
>> All giving owners a subsidy to fit gas kits did was to increase the price
>> of the kit by the amount of the subsidy grant. For example, when the 2
>> thousand buck grant was offered about 5 years ago, all that happened was
>> the price of every conversion rose by 2 thousand bucks overnight. For gas
>> installers it was the best thing since sliced bread, as the cost of the
>> conversion was still effectively the same for the car owner, and the gas
>> converter got an extra 2 large in his pocket for nothing.
>
> Are you saying that's the way exactly that happened?!!!
> Basically, the kit builders or the intallers jacked the price up double,
> while obviously ripping off the
> commuters and government of their money?
> And the good government sat on their fat arse and did nothing about it?!!!
> And ACCC voluntarily took self inducing coma injectiongs during that
> time?!!!
>

LPG installations weren't the only place it happened. The ACC has been
comatose for as long as I can recall.

>>
>> When the subsidy is eventually removed nothing will change as far as the
>> car owner is concerned. He'll still be out of pocket by the same amount.
>
> You're making promises about things you have no control of and perhaps no
> idea about.
>

On this point Noddy is correct.

>>
>>> For me, my Patrol on LPG is close to useless already.

Should have bought a diesel Patrol. I wouldn't even consider a petrol 4WD.

>>
>> It must be seriously fucked up if running it on gas is more expensive than
>> running it on petrol. Even at today's prices.
>
> Nope. The government's fucked up decision to allow the price hike to fuck up
> people like me,
> which in return may fuck up the car as well.
>
> And I never said it's more expensive, at least not yet, but worthless.
> By the time I put an EFI dongle and tune it properly, I won't bother with
> LPG.
> By that time Petrol price = LPG price.
> So, sit tight and enjoy it.
>
>>
>>> I'm seriously considering putting on an EFI dongle to improve mileage,
>>> even
>>> though I love the good old age carby technology.
>>
>> "Carby" and "technology" aren't generally two words I would use in the
>> same sentence :)
>
> Man, if you wanna debate semantics, there are other NGs. :-))
>
>

Carburetors might have been a "newish" technology in 1900 but the only
"technology" that could be applied to them in very recent times was the
add-ons that were applied in order to make them compliant with emission
controls. As you can see, that wasn't a great success.

Ask yourself why carburetors, as a technology, are pretty much extinct
on cars. ;-)

--

Xeno

[Noddy]

On 14/02/14 12:46 AM, Damian wrote:

> I'm sorry man. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, okay. What was your qualification in this area again? :)

> You can argue about being equal for a properly converted ones
> But, no way for the majority of poorly converted dual fuel ones.
> Have you seen and heard of owners whinging about the saving being not worth
> it,
> 'cos of the higher and less than earlier expected repair costs on some lpg
> cars?

Let me say it again just so you completely understand what I'm saying:
LPG does *not* cause increased engine wear. It has the *opposite* effect
in fact. Even on poor installations.

> Most dual fuel ones aren't properly tuned for both lpg and petrol. And some
> cars like mine,
> it's not even possible. That's why I have it tuned for lpg and drive couple
> of kms a day on petrol, just
> to make sure petrol side of it doesn't get stuffed up by non use.

If you have a dual fuel car and you drive on petrol every now and then
"just to keep things happy" then you are completely wasting your money.

Dual fuel applications are a compromise at best, and the petrol side
should only ever be used as an emergency "get to the nearest gas
station" solution when you run out of LPG.

> Just google it. LPG causes extra wear on many parts of the internals and
> externals of the engine.

Absolute, complete and *utter* garbage.

If you honestly believe this to be true, then I'm sorry to say that you

have no idea what you're talking about.

> Having to rev the motor high to get the same amount of power is enough
> reason alone.

How does that wear the engine?

> Imagine doing it first thing in the morning when the motor is cold and most
> critical parts aren't properly lubricated due to being just started.
> This is why straight gas cars are usually better, 'cos they usually get
> modified for that.
> Dual fuel is dodgy, 'cos most installers do the el cheapo and handover the
> car to the owner.

With all due respect I really don't think you have any idea about this.

> I bet you won't be 'happily' doing it once the subsidy is gone.
> Wait until June and 'enjoy' it after.

I don't have a vehicle that I need to convert at the moment, but if at
some future point I do (and that's likely) I won't think twice about
putting an injected gas kit on it and the amount I'd be out of pocket
today would be no different to what it would be when the subsidy expires.

> Yes. It's not worth it for a commuter who does limited amount of kms a week
> and live near the city and work there.

Yeah, so why would they bother at *any* time?

You seem to be of the opinion that considering the overall costs is
something new, and that's not the case. I think I put my first vehicle
on lpg in the early 1980's when gas was 9 cents per litre, and back then
the primary consideration influencing the purchase was how long it would
take for the conversion price to break even and go over into profit.

Just as it is now. Nothing has changed on that front.

> You have to prove it with data. I ain't buying your word.

Well, you're the one making a lot of grand claims around here pal, so
how about you go first?

Let's see some references that support your claims that:

1: LPG will damage engines.
2: The rise in the price of gas impacts on your vehicle's value.
3: Used vehicles with lpg kits fitted command a higher average price.

> I haven't seen a single installer, manufacturer of conversion kits who'll
> guarantee more power from their kits/conversions.

Neither have I, and I'm fucked if I know why you would think there
should be. No one has said that it does.

> Theoritically, you can always argue with your claws and teeth that it's
> feasible. But, in reality, Petrol combusts better and produce more
> horsepower.
> That's the equation I know.

And where do you know that from?

> If you wanna prove me wrong, you gonna have to better than bringing in your
> subjective experience.

To be totally honest I'm not really interested in proving you wrong, as
you strike me as someone who is stuck in a particular mind set that
couldn't be altered with a baseball bat.

No offence, but you're not interested in the truth. Only what you want
to *believe* to be true.

> Rubbish.
> Indistinguishable as you say, not better.

I never claimed they *were* better. Is English not your first language
or something?

> And you have spend a fortune on
> the conversion to get that result.

2 and a half grand each. Like I said, 5 thousand bucks :)

> And you won't be getting your money back, unless you're a really high
> mileage commuter.

Both cars got their money back in just a whisker over 12 months. One of
the two, a Ford Territory, I sold in November and replaced with a turbo
diesel Hyundai IX35, and the other, am RA Rodeo 3.5 crew cab ute, I
still have 5 years after the conversion.

> Furthermore, haven't measured the HP to come to that conclusion. Just
> heresay based on your subjective experience.
> Reality for the majority of the cars are far different from what you are
> conveying.

Remind me again exactly what your experience in this field is?

> It is possible for LPG to match the HP of Petrol. But, you have to give
> considerable attention to ignition system and fuel system modifications to
> achieve that.
> Most installers won't go anywhere near that trouble, but doing the best with
> what they have to make their money.

You've never been with three suburbs of anything with an ECU controlled
engine. Have you? :)

> Find me an installer or conversion kit that guarantee better HP per
> volume(or rather weight) of fuel unit, I will zip my mouth, and won't argue
> with you.

Why does it have to be *better*?

I don't know why you've wandered off onto this bullshit tangent, as I
never mentioned anything about it being "better".

> Not impossible, but acceptable.

Stop putting words into my mouth and read my fucking lips:

*Impossible*.

That's what I said. That's what I experience every day when I drive my
car, and I don't need *you* telling me it's *not* the case.

Do we understand each other pal?

> But, how about the cost of such conversions my man.

What about it?

You get what you pay for. If you want a 300 buck gas conversion you're
going to get crap.

> Does the subsidy cover anywhere near the total cost of such good
> conversions?
> And add that to the subsidy going kaput soon and price of lpg keeps sky
> rocketing.
> You won't be laughing..

I've been laughing for the last 30 years buddy, and the price of lpg
could go to 5 bucks a litre for the next ten years before I got back
into the red.

> I know that. Regardless of some daydreamers like to believe, it ain't
> forever.

Yeah, okay, and the relevance of that to *this* conversation is what
exactly?

> That is my point man.
> The ridiculously rising price is only the tip of the iceberg.
> And I can see clearly where it's heading. It's been happening for years.
> It doesn't make any sense economically to apply high excise on a relatively
> clean source of fuel, that doesn't cost heaps extra to produce it, but only
> to store it.
> It's a depleting source of energy. We ought to do a better job with it and
> we can do far better job with our policies.

If you say so.

> My issue is not with corporations. They are doing what they were invented
> for and good at, which is being predatory.

I'm sorry, but I thought you were just complaining about that very thing :)

> It's the government doing a lousy job with the their economic policies.
> Extremely short sighted and hopeless.

Okay.

Alright, well I'm going to leave you to it, as it sounds like you need
to toke another cone.

Rock on man...


--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<GRIN>

[Noddy]

On 14/02/14 3:08 AM, Damian wrote:

> You don't think the automotive industry is big enough?!!

"Big" is relative.

The automotive industry is big. The LPG part of it is not.

> We are losing all our local car manufacturing industries, arent' we?
> Obviously no big problem.

What does that have to do with the cost of lpg?

> There are speicific industries and farming industries that use LPG in
> machinery.
> You gonna have to do your own homework if you want all the details.

I have no idea what you're on about to be honest.

> Absolute rubbish.
>
> The price of a litre of LPG getting close to a litre of Petrol leaves it's
> useless as a cheaper and less polluting source of energy.

I don't know about your area, but around these parts petrol is a buck 50
per litre while lpg is 91 cents.

That's not close. It's not even *remotely* close, and it *still* makes
lpg a significantly cheaper fuel to use.

> Mileage you get from a litre of LPG is ALWAYS lower than or equal to a
> litre of Petrol, for a given HP.
> In my case, it's roughly equal.

If you get the same mileage out of a litre of lpg as you do out of a
litre of petrol then there is one of three possible answers to explain that:

1. You have the world's most efficient gas system.
2. You have a piss poor petrol system.
3. You can't do basic maths.

I'm not going to be rude and tell you which one I think is most likely :)

> What makes LPG more effective is the cheaper price and less pollution.

The "pollution" aspect has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
lpg being more "effective"

> All the strict laws of emmision control does not apply to LPG vehicles 'cos
> of that.
> In other words systems like EGR system, etc is not mandatory in LPG vehicles
> and may even reduce the performance of the engine.

If you have a dual fuel car that burns petrol, the EGR system needs to
function as normal.

> Bottomline?
> LPG price has to stay one third of the petrol/diesel price or below that,
> for it to be effective economically for commuters and industries.
> Otherwise conversion cost and maintenance cost, renders it useless
> economically, even though it's still a sound alternative economically.

Rubbish.

The cost per litre of lpg is only *one* part of the equation when
working out the value of such systems, and taking that in isolation
won't give you any idea as to the true value.

For an lpg conversion to be of any benefit to *anyone*, there are a host
of variables that need to be considered such as the cost of the
conversion, the price of the fuel and the mileage required before the
"break even" point is reached.

I don't want to go into a long winded explanation as I think it'd be a
waste of time to be honest, but the short answer is this. If you drive a
4 cylinder car and do on average 5000km's a year then you might not live
long enough to see the costs of a gas conversion recovered. If you drive
a V8 and do 1000km's a week then you're likely to see yourself break
even inside 6 months.

The even shorter answer is that it depends on the individual.

> You need to ask the Rod what he meant by 'marginal' first.

I prefer not to talk to Rod. I think he's a imbecile.

> It's a general statement based on my observations of average commuters and
> small businesses that rely on LPG being cheaper.
> Far better sounding observation than your fantasies of LPG being economical
> regardless of jumping from 55c to 90c overnight.

And I suspect he's not on his Pat Malone either :)

> You don't need to parrot me about things I already know.

Actually pal I really don't think you know at all, as you don't make a
hell of a lot of sense.

> And the price of the fuel aint' an argument 'cos every idiot out there knows
> about LPG price.

*Jesus*. You *started* this thread pissing and moaning about the price
of LPG, didn't you? :)

>> My conversions broke even in a bit over 12 months,
>
> So much for your LPG injected high tech installations!

Do you even understand what I'm saying? :)

I'm not saying it was *broken* in 12 months. I'm saying I *broke even*
in 12 months. I mean, I'd saved enough in reduced fuel bills in that
time to have recovered the cost of the conversion.

> I didn't understand a word of it.

Yeah, I got that :)

> For you, it's possible, depends on the humongous number of kms you do and
> how good you are with your number accounting.

Better than you. That's for sure :)



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Touche!

[news13]

On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 03:08:12 +1100, Damian wrote:

> "Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ldhlp4$41m$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 13/02/14 2:00 PM, Damian wrote:
>>
>>> Don't you think it's wrong?
>>
>> Compared to.....
>
> Whatever you wanna! Try Petrol and diesel.
>
>
>>> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.
>>
>> Such as?
>
> You don't think the automotive industry is big enough?!!

No.

% for domestic hot water?
% for process heat?
% for automotive fuel?
% for restaurants.

> We are losing all our local car manufacturing industries, arent' we?

Nope, ALL implies the entire. Plenty of them have contracts OS.
FWIW, there is apparently 900,000 still in manufacture in Australia after
you knock of the car related peeps.

> Obviously no big problem.

> There are speicific industries and farming industries that use LPG in
> machinery.

I suspect anything that gets supplied by 9kg or 45kg tanks isn't going to
add up to much.

> You gonna have to do your own homework if you want all the details.

Surely you can provide something to support your argument.
Even ABS figures?
Although noodle wont accept them, others will.

[Noddy]

On 14/02/14 1:50 PM, news13 wrote:

> Although noodle wont accept them, others will.

I'm just going to sit back and watch now Tezza. You and this bloke
trying to argue the merrits of LPG should make for hours of entertainment :)



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Kennedy]

On 12/02/2014 7:22 PM, Damian wrote:
> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!

> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?

> Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries and make it worthless to

> own an LPG converted vehicle?
>
>

Damian - please don't cross post to unconnected irrelevant news groups.


I've seen more than one good NG turn to crap permanently because of
cross posting.

Cheers

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bm4kak...@mid.individual.net...

Bullshit. That everyone else is like me as well.

>
>> Every stupidly conservative, hopelessly right wing government who has in
>> their blood to serve large corporations(only) will always look into
>> things like fuel excise to raise revenue when they run out of bullshit.
>
> It was your clowns that started taxing LPG.

Bullshit.
We ain't talking about taxing it.
We're talking about a clueless government with a gastric band boy running
the economy, milking it.

>
>>>>
>>>>> of a short term gain. (financial)
>>>>
>>>> There is a lot more than short term financial gain.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> Yeah? like what>
>>
>> Like.......... zero, niente, nada, nichego, kitu, etc etc.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism eh?....aint it wonderful?.
>>>>
>>>> Yep. A decent mix of capitalism and socialism
>>>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.
>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
>>> So, what do have here?.
>
>> A bastardized version of capitalism,
>
> Even sillier.
>
>> rapidly gaining on yanks and will surpass them sometime soon.
>
> Even sillier with health care alone.

Not for too long, if the current trend continues.

>
>> So, keep counting on having to get bank loans for higher education
>
> Another lie.

Bullshit. Fat gastric band boy wanna do it badly.
He's just crapping himself, 'cos if he do it soon, they be out for good in
few months.

>
>> at beautifully attractive interest rates and and having to remortgage for
>> emergency+other medical expenses
>
> Another lie. It didn’t cost me a cent when I needed that
> except for the newspapers.

Liar. You were bragging about your insurance while ago.

>
>> or prepare to lose your fingers and toes.
>
> Even sillier.

Probably won't happen to you, since you're about celebrate your 150th B'day
soon.
But, my generation gonna have to watch out for that kind of shit.

>
>> Crap!
>> Now I'm talking too much!
>
> Crapping as always do.
>
>> A.........h, BTW, I'm taking GAMSAT to become a medical practitioner,
>> 'cos more private hospitals will be opening than ever.
>> Also I will take a crash course in Casino jobs. A day job and a night job
>> to support each seperate families I'm planning to raise in
>> each state.
>>
>> Crap!
>> Now I'm really pushing it!
>>
>> Ok, I'm zipping it now!
>
> We flushed him where he belongs.

You mean, you? or who?

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bm4j7l...@mid.individual.net...

Ain't buying that shit, 'cos you won't be around to answer.

>
>>>> of a short term gain. (financial)
>
>>> There is a lot more than short term financial gain.
>
>> Yeah? like what>
>
> We get gas to use as a transport fuel and source of
> energy for a lot longer than if we did not do that.

It's you came up with the "invention", the fossil fuels are forever.
Are you backing up on it now?

>
>>>> The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism eh?....aint it wonderful?.
>
>>> Yep. A decent mix of capitalism and socialism
>>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.
>
>> So, what do have here?.
>
> A decent mix of capitalism and socialism and
> controls on the worst excesses of capitalism.

Bullshit.
There ain't such animal. It's just a convoluted mixture.
There ain't a damn thing decent about it.
Not even possible for capitalism to be 'decent'.
We have it 'cos that's the best we can pull off with our monkey brains.

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bm4k00...@mid.individual.net...

More bullshit.

>
>> It's just a mixture, if there's any socialism in it at all.
>
> There always is, even in HongKong
> before it was handed back to China.

There was no "handing back". Chinese told the Queen to pack up her shit and
piss off.
And she did just that, regardless of Hong Kong chinese wanting them to stay.
Liz and her gang never had any socialism, anywhere.
Collecting the shit from the super rich in a classful society, ain't
socialism.
It's just a bullshit word, invented to bullshit us.

>
>>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.
>
>> What other alternatives?!!
>
> Communism,

It's in the book. No place on the planet had it.

> anarchy,

That's no friggin alternative. It's just a lifestyle some choose.

>no socialism at all,

That is called capitalism, not an another alternative. We already have it.

>unfettered capitalism.

There ain't such animal either. Capitalism is what it is. There ain't any
fettering of it.
No chance in hell.

> etc etc etc.

What etc, etc?
A 'kingship' like the Liz and her royalty?

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bm4jp1...@mid.individual.net...

> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
>
>>>>>> What is the real reason for LPG price to jump from 55c to 90c?!
>
>>>>> The govt started to tax it.
>
>>>> Don't you think it's wrong?
>
>>> Nope. No reason why it should be taxed like petrol is.
>
>>>> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.
>
>>> Not a good enough reason to not tax it like petrol is.
>
>>> There is a MUCH bigger industry that uses petrol and diesel.
>
>>>>>> Is it likely to go back to 55c again?
>
>>>>> Hard to say. We will see some effect of the boom in coal seam gas and
>>>>> fracking.
>
>>>> It's not easy to produce that gas, without raping the land around it.
>
>>> Bullshit.
>
>> A known fact,
>
> Bullshit.

More bullshit.

>
>> unless you live underground.
>
> More bullshit.

bullshit upon bullshit

>
>>>> It's a technology that needs to take carefully.
>
>>> Nope
>
>> Yep.
>
> Nope.

Yep.

>
>>>>>> Doesn't this massive price hike destroy industries
>
>>>>> No, there are no industries that dependant on the LPG price.
>
>>>> What are you talkin about, man?
>>>> Alternative fuel Automotive industry alone relies on LPG price.
>
>>> It’s a fart in the bath.
>
>> That 'cos you don't have much of the colon left.
>
> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

You wouldn't know, You've never seen a one.

>
>>>>> Certainly some operations that are marginal will go bust
>>>>> but that happens with any change in their circumstances
>
>>>> There ain't anything marginal about LPG based industries.
>
>>> I said OPERATIONS, not industrys.
>
>> Define OPERATIONS
>
> Try a dictionary.

You didn't have a clue what you meant, did you?!

>
>>>>>> and make it worthless to own an LPG converted vehicle?
>
>>>>> No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.
>
>>>> No, it's not.
>
>>> Corse it is.
>
>>>> The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc makes it
>>>> worthless.
>
>>> Bullshit. The taxis still use it.
>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Fact.

The bastards are dying to raise the fare.
If they don't that for a good reason.

>
>> 35c price hike means far less money for them.
>

> Irrelevant to whether it is still better value than petrol for them.\

Bullshit. It's direclty relevant. It is still better value for them, but
still their
expenses increase.

>
>> They will start whinging and hit the road patrols to allow raising the
>> fare.
>
> And will get an obscene gesture in their general
> direction from the govt when they try that.

Bullshit, it's the state government that has jurisdiction, so when or if
they go on a taxi rally,
they would've to give them something. They may get non-fuel benefits.

>
>> If they don't that 'cos they get it other ways via bureaucracy.
>
> Pure fantasy.

Pure fact.

>
>> The fact they haven't done that already may mean they may have been
>> compensated other ways.
>
> Pure fantasy.

Pure fact.
>
>

[Damian]

"Kennedy" <ken...@fakemail.com> wrote in message
news:3tOdnQreL7c8OGDP...@westnet.com.au...

Ok, My bad. Cross posting wasn't intended, the way it happened.
I couldn't see the relevance to aus.electronics in this topic. That was a
mistake.
Is aus.computers ok?
Monkeys at aus.computers do debate stuff irrelevant to computers.
I'm one of those monkeys.

[Xeno Lith]

On 14/02/2014 5:47 PM, Damian wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> There always is, even in HongKong
>> before it was handed back to China.
>
> There was no "handing back". Chinese told the Queen to pack up her shit and
> piss off.

The Chinese did not do it that way!

China needed Hong Kong as a port of trade and still uses it for that
purpose. It's still also one of the larger financial centres of the
world. Were China to stuff up Hong Kong, there are many other places
willing to take over its role. China is not that stupid.

The UK "owned" Hong Kong (island) into "perpetuity" but only held a 99
year lease on the New Territories. Not sure if an automatic right of
renewal existed but, without the New Territories, Hong Kong might not
have been viable.

> And she did just that, regardless of Hong Kong chinese wanting them to stay.

The deals were being done way before the lease expired. For those who
didn't like the future of Hong Kong, there were alternatives. Many
migrated to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other countries. Even
now, a lot of the real estate investment in Australia is due to wealthy
Hong Kong businessmen wishing to invest their wealth outside China.

> Liz and her gang never had any socialism, anywhere.
> Collecting the shit from the super rich in a classful society, ain't
> socialism.
> It's just a bullshit word, invented to bullshit us.
>

<snip>
>>
>
>


--

Xeno

[Rod Speed]

"Damian" <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldkddh$ati$1...@dont-email.me...

You have always been and always will be, completely and
utterly irrelevant. What you might or might not buy in spades.

>>>>> of a short term gain. (financial)
>>
>>>> There is a lot more than short term financial gain.
>>
>>> Yeah? like what>
>>
>> We get gas to use as a transport fuel and source of
>> energy for a lot longer than if we did not do that.
>
> It's you came up with the "invention", the fossil fuels are forever.

Bullshit. Never ever said anything like that.

> Are you backing up on it now?

Nope.

>>>>> The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism eh?....aint it wonderful?.
>>
>>>> Yep. A decent mix of capitalism and socialism
>>>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.
>>
>>> So, what do have here?.
>>
>> A decent mix of capitalism and socialism and
>> controls on the worst excesses of capitalism.
>
> Bullshit.

Fact.

> There ain't such animal. It's just a convoluted mixture.

Bullshit.

> There ain't a damn thing decent about it.

Bullshit.

> Not even possible for capitalism to be 'decent'.

Bullshit.

> We have it 'cos that's the best we can pull off with our monkey brains.

We have that everywhere, because it leaves the alternatives for dead.

[Rod Speed]

"Damian" <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldke72$dv9$1...@dont-email.me...

Wrong, as always.

> Chinese told the Queen to pack up her shit and piss off.

Wrong, as always.

HongKong always was a limited time thing and when
that time came to an end, it was handed back to China.

Nothing whatever to do with Liz.

> And she did just that, regardless of Hong Kong chinese wanting them to
> stay.

Nothing whatever to do with Liz.

> Liz and her gang never had any socialism, anywhere.

Even sillier with the postal service, and public education,
and even with HongKong, some very limited welfare for
the elderly particularly.

> Collecting the shit from the super rich in a classful society, ain't
> socialism.

But the postal service, public education,
welfare, the national health service all is.

> It's just a bullshit word, invented to bullshit us.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

>>>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.
>>
>>> What other alternatives?!!
>>
>> Communism,
>
> It's in the book. No place on the planet had it.

Whatever you call it, it is an alternative
to a mix of capitalism and socialism.

>> anarchy,

> That's no friggin alternative. It's just a lifestyle some choose.

Wrong, as always.

>> no socialism at all,

> That is called capitalism,

Wrong, as always.

> not an another alternative. We already have it.

Wrong, as always.

>> unfettered capitalism.

> There ain't such animal either.

Wrong, as always.

> Capitalism is what it is. There ain't any fettering of it.

Bullshit. Even someone as stupid as you should noticed
the ban on monopolys and lying to consumers etc.

> No chance in hell.

Even sillier.

>> etc etc etc.

> What etc, etc?
> A 'kingship' like the Liz and her royalty?

Absolute monarchy, yep.

[Rod Speed]

Damian <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote
just the puerile shit it always ends up with when its got
done like a fucking dinner, as it always is.

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bm65mn...@mid.individual.net...

That's just a fart in the pacific ocean.

>
>> Collecting the shit from the super rich in a classful society, ain't
>> socialism.
>
> But the postal service, public education,
> welfare, the national health service all is.

They all are just a fart in the pacific ocean.

>
>> It's just a bullshit word, invented to bullshit us.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Just a fart in the pacific ocean, just like you are.

>
>>>>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.
>>>
>>>> What other alternatives?!!
>>>
>>> Communism,
>>
>> It's in the book. No place on the planet had it.
>
> Whatever you call it, it is an alternative
> to a mix of capitalism and socialism.

Yeah, but we never had it.
Not a single country.

>
>>> anarchy,
>
>> That's no friggin alternative. It's just a lifestyle some choose.
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>>> no socialism at all,
>
>> That is called capitalism,
>
> Wrong, as always.
>
>> not an another alternative. We already have it.
>
> Wrong, as always.

Bullshit

>
>>> unfettered capitalism.
>
>> There ain't such animal either.
>
> Wrong, as always.

Bullshit

>
>> Capitalism is what it is. There ain't any fettering of it.
>
> Bullshit. Even someone as stupid as you should noticed
> the ban on monopolys and lying to consumers etc.

Bullshit. That ain't socialism. That's capitalism preserving itself by
bullshitting it's way out, by hiding behind democracy.

>
>> No chance in hell.
>
> Even sillier.

No chance in hell.

[Rod Speed]

[Damian]

"Xeno Lith" <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:ldjlu1$a6n$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 14/02/2014 5:16 AM, Damian wrote:
>> "Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:ldihj3$bmo$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 13/02/14 9:18 PM, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Very simple. It cost more to drive. The price hike is 60%+.
>>>> No rocket science. Do the simple math.
>>>
>>> I can understand it changing your running costs, but how does it change
>>> the value of your vehicle?
>>
>> Come on man.
>> Why do you think we have a high demand for little fuel efficient car's
>> than
>> ever in history?
>> That is simply 'cos of the cost of fuel rapidly rising.
>> Average Joe can't afford to have fuel guzzlers anymore.
>> When LPG price goes up, the value of LPG cars go down.
>> What to understand there?
>>
> If you go back in history, you will find the price of petrol, relative to
> average income, isn't dearer by any significant margin.

How far in history are we talkin about?

:-)

>>>
>>>> Then you need to do your homework.
>>>
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> It will always be around. As soon as the subsidy drops the cost of your
>>> average conversion will fall by a similar amount.
>>
>> You can't guarantee that.
>>
> History does guarantee it however.

History doesn't guarantee anything. And that's what history is usually good
at, if you've
learnt anything from history.

>>>
>>> Just like the cost of conversions *rose* by a similar amount as soon as
>>> the subsidy was implemented :)
>>
>> Yes. But dunno about 'similar' amount though.
>> ACCC must have been asleep when that happened.
>>
>> They(ACCC) obviously on a self induced coma right now.
>>
> And have been for a long time! They have the same sized balls as Noddy -
> invisible.

Or they don't have balls at all, or never had.

>
>>>
>>>> Taht 'cos they buy cars stupidly converted to LPG or stupidly convert
>>>> their
>>>> existing cars without doing proper homework.
>>>> Then end up spending a fortune on repairs due to LPG fuel use. That
>>>> being
>>>> on
>>>> top of the savings from driving on LPG.
>>>> An installer usually will convert any vehicle you take to them, 'cos
>>>> it's
>>>> lot of money for them.
>>>> So, they won't tell you that you car ain't worth LPG conversion
>>>
>>> I don't know where you get this crap from,
>>
>> From being in Automotive industry.
>> And you're right. I do get lot of 'crap' from there.
>> Like what I'm getting right now.
>>
>>> but any car that runs on petrol will run equally well on lpg.
>>
>> That's absolute 100% rubbish.
>> Either you're an LPG installer or you're being duped by a one.
>>
>> You can win that argument in theory, 'cos any car can be made to
>> withstand
>> LPG fuel by making
>> considerable modifications.
>
> All cars made since the intro of unleaded can handle LPG fuel with no
> great drama.

'Handling' part may be correct. Dunno about 'great drama' though.
I've seen enough drama so far.

>
>> But, the million dollar quesiton is that, "Is it worth it economically"?
>> The answer is, "It is not worth the trouble for many cars".
>>
>>> The only argument is whether or not a conversion is cost effective, and
>>> that can only be answered by the individual owner.
>>>
>>> I've seen Hyundai Excels converted to lpg that were very profitable
>>> ventures,
>>
>> I would love to see that Hyuandai Excel LPG car that profited from that
>> conversion.
>> 'cos I haven't been able to find a one yet.
>> Can you direct me to the owner of that car?
>
> Depends on the mileage the car does.

I have a feeling, I won't get an answer to that question from Noddy.

>>
>>> and I've seen Ford Falcons and Holden Commodores that lost money.
>>
>> Falcons Ok if you do it properly.
>> Commodores are a tricky business, depend on the model.
>> VLs, and before models ok. VS, VTs aren't a good choice for LPG
>> conversions
>> unless you're ready to spend fair bit of money to modify it properly.
>>
>> Personally, I wouldn't bother with LPG conversion on late model
>> commodores.
>>
> I wouldn't own a Commodore so that point is moot as far as I'm concerned.
> My Toyota Corolla runs perfectly fine on unleaded so I'm quite happy not
> to dick with it. It's not like I do a huge mileage anyway. I was going to
> do a 3,000 kilometre round trip to Melbourne earlier this week for my
> annual cancer checkup but found it was cheaper and much more convenient to
> simply fly down. $300 return airfare, $8.50 bus fare to the airport from
> here, $35 each way from Melb airport to Nunawading, a $22 taxi fare from
> airport to home on return. The fuel alone would have cost me more than
> that for the whole trip and would have been stressful to boot.

And you would be crazy to drive that far for that purpose anyway, unless you
have plans to kill two birds
and use it as a long trip as well.

Just curious, why do you need to be in Melbourne?
And What's special about Nunawading?
I dunno about any specialist cancer clinics there.

You can install the kit if the installer is happy to check it and stamp it.
But, you won't find a one who would do that, unless he's your close mate.

>The biggest issue with used kits is the age of the tank. Over 10 years old
>since new or last inspection and it's suddenly much less viable.

You can have a tank re-tested for around $90, depend on the state you live
in.
Most of tanks pass the test unless there are dents or excessive rust.
Occasionally cost extra to replace valves.

I think you answered your own question by using the word 'reputable'.
Automotive industry is notorously dodgy, including alternative fuel
industry,
regardless of heavy regulating.
Visual inspection is enough for a dodgy installer.

Scenario:. Recently crashed car. Near new plumbing undamaged.

I myself bought a second hand tank from a wrecker for peanuts.
The tank was in-date and no obvious damage.
Installer was happy.

No argument there.

>
>>>
>>> When the subsidy is eventually removed nothing will change as far as the
>>> car owner is concerned. He'll still be out of pocket by the same amount.
>>
>> You're making promises about things you have no control of and perhaps
>> no
>> idea about.
>>
> On this point Noddy is correct.

I have to wait and see. Only few months to go.

Can you and Noddy stay super healthy in the meantime?!! :-)

>>>
>>>> For me, my Patrol on LPG is close to useless already.
>
> Should have bought a diesel Patrol. I wouldn't even consider a petrol 4WD.

It's for the economy of it.
Yes, my next move is defly diesel, even though I hate the smell.

>>>
>>> It must be seriously fucked up if running it on gas is more expensive
>>> than
>>> running it on petrol. Even at today's prices.
>>
>> Nope. The government's fucked up decision to allow the price hike to fuck
>> up
>> people like me,
>> which in return may fuck up the car as well.
>>
>> And I never said it's more expensive, at least not yet, but worthless.
>> By the time I put an EFI dongle and tune it properly, I won't bother with
>> LPG.
>> By that time Petrol price = LPG price.
>> So, sit tight and enjoy it.
>>
>>>
>>>> I'm seriously considering putting on an EFI dongle to improve mileage,
>>>> even
>>>> though I love the good old age carby technology.
>>>
>>> "Carby" and "technology" aren't generally two words I would use in the
>>> same sentence :)
>>
>> Man, if you wanna debate semantics, there are other NGs. :-))
>>
>>
> Carburetors might have been a "newish" technology in 1900 but the only
> "technology" that could be applied to them in very recent times was the
> add-ons that were applied in order to make them compliant with emission
> controls. As you can see, that wasn't a great success.

Depends. Many of those emission control measures aren't required for LPG
converted ones.
I got rid of the EGR system and has done nothing but good, by the looks of
it.

>
> Ask yourself why carburetors, as a technology, are pretty much extinct on
> cars. ;-)

Yeah, I know.
It's a personal preference. I like fiddling with them. And find them more
reliable due to
having less electronic/electrical components.

It's not totally extinct. There are still cars out there comes out with
carbys.

[Xeno Lith]

On 14/02/2014 9:41 PM, Damian wrote:
> "Xeno Lith" <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ldjlu1$a6n$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 14/02/2014 5:16 AM, Damian wrote:
>>> "Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:ldihj3$bmo$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 13/02/14 9:18 PM, Damian wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Very simple. It cost more to drive. The price hike is 60%+.
>>>>> No rocket science. Do the simple math.
>>>>
>>>> I can understand it changing your running costs, but how does it change
>>>> the value of your vehicle?
>>>
>>> Come on man.
>>> Why do you think we have a high demand for little fuel efficient car's
>>> than
>>> ever in history?
>>> That is simply 'cos of the cost of fuel rapidly rising.
>>> Average Joe can't afford to have fuel guzzlers anymore.
>>> When LPG price goes up, the value of LPG cars go down.
>>> What to understand there?
>>>
>> If you go back in history, you will find the price of petrol, relative to
>> average income, isn't dearer by any significant margin.
>
> How far in history are we talkin about?

45 years - about my involvement time span with cars, as a driver and as
a mechanic.
>
<snip>

>>>
>>> It's likely you just lost your 'left one' and may have to send it to me
>>> via
>>> express post.
>>>
>> I think Noddy lost both of them. That's why he needs the "pills".
>
> :-)

It's either that or he's menopausal.

>
>>>>
>>>>> Then you need to do your homework.
>>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> It will always be around. As soon as the subsidy drops the cost of your
>>>> average conversion will fall by a similar amount.
>>>
>>> You can't guarantee that.
>>>
>> History does guarantee it however.
>
> History doesn't guarantee anything. And that's what history is usually good
> at, if you've
> learnt anything from history.
>
>>>>
>>>> Just like the cost of conversions *rose* by a similar amount as soon as
>>>> the subsidy was implemented :)
>>>
>>> Yes. But dunno about 'similar' amount though.
>>> ACCC must have been asleep when that happened.
>>>
>>> They(ACCC) obviously on a self induced coma right now.
>>>
>> And have been for a long time! They have the same sized balls as Noddy -
>> invisible.
>
> Or they don't have balls at all, or never had.
>

That too! ;-)

The only issues I ever saw with LPG was with valve seat recession on
pre-unleaded cars. That's because LPG, like unleaded, has no lead. When
the switch to unleaded came about, manufacturers were forced to address
the issue of valve seat recession.

>>
>>> But, the million dollar quesiton is that, "Is it worth it economically"?
>>> The answer is, "It is not worth the trouble for many cars".
>>>
>>>> The only argument is whether or not a conversion is cost effective, and
>>>> that can only be answered by the individual owner.
>>>>
>>>> I've seen Hyundai Excels converted to lpg that were very profitable
>>>> ventures,
>>>
>>> I would love to see that Hyuandai Excel LPG car that profited from that
>>> conversion.
>>> 'cos I haven't been able to find a one yet.
>>> Can you direct me to the owner of that car?
>>
>> Depends on the mileage the car does.
>
> I have a feeling, I won't get an answer to that question from Noddy.
>

If I had a 6 or a V8, I would be tempted to convert to LPG. Since I have
a 4 and, these days anyway, I do bugger all mileage, it's simply not
worth the effort.

>>>
>>>> and I've seen Ford Falcons and Holden Commodores that lost money.
>>>
>>> Falcons Ok if you do it properly.
>>> Commodores are a tricky business, depend on the model.
>>> VLs, and before models ok. VS, VTs aren't a good choice for LPG
>>> conversions
>>> unless you're ready to spend fair bit of money to modify it properly.
>>>
>>> Personally, I wouldn't bother with LPG conversion on late model
>>> commodores.
>>>
>> I wouldn't own a Commodore so that point is moot as far as I'm concerned.
>> My Toyota Corolla runs perfectly fine on unleaded so I'm quite happy not
>> to dick with it. It's not like I do a huge mileage anyway. I was going to
>> do a 3,000 kilometre round trip to Melbourne earlier this week for my
>> annual cancer checkup but found it was cheaper and much more convenient to
>> simply fly down. $300 return airfare, $8.50 bus fare to the airport from
>> here, $35 each way from Melb airport to Nunawading, a $22 taxi fare from
>> airport to home on return. The fuel alone would have cost me more than
>> that for the whole trip and would have been stressful to boot.
>
> And you would be crazy to drive that far for that purpose anyway, unless you
> have plans to kill two birds
> and use it as a long trip as well.

I've done it 4 or 5 times last year by car. No biggie. It's just that I
was traveling alone and the numbers just don't add up. Normally, I would
travel with my wife and our mutt or I would have the trailer hitched up
and be carting gear. I completed all my removals in August last year so
no reason to drive if it's just me. Flying is cheaper and my friend in
Melbourne let me use his Camry so I wasn't without wheels there.

>
> Just curious, why do you need to be in Melbourne?

I lived in Melbourne for 33 years and moved here (NSW) 22 months back.
Took me a while to get everything sorted, sell up one house and buy here.

> And What's special about Nunawading?

I still have a house there. I sold one 10 years back in Lindsay Avenue
and I still have one a few hundred metres from it.

> I dunno about any specialist cancer clinics there.

I go to a cancer clinic in Ashwood. Given my cancer history, I have a
good relationship with the specialist. He knows his stuff!

Lucky I have mates in the trade then, eh? I know of 4 or 5 with
installers tickets.

>
>> The biggest issue with used kits is the age of the tank. Over 10 years old
>> since new or last inspection and it's suddenly much less viable.
>
> You can have a tank re-tested for around $90, depend on the state you live
> in.
> Most of tanks pass the test unless there are dents or excessive rust.
> Occasionally cost extra to replace valves.

Most used kits are dual fuel. I would go LPG injection and turf petrol
out were I to convert my car.
>


<snip>

>>> And ACCC voluntarily took self inducing coma injectiongs during that
>>> time?!!!
>>>
>> LPG installations weren't the only place it happened. The ACC has been
>> comatose for as long as I can recall.
>
> No argument there.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> When the subsidy is eventually removed nothing will change as far as the
>>>> car owner is concerned. He'll still be out of pocket by the same amount.
>>>
>>> You're making promises about things you have no control of and perhaps
>>> no
>>> idea about.
>>>
>> On this point Noddy is correct.
>
> I have to wait and see. Only few months to go.
>
> Can you and Noddy stay super healthy in the meantime?!! :-)

Well, I have a clearance for the doc so it's looking good for the next
twelve months.

>
>>>>
>>>>> For me, my Patrol on LPG is close to useless already.
>>
>> Should have bought a diesel Patrol. I wouldn't even consider a petrol 4WD.
>
> It's for the economy of it.
> Yes, my next move is defly diesel, even though I hate the smell.

Only way to go with large vehicles.

>
>>>>
>>>> It must be seriously fucked up if running it on gas is more expensive
>>>> than
>>>> running it on petrol. Even at today's prices.
>>>
>>> Nope. The government's fucked up decision to allow the price hike to fuck
>>> up
>>> people like me,
>>> which in return may fuck up the car as well.
>>>
>>> And I never said it's more expensive, at least not yet, but worthless.
>>> By the time I put an EFI dongle and tune it properly, I won't bother with
>>> LPG.
>>> By that time Petrol price = LPG price.
>>> So, sit tight and enjoy it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I'm seriously considering putting on an EFI dongle to improve mileage,
>>>>> even
>>>>> though I love the good old age carby technology.
>>>>
>>>> "Carby" and "technology" aren't generally two words I would use in the
>>>> same sentence :)
>>>
>>> Man, if you wanna debate semantics, there are other NGs. :-))
>>>
>>>
>> Carburetors might have been a "newish" technology in 1900 but the only
>> "technology" that could be applied to them in very recent times was the
>> add-ons that were applied in order to make them compliant with emission
>> controls. As you can see, that wasn't a great success.
>
> Depends. Many of those emission control measures aren't required for LPG
> converted ones.

The vehicle still has to be compliant with current rulings. That's the rub.

> I got rid of the EGR system and has done nothing but good, by the looks of
> it.
>

So how do you reduce NOx emissions? After all, that is the function of
the EGR.

>>
>> Ask yourself why carburetors, as a technology, are pretty much extinct on
>> cars. ;-)
>
> Yeah, I know.
> It's a personal preference. I like fiddling with them. And find them more

I did, for a while, but near the end of carburetors, some of the crap
they were hanging off them just to make them emissions compliant was a
joke. Also, I worked in places where getting spare parts for carburetors
was an absolute nightmare.

> reliable due to having less electronic/electrical components.

I find the reverse to be true. Electronics are very reliable these days.
It does help to have a good working knowledge of the systems on cars
however.

>
> It's not totally extinct. There are still cars out there comes out with
> carbys.
>

New ones? Would not be many now. I can think of only one in recent years
and they managed an exemption from the regs but that wasn't in
perpetuity. They would need to have fuel injection in that model by now
I would suspect.
>


--

Xeno

[SG1]

"Damian" <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldkf9e$i7b$1...@dont-email.me...

How dare you imply that Roddles debates... Rants, raves and insults maybe
but NOT debates. He may have a mass debate on occassions though!!!!!!

>
>

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldjs77$7bf$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 14/02/14 3:08 AM, Damian wrote:
>
>> You don't think the automotive industry is big enough?!!
>
> "Big" is relative.

Everything is relative.

>
> The automotive industry is big. The LPG part of it is not.

Automotive industry ain't the only one using LPG. There are many other
industries, machinery that use it.

>
>> We are losing all our local car manufacturing industries, arent' we?
>> Obviously no big problem.
>
> What does that have to do with the cost of lpg?

Nothing. I tend to connect, supposedly unconnected things, like women do it
in their brain.
Non of the cars made locally get LPG converted, eh?!!

>
>> There are speicific industries and farming industries that use LPG in
>> machinery.
>> You gonna have to do your own homework if you want all the details.
>
> I have no idea what you're on about to be honest.

Let's not worry about it then. It's not your problem by the sound of it
anyway.

>
>> Absolute rubbish.
>>
>> The price of a litre of LPG getting close to a litre of Petrol leaves
>> it's
>> useless as a cheaper and less polluting source of energy.
>
> I don't know about your area, but around these parts petrol is a buck 50
> per litre while lpg is 91 cents.

It's about the same here.

>
> That's not close. It's not even *remotely* close, and it *still* makes lpg
> a significantly cheaper fuel to use.
>
>> Mileage you get from a litre of LPG is ALWAYS lower than or equal to a
>> litre of Petrol, for a given HP.
>> In my case, it's roughly equal.
>
> If you get the same mileage out of a litre of lpg as you do out of a litre
> of petrol then there is one of three possible answers to explain that:
>
> 1. You have the world's most efficient gas system.

Yeah, right. Here are the details. It's an RB30 motor with a carby. It's
manual transmission.

> 2. You have a piss poor petrol system.

It's a carby, namely a Nikki carby, more fuel efficient than many other
Americans ones.
It's not possible to get more than 6km per petrol litre from a Nikki carby
with an RB30 motor in a heavy car
like Nissan patrol. Correction! It is possible, but not without performance
compromise.
With EFI dongle, it's possible to improve petrol economy more, and perhaps
performance as well.

> 3. You can't do basic maths.

That's where you get really silly.
I can get basic to some areas of advanced math right, lot better than I can
get my automotive crap or computer crap or political crap right.
My understanding on Quantum physics and special relativity, demands some
'basic' math.
General relativity is still a problem for me, 'cos of my lack of tensor
calculus skills(understanding).
I can sincerely assure you, that's the area I'm most confident about myself.

>
> I'm not going to be rude and tell you which one I think is most likely :)

That was a good choice. You would've end up insulting yourself. :-)

>
>
>> What makes LPG more effective is the cheaper price and less pollution.
>
> The "pollution" aspect has got absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with
> lpg being more "effective"

That is a very narrow minded approach.
Effectiveness is defined with many factors taken into account.
pollution is one of them, even though die hard conservatives can't digest
the idea.

>
>> All the strict laws of emmision control does not apply to LPG vehicles
>> 'cos
>> of that.
>> In other words systems like EGR system, etc is not mandatory in LPG
>> vehicles
>> and may even reduce the performance of the engine.
>
> If you have a dual fuel car that burns petrol, the EGR system needs to
> function as normal.

Agreed. I've done the thing that I shouldn't be doing 'cos I've 'found'
the EGR system has been causing quite a few headaches with the particular
engine/carby combination I have.
Legally I'm suppose to have it, but ethically removing it has very little
impact in emissions 'cos I do very few kilometres
a week on petrol. In all truth, I use petrol, basically to start and warm up
the motor for couple of minutes or less.

Basially, the EGR system is shagged and I didn't have time(cough cough) to
spend to fix it, or money(cough cough)

EGR system serves no function for LPG fuel, and most likely, a pain in the
arse with the properties of LPG.

>
>> Bottomline?
>> LPG price has to stay one third of the petrol/diesel price or below that,
>> for it to be effective economically for commuters and industries.
>> Otherwise conversion cost and maintenance cost, renders it useless
>> economically, even though it's still a sound alternative economically.
>
> Rubbish.
>
> The cost per litre of lpg is only *one* part of the equation when working
> out the value of such systems, and taking that in isolation won't give you
> any idea as to the true value.
>
> For an lpg conversion to be of any benefit to *anyone*, there are a host
> of variables that need to be considered such as the cost of the
> conversion, the price of the fuel and the mileage required before the
> "break even" point is reached.

Yes, but we've discussed that already, over and over and agreed as well.
You show signs of repetitive syndrome.

>
> I don't want to go into a long winded explanation as I think it'd be a
> waste of time to be honest, but the short answer is this. If you drive a 4
> cylinder car and do on average 5000km's a year then you might not live
> long enough to see the costs of a gas conversion recovered. If you drive a
> V8 and do 1000km's a week then you're likely to see yourself break even
> inside 6 months.
>
> The even shorter answer is that it depends on the individual.

Agreed and have already agreed.

>
>> You need to ask the Rod what he meant by 'marginal' first.
>
> I prefer not to talk to Rod. I think he's a imbecile.

Well, he's the one introduced the term.
I aint talking to him either, we are on a silence contest.
And I don't like losing. :-))

>
>> It's a general statement based on my observations of average commuters
>> and
>> small businesses that rely on LPG being cheaper.
>> Far better sounding observation than your fantasies of LPG being
>> economical
>> regardless of jumping from 55c to 90c overnight.
>
> And I suspect he's not on his Pat Malone either :)
>
>> You don't need to parrot me about things I already know.
>
> Actually pal I really don't think you know at all, as you don't make a
> hell of a lot of sense.

That's a poor observation of what I've written so far.
Lot I have written so far does make sense, it's that you don't agree with
it,
either 'cos it(the LPG price hike) doesn't affect you or you don't like to
lose an argument at all.
Common sense dicatates, if somebody accepts a sudden hike of price by 60%(on
anything), then either
he's not affected by it at all or he has interests in the price hike.
All you'rve written so far indicated, you're very accepting of the price
jump.

>
>> And the price of the fuel aint' an argument 'cos every idiot out there
>> knows
>> about LPG price.
>
> *Jesus*. You *started* this thread pissing and moaning about the price of
> LPG, didn't you? :)

Of course, I'm pissed off about it.
And I like to think, I'm not the only one.

>
>>> My conversions broke even in a bit over 12 months,
>>
>> So much for your LPG injected high tech installations!
>
> Do you even understand what I'm saying? :)

I do now.

>
> I'm not saying it was *broken* in 12 months. I'm saying I *broke even* in
> 12 months. I mean, I'd saved enough in reduced fuel bills in that time to
> have recovered the cost of the conversion.

You must be doing shit load of kms, right?
'cos the conversion of high grade costs close to four- five grand.

>
>> I didn't understand a word of it.
>
> Yeah, I got that :)
>
>> For you, it's possible, depends on the humongous number of kms you do and
>> how good you are with your number accounting.
>
> Better than you. That's for sure :)

With numbers? Not likely. Numbers are my strong area.
You may beat me in many other areas if you wish.

[Damian]

"news13" <newsthirte...@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:ldk09k$k5i$2...@dont-email.me...

> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 03:08:12 +1100, Damian wrote:
>
>> "Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:ldhlp4$41m$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 13/02/14 2:00 PM, Damian wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't you think it's wrong?
>>>
>>> Compared to.....
>>
>> Whatever you wanna! Try Petrol and diesel.
>>
>>
>>>> There's a big industry that relies on cheaper LPG prices.
>>>
>>> Such as?
>>
>> You don't think the automotive industry is big enough?!!
>
> No.
>

> % for domestic hot water? Many regional areas use LPG. NG is not
> available. you need government stats for %. I have no time to scour for
> information
> % for process heat? Same as above.
> % for automotive fuel? There should be clear stats in the internet.
> % for restaurants. Again. Regional ones, And regional Australia is bigger
> than we think.

>
>
>> We are losing all our local car manufacturing industries, arent' we?
>
> Nope, ALL implies the entire.

Yes, that an exaggeration in my part.

>Plenty of them have contracts OS.
> FWIW, there is apparently 900,000 still in manufacture in Australia after
> you knock of the car related peeps.

Interesting data. I have no idea.

>
>> Obviously no big problem.
>
>> There are speicific industries and farming industries that use LPG in
>> machinery.
>
> I suspect anything that gets supplied by 9kg or 45kg tanks isn't going to
> add up to much.

I would say otherwise, 9kg, 45kg, 90kg and fatboys do cover many regional
areas.
Most regional areas, that is the only cheaper and efficient energy solution,
AFAIK.

>
>> You gonna have to do your own homework if you want all the details.
>
> Surely you can provide something to support your argument.
> Even ABS figures?

Do you really believe ABS have all the right figures. They don't even have a
record of my existence.
I combined common sense with my observations and waited for other to squash
my agrument, before I provide any reputable stats.
It ain't easy for me to scan the docs I have.
I still have to work for a living.
I will google when I get a chance.

> Although noodle wont accept them, others will.

I have noticed, an adamant old conservative fella usually never accepts any
stats, reputable or otherwise.
But, I will try.

[Damian]

"Xeno Lith" <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldkilv$qr$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 14/02/2014 5:47 PM, Damian wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> There always is, even in HongKong
>>> before it was handed back to China.
>>
>> There was no "handing back". Chinese told the Queen to pack up her shit
>> and
>> piss off.
> The Chinese did not do it that way!
>
> China needed Hong Kong as a port of trade and still uses it for that
> purpose. It's still also one of the larger financial centres of the world.
> Were China to stuff up Hong Kong, there are many other places willing to
> take over its role. China is not that stupid.
>
> The UK "owned" Hong Kong (island) into "perpetuity" but only held a 99
> year lease on the New Territories. Not sure if an automatic right of
> renewal existed but, without the New Territories, Hong Kong might not have
> been viable.
>
>> And she did just that, regardless of Hong Kong chinese wanting them to
>> stay.
>
> The deals were being done way before the lease expired. For those who
> didn't like the future of Hong Kong, there were alternatives. Many
> migrated to Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other countries. Even now,
> a lot of the real estate investment in Australia is due to wealthy Hong
> Kong businessmen wishing to invest their wealth outside China.
>

Ok. That's real cool informative stuff. Good to know. Thanks

[Damian]

"Xeno Lith" <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldl045$3nb$1...@dont-email.me...

You meant post-unleaded?!

>When the switch to unleaded came about, manufacturers were forced to
>address the issue of valve seat recession.

How did they address it?

AFAIK, that primmarily is a problem with petrol+carby.
That's why if the petrol part is blocked, you're allowed to ditch the EGR
system.

> the EGR.
>>>
>>> Ask yourself why carburetors, as a technology, are pretty much extinct
>>> on
>>> cars. ;-)
>>
>> Yeah, I know.
>> It's a personal preference. I like fiddling with them. And find them more
>
> I did, for a while, but near the end of carburetors, some of the crap they
> were hanging off them just to make them emissions compliant was a joke.
> Also, I worked in places where getting spare parts for carburetors was an
> absolute nightmare.

That is true. It ain't easy to get hold of spare parts. I mainly rely on
ebay these days.

>
>> reliable due to having less electronic/electrical components.
>
> I find the reverse to be true. Electronics are very reliable these days.
> It does help to have a good working knowledge of the systems on cars
> however.

My mate, who's a mechanic says the same thing.
But, in terms of personal experience, I have less drama(critical ones) than
him.
Even though carby's crap far more often than EFI, they are quickly
'patchable'.
I find it hard with EFI.

>>
>> It's not totally extinct. There are still cars out there comes out with
>> carbys.
>>
> New ones? Would not be many now. I can think of only one in recent years
> and they managed an exemption from the regs but that wasn't in perpetuity.
> They would need to have fuel injection in that model by now I would
> suspect.

I meant in the global scale. In Australia, you're probably right.
Even though somebody can import a carby car they are fond of, though
they may have some real trouble to comply the car with emission
requirements.

[Damian]

"Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:bm657e...@mid.individual.net...

Still ain't buying your shit.

>
>>>>>> of a short term gain. (financial)
>>>
>>>>> There is a lot more than short term financial gain.
>>>
>>>> Yeah? like what>
>>>
>>> We get gas to use as a transport fuel and source of
>>> energy for a lot longer than if we did not do that.
>>
>> It's you came up with the "invention", the fossil fuels are forever.
>
> Bullshit. Never ever said anything like that.
>
>> Are you backing up on it now?
>
> Nope.
>
>>>>>> The almighty dollar rules again. capitalism eh?....aint it
>>>>>> wonderful?.
>>>
>>>>> Yep. A decent mix of capitalism and socialism
>>>>> leaves all the other alternatives for dead.
>>>
>>>> So, what do have here?.
>>>
>>> A decent mix of capitalism and socialism and
>>> controls on the worst excesses of capitalism.
>>
>> Bullshit.
>
> Fact.
>
>> There ain't such animal. It's just a convoluted mixture.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> There ain't a damn thing decent about it.
>
> Bullshit.
>
>> Not even possible for capitalism to be 'decent'.
>
> Bullshit.

Fact.

>
>> We have it 'cos that's the best we can pull off with our monkey brains.
>
> We have that everywhere,

Only during your day time delusions.

>because it leaves the alternatives for dead.

Only during your night time fantasies.

[Damian]

"SG1" <Lo...@theraces.com> wrote in message
news:52fe050e$0$32635$c3e8da3$dbd...@news.astraweb.com...

I dare you to dare that's what I implied! :-)

>Rants, raves and insults maybe

For the most part, yes.

> but NOT debates. He may have a mass debate on occassions though!!!!!!

And always end up as "rants' raves, grunts and insults". :-))

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldjqvu$1tu$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 14/02/14 12:46 AM, Damian wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry man. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> Yeah, okay. What was your qualification in this area again? :)
>
>> You can argue about being equal for a properly converted ones
>> But, no way for the majority of poorly converted dual fuel ones.
>> Have you seen and heard of owners whinging about the saving being not
>> worth
>> it,
>> 'cos of the higher and less than earlier expected repair costs on some
>> lpg
>> cars?
>
> Let me say it again just so you completely understand what I'm saying: LPG
> does *not* cause increased engine wear. It has the *opposite* effect in
> fact. Even on poor installations.
>
>> Most dual fuel ones aren't properly tuned for both lpg and petrol. And
>> some
>> cars like mine,
>> it's not even possible. That's why I have it tuned for lpg and drive
>> couple
>> of kms a day on petrol, just
>> to make sure petrol side of it doesn't get stuffed up by non use.
>
> If you have a dual fuel car and you drive on petrol every now and then
> "just to keep things happy" then you are completely wasting your money.
>
> Dual fuel applications are a compromise at best, and the petrol side
> should only ever be used as an emergency "get to the nearest gas station"
> solution when you run out of LPG.
>
>> Just google it. LPG causes extra wear on many parts of the internals and
>> externals of the engine.
>
> Absolute, complete and *utter* garbage.
>
> If you honestly believe this to be true, then I'm sorry to say that you
> have no idea what you're talking about.
>
>> Having to rev the motor high to get the same amount of power is enough
>> reason alone.
>
> How does that wear the engine?

Basic physics my man. Higher the revs, the more wear and tear on piston
rings and all other moving parts.

>
>> Imagine doing it first thing in the morning when the motor is cold and
>> most
>> critical parts aren't properly lubricated due to being just started.
>> This is why straight gas cars are usually better, 'cos they usually get
>> modified for that.
>> Dual fuel is dodgy, 'cos most installers do the el cheapo and handover
>> the
>> car to the owner.
>
> With all due respect I really don't think you have any idea about this.
>
>> I bet you won't be 'happily' doing it once the subsidy is gone.
>> Wait until June and 'enjoy' it after.
>
> I don't have a vehicle that I need to convert at the moment, but if at
> some future point I do (and that's likely) I won't think twice about
> putting an injected gas kit on it and the amount I'd be out of pocket
> today would be no different to what it would be when the subsidy expires.
>
>> Yes. It's not worth it for a commuter who does limited amount of kms a
>> week
>> and live near the city and work there.
>
> Yeah, so why would they bother at *any* time?
>
> You seem to be of the opinion that considering the overall costs is
> something new, and that's not the case. I think I put my first vehicle on
> lpg in the early 1980's when gas was 9 cents per litre, and back then the
> primary consideration influencing the purchase was how long it would take
> for the conversion price to break even and go over into profit.
>
> Just as it is now. Nothing has changed on that front.
>
>> You have to prove it with data. I ain't buying your word.
>
> Well, you're the one making a lot of grand claims around here pal, so how
> about you go first?
>
> Let's see some references that support your claims that:
>
> 1: LPG will damage engines.
> 2: The rise in the price of gas impacts on your vehicle's value.
> 3: Used vehicles with lpg kits fitted command a higher average price.
>
>> I haven't seen a single installer, manufacturer of conversion kits who'll
>> guarantee more power from their kits/conversions.
>
> Neither have I, and I'm fucked if I know why you would think there should
> be. No one has said that it does.
>
>> Theoritically, you can always argue with your claws and teeth that it's
>> feasible. But, in reality, Petrol combusts better and produce more
>> horsepower.
>> That's the equation I know.
>
> And where do you know that from?

The same place everybody know it from.

>
>> If you wanna prove me wrong, you gonna have to better than bringing in
>> your
>> subjective experience.
>
> To be totally honest I'm not really interested in proving you wrong, as
> you strike me as someone who is stuck in a particular mind set that
> couldn't be altered with a baseball bat.

Funny thing is, I see you the same way.

>
> No offence, but you're not interested in the truth. Only what you want to
> *believe* to be true.

If that's the way you see it, then it's your right.

>
>> Rubbish.
>> Indistinguishable as you say, not better.
>
> I never claimed they *were* better. Is English not your first language or
> something?

Some genius did. I thought it was you.
But, I may be wrong.
Finding the genius from all the posts above is a daunting task.
May be you can lend me a hand, eh?!

>
>> And you have spend a fortune on
>> the conversion to get that result.
>
> 2 and a half grand each. Like I said, 5 thousand bucks :)
>
>> And you won't be getting your money back, unless you're a really high
>> mileage commuter.
>
> Both cars got their money back in just a whisker over 12 months. One of
> the two, a Ford Territory, I sold in November and replaced with a turbo
> diesel Hyundai IX35, and the other, am RA Rodeo 3.5 crew cab ute, I still
> have 5 years after the conversion.

You've done well so far, with your LPG then.
I can't say it will be the same in future, That's the essense of my
argument.

>
>> Furthermore, haven't measured the HP to come to that conclusion. Just
>> heresay based on your subjective experience.
>> Reality for the majority of the cars are far different from what you are
>> conveying.
>
> Remind me again exactly what your experience in this field is?

I've alread said, I worked for/with an installer.

>
>> It is possible for LPG to match the HP of Petrol. But, you have to give
>> considerable attention to ignition system and fuel system modifications
>> to
>> achieve that.
>> Most installers won't go anywhere near that trouble, but doing the best
>> with
>> what they have to make their money.
>
> You've never been with three suburbs of anything with an ECU controlled
> engine. Have you? :)

That's a poor statement.
But, if that makes you feel great about yourself, keep doing it.
Whatever, makes you happy. :-)

>
>> Find me an installer or conversion kit that guarantee better HP per
>> volume(or rather weight) of fuel unit, I will zip my mouth, and won't
>> argue
>> with you.
>
> Why does it have to be *better*?

Show me an LPG kit/conversion technology, that gives more kms per litre of
petrol,
than a nicely fuel injected petrol system can do.

'cos when LPG price matches the Petrol price, you will need it more than
ever.
Right now LPG price is at all time high of 60% of Petrol price.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

>
> I don't know why you've wandered off onto this bullshit tangent, as I
> never mentioned anything about it being "better".

I couldn't have been imagining it. Some genius did.
If it's not you, then ignore it.
In the meantime, I will try to find and quote the genius.

>
>> Not impossible, but acceptable.
>
> Stop putting words into my mouth and read my fucking lips:
>
> *Impossible*.
>
> That's what I said. That's what I experience every day when I drive my
> car, and I don't need *you* telling me it's *not* the case.
>
> Do we understand each other pal?

Dunno. But, nothing to stop us from trying.

>
>> But, how about the cost of such conversions my man.
>
> What about it?
>
> You get what you pay for. If you want a 300 buck gas conversion you're
> going to get crap.

Well, for that number, it won't be evne possible with a backyard illegal
conversion.

>
>> Does the subsidy cover anywhere near the total cost of such good
>> conversions?
>> And add that to the subsidy going kaput soon and price of lpg keeps sky
>> rocketing.
>> You won't be laughing..
>
> I've been laughing for the last 30 years buddy, and the price of lpg could
> go to 5 bucks a litre for the next ten years before I got back into the
> red.

You are joking.

>
>> I know that. Regardless of some daydreamers like to believe, it ain't
>> forever.
>
> Yeah, okay, and the relevance of that to *this* conversation is what
> exactly?

LPG price, it's a depletable source of fuel/energy.

>
>> That is my point man.
>> The ridiculously rising price is only the tip of the iceberg.
>> And I can see clearly where it's heading. It's been happening for years.
>> It doesn't make any sense economically to apply high excise on a
>> relatively
>> clean source of fuel, that doesn't cost heaps extra to produce it, but
>> only
>> to store it.
>> It's a depleting source of energy. We ought to do a better job with it
>> and
>> we can do far better job with our policies.
>
> If you say so.

And if you do so, as well.

>
>> My issue is not with corporations. They are doing what they were invented
>> for and good at, which is being predatory.
>
> I'm sorry, but I thought you were just complaining about that very thing
> :)
>
>> It's the government doing a lousy job with the their economic policies.
>> Extremely short sighted and hopeless.
>
>
> Okay.

Cool.

>
> Alright, well I'm going to leave you to it, as it sounds like you need to
> toke another cone.

Only if you give it to me for free and make it legal.

>
> Rock on man...

I most certainly can. But, you've passed that time, haven't you?

Cheers

[Rod Speed]

[Xeno Lith]

No, I meant pre-unleaded. It was the lead in petrol that enabled
manufacturers to skimp on valve seats, oftentimes simply machining them
into the cast iron. The lead provided the valve face and seat with a
hardened "skin" which resisted wear. Move to unleaded - need for tougher
valves and seats. The move to LPG much earlier caused the issue. A lot
of people, like one of my co-workers, didn't uprate the valves, etc. at
the time of LPG conversion and opted to do it when required. Of course,
they were the ones who whinged the most when their valves burnt out.

>
>> When the switch to unleaded came about, manufacturers were forced to
>> address the issue of valve seat recession.
>
> How did they address it?
>

Harder valves and valve seats.

<snip>

>>
>>> I got rid of the EGR system and has done nothing but good, by the looks
>>> of
>>> it.
>>>
>> So how do you reduce NOx emissions? After all, that is the function of
>
> AFAIK, that primmarily is a problem with petrol+carby.
> That's why if the petrol part is blocked, you're allowed to ditch the EGR
> system.

It has everything to do with combustion chamber temperature and even LPG
equipped engines can produce NOx. Google it.

>
>> the EGR.
>>>>
>>>> Ask yourself why carburetors, as a technology, are pretty much extinct
>>>> on
>>>> cars. ;-)
>>>
>>> Yeah, I know.
>>> It's a personal preference. I like fiddling with them. And find them more
>>
>> I did, for a while, but near the end of carburetors, some of the crap they
>> were hanging off them just to make them emissions compliant was a joke.
>> Also, I worked in places where getting spare parts for carburetors was an
>> absolute nightmare.
>
> That is true. It ain't easy to get hold of spare parts. I mainly rely on
> ebay these days.
>

When I needed those spare parts, EBay wasn't even on the horizon. One
place I worked at took up to 3 months to get parts express air freight.
There wasn't even TV or phone there.

>>
>>> reliable due to having less electronic/electrical components.
>>
>> I find the reverse to be true. Electronics are very reliable these days.
>> It does help to have a good working knowledge of the systems on cars
>> however.
>
> My mate, who's a mechanic says the same thing.
> But, in terms of personal experience, I have less drama(critical ones) than
> him.
> Even though carby's crap far more often than EFI, they are quickly
> 'patchable'.
> I find it hard with EFI.
>

That's because you don't have a good working knowledge of electronics
and/or the electronics as applied to cars.

>>>
>>> It's not totally extinct. There are still cars out there comes out with
>>> carbys.
>>>
>> New ones? Would not be many now. I can think of only one in recent years
>> and they managed an exemption from the regs but that wasn't in perpetuity.
>> They would need to have fuel injection in that model by now I would
>> suspect.
>
> I meant in the global scale. In Australia, you're probably right.
> Even though somebody can import a carby car they are fond of, though
> they may have some real trouble to comply the car with emission
> requirements.
>

The only way the manufacturers could comply with the increasingly
stringent emission regs was to dice carburetors. Why shouldn't private
importers not have to do the same?? I have no objection to breathing
clean air and I'd like to continue to do so for quite some time to come.
You want to see what the future would be like without adequate controls
on pollution, visit India or China. You'll get the idea real quick.
Bangkok, Singapore and Jakarta were enough to convince me and I haven't
been to any of those places for a considerable time. I suspect they are
much worse now than what I experienced then.
>


--

Xeno

[Noddy]

On 15/02/14 5:01 AM, Damian wrote:

> With numbers? Not likely. Numbers are my strong area.

The funny part about this is that I think that you're serious :)


--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[jonz]

On 2/15/2014 8:05 PM, Noddy wrote:
> On 15/02/14 5:01 AM, Damian wrote:
>
>> With numbers? Not likely. Numbers are my strong area.
>
> The funny part about this is that I think that you're serious :)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
U _think_.....WOW, things r lookin up.
>
>


--
“Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it”

[Rod Speed]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldnakt$js4$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 15/02/14 5:01 AM, Damian wrote:
>
>> With numbers? Not likely. Numbers are my strong area.
>
> The funny part about this is that I think that you're serious :)

That's because he is delirious, again.

[Damian]

"Xeno Lith" <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldn3ld$naq$1...@dont-email.me...

Many cylinder heads these days come as Aluminium alloy ones, yet the problem
still exists, they use valve seats that can't withstand
the valve seats. The solution was to use 'stainless steel' seats.
Most converstions didn't do that and got the cylinder head wrecked in no
time.
This was one of the major reasons contributed to the power loss of LPG
vehicles.

>>
>>> When the switch to unleaded came about, manufacturers were forced to
>>> address the issue of valve seat recession.
>>
>> How did they address it?
>>
> Harder valves and valve seats.

I'm not too sure manufacturers actually addressed it to the required level
or addressed it at all.
LPG conversions that needed to be done properly, still needed to strengthen
the valve seats,
and sometime valves as well.

How would you know that? Where did I say that?
I had cars, in which the electronic parts of EFI system, died suddenly in
the middle of nowhere.
That's the magic of electronic components.
And the only solution is a total replacement, which ain't easy, 'cos you
don't carry parts like that.
With carby's generally they crap gradually, not in a flash, usually allowing
just enough time to address it,
before it totally craps itself.
There ain't any rocket science in EFI systems. You simply can fix problems
faster if you have specialized tools.
EFI systems are just more convenient and more fuel efficient. But if the
bits and pieces of the system aren't
durable, you're in trouble on very long trips, specially when you go solo.
EFI systems are reliable when they are new. They are reliable enough when
you travel around metro, new or otherwise.

>>>>
>>>> It's not totally extinct. There are still cars out there comes out with
>>>> carbys.
>>>>
>>> New ones? Would not be many now. I can think of only one in recent years
>>> and they managed an exemption from the regs but that wasn't in
>>> perpetuity.
>>> They would need to have fuel injection in that model by now I would
>>> suspect.
>>
>> I meant in the global scale. In Australia, you're probably right.
>> Even though somebody can import a carby car they are fond of, though
>> they may have some real trouble to comply the car with emission
>> requirements.
>>
> The only way the manufacturers could comply with the increasingly
> stringent emission regs was to dice carburetors. Why shouldn't private
> importers not have to do the same?? I have no objection to breathing clean
> air and I'd like to continue to do so for quite some time to come. You
> want to see what the future would be like without adequate controls on
> pollution, visit India or China. You'll get the idea real quick. Bangkok,
> Singapore and Jakarta were enough to convince me and I haven't been to any
> of those places for a considerable time. I suspect they are much worse now
> than what I experienced then.

Pollution of above mentioned countries have lot more to do with population
and number of vehicles squashed in a very small area,
combined with other means of industrial pollution, not necessarily 'cos the
lack of EFI driven cars there.

Emission control regulations that may have brought in the advanced EFI
systems quicker, may have triggered by pollution issue.
But, don't kid yourself. The only solution to pollution is not the measly
addressing of the problem by reducing a tiny amount
of toxic gas from a car. Ditching the carby's aint' gonna save the planet or
our health, but ditching the gasoline will.
We are only patching the problem, in a pathetic way we usually address the
environmental pollution issues.
Jump from carbys to EFI is another of those quasi solutions.

[Damian]

"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
news:lukpf9doik6f63m3v...@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 00:46:07 +1100, "Damian"
> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

>>news:ldhc6f$th4$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 13/02/14 2:50 AM, Damian wrote:
>>>> Take into account the wear and tear on LPG converted engines, low
>>>> kilometers per litre, etc.
>>>
>>> The wear rate of lpg engines is considerably less than it is on petrol
>>> engines all else being equal.

>>
>>I'm sorry man. You have no idea what you're talking about.
>

> Might it not be possible that licensed E class gas fitters actually
> know things that you do not?

It's completely possible.
But, also possible Licensed E class gas fitter won't disclose all the
negative effects of
some LPG conversions due to the conflict of interest.
And independant observer with relevant knowledge won't have that issue.

But, then again, you have zero knowledge about my credentials, but
assumptions of
my "cluelessness" and "loon-ness".

>
>>You can argue about being equal for a properly converted ones
>

> It isn't equal, they last longer. Much longer. Typically, a million
> km before major overhaul.

Wow! Million kilometers?
What did I do wrong to go through two heads already?

>
>>But, no way for the majority of poorly converted dual fuel ones.

Really? So, what did I and many other's got wrong?

>
> Actually, it also applies to the majority of poorly converted ones
> too.

>
>>Have you seen and heard of owners whinging about the saving being not
>>worth
>>it,
>>'cos of the higher and less than earlier expected repair costs on some lpg
>>cars?
>

> What has uninformed whinging got to do with the facts?

What facts?

>
>>Most dual fuel ones aren't properly tuned for both lpg and petrol. And
>>some
>>cars like mine,
>>it's not even possible. That's why I have it tuned for lpg and drive
>>couple
>>of kms a day on petrol, just
>>to make sure petrol side of it doesn't get stuffed up by non use.
>

> What make and model?

Patrol

>
>>Just google it. LPG causes extra wear on many parts of the internals and
>>externals of the engine.
>

> <chortle> like what?

(chortle).Lke many.

http://www.amrautos.co.uk/index.php/lpg-systems

This is also a good article.

http://gas2.org/2013/07/09/5-reasons-to-not-convert-your-car-to-propane/

This is even better.

http://www.ijest.info/docs/IJEST10-02-10-063.pdf

Thia ia also a good read for you.

http://www.slideshare.net/ucsp/experimental-study-of-the-effects-of-lpg-on-spark-ignition-engine-performance

This another balanced, tiny amount of info

http://www.mynrmacommunity.com/motoring/2007/11/19/lpg-vs-petrol/

>
>>Having to rev the motor high to get the same amount of power is enough
>>reason alone.

>>Imagine doing it first thing in the morning when the motor is cold and
>>most
>>critical parts aren't properly lubricated due to being just started.
>

> Actually, they are properly lubricated with LPG - that's the main
> reason the engines last so long.

NO they don't. It's a theoritical fallacy, with little regard to practical
applications out there.

There's very good reason many mechanics advise not to rev the motor during a
cold start, but idle it for few minutes.

>
> The problem is, you are turning your ill informed assumptions into
> facts, which they are not.

I see the same with your amazing claims.
Like million kilometers before major overhaul, like five times the life
expenctance of a petrol engine.
Are you for real at all?
Have you ever owned a duel fuel(oh sorry bi-fuel) car at all?
Where's your data about those grand claims as above?

>
>>This is why straight gas cars are usually better, 'cos they usually get
>>modified for that.
>

> Actually, often, they aren't so good.

Here you go again. Inventing pointless counter arguments as you go.

>
>>Dual fuel is dodgy, 'cos most installers do the el cheapo and handover the
>>car to the owner.
>

> I really doubt that you have any capacity to make such judgements.

Noted.
But, I have far better capacity than you would ever imagine.

If you are an installer, retailer or a wholesaler, my ideas defly may hurt
you.
But that ain't intended.

>
>>>> I bet you won't be spending thousands on an LPG conversion.
>>>
>>> I can't speak for anyone else, but in the last 6 years I spent 5 grand
>>> on
>>> lpg conversions on my own vehicles and I'd happily do so again tomorrow
>>> if
>>> I had one that needed it.

>>
>>I bet you won't be 'happily' doing it once the subsidy is gone.
>>Wait until June and 'enjoy' it after.
>

> Unlikely, actually.

Unlikely, what?

>
>>> The cost of the conversion in isolation isn't the critical factor. It's
>>> how long it'll take you to recover the money and *then* go over onto the
>>> savings side of the equation that is important.

>>
>>Yes. It's not worth it for a commuter who does limited amount of kms a
>>week
>>and live near the city and work there.
>

> At last, a sensible statement.

Nope, there were plenty above. Just you lack the practical sense to sense
them.

>
>>>> Compare it with the Petrol price and the power you get from Petrol
>>>> engine.
>>>> conventional dual fuel engines produce less power with LPG.
>>>> Even EFI ones produce less power per RPM.
>>>
>>> Rubbish :)

>>
>>You have to prove it with data. I ain't buying your word.

>>I haven't seen a single installer, manufacturer of conversion kits who'll
>>guarantee more power from their kits/conversions.
>

> Which has got nothing to do with producing the same power, which is
> what was being discussed. Even back in the eighties, with the classic
> IMPCO conversions on the VN, power was within 5% of the petrol figure
> at the worse part of the curve, for most of it, it was identical.

And conveniently ignoring how quickly that power curve deteriorated.

>
>>Theoritically, you can always argue with your claws and teeth that it's
>>feasible. But, in reality, Petrol combusts better and produce more
>>horsepower.
>

> The only problem being that LPG combusts better than petrol! It's a
> very elementary piece of knowledge to have. That's why its emissions
> are lower.

Emissions are lower 'cos LPG has less carbon, not 'cos it 'combusts better'.


>You seem to be confused by the calorific value of the
> fuels,

There's no confusion, yet. If I did, I would've said that LPG produces more
power, 'cos it's caloric value is high.

" LPG has a typical specific calorific value of 46.1 MJ/kg compared with
42.5 MJ/kg for fuel oil and 43.5 MJ/kg for premium grade petrol
(gasoline).[6] However, its energy density per volume unit of 26 MJ/L is
lower than either that of petrol or fuel oil, as its relative density is
lower (about 0.5-0.58, compared to 0.71-0.77 for gasoline)."

>which doesn't have that much to do with how much power you can
> make.

Which does has much to do with how much power you can make, 'cos other
factors come into it action as above, and how you provide the LPG into the
combustion chamber and the techniques
you use to do that.

> it's about consumption. That's why you use more LPG to produce
> the same power.

Finally said something that make clear sense. More LPG to produce same
power, right?
Good statement. So, how you gonna win your argument about LPG producing more
power, if you have to use more LPG?!!
I would love to know.

Caloric value is direcly related to how much energy you can get from
it.Which in turn directly related to power.
How you go about getting that power is how you use the technology to get
that power from the fuel.

>
> You are clearly clueless.

You are beyond clueless.

>
>>That's the equation I know.
>

> Clearly, you can't differentiate between an uninformed opinion and
> knowledge.

You don't offer lot of knowledge. Just your (un)informed opinions, based on
few theoritical clues here and there.

>
>>If you wanna prove me wrong, you gonna have to better than bringing in
>>your
>>subjective experience.
>

> I see, so you introduce your subjective experience, but you devalue
> that of those whose experience means that they would know more about
> it than you. Interesting exercise in logic.

I haven't devalue anybody's experience, subjective or otherwise.

An individual who spends a fortune on a conversion then drives million kms
and then brags about his savings?
No, that opinion is irrelevant for the majority of drivers who drive LPG
converted vehicles that aren't
converted properly to get the best benefit of fuel economy and perfomrance
of an LPG vehicle.

The same way, your so called 'informed opinion' is irrelevant to the
majority of who drives LPG converted vehicles.

There a big difference between parroting few theoritical 'facts' and the
practical reality out there.

>
>>> Until very recently I had two vehicles fitted with injected vapour lpg
>>> systems. I still have one (with the same Prinns system being used on
>>> both
>>> cars) and their performance is/was indistinguishable between gas and
>>> petrol.

>>
>>Rubbish.
>>Indistinguishable as you say, not better.
>

> You are the loon who introduced better....

Talk for yourself.

You are the goon, bragging about LPG engines lasting million kms and five
times the petrol engine lifespan and
and more and more bullshit about LPG even producing more power per litre
than petrol.
The crap list goes on and on.

>
>>And you have spend a fortune on
>>the conversion to get that result.

>>And you won't be getting your money back, unless you're a really high
>>mileage commuter.
>>

>>Furthermore, haven't measured the HP to come to that conclusion. Just
>>heresay based on your subjective experience.
>>Reality for the majority of the cars are far different from what you are
>>conveying.
>

> The reality is that you don't have a damned clue. Gas conversions are
> subject the same regulatory tests for emissions as new vehicles. That
> means that the power curves and consumption curves are done to
> standards for the government.

>
>>It is possible for LPG to match the HP of Petrol. But, you have to give
>>considerable attention to ignition system and fuel system modifications to
>>achieve that.
>

> Actually, you don't.

Actually, you do.

>
>>Most installers won't go anywhere near that trouble, but doing the best
>>with
>>what they have to make their money.
>

> You can't just slap any combination of parts on - it has to be a kit
> of approved parts in an approved combination with an approved
> installation technique.

Nobody said otherwise.
Everybody knows you can't put a Camry engine in a Corolla.

>
>>Find me an installer or conversion kit that guarantee better HP per
>>volume(or rather weight) of fuel unit, I will zip my mouth, and won't
>>argue
>>with you.
>

> I'm staggered by what passes for logic with you. When someone says
> that the power is the same, there is absolutely no need for them to
> demonstrate more power.

You brought in the crap argument about LPG being able to produce more power.
Go back and read your own stuff.

>
> That is idiotic, to say the very least.

It's beyond idiotic to invent the crap and change it when it suits you, even
in a single post.

>
>>> I've been using lpg powered vehicles for over 30 years and in that time
>>> I've seen some *appallingly* bad conversions,
>>
>>Now you're talking
>>
>>> but in almost every single case the resulting performance loss was the
>>> fault of the installer in doing a terrible job.
>>
>>Finally we're agreeing on something.
>>
>>>
>>> A vehicle fitted with a properly installed and tuned injected system
>>> (either vapour or liquid) would be impossible to detect running on
>>> either
>>> fuel.
>>
>>Not impossible, but acceptable.
>
> No, impossible to detect. That's the fact. The driver won't be able
> to tell.

Correction, an average driver won't be able to tell.

>
>>But, how about the cost of such conversions my man.

>>Does the subsidy cover anywhere near the total cost of such good
>>conversions?
>

> Irrelevant to your claims.

Go back and read the thread heading to educate yourself then.

>
>>And add that to the subsidy going kaput soon and price of lpg keeps sky
>>rocketing.
>

> The subsidy is hardly relevant to a gas fitter, just a bonus.

>
>>You won't be laughing..
>

> LPG will be around a lot longer than petrol....

That another ill informed grand assumption of yours.

>
>>>> If I uderstand it correclty, majority of the LPG cost for the
>>>> manufacturer
>>>> goes into storing it, and also special
>>>> means of transportation. Otherwise, it was a waste product.
>>>
>>> LPG is a by-product of the crude oil refining process, but that's not
>>> it's
>>> only source. It also comes from natural gas.

>>
>>I know that. Regardless of some daydreamers like to believe, it ain't
>>forever.
>

> I don't recall anyone suggesting that it did.

There are many loons in the conservative daydreamers camp who believes it
ain't gonna run out .

> Though there was a loon
> who suggested that it was a waste product, when it never has been.

That 'loon' actually got a fair bit more of a clue than you do.

LPG was a waste product up until methods were devised to contain it, and use
it.
During early stages of refining crude oil, whatever LPG produced was
simply wasted.
And the same happened with NG, that came out during the the process of
accessing Petroleum,
which also was a source of LPG.

>
>>>> My point.
>>>
>>> I'm sorry, but it's not exactly clear what your point is, other than you
>>> being unhappy with the current price.

>>
>>That is my point man.
>>The ridiculously rising price is only the tip of the iceberg.
>>And I can see clearly where it's heading. It's been happening for years.
>>It doesn't make any sense economically to apply high excise on a
>>relatively
>>clean source of fuel, that doesn't cost heaps extra to produce it, but
>>only
>>to store it.
>

> It doesn't have high excise.

Oh yes. My bad. That was figurative. Let me correct.
Comparatively higher excise, I meant to say.
I think that will keep your brain happy.

and the recent hike of LPG price has been connected with
excise increase. Assuming that is true, that contibuted to my 'unhappiness',
and the launch of this thread,
which in turn obviously made you unhappy, but not intended though.

> Which kind of illustrates the depth of
> your knowledge of the subject, which isn't so much as ankle deep.

The problem with that metaphor is finding a measuring unit, may be
impossible, in order to describe the depth of your so called self proclaimed
experties in this area.

>
>>It's a depleting source of energy. We ought to do a better job with it and
>>we can do far better job with our policies.
>

> This appears to a random statement of more irrelevance than usual.

Nope, it a well thought, pre-planned statement.
Obviously not intended to stimulate your brain stem.


Cheers

[Damian]

"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message

news:ljutf9p3kld3h0go2...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 05:24:15 +1100, "Damian"
> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> Surely you can provide something to support your argument.
>>> Even ABS figures?
>>
>>Do you really believe ABS have all the right figures. They don't even have
>>a
>>record of my existence.
>

> That's their good fortune.

Or my good forune.

>
>>I combined common sense with my observations and waited for other to
>>squash
>>my agrument, before I provide any reputable stats.
>

> You really don't seem to have any knowledge of the subject,

I do now, thanks to you. :-))

> but that
> doesn't seem to have had any effect on the level of certainty that you
> think you know it well. ;)

I never implied or alluded to such certainity. Merely initiated a
conversation+debate.

You being personally hurt with my posts is probably understandable.

It was not the intention.

[Damian]

"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message

news:li3uf9dbtujuhftls...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:59:19 +1100, "Damian"
> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message

>>news:9v1rf9dl2dao9kim3...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> He was just telling
>>> you that his conversions paid for themselves in a year, which
>>> apparently, you understood as them being broken in a year, and that
>>> compared with running with petrol, he has been saving money since
>>> then.
>>
>>Ok, I give you point on that. I put a coma between the two words.. :-)
>>And that happened in my mind.
>>But, in my defence, I was sleep deprived, and probably hallucinating?!
>>
> That's a good defence

No, it's a lousy defence. It's just an excuse. That's why I hope I won't
survive to Rod's age.
'cos I fear, non of the things I write may make any sense, by the time I get
to around 150 years old. ;-)

> and could explain the very many logical and
> factual lapses you have made in this thread.

If there were any(which I believe could be), they weren't the most of the
ones you have been screaming about.

You've unloaded quite a collection of illogical and factual discrepancies
yourself. Not too hard to spot them.

[Xeno Lith]

On 16/02/2014 3:30 AM, Damian wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> No, I meant pre-unleaded. It was the lead in petrol that enabled
>> manufacturers to skimp on valve seats, oftentimes simply machining them
>> into the cast iron. The lead provided the valve face and seat with a
>> hardened "skin" which resisted wear. Move to unleaded - need for tougher
>> valves and seats. The move to LPG much earlier caused the issue. A lot of
>> people, like one of my co-workers, didn't uprate the valves, etc. at the
>> time of LPG conversion and opted to do it when required. Of course, they
>> were the ones who whinged the most when their valves burnt out.
>
> Many cylinder heads these days come as Aluminium alloy ones, yet the problem
> still exists, they use valve seats that can't withstand
> the valve seats. The solution was to use 'stainless steel' seats.
> Most converstions didn't do that and got the cylinder head wrecked in no
> time.
> This was one of the major reasons contributed to the power loss of LPG
> vehicles.

I can't see how valve seat recession affects, or contributes to, the
power loss experienced by LPG vehicles.

>
>>>
>>>> When the switch to unleaded came about, manufacturers were forced to
>>>> address the issue of valve seat recession.
>>>
>>> How did they address it?
>>>
>> Harder valves and valve seats.
>
> I'm not too sure manufacturers actually addressed it to the required level
> or addressed it at all.
> LPG conversions that needed to be done properly, still needed to strengthen
> the valve seats,
> and sometime valves as well.
>

It has been since the advent of unleaded. Running unleaded is no
different with respect to valve and seat life than is LPG. In fact, for
the "extended" reasons Paul set out, LPG should still be the better
option over a liquid fuel.

If you did, you would agree with me that electronics are the way to go.

> I had cars, in which the electronic parts of EFI system, died suddenly in
> the middle of nowhere.
> That's the magic of electronic components.
> And the only solution is a total replacement, which ain't easy, 'cos you
> don't carry parts like that.

You can.... typically, the crank angle sensor is a known point of
failure.... a spare wouldn't go astray. People used to carry such items
as spare radiator hoses. What's the difference now?

Melbourne is one of the worst polluted cities in the world - on given
days and that has more to do with geographics than population density.

>
> Emission control regulations that may have brought in the advanced EFI
> systems quicker, may have triggered by pollution issue.
> But, don't kid yourself. The only solution to pollution is not the measly
> addressing of the problem by reducing a tiny amount
> of toxic gas from a car. Ditching the carby's aint' gonna save the planet or
> our health, but ditching the gasoline will.
> We are only patching the problem, in a pathetic way we usually address the
> environmental pollution issues.
> Jump from carbys to EFI is another of those quasi solutions.

Jump form carburetors to EFI addressed a number of issues on top of
emissions control, performance and economy being two others. As well,
the emissions requirement required a car to stay in tune for long
interval, closed loop EFI systems allowed that as well.


--

Xeno

[D Walford]

Only on pre (1986) unleaded petrol cars, the modifications needed for
ULP are more of less the same for LPG.
There are always exceptions to every rule but cars that won't last
running on LPG won't last running on ULP either.


--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 16/02/14 7:28 AM, Damian wrote:

> It's completely possible.
> But, also possible Licensed E class gas fitter won't disclose all the
> negative effects of
> some LPG conversions due to the conflict of interest.

What negative effects?

> And independant observer with relevant knowledge won't have that issue.

Of course they won't, because there aren't any to worry about. There are
many positives associated with lpg use, but no negatives.

> But, then again, you have zero knowledge about my credentials, but
> assumptions of
> my "cluelessness" and "loon-ness".

It is abundantly clear from your posts that you know very little about
the subject in question. Of course, if that assessment is wrong, then
feel free to cite your credentials and prove otherwise.

> Wow! Million kilometers?
> What did I do wrong to go through two heads already?

You own an RB30 powered car, and they're famous for head failures. That
has nothing to do with lpg in and of itself.

What was the cause of yours?

> Really? So, what did I and many other's got wrong?

Who knows? What actually *is* the problem you have?

> What facts?

he ones you seem to be completely ignorant of :)

LPG does *not* damage engines, but don't take my word for it. Have a
google. There's *stacks* of information out there if you want to look
for it.

> http://www.amrautos.co.uk/index.php/lpg-systems
>
> This is also a good article.
>
> http://gas2.org/2013/07/09/5-reasons-to-not-convert-your-car-to-propane/
>
> This is even better.
>
> http://www.ijest.info/docs/IJEST10-02-10-063.pdf
>
> Thia ia also a good read for you.
>
> http://www.slideshare.net/ucsp/experimental-study-of-the-effects-of-lpg-on-spark-ignition-engine-performance
>
> This another balanced, tiny amount of info
>
> http://www.mynrmacommunity.com/motoring/2007/11/19/lpg-vs-petrol/

Thank for that. They're amusing to say the least, but how about you
quote the relevant bits that you think are important?

Personally I was *very* amused by the "study" that seemed to be
suggesting that lpg use was responsible for cylinder head casting
corrosion after 1000hrs of use :)

> NO they don't. It's a theoritical fallacy, with little regard to practical
> applications out there.

Little regard to practical applications? You have to be taking the piss :)

Over 90% of the country's taxi fleet have run on lpg for decades and
they get mileages out of their engines in the millions of km's and there
are basically two reasons for that. One is because their engines tend to
be always warm (most cabs run 24 hours a day) and the other is because
of the fuel they use.

I'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining the intricacies of that
to you as I suspect it'll fall largely on deaf ears, but if you
*honestly* believe there are no practical examples of the benefits of
lpg as a motor fuel then you are either being a troll or are incredibly
ignorant.

> There's very good reason many mechanics advise not to rev the motor during a
> cold start, but idle it for few minutes.

What does that have to do with lpg use specifically?

> I see the same with your amazing claims.

There is nothing whatsoever "amazing" about Paul's claims, unless you
happen to consider "truth" to be an "amazing concept".

I suspect it's a unique one to you though...

> Like million kilometers before major overhaul, like five times the life
> expenctance of a petrol engine.
> Are you for real at all?

Not only is he, but I am as well. I've seen it *many* times.

> Have you ever owned a duel fuel(oh sorry bi-fuel) car at all?

I can't speak for Paul but I've owned a number of them myself. Maybe 20,
maybe more I can't remember, and have worked on *hundreds* over the
years. I fully support everything Paul has said and disagree with
everything you've mentioned so far.

> Where's your data about those grand claims as above?

The "data" is out there in the real world, in all those "practical
examples" that you reckon don't exist.

There are *thousands* of lpg fueled vehicles in this country (it's the
third most popular auto fuel behind petrol and diesel) and it's used in
a variety of applications from cars and trucks, forklifts, stationary
engines and other industrial applications. I've even seen lawn mowers
and tractors converted to lpg use :)

As a fuel it causes no problems in and of itself, and in fact it
*extends* engine life simply because of how it burns compared to petrol.
You can get performance and reliability problems associated with a
shonky *conversion*, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fuel
itself.

You can get problems with petrol systems too.

> Here you go again. Inventing pointless counter arguments as you go.

Fucking hell.

Mate, do yourself a favour. By a dictionary and look up "Irony".

> Noted.
> But, I have far better capacity than you would ever imagine.

I don't mean to be rude (for a change) but I'd bet my house on your
capacity being extremely limited.

> If you are an installer, retailer or a wholesaler, my ideas defly may hurt
> you.
> But that ain't intended.

I'm not an installer (even though I've installed my share of gas kits
over the years) but I couldn't care less about your ideas either way.

You are completely, utterly and totally wrong, and couldn't be any
*more* wrong if you actually wanted to be.

> And conveniently ignoring how quickly that power curve deteriorated.

Is that right?

My current daily driver is an RA Rodeo 3.5 petrol automatic that was
converted to a Prinns injected vapour system in 2008. Since then the gas
system hasn't so much as had the dust wiped off it as far as "servicing"
goes, and it's been 100% reliable with no power loss or increase in fuel
consumption.

It simply performs flawlessly and cuts the running costs of the vehicle
by around 40%.

> Finally said something that make clear sense. More LPG to produce same
> power, right?
> Good statement. So, how you gonna win your argument about LPG producing more
> power, if you have to use more LPG?!!
> I would love to know.

Love to know all you like, but I suspect you're not going to understand
even if someone bothered to explain it to you in detail.

However, try this on for size. LPG used in cars is a "compromise"
arrangement, and by that I mean it works as well as it can in engines
that were never built to use it specifically. Tailor the engine to suit
the fuel and the equation changes dramatically, and you only have to
look at vehicles like a dedicated gas Falcon to see how well it compares
to Petrol.

The Egas and 95ron FG Falcons use the same basic engines and make the
same power, and the fuel consumption difference between them is around a
couple of percent in favour of the petrol version. This is *way* more
than made up for in the cost of running the egas version overall, and
that minimal difference between the two is due entirely to the egas
Falcon's engine being built specifically to run on lpg.

> I haven't devalue anybody's experience, subjective or otherwise.

Well, yeah, you have, as you simply dismiss anything that you don't
agree with.

> An individual who spends a fortune on a conversion then drives million kms
> and then brags about his savings?
> No, that opinion is irrelevant for the majority of drivers who drive LPG
> converted vehicles that aren't
> converted properly to get the best benefit of fuel economy and perfomrance
> of an LPG vehicle.

And as I've asked you previously, and as you apparently keep ignoring,
what exactly is your experience and/or qualifications in this field that
permits you to know such things?

> The same way, your so called 'informed opinion' is irrelevant to the
> majority of who drives LPG converted vehicles.

How is it "irrelevant" exactly?

> There a big difference between parroting few theoritical 'facts' and the
> practical reality out there.

Sure there is, and what *you* need to show is that the tripe you serve
up as "fact", actually *is* factual and not just some figment of your
imagination.

I'll tell you this: I've worked in the automotive industry for 30 years.
I'm both a qualified mechanic and automotive machinist (if you don't
know what that is then I'd suggest you look it up). I've worked for
other people and ran my own service and repair business and I've worked
on *hundreds* of cars over the years, a great many of which have been
lpg powered, and still do in my spare time to this day.

In *my* opinion, everything you've said on the matter thus far is
unmitigated rubbish of the highest order, and I'm quite convinced that
you don't know shit from shoe polish as far as this subject is concerned.






-
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Damian]

"Xeno Lith" <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldn4jn$r25$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 15/02/2014 4:03 PM, Damian wrote:
>> "Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message

>> news:79qof9l1rsnu4tr62...@4ax.com...

>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:00:53 +1100, "Damian"
>>> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.
>>>>

>>>> No, it's not. The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc
>>>> makes
>>>> it worthless.
>>>
>>> What on earth are you on about? LPG typically increases engine life
>>> by about five times.
>>
>> Paul,
>> That a one grand claim.
>> Would you be kind enough to send me a link of literature about it?
>>
>>
> Just look at the lifespan of taxis and you'll get the drift.

You can't use taxis as an example of LPG productivity and it's positive
affect on engine.

Life span of taxis(engine wise) mainly a result of,

1)Proper factory LPG installtions(no dodgy installations)
2)Taxis are always running. cold-warm cycles are massively reduced.
3)They are straight gas, no dual fuel, again proper factory installation,
finely tuned. not a cheap conversion.

These things doesn't happen with average passenger cars, for obvious
reasons, they aren't taxis.

>Petrol wash on cold start wears cylinder bores quite a lot.

That's a chemical fallacy. Petrol chemistry is slightly different to LPG,
yet it enters the cylinder as atomized, vapourized gas, just like
LPG.
I've heard mechanics who aren't in favour of LPG, uses the same argument in
opposite direction(says LPG is bad for the engine 'cos it's too 'dry')

> LPG enters the cylinders as a gas,

So, does petrol. That's how you get a successful combustion and the maximum
possible power from petrol.

> hence no wash effect.

There's no such effect. It's the cold start process that causes the engine
wear, petrol or lpg or otherwise.
Bores are not properly lubricated and way too cold. Hence slightly extra
friction than healthy. Hence, extra wear everytime you cold start.
There are additives that claim to reduce that effect. But, I dunno about
their effectiveness.

Even if you argue there's such effect, then there's no difference between
petrol and lpg in regards to that, since both fuels enters the combustion
chamber as a gas.
Chemically, the 'wash effect' is equal.

You are reffering to the degreasing effect of petrol, which doesn't happen
'cos the form petrol enters into the combustion chamber, which is as a gas.

>Bores remain lubricated! Back in the days when taxis ran on petrol (a long
>time ago), they were always warm hence fuel wash of the bores was never an
>issue.

It's not an issue now either, for the same reason, 'cos , taxis are always
running and warm, either petrol or lpg.

>

[Rod Speed]

"Damian" <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldpevt$ve0$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "Xeno Lith" <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ldn4jn$r25$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 15/02/2014 4:03 PM, Damian wrote:
>>> "Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
>>> news:79qof9l1rsnu4tr62...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:00:53 +1100, "Damian"
>>>> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it's not. The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc
>>>>> makes
>>>>> it worthless.
>>>>
>>>> What on earth are you on about? LPG typically increases engine life
>>>> by about five times.
>>>
>>> Paul,
>>> That a one grand claim.
>>> Would you be kind enough to send me a link of literature about it?
>>>
>>>
>> Just look at the lifespan of taxis and you'll get the drift.
>
> You can't use taxis as an example of LPG productivity and it's positive
> affect on engine.
>
> Life span of taxis(engine wise) mainly a result of,
>
> 1)Proper factory LPG installtions(no dodgy installations)

Bullshit.

> 2)Taxis are always running.

Bullshit.

> cold-warm cycles are massively reduced.
> 3)They are straight gas, no dual fuel,

Bullshit.

> again proper factory installation,

Bullshit.

> finely tuned. not a cheap conversion.

Bullshit.

> These things doesn't happen with average passenger cars, for obvious
> reasons, they aren't taxis.
>
>>Petrol wash on cold start wears cylinder bores quite a lot.
>
> That's a chemical fallacy.

Bullshit.

Petrol chemistry is slightly different to LPG,
> yet it enters the cylinder as atomized, vapourized gas, just like
> LPG.

Bullshit.

> I've heard mechanics who aren't in favour of LPG, uses the same argument
> in opposite direction(says LPG is bad for the engine 'cos it's too 'dry')

Only the fools that don’t have a fucking clue.

>> LPG enters the cylinders as a gas,

> So, does petrol.

Bullshit.

That's how you get a successful combustion and the maximum
> possible power from petrol.

Not always possible in all circumstances.

>> hence no wash effect.
>
> There's no such effect.

Bullshit.

It's the cold start process that causes the engine
> wear, petrol or lpg or otherwise.

Bullshit.

> Bores are not properly lubricated and way too cold. Hence slightly extra
> friction than healthy. Hence, extra wear everytime you cold start.
> There are additives that claim to reduce that effect. But, I dunno about
> their effectiveness.
>
> Even if you argue there's such effect, then there's no difference between
> petrol and lpg in regards to that, since both fuels enters the combustion
> chamber as a gas.

Bullshit.

> Chemically, the 'wash effect' is equal.

Bullshit.

> You are reffering to the degreasing effect of petrol, which doesn't happen
> 'cos the form petrol enters into the combustion chamber, which is as a
> gas.

Bullshit.

>>Bores remain lubricated! Back in the days when taxis ran on petrol (a long
>>time ago), they were always warm hence fuel wash of the bores was never an
>>issue.
>
> It's not an issue now either, for the same reason, 'cos , taxis are always
> running and warm, either petrol or lpg.

Bullshit.

[Noddy]

On 16/02/14 3:31 PM, Damian wrote:

> You can't use taxis as an example of LPG productivity and it's positive
> affect on engine.

What a load of shit. They're the *perfect* vehicle to use to highlight
the benefits of lpg use :)

> Life span of taxis(engine wise) mainly a result of,
>
> 1)Proper factory LPG installtions(no dodgy installations)

The overwhelming majority of taxi's (and I'm talking 99% or better) use
aftermarket kits and have done for decades.

> 2)Taxis are always running. cold-warm cycles are massively reduced.

As I mentioned in another post, running warm is one of the two principal
factors in the longevity of their engines, despite being operated by
some of the worst drivers known to human kind.

LPG being used as a fuel is the other one.

> 3)They are straight gas, no dual fuel, again proper factory installation,
> finely tuned. not a cheap conversion.

Taxi's don't use factory gas systems, or if they do it's in *very*
limited numbers.

> These things doesn't happen with average passenger cars, for obvious
> reasons, they aren't taxis.

You're away with the fairies. There is nothing to stop anyone with a
similar model car from having the exact same gas kit as a taxi has.

> That's a chemical fallacy. Petrol chemistry is slightly different to LPG,
> yet it enters the cylinder as atomized, vapourized gas, just like
> LPG.

Right, thanks.

After this comment it is abundantly clear that you have no idea about
what you're talking about, and I'm not wasting any more time with you.






--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Xeno Lith]

Except when the engine is cold. Ever wondered why manifolds were heated
by water or exhaust gases? I'll give you a clue - it's better fuel
vapourisation. That doesn't happen when the engine is cold so the choke
or an enriched mixture is used.

> I've heard mechanics who aren't in favour of LPG, uses the same argument in
> opposite direction(says LPG is bad for the engine 'cos it's too 'dry')

They weren't mechanics...

>
>> LPG enters the cylinders as a gas,
>
> So, does petrol. That's how you get a successful combustion and the maximum
> possible power from petrol.

Cold starts was the wash effect I was referring to. A taxi rarely does
cold starts so fuel wash is less likely and bore wear minimal. An LPG
fueled car has NO cold start bore wash.

>
>> hence no wash effect.
>
> There's no such effect. It's the cold start process that causes the engine
> wear, petrol or lpg or otherwise.

In the inimitable words of Pauline, "Please explain?"

> Bores are not properly lubricated and way too cold. Hence slightly extra
> friction than healthy. Hence, extra wear everytime you cold start.
> There are additives that claim to reduce that effect. But, I dunno about
> their effectiveness.

Your explanation is lacking in technical detail. Please elaborate.

>
> Even if you argue there's such effect, then there's no difference between
> petrol and lpg in regards to that, since both fuels enters the combustion
> chamber as a gas.
> Chemically, the 'wash effect' is equal.
>
> You are reffering to the degreasing effect of petrol, which doesn't happen
> 'cos the form petrol enters into the combustion chamber, which is as a gas.

At the risk of sounding repetitive here, it's a liquid when the engine
is cold and it does wash the oil off cylinder walls.

>
>> Bores remain lubricated! Back in the days when taxis ran on petrol (a long
>> time ago), they were always warm hence fuel wash of the bores was never an
>> issue.
>
> It's not an issue now either, for the same reason, 'cos , taxis are always
> running and warm, either petrol or lpg.
>

The fuel wash is still an issue for petrol fueled vehicles though, due
to better atomisation through injection, not as great an issue as it was
with carburetors.


--

Xeno

[Damian]

"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message

news:jl3uf919nmvnsrssq...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 16:03:21 +1100, "Damian"
> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message
>>news:79qof9l1rsnu4tr62...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 14:00:53 +1100, "Damian"
>>> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> No, it is still substantially cheaper than petrol.
>>>>
>>>>No, it's not. The conversion cost, wear and tear on engine, etc, etc
>>>>makes
>>>>it worthless.
>>>
>>> What on earth are you on about? LPG typically increases engine life
>>> by about five times.
>>
>>Paul,
>>That a one grand claim.
>

> Actually, it isn't. Nothing unusual about it, and anyone involved
> with automotive engineering should be well aware of the reasons for
> it.

>
>>Would you be kind enough to send me a link of literature about it?
>

> What makes you think that the data is available in that fashion?
>
> Anyone who has experience with taxi fleets should be able to tell you
> all about it,

I have my own experience in that department.

>typical engine life is one million km before major
> overhaul. That is what the manufacturers data says too.

Life span of taxis(engine wise) mainly a result of,

1)Proper factory LPG installtions(no dodgy installations)

2)Taxis are always running. cold-warm high friction cycles are massively

reduced.
3)They are straight gas, no dual fuel, again proper factory installation,
finely tuned. not a cheap conversion.

These things usually doesn't happen with average passenger cars, for obvious

reasons, they aren't taxis.

That is why you can't quote a single passenger car that has done million kms
or the engine lasting five times.
It's another myth perpetuated by dodgy installers.

>
> Why?
>
> LPG doesn't wash oil off the cylinders - this greatly reduces ring,
> piston and cylinder wear.

That is a fallacious argument with zero factual basis. There's no such 'wash
effect'.
Ring, piston wear at a cold start happens regardless of petrol or lpg.

The form LPG enters into the combustion chamger = the form Petrol enters the
combusiton chamber

This is the very reason, LPG conversions are possible with petrol internal
combustion engines.

Otherwise we would have to have a massively differently engineered engine
for LPG, just like a diesel engine.

If you spray raw petrol into the bore it would do what you say, but no
chance of getting the engine started. :-)

>
> LPG combustion doesn't produce much in the way of carbon deposits.
> This greatly reduces engine wear,

In theory, yes. But, you're ignoring many other factors like

> it also stops EGR valves from
> clogging.

No, it doesn't. It can reduce it, depend on the setup.
In my car, it hasn't done anything like that, and many other cars I've
serviced.

AFAIK, EGR is not required for straight lpg and having it can even affect
the performance.


> PCV valves from clogging, guides from getting gunged up and
> so on. This greatly reduces engine wear.

This is another fallacy. In petrol cars, people should change the oil
following manufacturers handbook.
Not wait, until oil gets pitch black and sludgy.
Same applies to LPG cars, oil should be changed regardless of looking fine,
following manufacturers handbook.

>It also greatly reduces
> particulate contamination of the oil, again, reducing wear.

That's another one of your theories.

>
> Also, a fair bit of compression and oil ring issues are actually
> related to carbon gunging up the rings and preventing free movement.

There's no evidence to support that theory either. Engine wear is caused
mainly by owners unnecessarily high reving a cold motor,
No body in their right mind waits for the carbon to gung up in and around
piston rings.
The nice colour of the oil in LPG cars ain't any good indication of oil
condition.

> LPG knocks that kind of issue right on the head.

No, it doesn't. The owner still need to maintain and service the LPG car,
just like a petrol car.
As a matter of fact, give extra attention to car on LPG. For example, even
consider using LPG complient oil, spark plugs,
leads, etc.

>
> Virtually all cars produced since 1985 have hardened valve seats, so
> valve seat recession is not an issue, as it would have been with many
> vehicles pre-unleaded.

This another made up story.
I've noticed enough cars made way after 1985 with thermal splitting and
valve seat damage.
My own car is one of them.
No body in their right mind relies on the manufacturer to make the car out
of the factory, super ready for
LPG. They are built for Petrol, not for LPG.

>
> One issue is that some people wait till the oil gets black before
> changing it.

Correct.

> This can cause problems with LPG, as the oil tends not
> to get black, due to little carbon production, so to those people, the
> oil is still good, but LPG still produces acid contamination, like
> petrol or diesel burning does, and the additive pack in the oil is
> still depleted, so it does need to be changed on interval.

Finally said something I can agree with, but dunno about acid contamination.
But, you're dead right on weakening of any useful additives in oil in LPG
cars,
yet oil looks nice and clean.
LPG grade oil is probably a better choice for those people who waits unitl
the oil gets black in their LPG engines.

[Xeno Lith]

Think cold engine.

Think what it is that vapourises the atomised fuel.

Think again about that cold engine.....

>
> This is the very reason, LPG conversions are possible with petrol internal
> combustion engines.
>
> Otherwise we would have to have a massively differently engineered engine
> for LPG, just like a diesel engine.

Diesel is a totally different ball game. For a start, it's CI, not SI.
Run from there....

>
> If you spray raw petrol into the bore it would do what you say, but no
> chance of getting the engine started. :-)
>

Think mixture enrichment....

Think how crappy carbureted engines run until they warm up enough to
properly vapourise the fuel.

My petrol engined Toyota Corolla gets its oil changed long before it
gets overly discoloured.

>
>> LPG knocks that kind of issue right on the head.
>
> No, it doesn't. The owner still need to maintain and service the LPG car,
> just like a petrol car.
> As a matter of fact, give extra attention to car on LPG. For example, even
> consider using LPG complient oil, spark plugs,
> leads, etc.

Extra attention to "LPG complient" (sic) spark plugs, leads, etc??? Why?

>
>>
>> Virtually all cars produced since 1985 have hardened valve seats, so
>> valve seat recession is not an issue, as it would have been with many
>> vehicles pre-unleaded.
>
> This another made up story.

No it is not.

> I've noticed enough cars made way after 1985 with thermal splitting and
> valve seat damage.

Other reasons will cause this and they have nothing to do with LPG use
other than maybe running the LPG a little on the lean side.

> My own car is one of them.
> No body in their right mind relies on the manufacturer to make the car out
> of the factory, super ready for
> LPG. They are built for Petrol, not for LPG.

They are built for an unleaded fuel. LPG is an unleaded fuel.

>
>>
>> One issue is that some people wait till the oil gets black before
>> changing it.
>
> Correct.
>
>> This can cause problems with LPG, as the oil tends not
>> to get black, due to little carbon production, so to those people, the
>> oil is still good, but LPG still produces acid contamination, like
>> petrol or diesel burning does, and the additive pack in the oil is
>> still depleted, so it does need to be changed on interval.
>
> Finally said something I can agree with, but dunno about acid contamination.

Acid contamination occurs on LPG and petrol.

> But, you're dead right on weakening of any useful additives in oil in LPG
> cars,

Used oil can be recycled by cleaning the contaminants out and adding the
additives back in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_oil_recycling

http://tinyurl.com/l8vhzwd

http://tinyurl.com/lra6kj5

> yet oil looks nice and clean.
> LPG grade oil is probably a better choice for those people who waits unitl

The only significant problem LPG has is oil nitration. This will affect
bearing wear, especially if you extend the oil life beyond the
recommended oil change interval. You can get specialised oils that
contains additives to counter the effect of nitration but some diesel
oils already have that ability. You need to refer to the makers
recommendations as to the minimum standards, then add LPG as a factor,
for the oil you intend to use.

> the oil gets black in their LPG engines.
>

It's never a good idea to wait until the oil gets black. I change by
time/mileage/type of use and, as I noted above, the oil changes in my
current car are due long before any visible degradation of the oil occurs.
>


--

Xeno

[Damian]

"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message

news:9gh0g9dtoi8c07e17...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 18:31:05 +1100, "Damian"

> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message

>>news:jq5sf9to0ff4r3tsj...@4ax.com...

>>> On Fri, 14 Feb 2014 22:52:40 +1100, Xeno Lith
>>> <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Most used kits are dual fuel. I would go LPG injection and turf petrol
>>>>out were I to convert my car.
>>>

>>> I don't know why, but most people seem to confuse bi-fuel with dual
>>> fuel. There are hardly any dual fuel systems with LPG in Australia.
>>> Bi-fuel means that you can use one fuel or the other,
>>
>>Hmmm...........i think this is semantics.
>
> Of course it is. The words have different meanings. Are you under
> the impression that the meaning of a word is not paramount for
> communication?
>
>>So, shall we call bi-sexuals as dual-sexuals?! 'cos the information I've
>>received so far,
>>fellas and girls with that sort of orientation are both at the same time
>>:-)
>
> This is an engineering matter. When SAE International start defining
> the terms used for sexual orientation, we may revisit your argument.
> For now, it is irrelevant.
>
>>I think the terms are interchangeable, in practice means the same thing.
>
> You may think what you wish. The terms and practice are not the same.

Can you explain then why the term dual fuel has been in use for decades,
including LPG professionals?

>
>>If we get into the semantics, this confusion will end up in many areas
>>including mathemtics, physics, psychology, etc, etc.etc.
>
> Clearly, you find meaning meaningless, and seem to think that is
> worthy of pride.

Nope, that's your problem.
I invite you to take it back and apply to yourself, it's a better match.

>
>>My conlusion is that,
>>it looks like dual fuel meaning of one type of fuel at a given time is
>>here
>>to stay.
>
> I don't recall asking the ignorant to become knowledgable, I merely
> expressed surprise at the ignorance.

So, you're so called knowledgeable genius can't do a damn thing about people
using the wrong term for decades, eh?!
Other than whinging about it here?!
That's too bad.
Has it ever crossed your mind people are using the term 'dual fuel' 'cos
it's the right term?!
I guess not.
'cos you thrive on counter arguments.

>
>>May be the authorities here should consider using the term "Mixed fuel"
>>for
>>truly mixed fuel systems(Like Diesel/CNG)
>
> The terms are engineering terms with defined meanings. The meaning is
> actually important.

Then it appears you got that wrong as well.
USEPA says so.

>
>>And leave "Dual fuel" with it's common meaning?! Or else start a campaign
>>on replacing the word Dual Fuel with Bi-fuel.
>>That's a suggestion.
>
> Be my guest.

No thanks. You brought up the crap. It's your job.

>
> Tell you what, next time you go to a Doctor, tell him that he is using
> the wrong terms, because they aren't the ones that you use. Just
> assume that you know better.

Funny thing smart fella, that's exactly what you've been doing here, so
why don't you go to an LPG doctor and try that out yourself?

>
>>>dual fuel means
>>> you use both at once. The most common dual fuel systems in Australia
>>> are Diesel-LPG units.
>>
>>A proper term, to avoid the confusion, should've been something like
>>"Mixed
>>Fuel" or something similar to that.
>
> The proper terms already exist.

Do they? Then why the American's use the adjective 'technically'?
A clear indication of a stuff up in terms of terminology and common sense,
let alone
dictionary meaning of the words 'dual' and 'bi'.

>
>>That because, in modern English we tend to use Bi- and Dual
>>interchangeably.
>
> Don't confuse poor English with modern English.

Try again.
'cos it's your choice if you wanna go back to 19th century England.
But, the rest of us here like to stay where we are, and use the English we
know and speak.

And where did you say you got your English literature and linguistics
degree?
Oh, you didn't say a damn thing like that, did you?
Just regurgitating about things you have little clue about, and simply
parroting your opinion as facts.
Now you are walking into the realm of engineering terminology with a
'mission' to 'educate' the 'ignorant' with
your non existent technical wisdom, which is nothing but a long suffering
poor ego issue.
I think you need that doctor more than anybody else.

In the meantime I will see my doctor as well.

>
>>There is some information here to indicate you may be 'technically' right.
>
> It is a technical discussion. There was no doubt about the
> correctness of the terms I was using, simply an expression of surprise
> at how many don't know what the words they use mean.

I'm surprised that you're surprised that nobody uses the term bi-fuel for
LPG converted vehicles.
You must have been living in a fantasy land.

Let's start again.

Read this again.

Wiki Quote 1
Bi-fuel vehicles or otherwise known as dual fuel are vehicles with multifuel
engines capable of running on two fuels. On internal combustion engines one
fuel is gasoline or diesel, and the other is an alternate fuel such as
natural gas (CNG), LPG, or hydrogen

Wiki Quote 2
Dual fuel operation means the engine uses two fuels (gas and diesel oil) at
the same time, as opposed to Bi Fuel which would mean the engine could have
the option of using either fuel separately.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-fuel_vehicle

So, who got his 'poor English' mixed with 'Modern English'. By the looks of
it, it ain't me.


Now read this:
Dual Fuel - "Technically", a dual fuel is categorized by the EPA as a "mixed
fuel" because it blends natural gas with diesel by injecting it into the
turbocharger

Source: http://www.nat-g.com/why-cng/bi-fuel-dual-fuel-dedicated/


Now try reading this:

What does "Bi-Fuel" mean?
In simple terms, Bi-Fuel can be defined as the simultaneous combustion of
two fuels. In the case of the Bi-Fuel System, natural gas is utilized in
conjunction with diesel fuel to operate the engine. After conversion, the
engine is able to operate on either 100% diesel fuel, or alternately, on a
mixture of diesel fuel and natural gas (or other methane based fuels). At no
time is the engine able to operate on natural gas exclusively.

And read this:

What about "Dual Fuel"?

The terms Bi-Fuel and Dual Fuel are often used interchangeably, however, the
U.S. EPA defines Dual-Fuel as "...vehicles or engines that have two separate
fuel systems and are designed to run on either an alternative fuel or
conventional gasoline, but using "only one fuel at a time" (A Guide to the
Emissions Certification Procedures for Alternative Fuel Aftermarket
Conversions, January 1998)

Source: http://www.energetech.com/bi-fuel-faqs.htm

So, what do you have to say about your EPA 'universal' terminology, my man?

It's time for you to cut the crap and explain where you got it terminally
mixed up.

So, who do you think got his English crapping on himself?!

By the sound of it ain't me.

Looks like you got both your English and your terminology totally screwed
up, pal.


Here's the verdict for you to take to your next English class.
I'm guessing you may like to hear from the fellas who invented the English
language.

Dual - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dual
Bi - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/bi-


>
>>But that's American terminology
>
> Actually, it is the internationally agreed terminology.

It's the EPA defined terminology.
No such animal as internationally agreed.
USEPA has no jurisdiction on the terminology the rest of the world use.
We accept it if we like, we reject it and use our own terminology if we
don't.

>
>> and even that uses the adjective
>>"technically" to describe Dual fuel definition.
>>
>>http://www.nat-g.com/why-cng/bi-fuel-dual-fuel-dedicated/
>
> The "technical" part that they discuss is not about dual versus
> bi-fuel, but about "mixed" fuels. Read more carefully.

Read above(and above) again. It's you, who need to put on your glasses and
read all over again and again until you comprehend.
I used single and double quotation marks to aid with your attention and
comprehension.


>
>>At the same time Wiki says a different thing at the beginning and says
>>another down the article.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bi-fuel_vehicle
>
> Actually, they don't. You just don't understand the meaning of what
> you have read.

Try again. and read all the above, pay attention to quoted and double quoted
ones.

>
> Semantics are important, not trivial as you seem to believe.

I would like to rub that statement back on your nose.
I didn't bring anything trivial about it, on the contrary.
It's me who brought in the semantics in a positive way, and it's you who are
exploiting it negatively.

Finally, add this to your notes, as well.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/dual-fuel+engine

Cheers

[Damian]

"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message

news:ccutf9htepigagumj...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:56:35 +1100, "Damian"
> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>When the switch to unleaded came about, manufacturers were forced to
>>>address the issue of valve seat recession.
>>
>>How did they address it?
>

> Hardened valve seats.

That's another myth. They did minimal work on that.
I've seen cars from mid to late nineties with valve seats, valves and
cylinder head damage.
My own car is a standing evidence(actually rolling)

[Damian]

"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message

news:9butf9p29mk0am61f...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 14:56:35 +1100, "Damian"
> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>

>>> The only issues I ever saw with LPG was with valve seat recession on
>>> pre-unleaded cars. That's because LPG, like unleaded, has no lead.
>>
>>You meant post-unleaded?!
>

> Your levels of comprehension are most poor.

And yours is the "poorest". 'cos I still use words that are in use. I only
invent words when I use them as a rhetoric.
I'm hoping you have a similar excuse?!

I made a figurative statement, indicating that I don't see valve seat
recession problem was fixed by manufacturers as they(or you) claim,
by hardening valve seats and valves. Their work has been minimal.
Manufacturers were under no obligation to do that, 'cos that only required
for LPG conversions.
They built the cars for petrol, not for LPG.
AFAIK, only few cars like taxis come out of factory built for LPG.

Installers spread the myth to get the number of conversions rolling, 'cos
they can do more conversions, without having
to force customers to do the cylinder head and valves. 'cos that would've
been a put off for the customer to spend all that money,
which amount to extra few grands.

and check, my grammar is slightly better than yours.
Lets not worry about comprehension, ok?
I still believe my comprehension is up to scratch, even though it's not in
the 'genius' level as yours.

Cheers

[Damian]

"Xeno Lith" <xeno...@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldoo9m$hf7$1...@dont-email.me...

I do agree with you when it comes to short distance commuting and short
distance trips.
I disagree with you when it comes to put my faith on older EFI vehicles in
the middle of nowhere( I dont trust the ECU, electronic ignition, sensors,
etc)
And it's impossible for me to carry all the parts(may be not)
I may agree with you that I have a better chance with a brand new or near
new EFI vehicle in the middle of nowhere.
But, I will still argue, my carby vehicle is, as reliable or even better
than many EFI vehicles on the road, in terms of fuel and ignition system
reliability(on very long trips).
I've seen brand new EFI Patrols crapping themselves in Birdsville track,
Oodnadatta track, simpson desert, etc, during the dusty season.


But, I'm biased 'cos I do maintain my carby fuel system and ignition system.
I like carby's and old style ignition systems, 'cos I can fiddle with them
quicker.
That comes from the belief that, that simplicity keeps me alive on solo
trips.
May not apply to everybody out there.
Having said that, I'm about to put on the EFI dongle that I've cannibalized
from a Skyline, mainly 'cos of the LPG fuel hike, and I will be upgrading
the LPG system as well.

>
>> I had cars, in which the electronic parts of EFI system, died suddenly in
>> the middle of nowhere.
>> That's the magic of electronic components.
>> And the only solution is a total replacement, which ain't easy, 'cos you
>> don't carry parts like that.
>
> You can.... typically, the crank angle sensor is a known point of
> failure.... a spare wouldn't go astray. People used to carry such items as
> spare radiator hoses. What's the difference now?

It wasn't the c/a sensor. The whole ignition unit crapped itself. Who
expects to happen that in snap of a finger?
Actually, some experienced ones do. It was a falcon, and EA EB Falcons were
known for that.

Yeah, you're right. I may be biased, 'cos my liking to tinker with minute
mechanics like carby's.

But, believe me when I say this, my earlier background was electronics, not
mechanics.
I'm no electro-phobic.
It's that I've never been a big fan of EFI systems.
It looks like I don't have much of a choice in the end anyway, do I?
Rising LPG cost is forcing me to upgrade the vehicle to EFI and a better LPG
system.
I may save a lot of trouble by getting a newer vehicle.

I didn't know that. Where did you get the info? EPA Victoria?
There has to be a good explanation if that's the case.
I always thought Sydney is worse 'cos of the number of cars.

But, if you think Australian cities are polluted, try visiting Chicago.
They are popular for their huge smog clouds and unknown diseases.

>>
>> Emission control regulations that may have brought in the advanced EFI
>> systems quicker, may have triggered by pollution issue.
>> But, don't kid yourself. The only solution to pollution is not the measly
>> addressing of the problem by reducing a tiny amount
>> of toxic gas from a car. Ditching the carby's aint' gonna save the planet
>> or
>> our health, but ditching the gasoline will.
>> We are only patching the problem, in a pathetic way we usually address
>> the
>> environmental pollution issues.
>> Jump from carbys to EFI is another of those quasi solutions.
>
> Jump form carburetors to EFI addressed a number of issues on top of
> emissions control, performance and economy being two others. As well, the
> emissions requirement required a car to stay in tune for long interval,
> closed loop EFI systems allowed that as well.

It has only bought us tiny bit of time. The only solution is to move into
electric/hydrogen/solar cars.
Truth is that it has been a possiblity for more than couple of decades now,
had we dont have the problem of corporate greed.

All those advancement of EFI technology was to comply with emission control
laws, and perhaps performance increase as a bonus,
but did it improve the reliability of a car?

[Rod Speed]

"Damian" <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldqb9u$pqt$1...@dont-email.me...

Wrong, as always.

> 2)Taxis are always running.

Wrong, as always.

> cold-warm high friction cycles are massively reduced.
> 3)They are straight gas, no dual fuel,

Wrong, as always.

> again proper factory installation,

Wrong, as always.

> finely tuned. not a cheap conversion.

Wrong, as always.

> These things usually doesn't happen with average passenger cars, for
> obvious
> reasons, they aren't taxis.
>
> That is why you can't quote a single passenger car that has done million
> kms or the engine lasting five times.
> It's another myth perpetuated by dodgy installers.
>
>>
>> Why?
>>
>> LPG doesn't wash oil off the cylinders - this greatly reduces ring,
>> piston and cylinder wear.
>
> That is a fallacious argument with zero factual basis. There's no such
> 'wash effect'.

What a terminal fuckwit.

None of the rest of your even sillier shit worth bothering with.

[Noddy]

On 17/02/14 1:34 AM, Damian wrote:

> That's another myth. They did minimal work on that.
> I've seen cars from mid to late nineties with valve seats, valves and
> cylinder head damage.
> My own car is a standing evidence(actually rolling)

Your own car is unfortunate to have such an ill-informed owner.



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[D Walford]

On 17/02/2014 1:50 AM, Damian wrote:

>
> I made a figurative statement, indicating that I don't see valve seat
> recession problem was fixed by manufacturers as they(or you) claim,
> by hardening valve seats and valves.

Name a recent model car that suffers valve seat recession running LPG?
Toyota usually state that there engines aren't suitable for LPG yet
there are many Toyota models that do a lot of kms on LPG without any
problems.

Their work has been minimal.
> Manufacturers were under no obligation to do that, 'cos that only required
> for LPG conversions.

Nonsense, its also needed for ULP.

> They built the cars for petrol, not for LPG.

Ever heard of alloy cylinder heads?
Without hardened valve seat inserts they don't work and those valve
seats are suitable for both ULP and LPG.

> AFAIK, only few cars like taxis come out of factory built for LPG.

Holden and Falcon have LPG models, neither are specifically made as
taxis, Ford used to make taxis specific models but they stopped a couple
of years ago.

>
> Installers spread the myth to get the number of conversions rolling, 'cos
> they can do more conversions, without having
> to force customers to do the cylinder head and valves. 'cos that would've
> been a put off for the customer to spend all that money,
> which amount to extra few grands.

The only myth being spread is by you, there is no need to modify most
car engine valves etc when converting to LPG.
I owned an XD Falcon panel van that did 450,000km trouble free on LPG
and it was still running fine when I sold it, it had standard valves and
valve seats.


--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 17/02/14 11:58 AM, D Walford wrote:

> Name a recent model car that suffers valve seat recession running LPG?

None that I know of :)

Even my old Jeep, which had a cast iron head with induction hardened
seats which are about as low a quality of "hard seat" as you can get,
did close to 200k km's before it died and even then it was running
perfectly right up to the point where the owner cooked the engine :)

> Toyota usually state that there engines aren't suitable for LPG yet
> there are many Toyota models that do a lot of kms on LPG without any
> problems.

Toyota are one of the few manufacturers who go out of their way to
stipulate "no lpg" on their products, and the reason seems to be that
they don't want any problems that might result from shitty installations
impacting on the "Toyota" badge.

Clearly, as you say, lpg doesn't hurt Toyotas any more than it does
anything else, and there are thousands of them out there with gas kits
on them.

> Ever heard of alloy cylinder heads?
> Without hardened valve seat inserts they don't work and those valve
> seats are suitable for both ULP and LPG.

Absolutely.

> Holden and Falcon have LPG models, neither are specifically made as
> taxis, Ford used to make taxis specific models but they stopped a couple
> of years ago.

Not a good call for them either, as while they were trying to move the
Falcon's "image" away from being a cab, taxi sales made up a fair
portion of their numbers.

> The only myth being spread is by you, there is no need to modify most
> car engine valves etc when converting to LPG.
> I owned an XD Falcon panel van that did 450,000km trouble free on LPG
> and it was still running fine when I sold it, it had standard valves and
> valve seats.

This bloke either lives by the code of ignorance being bliss, or he's a
troll.





--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Damian]

"Paul Saccani" <sac...@omen.net.au> wrote in message

news:dui0g95ct55hr8vk8...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 03:30:17 +1100, "Damian"
> <damian_a...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>Many cylinder heads these days come as Aluminium alloy ones, yet the
>>problem
>>still exists, they use valve seats that can't withstand
>>the valve seats.
>

> Sounds like nonsense, want to try again?

Yep. My bad.

"they use valve seats that can't withstand the effects of LPG"
By that I meant 90's and early 2000's.

>> The solution was to use 'stainless steel' seats.
>

> Clearly, you haven't had much to do with cylinder head reconditioning!

I've never said I have. At least not in a dedicated professional level,
defly not aluminium tig welding.
If you have, feel free to educate me. You must be an expert in the area.

Any let's call it alloy metal seats and stainless steel valves.
Does that sound better for you?

>
> Stainless steel has properties that make it unattractive for use as a
> valve seat. Not to say that it isn't done at all, but it isn't
> attractive.

What's aesthetics got to do with purely technical matter?

> Stainless valve faces, on the other hand, are attractive
> and often used - as standard.

Crap aesthetics has bot nothing to do with it.
Stainless steel is used when necessary for it's properties that aid do
reduce the valve seat, face damage.

>
>>Most converstions didn't do that and got the cylinder head wrecked in no
>>time.
>

> It would be stupid to change seats at that time.

You're right about the stupid part.

> Nor is the head
> wrecked if the seats recede excessively. One can simply recondition
> it as needed.

This is another fallacy and a scam. You can't recondition a cylinder head
for couple of hundred bucks.
It costs few grands with labour.

> It is no extra work, and instead of wasting the
> previous manufacturing steps, you have used the head.

Good for the installers and mechanics, but the car owner will be the loser.

>
> There would not be many standard heads made between fifty and thirty
> years ago

AFAIK, they didn't use many aluminium heads back then.
And you may wanna define 'standard' heads and it's relevance here.

> that would be susceptible to the rapid wear that you
> describe, and none within the last twenty five years.

That's all rubbish.
It most certainly has been happening within last 25 years.
That's the very reason car manufacturers don't give warranty or void the
warranty if you do a conversion outside factory.
The dodgy installers never tell this to the customer.

>
>>This was one of the major reasons contributed to the power loss of LPG
>>vehicles.
>

> Sounds like arrant nonsense to me.

Only if your head is full of 'arrant nonsense' already, which is very
likely.

[Noddy]

On 17/02/14 4:45 PM, Damian wrote:

> Yep. My bad.
>
> "they use valve seats that can't withstand the effects of LPG"
> By that I meant 90's and early 2000's.

And what, prey tell, *are* the effects of lpg?

> I've never said I have. At least not in a dedicated professional level,
> defly not aluminium tig welding.
> If you have, feel free to educate me. You must be an expert in the area.

To get an education, you must first be willing to *learn*. Something
tells me you aren't ready.

> Crap aesthetics has bot nothing to do with it.
> Stainless steel is used when necessary for it's properties that aid do
> reduce the valve seat, face damage.

I've fitted thousands of valve seat inserts, and not only have I never
seen a stainless steel one, but I wouldn't know where to get one from
even if they *did* make them.

Stainless steel is *not* used as a valve seat insert material. Ever. Not
by anyone who has a clue about what they're doing.

> This is another fallacy and a scam. You can't recondition a cylinder head
> for couple of hundred bucks.
> It costs few grands with labour.

If it did, I'd still be in the engine rebuilding business :)

> AFAIK, they didn't use many aluminium heads back then.
> And you may wanna define 'standard' heads and it's relevance here.

"Standard head" being made of cast iron, and cast iron is as soft as butter.

> That's all rubbish.
> It most certainly has been happening within last 25 years.
> That's the very reason car manufacturers don't give warranty or void the
> warranty if you do a conversion outside factory.

Perhaps I should ask Ford about the Warranty they supplied on my two new
Falcon utes that had after-market gas kits on them. They were perfectly
happy to warranty the cars on gas. The only thing they wouldn't cover
was the gas kit itself which had it's *own* warranty.

> The dodgy installers never tell this to the customer.

That's because it's a figment of your imagination.







--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``
Some snip, some whoosh, and generally a dogs breakfast.......

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldp1kd$802$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 16/02/14 7:28 AM, Damian wrote:
>
>> It's completely possible.
>> But, also possible Licensed E class gas fitter won't disclose all the
>> negative effects of
>> some LPG conversions due to the conflict of interest.
>
> What negative effects?

Already discussed before, over and over.

BTW, you're answering to a response meant for Mr Sacanni.
Sound's like you're filling in for him.

>
>> And independant observer with relevant knowledge won't have that issue.
>
> Of course they won't, because there aren't any to worry about. There are
> many positives associated with lpg use, but no negatives.

Absolute rubbish.

>
>> But, then again, you have zero knowledge about my credentials, but
>> assumptions of
>> my "cluelessness" and "loon-ness".
>
> It is abundantly clear from your posts that you know very little about the
> subject in question. Of course, if that assessment is wrong, then feel
> free to cite your credentials and prove otherwise.

Already have. What are yours. And from which era?

>
>> Wow! Million kilometers?
>> What did I do wrong to go through two heads already?
>
> You own an RB30 powered car,

One of them.

> and they're famous for head failures. That has nothing to do with lpg in
> and of itself.

Wonder why the LPG ones tend to crap themselves most of the time?!

>
> What was the cause of yours?

valve seats and faces and cylinlder face is 'eaten alive'

>
>> Really? So, what did I and many other's got wrong?
>
> Who knows? What actually *is* the problem you have?

Aren't you the self proclaimed expert?
I'm sure you can shed some light.

>
>> What facts?
>
> he ones you seem to be completely ignorant of :)

Or rather the scams I tend to be not so ignorant of?!

>
> LPG does *not* damage engines,

Wrong. As a general statement, it's absolutely 100% wrong.
And totally misleading as well.

>but don't take my word for it. Have a google. There's *stacks* of
>information out there if you want to look for it.

Have done that enough and sent you 'experts' enough of them to peruse at
your convenience.

>
>> http://www.amrautos.co.uk/index.php/lpg-systems
>>
>> This is also a good article.
>>
>> http://gas2.org/2013/07/09/5-reasons-to-not-convert-your-car-to-propane/
>>
>> This is even better.
>>
>> http://www.ijest.info/docs/IJEST10-02-10-063.pdf
>>
>> Thia ia also a good read for you.
>>
>> http://www.slideshare.net/ucsp/experimental-study-of-the-effects-of-lpg-on-spark-ignition-engine-performance
>>
>> This another balanced, tiny amount of info
>>
>> http://www.mynrmacommunity.com/motoring/2007/11/19/lpg-vs-petrol/
>
> Thank for that. They're amusing to say the least, but how about you quote
> the relevant bits that you think are important?

I've already done so.

>
> Personally I was *very* amused by the "study" that seemed to be suggesting
> that lpg use was responsible for cylinder head casting corrosion after
> 1000hrs of use :)

Yep. hilarious, ain't it? No so, if it happens to be your own vehicle.

>
>> NO they don't. It's a theoritical fallacy, with little regard to
>> practical
>> applications out there.
>
> Little regard to practical applications? You have to be taking the piss :)
>
> Over 90% of the country's taxi fleet have run on lpg for decades and they
> get mileages out of their engines in the millions of km's and there are
> basically two reasons for that. One is because their engines tend to be
> always warm (most cabs run 24 hours a day) and the other is because of the
> fuel they use.

And that debunks your rubbish, so try not to write anything that doesn't
help your baseless argument(s).
1) Most are factory lpgs
2)Engines are always 'warm' as you say.
3)Nothing to do with the fuel they use, rather the engine is modified to use
that fuel(in this case LPG)

>
> I'm not going to spend a lot of time explaining the intricacies of that to
> you

Don't bother explaining any "intricacies" you yourself don't understand,
pal.

>as I suspect it'll fall largely on deaf ears, but if you *honestly* believe
>there are no practical examples of the benefits of lpg

Never said the damn thing like that. Your words.

>as a motor fuel then you are either being a troll or are incredibly
>ignorant.

Consider seriously who's the troll or the ignorant here.

>
>> There's very good reason many mechanics advise not to rev the motor
>> during a
>> cold start, but idle it for few minutes.
>
> What does that have to do with lpg use specifically?

Lack of power of cold started LPG engine.
Many tend to get the power by revving the crap out of the cold motor.
In other words, be extra gentle with an LPG cold start.

>
>> I see the same with your amazing claims.
>
> There is nothing whatsoever "amazing" about Paul's claims, unless you
> happen to consider "truth" to be an "amazing concept".
>
> I suspect it's a unique one to you though...

His million km claim and five time extend of engine life is aboslute crap
story, made up to mislead.
Using taxis is the lousiest example, 'cos taxis aren't average passenger
cars, and any idiot knows that.

I bet any you self proclaimed geniuses don't have a single car that managed
anywhere near million kms on LPG or
five times the average engine life. Instead use irrelevant and pointless
examples to 'prove' your point.

>
>> Like million kilometers before major overhaul, like five times the life
>> expenctance of a petrol engine.
>> Are you for real at all?
>
> Not only is he, but I am as well. I've seen it *many* times.

Probably when you were hallucinating. Dont bring in the crappy taxi
argument, that only make me wanna puke.

>
>> Have you ever owned a duel fuel(oh sorry bi-fuel) car at all?
>
> I can't speak for Paul

That's a wise choice. May save your reputation.

>but I've owned a number of them myself. Maybe 20, maybe more I can't
>remember, and have worked on *hundreds* over the years. I fully support
>everything Paul has said

Then Mr genius fella, explain how an LPG converted car get more power than
petrol?
'cos that's what Mr genius saccani claims he achieved for(for his customers
I'm guessing).
I would love to get hold of his data via you and apply some basic physics to
it, before I retire from this thread.

He also claims factory conversions are crap.
I hope you have some data to support that as well.

Lets start, 'cos you agree with everything the Mr Saccani says about how
magnificient LPG as a fuel, right?!

> and disagree with everything you've mentioned so far.

That's your 'god' given right. Do exercise it.

>
>> Where's your data about those grand claims as above?
>
> The "data" is out there in the real world, in all those "practical
> examples" that you reckon don't exist.

I haven't found a single claim of a commuter with a million kms and five
times life expectancy, before needing engine work.
Find me a one, and I'll zip it for good.

>
> There are *thousands* of lpg fueled vehicles in this country (it's the

> third most popular auto fuel behind petrol and diesel).

Oh, we didn't know that before. Last time I checked that all the fuel types,
servos carry.

> and it's used in a variety of applications from cars and trucks,
> forklifts, stationary engines and other industrial applications.

Well, now you said something about the industrial use of LPG that you wanted
me to answer at the beginning of the thread.
It's good you found the answer.

>I've even seen lawn mowers and tractors converted to lpg use :)

I'm sure you're joking there.
But, I just start having dreams of converting my mower. :-)

>
> As a fuel it causes no problems in and of itself,

Nobody said it does.

>and in fact it *extends* engine life simply because of how it burns
>compared to petrol.

That's a fallacious argument, 'cos it solely depend on the engine
modifications.
In other words, the quality of the conversion.

> You can get performance and reliability problems associated with a shonky
> *conversion*, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the fuel itself.

I've never claimed LPG is 'bad fuel'. You're confusing me with somebody
else, mate.
I'm all for the claims it as a 'good fuel'.
It's the exploitation by the industry, the government, corporations I have
an issue with.
Like you said,
"Welcome to capitalsim", so I did.

>
> You can get problems with petrol systems too.

Of course you can. It's completely possible some of the issues with LPG
vehicles may have something to do with
bad drivers, bad mechanics and bad engines to start with.

>
>> Here you go again. Inventing pointless counter arguments as you go.
>
> Fucking hell.
>
> Mate, do yourself a favour. By a dictionary and look up "Irony".

I'll do that. In the meantime jump onto the freedicitonary online and lookup
"Fucking Hell", mate.

And bear in mind, you're responding to something written for somebody else.

>
>> Noted.
>> But, I have far better capacity than you would ever imagine.
>
> I don't mean to be rude (for a change) but I'd bet my house on your
> capacity being extremely limited.

You are about to lose your house.

>
>> If you are an installer, retailer or a wholesaler, my ideas defly may
>> hurt
>> you.
>> But that ain't intended.
>
> I'm not an installer (even though I've installed my share of gas kits over
> the years) but I couldn't care less about your ideas either way.

I couldn't CCL about your ideas either. Yet, we are talking, aren't we?

>
> You are completely, utterly and totally wrong, and couldn't be any *more*
> wrong if you actually wanted to be.

Noted, but I have to say the same thing about you, perhaps not nearly as
strongly.

>
>> And conveniently ignoring how quickly that power curve deteriorated.
>
> Is that right?
>
> My current daily driver is an RA Rodeo 3.5 petrol automatic that was
> converted to a Prinns injected vapour system in 2008. Since then the gas
> system hasn't so much as had the dust wiped off it as far as "servicing"
> goes, and it's been 100% reliable with no power loss or increase in fuel
> consumption.

How many kms have you done so far for five year span?

>
> It simply performs flawlessly and cuts the running costs of the vehicle by
> around 40%.

Well, it will be a fair bit less now, since the LPG price jumped.

>
>
>> Finally said something that make clear sense. More LPG to produce same
>> power, right?
>> Good statement. So, how you gonna win your argument about LPG producing
>> more
>> power, if you have to use more LPG?!!
>> I would love to know.
>
> Love to know all you like, but I suspect you're not going to understand
> even if someone bothered to explain it to you in detail.
>
> However, try this on for size. LPG used in cars is a "compromise"
> arrangement, and by that I mean it works as well as it can in engines that
> were never built to use it specifically. Tailor the engine to suit the
> fuel and the equation changes dramatically, and you only have to look at
> vehicles like a dedicated gas Falcon to see how well it compares to
> Petrol.

I have no disgreement with above paragraph. You haven't 'explained' anything
that I dunno about.

>
> The Egas and 95ron FG Falcons use the same basic engines and make the same
> power, and the fuel consumption difference between them is around a couple
> of percent in favour of the petrol version. This is *way* more than made
> up for in the cost of running the egas version overall, and that minimal
> difference between the two is due entirely to the egas Falcon's engine
> being built specifically to run on lpg.

And what part of it do you want me to 'understand' or disagree with?

>
>> I haven't devalue anybody's experience, subjective or otherwise.
>
> Well, yeah, you have, as you simply dismiss anything that you don't agree
> with.

That is an unfair accusation.
You fellas haven't given tiny amount of respect for what I have to say and
jump up and down with your so called 'educated' opinions, simply 'cos I'm a
newbie to this particular NG.
There are factual merits to what I've brought up in this thread and your
arrogance get in the way to look at it without
your preconceived ideas about my background.

>
>> An individual who spends a fortune on a conversion then drives million
>> kms
>> and then brags about his savings?
>> No, that opinion is irrelevant for the majority of drivers who drive LPG
>> converted vehicles that aren't
>> converted properly to get the best benefit of fuel economy and
>> perfomrance
>> of an LPG vehicle.
>
> And as I've asked you previously, and as you apparently keep ignoring,
> what exactly is your experience and/or qualifications in this field that
> permits you to know such things?

I've already answered that question. But, you seem to have some amnesia
effect.
Besides, you are replying to a reply meant for somebody else.
Let the fella answer, unless you = him

>
>> The same way, your so called 'informed opinion' is irrelevant to the
>> majority of who drives LPG converted vehicles.
>
> How is it "irrelevant" exactly?
>
>> There a big difference between parroting few theoritical 'facts' and the
>> practical reality out there.
>
> Sure there is, and what *you* need to show is that the tripe you serve up
> as "fact", actually *is* factual and not just some figment of your
> imagination.

It has already shown, quote after quote, which you conveniently ignore.

>
> I'll tell you this: I've worked in the automotive industry for 30 years.
> I'm both a qualified mechanic and automotive machinist (if you don't know
> what that is then

I'm afraid, I do. Even though I can't claim I've done it for a living
anywhere as much
as you did.

> I'd suggest you look it up). I've worked for other people and ran my own
> service and repair business and I've worked on *hundreds* of cars over the
> years, a great many of which have been lpg powered, and still do in my
> spare time to this day.
>
> In *my* opinion, everything you've said on the matter thus far is
> unmitigated rubbish of the highest order, and I'm quite convinced that you
> don't know shit from shoe polish as far as this subject is concerned.

If you were that convinced, why are keep going on and on?

I say you dunno shit about your own (un)informed opinions about me, 'cos you
still keep asking about my 'rights' to
discuss automotive engineering. It you know shit about the subject, then you
should know, you can't know everything, even
if you spend 150 years as a qualifiied mechanic, but only knows about what
you've worked with.
And same goes for me, whether I like it or not.

[Damian]

"D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
news:53015f24$0$29976$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...

> On 17/02/2014 1:50 AM, Damian wrote:
>
>>
>> I made a figurative statement, indicating that I don't see valve seat
>> recession problem was fixed by manufacturers as they(or you) claim,
>> by hardening valve seats and valves.
>
> Name a recent model car that suffers valve seat recession running LPG?

Haven't opened a one recenlty. But, I can vouch for a Huandai Excel that got
crapped.

Can you name a manufacturer who's happy to provide warranty when you convert
to LPG?

I'm pretty sure, most like to void warranty after LPG conversion.

> Toyota usually state that there engines aren't suitable for LPG yet

None of them are happy to give warranty after conversions.

> there are many Toyota models that do a lot of kms on LPG without any
> problems.

Sure. But, have you opened up a one and have a look at the head and valves?

>
> Their work has been minimal.
>> Manufacturers were under no obligation to do that, 'cos that only
>> required
>> for LPG conversions.
>
> Nonsense, its also needed for ULP.

I'm talking about LPG.

>
>> They built the cars for petrol, not for LPG.
>
> Ever heard of alloy cylinder heads?

Yes.I had my share of bumping into enough of them.
Most of my cars came with them plus lpg.

> Without hardened valve seat inserts they don't work and those valve seats
> are suitable for both ULP and LPG.

My argument is they were hardended for ULP, not enough for LPG.
That's why the bastards won't give warranty, unless you do it factory.

>
>> AFAIK, only few cars like taxis come out of factory built for LPG.
>
> Holden and Falcon have LPG models, neither are specifically made as taxis,
> Ford used to make taxis specific models but they stopped a couple of years
> ago.

That's news for sure. From what I've heard, they are going kaput sometime
soon.
We won't be making these cars here forever. Am I right about that?

>>
>> Installers spread the myth to get the number of conversions rolling, 'cos
>> they can do more conversions, without having
>> to force customers to do the cylinder head and valves. 'cos that would've
>> been a put off for the customer to spend all that money,
>> which amount to extra few grands.
>
> The only myth being spread is by you, there is no need to modify most car
> engine valves etc when converting to LPG.
> I owned an XD Falcon panel van that did 450,000km trouble free on LPG and
> it was still running fine when I sold it, it had standard valves and valve
> seats.

Sorry to say, I had EA and EB Falcons told me a complete different story.
I've never managed to get anywhere near that mileage.
I must have been pretty unlucky, then.

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:lds0df$9qb$1...@dont-email.me...

Sorry mate, the real troll is the one perpetuating myths about non existing
general value of
LPG when it depend on many facts like the installation type, car, price or
installation price and price of LPG.
You wanna ignore that and ignore me, be my guest.
But, you ain't calling me a troll, when you're the one keep trolling 24/7.
I'm just a newbie here, hardly posted jackshit here before.
I don't qualifty for your title, but most certainly do.
So, keep trolling.

Cheers.

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldr8pe$f91$1...@dont-email.me...

Or an ill informed installer..

[D Walford]

On 17/02/2014 6:51 PM, Damian wrote:
> "D Walford" <dwal...@internode.on.net> wrote in message
> news:53015f24$0$29976$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>> On 17/02/2014 1:50 AM, Damian wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I made a figurative statement, indicating that I don't see valve seat
>>> recession problem was fixed by manufacturers as they(or you) claim,
>>> by hardening valve seats and valves.
>>
>> Name a recent model car that suffers valve seat recession running LPG?
>
> Haven't opened a one recenlty. But, I can vouch for a Huandai Excel that got
> crapped.
>

Hardly recent and not a usual candidate for LPG, why would anyone bother.

> Can you name a manufacturer who's happy to provide warranty when you convert
> to LPG?
>
> I'm pretty sure, most like to void warranty after LPG conversion.

Nonsense unless a particular problem is proven to be caused by the LPG

conversion.
>
>
>> Toyota usually state that there engines aren't suitable for LPG yet
>
> None of them are happy to give warranty after conversions.
>

Wrong, see above.

>> there are many Toyota models that do a lot of kms on LPG without any
>> problems.
>
> Sure. But, have you opened up a one and have a look at the head and valves?

Why would anyone do that, plenty do 3-400,000kms on LPG and by then the
entire car is past its use by date so what does it matter if the head is
worn out when the car is going to be scrapped.

>
>>
>> Their work has been minimal.
>>> Manufacturers were under no obligation to do that, 'cos that only
>>> required
>>> for LPG conversions.
>>
>> Nonsense, its also needed for ULP.
>
> I'm talking about LPG.
>
>>
>>> They built the cars for petrol, not for LPG.
>>
>> Ever heard of alloy cylinder heads?
>
> Yes.I had my share of bumping into enough of them.
> Most of my cars came with them plus lpg.
>
>> Without hardened valve seat inserts they don't work and those valve seats
>> are suitable for both ULP and LPG.
>
> My argument is they were hardended for ULP, not enough for LPG.
> That's why the bastards won't give warranty, unless you do it factory.

The process and parts used are exactly the same, a cylinder head
modified for LPG is exactly the same as one modified to run on ULP.

>
>>
>>> AFAIK, only few cars like taxis come out of factory built for LPG.
>>
>> Holden and Falcon have LPG models, neither are specifically made as taxis,
>> Ford used to make taxis specific models but they stopped a couple of years
>> ago.
>
> That's news for sure.

Its very old news to anyone who knows anything about the local car industry.

From what I've heard, they are going kaput sometime
> soon.
> We won't be making these cars here forever. Am I right about that?


>
>>>
>>> Installers spread the myth to get the number of conversions rolling, 'cos
>>> they can do more conversions, without having
>>> to force customers to do the cylinder head and valves. 'cos that would've
>>> been a put off for the customer to spend all that money,
>>> which amount to extra few grands.
>>
>> The only myth being spread is by you, there is no need to modify most car
>> engine valves etc when converting to LPG.
>> I owned an XD Falcon panel van that did 450,000km trouble free on LPG and
>> it was still running fine when I sold it, it had standard valves and valve
>> seats.
>
> Sorry to say, I had EA and EB Falcons told me a complete different story.
> I've never managed to get anywhere near that mileage.
> I must have been pretty unlucky, then.
>

My youngest sons first car was an EA wagon running on LPG, the car was a
POS but it didn't suffer from engine problems due to LPG, it had done
over 400,000km by the time it went to the wreckers, the engine was ok
but the auto failed and it wasn't worth fixing.
You were either unlucky or neglected the maintenance.


--
Daryl

[Noddy]

On 17/02/14 6:29 PM, Damian wrote:

> I say you dunno shit about your own (un)informed opinions about me, 'cos you
> still keep asking about my 'rights' to
> discuss automotive engineering. It you know shit about the subject, then you
> should know, you can't know everything, even
> if you spend 150 years as a qualifiied mechanic, but only knows about what
> you've worked with.
> And same goes for me, whether I like it or not.

You're off your rocker pal.



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

On 17/02/14 6:51 PM, Damian wrote:

> Can you name a manufacturer who's happy to provide warranty when you convert
> to LPG?

Most of them.

> I'm pretty sure, most like to void warranty after LPG conversion.

You'd be wrong, but then it wouldn't matter if 100 of the world's most
eminent technical guru's all lined up to tell you that, as you *still*
wouldn't believe them.

From your ramblings it's abundantly clear that you are physically
incapable of believing anything other than what you want to believe.




--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

On 17/02/14 7:00 PM, Damian wrote:

> Sorry mate, the real troll is the one perpetuating myths about non existing
> general value of
> LPG when it depend on many facts like the installation type, car, price or
> installation price and price of LPG.
> You wanna ignore that and ignore me, be my guest.
> But, you ain't calling me a troll, when you're the one keep trolling 24/7.
> I'm just a newbie here, hardly posted jackshit here before.
> I don't qualifty for your title, but most certainly do.
> So, keep trolling.
>
> Cheers.

Fuck off, you ignoramus :)



--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Blue Heeler]

Noddy wrote:
>
> Stainless steel is not used as a valve seat insert material. Ever.

> Not by anyone who has a clue about what they're doing.
>

Where the hell is Feral when you need him - he would probably secure
the stainless steel seat with epoxy putty.


And I reckon if we wait a few minutes Xeno/cat-piss will recall a mate
who made a very good living fitting stainless steel valve seats.

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldsa77$gq5$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 17/02/14 4:45 PM, Damian wrote:
>
>> Yep. My bad.
>>
>> "they use valve seats that can't withstand the effects of LPG"
>> By that I meant 90's and early 2000's.
>
> And what, prey tell, *are* the effects of lpg?
>
>> I've never said I have. At least not in a dedicated professional level,
>> defly not aluminium tig welding.
>> If you have, feel free to educate me. You must be an expert in the area.
>
> To get an education, you must first be willing to *learn*. Something tells
> me you aren't ready.

You are dead wrong about that.
If you start with an arrogant, condescending attitude about your
qualifiicatons while belittling
my qualifications and experience, then I'm forced to protect my small ego
against your giant ego.

I'm a pretty damn good tig welder, just haven't welded a cylinder head, yet.
And pretty confident I can manage it without any 'education', 'cos I know
for sure,
it ain't rocket science.

What pisses off you and like, is you don't like the fellas good at self
taught.

>
>> Crap aesthetics has bot nothing to do with it.
>> Stainless steel is used when necessary for it's properties that aid do
>> reduce the valve seat, face damage.
>
> I've fitted thousands of valve seat inserts, and not only have I never
> seen a stainless steel one, but I wouldn't know where to get one from even
> if they *did* make them.
>
> Stainless steel is *not* used as a valve seat insert material. Ever. Not
> by anyone who has a clue about what they're doing.

I've already corrected it.

>
>> This is another fallacy and a scam. You can't recondition a cylinder head
>> for couple of hundred bucks.
>> It costs few grands with labour.
>
> If it did, I'd still be in the engine rebuilding business :)

Apparently, you are bad businessman. :-)
Rebuilders charge from $500 upwards to properly rebuild a head, not a cent
less, AFAIK.
Then the mechanic charges a fortune to put it in.
That's how it gets to thousands.

>
>> AFAIK, they didn't use many aluminium heads back then.
>> And you may wanna define 'standard' heads and it's relevance here.
>
> "Standard head" being made of cast iron, and cast iron is as soft as
> butter.

Can you please explain what exactly did you mean by cast iron being 'soft'?

>
>> That's all rubbish.
>> It most certainly has been happening within last 25 years.
>> That's the very reason car manufacturers don't give warranty or void the
>> warranty if you do a conversion outside factory.
>
> Perhaps I should ask Ford about the Warranty they supplied on my two new
> Falcon utes that had after-market gas kits on them. They were perfectly
> happy to warranty the cars on gas. The only thing they wouldn't cover was
> the gas kit itself which had it's *own* warranty.

What exactly is that waranty included?!

>
>> The dodgy installers never tell this to the customer.
>
> That's because it's a figment of your imagination.

You are free to believe what you wanna believe, as I am.
I will change my opinion if I see or hear credible evidence.
I won't be changing it based on rants.

So, what happened to the other egineering wiz? .

[jonz]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
Heres ol' barge arse...Proclaiming, ah, well, nothing really.....Move
on folks......

[Noddy]

On 17/02/14 8:10 PM, Blue Heeler wrote:

> Where the hell is Feral when you need him - he would probably secure
> the stainless steel seat with epoxy putty.

No doubt.

What happened to poor old Feral anyway? I wonder if his epoxy recoed
valve let go and pierced his head? :)

> And I reckon if we wait a few minutes Xeno/cat-piss will recall a mate
> who made a very good living fitting stainless steel valve seats.

He has *lots* of friends, doesn't he?

Surprising for a bloke who around here is about as popular as curry
flavoured sherbet.










--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Noddy]

On 17/02/14 8:30 PM, Damian wrote:

> You are dead wrong about that.

Yeah, sure.

> If you start with an arrogant, condescending attitude about your
> qualifiicatons while belittling
> my qualifications and experience, then I'm forced to protect my small ego
> against your giant ego.

I'm sorry, but what *are* your qualifications. I don't recall you ever
mentioning them.

> I'm a pretty damn good tig welder, just haven't welded a cylinder head, yet.

You basically what you're saying is that you have no experience in this
particular field then, but reckon you can tell anyone who *has* all
there is to know about it.

And you *seriously* have to wonder why your opinion isn't highly regarded?

> And pretty confident I can manage it without any 'education', 'cos I know
> for sure,
> it ain't rocket science.

I can't tell if you're being funny or you really mean it :)

> What pisses off you and like, is you don't like the fellas good at self
> taught.

I couldn't care less *how* anyone learns their craft. I'm only ever
interested in how well they *do* it. Some of the most amazingly
talented people I've ever met have never had a day's formal training in
their lives, and I could only ever hope to be as good as they are one day.

If your welding skills are anything like your knowledge of lpg and it's
effect on engines, I sincerely hope I never have to share the road with
anything you've welded together.

> Apparently, you are bad businessman. :-)
> Rebuilders charge from $500 upwards to properly rebuild a head, not a cent
> less, AFAIK.
> Then the mechanic charges a fortune to put it in.
> That's how it gets to thousands.

I suspect you have no idea about what you're talking about.

> Can you please explain what exactly did you mean by cast iron being 'soft'?

I don't know how else I can say it. Cast iron is soft. It is not a hard
metal. You can just about cut through it with a knife and fork.

> You are free to believe what you wanna believe, as I am.
> I will change my opinion if I see or hear credible evidence.
> I won't be changing it based on rants.

You should have your own comedy show :)




--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Xeno Lith]

Not everybody is a grumpy old has been like you Noddy!

--

Xeno

[Damian]

"Noddy" <m...@wardengineering.com.au> wrote in message

news:ldsrdt$5t0$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 17/02/14 8:30 PM, Damian wrote:
>
>> You are dead wrong about that.
>
> Yeah, sure.
>
>> If you start with an arrogant, condescending attitude about your
>> qualifiicatons while belittling
>> my qualifications and experience, then I'm forced to protect my small ego
>> against your giant ego.
>
> I'm sorry, but what *are* your qualifications. I don't recall you ever
> mentioning them.

That probably 'cos you got selective memory loss.
Don't tell me the below is an unusual combination, 'cos I've heard enough of
it.
qualified x-mechanic. (remember the x)
All other qualifications that can go on and on are irrelevant.
But, I would like to mention my physics degree, which may have helped me
with bit more imagination, but obvioulsy no match for your amazing
understanding of
the internal combusition engine and how lpg works inside it.

>
>> I'm a pretty damn good tig welder, just haven't welded a cylinder head,
>> yet.
>
> You basically what you're saying is that you have no experience in this
> particular field then, but reckon you can tell anyone who *has* all there
> is to know about it.

Nope. basically I said, I haven't rebuilt heads for a living.
Not my cup of tea, but can do, on my own, without anybody's help, if I chose
to do so.
If you wanna make it to a rocket science, that may be your prerogative.

>
> And you *seriously* have to wonder why your opinion isn't highly regarded?

Never asked for that, let alone any regards to that.
In other words, I couldn't care less whether you have any regards to my
opinions.
'cos in the end of the day, they are just opinions, just like arseholes,
everybody's gota one.

>
>> And pretty confident I can manage it without any 'education', 'cos I know
>> for sure,
>> it ain't rocket science.
>
> I can't tell if you're being funny or you really mean it :)

I'm sure you know the answer to that.

>
>> What pisses off you and like, is you don't like the fellas good at self
>> taught.
>
> I couldn't care less *how* anyone learns their craft. I'm only ever
> interested in how well they *do* it. Some of the most amazingly talented
> people I've ever met have never had a day's formal training in their
> lives, and I could only ever hope to be as good as they are one day.

I haven't had a day's formal training in welding and soldering. Yet,
I'm pretty damn good at it, a skill necessary for my experiments.
I have more pride in it, than my 'wasted' physics degree.

> If your welding skills are anything like your knowledge of lpg and it's
> effect on engines, I sincerely hope I never have to share the road with
> anything you've welded together.

Noted. But, unlikely.

>> Apparently, you are bad businessman. :-)
>> Rebuilders charge from $500 upwards to properly rebuild a head, not a
>> cent
>> less, AFAIK.
>> Then the mechanic charges a fortune to put it in.
>> That's how it gets to thousands.
>
> I suspect you have no idea about what you're talking about.

Then give me some idea.

>
>> Can you please explain what exactly did you mean by cast iron being
>> 'soft'?
>
> I don't know how else I can say it. Cast iron is soft. It is not a hard
> metal. You can just about cut through it with a knife and fork.

In other words, engine block is soft metal?

>
>> You are free to believe what you wanna believe, as I am.
>> I will change my opinion if I see or hear credible evidence.
>> I won't be changing it based on rants.
>
> You should have your own comedy show :)

I've been having enough fun with yours, so I won't need a one. :-)