Oxygenated Gasoline and Low MPG
Terence T. Lung
of motorists about an especially oxygenated gasoline that's
being pumped everywhere in California. Their MPGs have gone down
anywhere from 5 to 25 [!]%. Taxi companies are complaining.
The idea was supposed to lower pollution. It sounds to me like
a ploy that results in 5 to 25% more gasoline burned per mile.
Where else is this happening? The paper vaguely mentions 35
other places across the country but does not say where.
What times of the year is this stuff being introduced?
just winter time?
I wonder if I got suckered by this stuff this last time that
I strangely ran out of gas [not fun] around 410 instead of my usual
500+ miles between refuelings.[in a happy '88 Ford Escort]
out in Indiana,
Terence
Tony Apuzzo
Here in the wonderfully progressive Denver Metro Area (Home of the soon
to be U.S. Transportation Chief, former Denver Mayor Federico Pena.)
We've been forced to use "oxygenated" fuels for several years. My 87
Integra drops from 31 to 28 (season averages) immediately when the oxy
fuels go in the tank.
It's too bad that cars that are running well get little benefit from
the fuels. Poorly tuned old clunkers get better emmissions, but they
still put out more pollution than they would if tuned well and running
on normal gasoline. Gee, maybe we should legislate properly tuned
cars, rather than wasteful, misguided attacks on the free market.
Oops, that last sentence sounds like a flame, sorry.
-Tony
--
*
* Be a non-conformist like me and don't use a .sig at all.
*
Wayne Smith
>The idea was supposed to lower pollution. It sounds to me like
>a ploy that results in 5 to 25% more gasoline burned per mile.
>
>Where else is this happening? The paper vaguely mentions 35
>other places across the country but does not say where.
>What times of the year is this stuff being introduced?
>just winter time?
As I have been buying US gas exclusively for the last 5 years, I am also
interested in how gas is being monkey'd with these days. Today I heard
that 31 states are using ethanol in their gas during the winter months
(it was a TV commercial, I think it was ADM (supermarket to the world
commercial) they were extolling how their product helps grow corn so
american farmers can become texas oilmen or some such noise).
Also, Ammoco is adversising a "clean" gas, ie extra filtered, so it
burns cleaner (TV commercial has lots of beakers and flasks with clean
gas and dirty gas in them, etc). Any info if this "clean" gas is easier
on your engine? Oh yea, this "Clean" gas was clear as water, but here
in Ontario, a jar of gas has a vivid yellow, while Michigan gas has a
reddish color to it. Is there anything to this coloring? Can it be
counteracted (ie what can make red colored gas look yellow?)
Steve Elias
both of my honda civics gas mileage dropped by 15% or so
with this oxy gas. power seems to have dropped by at least
15% on the 91 civic hatchback (70 hp rating).
i know that a properly tuned designed-for-87-octane engine without
knock sensor should not benefit from super unleaded.
but as an experiment i am running super unleaded in both hondas now.
on the 91 hatchback, there is a noticable power increase with
the super oxy as opposed to the normal 87 octane oxy fuel.
is this the placebo effect? has anyone out there tried this?
/eli
Dave Williams
-> The idea was supposed to lower pollution. It sounds to me like a
-> ploy that results in 5 to 25% more gasoline burned per mile.
Yep. And lots of MTBE advocates still claim there's no drop in
mileage, or even that they get better mileage. Meanwhile, many of us
have cars that won't even *run* on the stuff, much less get reasonable
mileage.
With the varying mixtures of low-grade fermented dinosaur droppings,
MTBE, alcohol, and camel urine currently sold as "gasoline", fuel
economy and driveability vary widely.
By the way, the requirements for gasoline used for NHTSA fuel economy
tests and EPA smog tests are throughly specified, and it's nothing like
what you can buy at the pump in 1993.
Al Chang
both of my honda civics gas mileage dropped by 15% or so
with this oxy gas. power seems to have dropped by at least
15% on the 91 civic hatchback (70 hp rating).
My Dodge 3.3L went from 17 to 15 mpg, completely local.
My Buick 3.8L with knock sensor also, I lost 2 mpg local driving.
When I tried 89 octane, I get 1 mpg more. No significant performance
difference. (May be my imagination, but it is a touch better.)
On Highway from LI (Oxy. gas) to Buffalo I got 21 mpg. Buffalo I
filled up with non-Oxy. I get 23+ on the way back.
i know that a properly tuned designed-for-87-octane engine without
knock sensor should not benefit from super unleaded.
but as an experiment i am running super unleaded in both hondas now.
on the 91 hatchback, there is a noticable power increase with
the super oxy as opposed to the normal 87 octane oxy fuel.
is this the placebo effect? has anyone out there tried this?
/eli
I wonder, if car manuefactuers tuned the car's computer for Oxy gas,
would MPG and performance return?
Al
--
******************************************************************************
Al Chang (516)346-6757, FAX: (516)575-0965, email: a...@calvin.grumman.com
Grumman Data Systems, 111 Stewart Avenue, MS D12/25, Bethpage, New York 11714
******************************************************************************
John J. Stankus
I missed the first part of this thread, so forgive me if this has
been discussed. The oxygenated fuels are supposed to be better for emissions,
but cause a loss in mileage. Does the emission improvemnet offset the
gas mileage decrease? I guess what I am asking is what is the comparision
between emissions/MILE of each of these fuels? This seems to be more
pertinent than idle emissions for each.
John J. Stankus Chemistry Department
sta...@leland.stanford.edu Stanford University
I really should be working on that dissertation now.
Dave Williams
-> on your engine? Oh yea, this "Clean" gas was clear as water, but
-> here in Ontario, a jar of gas has a vivid yellow, while Michigan gas
-> has a reddish color to it. Is there anything to this coloring? Can
-> it be counteracted (ie what can make red colored gas look yellow?)
Most gas is clear to start with, then dyed to distinguish grade.
145 octane aviation fuel used to be purple, for instance. I don't know
what the colors are for others.
Canada probably uses a different color scheme. What with small
diameter pump nozzles and vapor recovery systems, you don't actually
*see* a lot of gasoline nowadays.
Steven J Orlin
I'm just tuning in so spare me. I've heard that this oxygenated gasoline
is the same stuff you could buy at the cheaper gas stations (Speedway, Gastown)
before. That is that all it is is regular unleaded gas mixed with 10% ethanol.
I have always put this stuff in my 81 Regal and never noticed a difference in
milege when they started calling it oxygenated.
???????
steve
--
"Nobody tells a Navy man when he's had enough to drink, cause only a Navy man
knows when he's had enough to drink!"
-Steven J Orlin sor...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Jim Frost
>-> on your engine? Oh yea, this "Clean" gas was clear as water, but
>-> here in Ontario, a jar of gas has a vivid yellow, while Michigan gas
>-> has a reddish color to it. Is there anything to this coloring? Can
>-> it be counteracted (ie what can make red colored gas look yellow?)
> Most gas is clear to start with, then dyed to distinguish grade.
>145 octane aviation fuel used to be purple, for instance. I don't know
>what the colors are for others.
Correct. Dyes are also used to distinguish gasoline sold for
commercial purposes (eg farm fuels) from consumer fuels.
I don't know the colors either.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Dave Williams
-> but cause a loss in mileage. Does the emission improvemnet offset
-> the gas mileage decrease? I guess what I am asking is what is the
-> comparision between emissions/MILE of each of these fuels? This
-> seems to be more pertinent than idle emissions for each.
That depends, of course, in what you're burning the gick in. For a
late model car in good tune there's not much difference.
Dave Williams
-> I'm just tuning in so spare me. I've heard that this oxygenated
-> gasoline
-> is the same stuff you could buy at the cheaper gas stations
-> (Speedway, Gastown) before. That is that all it is is regular
-> unleaded gas mixed with 10% ethanol.
Oxygenated fuel is blended with a compound called MTBE, which is
somethingorother <mumble> ether. It's also often blended with alcohol
as well, but the alcohol is not part of what makes it "oxygenated."
sykes,michael
I too have sufferd from lower gas mileage due to this nonsense.
I filled my tank in N.J. for a trip down South to V.A. for Xmas.
Before I was out of Maryland on Rt 13 I had to fill up again so
I would not be stranded on Rt 13 on Xmas eve. (If you have ever
traveled on Rt13 you know what I am talking about :) ) Anyway
the trip is about 350 miles. When I filled up in Hampton V.A.
for the trip back I made it all the way to Easton, P.A. and my
wife had gas to go to work the next morning whis is 50 miles one way.
She had to fill on the way home but she got there none the less.
That's about 400 miles on one tank ON THE WAY BACK with NON-OXENGENATED
fuel. I don't think the fuel in P.A. is oxygenated but it sure is in N.J.!!
Mike
--
Michael H. Sykes
Standard disclaimers apply
sy...@donner.cc.bellcore.com
"It was like that when I got here" - Homer J. Simpson
John A Sigmon
I have an 86 4-Runner with a 22RE engine that has a computer controlled
ignition (no mechanical or vacuum advance) system that does not advance.
Has any one seen this problem, or have any good suggestions?
I have a 2nd computer and ignition unit I swapped in, but neither fixed
the problem.
If you have any good clues please Email me at the above address.
Thanks
John Sigmon
Standard Disclaimer
Peter Sheriff
Peter Sheriff
Sorry, my comments got deleted from my previous reply. What I was going to say is that I believe that MTBE stands for Methyl Tetra Butyl Ether if anyone
is interested.
Pete
John J. Stankus
Well not quite MTBE is Methyl tertiary-Butyl Ether. The tertiary specifies
the butyl isomer used. Tetra would indicate that there were four butyls in
the molecule.
CH3
/
H3C-O-C-CH3
\
CH3
note 3's are subscripts
John J. Stankus Department of Chemistry
sta...@leland.stanford.edu Stanford University
QX...@psuvm.psu.edu
My 82 Civic too had a remarkable mpg drop. It once had an record of 47 on my
way to Chicago in 91. But now, it's reluctant to go up to 40 on interstate
starting this Winter. No other troubles are found, just mpg drop. I believe
it's the gas.
Ching
John De Armond
Methyl teriary butyl ether, CH3*O*C4H9, a very high octane fuel that
carries an oxygen atom as part of its structure. Other comonly used
oxygenates include methanol (CH3OH), ethanol (C2H5OH), TBA (teriary
butyl alcohol, (CH3)3COH, commonly used as a co-solvent with methanol),
and TAME (Teriary Amyl Methyl Ether, (CH3)2C2H5COCH3). MTBE and TAME
are the most common ethers. Methanol is in limited use, limited mainly
by its corrosiveness and its tendency to separate out of solution in
the presence of water. MTBE is popular because it is easily synthesized
from isobutylene and methanol and thus fairly inexpensive. And it
smells sooo good :-)
These oxygenates have been in common use for years as a lead-free
octane booster for premium no-lead gas. The EPA has simply mandated
more.
This stuff is really nifty for us hotrodders. Given the engine is
rejetted/calibrated for the extra oxygen, it will make more power.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC |Interested in high performance mobility?
Performance Engineering Magazine(TM) | Interested in high tech and computers?
Marietta, Ga | Send ur snail-mail address to
j...@dixie.com | per...@dixie.com for a free sample mag
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
George Jefferson -Bassani
: Sorry, my comments got deleted from my previous reply. What I was going to say is that I believe that MTBE stands for Methyl Tetra Butyl Ether if anyone
:is interested.
sounds good. The literature from the counter at the local ARCO..er.Atlantic
station explains that the oxy. requiremant can legally be satisfied
by _either_ MTBE _or_ an alchohol blend. They use MTBE ( without
explaining why ), which is interesting because arco got a very bad reputation
for selling 'gasahol' some years back (actually pulled out of the region,
then reappeared with a new name, and proclaiming no alchohol sold here..)
if anyone is interested :-)
--
george -- geo...@mech.seas.upenn.edu
mel...@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com
>
> I missed the first part of this thread, so forgive me if this has
> been discussed. The oxygenated fuels are supposed to be better for emissions,
> but cause a loss in mileage. Does the emission improvemnet offset the
> gas mileage decrease? I guess what I am asking is what is the comparision
> between emissions/MILE of each of these fuels? This seems to be more
> pertinent than idle emissions for each.
>
extra corn to produce the ethanol.
Funny story, I have a relative in North Dakota that manages the local coop. The
farmers in the area keep harping on him to push harder to sell more ethanol
blended fuels. So he asks them if they use it in their equipment, of course
their response is that they won't use the stuff!
Ron Bense
>Methyl teriary butyl ether, CH3*O*C4H9, a very high octane fuel that
Now here's a question for the chemistry majors, or perhaps a full-fledged
chemist. How does a chemical that only supplies 1 O atom, but requires
as many as 10 O atoms for a fully combusted (H2O and CO2) product yield
a lower amount of pollutants at the end? Or are we just switching the
types of pollutants around? (Forgive me if this has been answered previously,
but, like so many, I just tuned in.)
>These oxygenates have been in common use for years as a lead-free
>octane booster for premium no-lead gas. The EPA has simply mandated
>more.
Umm, from an inside source from a major oil company, nobody likes the
new additives. It makes it hard to ship, it cannot be put out if it
catches on fire, it causes cancer in lab rats, and in general appears
to have no good qualities other than older cars get somewhat improved
emissions. (After all, how can you improve on something that reads "0"
like mine did in one category, and less than 5% of the allowables in
the others?:) Oh, another "good" quality is that the oil companies get
to charge more per gallon, and get to sell more of it.
>This stuff is really nifty for us hotrodders. Given the engine is
>rejetted/calibrated for the extra oxygen, it will make more power.
It is? I've got a fairly well tuned computerized engine that reads the
O2 output in the exhaust and adjusts fuel to match. Ran great in the
mountains or on the plains. It lost at least 10% of its "fuel" economy
when this oxygenated crap came out. (It used to get around 20-25, now
it's more like 17-22, and it is a 2.0L 4 cylinder [turbo])
Ron
Bob Blackshaw
It made no difference in my '89 Probe, CO was unmeasurable before and
after. But it sure screwed my gas mileage, pay more - get less, I
did find that the last tank of that camel urine I used got a bit
over 30 mpg, someone must have been feeding the camel sour mash
leavings.
Bob.
John De Armond
>Umm, from an inside source from a major oil company, nobody likes the
>new additives. It makes it hard to ship, it cannot be put out if it
>catches on fire, it causes cancer in lab rats, and in general appears
>to have no good qualities other than older cars get somewhat improved
>emissions.
Your inside source must be working in the accounting department or something.
Oxygenated gas is blended to the same density and RVP as "regular"
gasoline so any pumping/transport differences would be minor. As to
not being able to put out a fire, I've never heard such fairy tails.
If you've ever extinguished an alcohol fire, you've extinguished a
burning oxygenate. As to cancer, nothing is in the material
safety data sheets I have that were current about 6 months ago.
(After all, how can you improve on something that reads "0"
>like mine did in one category, and less than 5% of the allowables in
>the others?:) Oh, another "good" quality is that the oil companies get
>to charge more per gallon, and get to sell more of it.
The stuff is not aimed at your new, closed loop car. It is aimed
at older cars, particularly those whose engines were tuned a bit
rich to work with AIR injection and one way catalysts.
>>This stuff is really nifty for us hotrodders. Given the engine is
>>rejetted/calibrated for the extra oxygen, it will make more power.
>It is? I've got a fairly well tuned computerized engine that reads the
>O2 output in the exhaust and adjusts fuel to match. Ran great in the
>mountains or on the plains. It lost at least 10% of its "fuel" economy
>when this oxygenated crap came out. (It used to get around 20-25, now
>it's more like 17-22, and it is a 2.0L 4 cylinder [turbo])
Fuel economy has nothing to do with performance. Naturally your mileage
would go down as your engine's ECU compensates for the leanness. If you
ran pure methanol whose stochiometric ratio is 6:1, your mileage
would go through the floor.
As far as public policy goes, oxygenated gas is pretty stupid. As far
as hotrodding goes, it's great. Like having just a touch of nitro on
tap.
Jim Frost
>In rec.autos.tech, j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>Methyl teriary butyl ether, CH3*O*C4H9, a very high octane fuel that
>How does a chemical that only supplies 1 O atom, but requires
>as many as 10 O atoms for a fully combusted (H2O and CO2) product yield
>a lower amount of pollutants at the end? Or are we just switching the
>types of pollutants around? (Forgive me if this has been answered previously,
>but, like so many, I just tuned in.)
The gas burns more slowly and completely, which I believe will yield
fewer NOx emmissions and more CO2.
One thing that just occurred to me is that by dropping fuel efficiency
by 10% or more you boost fuel tax revenue by the same amount. Hmm.
jim frost
ji...@centerline.com
Ted Brooks
Baloney. I've watched my '92 Chevy S-10 drop from 24 to 21 mpg. i've
heard enough about this garbage and what it could do or might do to older
cars, I filled my '55 with the regular stuff, plus a 5 gallon can, so
I can hopefully make it through till spring when they stop selling this
swill. If not, I'll drive to another county where they sell the standard
garbage instead of the new improved oxygenated garbage.
Ted Brooks
______________________________________________________________________
| Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own, and do not reflect |
| those of my employer. Advice is free, but you get what you pay for. |
| ________ |
| _____| 1955 |_______ |
| / Chevrolet / |
| /______ BelAir _____/ |
| |________| |
|______________________________________________________________________|
Drew Eckhardt
I drive a 1970 Toyota Landcruiser FJ40, with a 350 chevy under the hood.
Needless to say, combining something with the aerodynamics of a piece
of plywood and what some would consider a large engine (IMHO,
500+ cubes are large, but I digress) doesn't make for the best mileage.
To make up for this, and accomodate the high altitude driving that
I do (Nothing below 5000 feet, sometimes unpaved mountain passes at
12,500) the primary side of my carb is jetted lean. So at 5000 feet, the
leanness conditions caused by this crap gives me starting problems
and make driving hell until things get really warm (hell defined as
a little too hard on the gas, and I get misses and back fires from
things beening lean. Even during cold portions of the fall, without
this crap, WOT accelerations worked when it was cold). At 9000 feet,
things are tolerable, but I live at 5000...
--
Boycott AT&T for their absurd anti-BSDI lawsuit. | Drew Eckhardt
Condemn Colorado for Amendment Two. | dr...@cs.colorado.edu
Use Linux, the fast, flexible, and free 386 unix |
Ron Bense
>Your inside source must be working in the accounting department or something.
Shipping, actually, and to be more specific, the guys that inspect those
tankers that the oafs continue to ground. I imagine that their data
is a little more accurate than yours.
>not being able to put out a fire, I've never heard such fairy tails.
That was one of their concerns.
>If you've ever extinguished an alcohol fire, you've extinguished a
>burning oxygenate. As to cancer, nothing is in the material
>safety data sheets I have that were current about 6 months ago.
Alcohol requires oxygen to burn. Something like Potassium Perchlorate
decomposes and yields extra oxygen. That's what I would call an oxygenate,
but no one has answered that yet, so I'll wait and see what occurs.
>The stuff is not aimed at your new, closed loop car. It is aimed
>at older cars, particularly those whose engines were tuned a bit
>rich to work with AIR injection and one way catalysts.
Then just increase emission standards, and make the minimum amount for
spending in one year at least equal to the price of a catalytic converter.
Another good one would be to ban the car off the road if it fails to
meet emmissions 2 years in a row until it does meet them.
>>It is? I've got a fairly well tuned computerized engine that reads the
>>O2 output in the exhaust and adjusts fuel to match. Ran great in the
>>mountains or on the plains. It lost at least 10% of its "fuel" economy
>>when this oxygenated crap came out. (It used to get around 20-25, now
>>it's more like 17-22, and it is a 2.0L 4 cylinder [turbo])
>Fuel economy has nothing to do with performance. Naturally your mileage
>would go down as your engine's ECU compensates for the leanness. If you
>ran pure methanol whose stochiometric ratio is 6:1, your mileage
>would go through the floor.
1.) Fuel economy and performance generally go hand in hand, an increase
in one causes a decrease in the other. Both of mine decreased.
2.) I believe the specific energy of methanol is lower than gasoline,
requiring more to be burned for same horsepower, resulting in lower
fuel economy.
3.) I base the above on the fact that propane powered cars run about
1.8:1 compared to gas in fuel economy, and the knowledge that power
also drops in these vehicles. (Emissions were said to much better, though.
Maybe all older cars should be forced to convert to either modern engine
emissions or propane?)
>As far as public policy goes, oxygenated gas is pretty stupid. As far
>as hotrodding goes, it's great. Like having just a touch of nitro on
>tap.
I agree that it's pretty stupid.
Ron
Ron Bense
>The gas burns more slowly and completely, which I believe will yield
>fewer NOx emmissions and more CO2.
So basically I'm trading 10-15% of my fuel economy to burn gas in my
exhaust system? (Or does it still completely burn inside the cylinder?)
If it burns in the cylinder, then would you improve gas mileage by
running lower rpms?
>One thing that just occurred to me is that by dropping fuel efficiency
>by 10% or more you boost fuel tax revenue by the same amount. Hmm.
That nasty budget deficit and what they'll do to lower it....
(Not that I think they did this for this reason, but I'd rather pay the
extra ten percent than what's occurring now.)
Ron Think about this one (seen on a bumper sticker):
The road to hell is bumper-to-bumper
Make a U-turn to God.
The irony is priceless.
John De Armond
>Shipping, actually, and to be more specific, the guys that inspect those
>tankers that the oafs continue to ground. I imagine that their data
>is a little more accurate than yours.
Umm maybe so but I'll bet on my sources at API (American Petroleum Institute)
over day labor on a loading dock.
>>not being able to put out a fire, I've never heard such fairy tails.
>That was one of their concerns.
Not suprising. Hourly workers have all kinds of superstitions that
can't be changed by any amount of fact. When I used to work in a
heavy equipment crew, I knew many iron workers who believed green
to be an unlucky color and would not work around a green crane.
Color was one of their concerns. Do you assign any basis in fact to
that?
>>If you've ever extinguished an alcohol fire, you've extinguished a
>>burning oxygenate. As to cancer, nothing is in the material
>>safety data sheets I have that were current about 6 months ago.
>Alcohol requires oxygen to burn. Something like Potassium Perchlorate
>decomposes and yields extra oxygen. That's what I would call an oxygenate,
>but no one has answered that yet, so I'll wait and see what occurs.
Doesn't matter what you'd call an oxygenate. The term is used in
the context of hydrocarbon fuels to refer to any molecule containing
one or more oxygen atoms. The alcohols, MTBE, ETBE, TAME and a other
ethers fit the category. If you think that ANY of these fuels can
burn without oxygen and thus are hard to extinguish OR you believe
that potassium perchlorate or any other oxidizer is blended into
pump gas, then, well... I have some nice seafront property to sell...
>>The stuff is not aimed at your new, closed loop car. It is aimed
>>at older cars, particularly those whose engines were tuned a bit
>>rich to work with AIR injection and one way catalysts.
>Then just increase emission standards, and make the minimum amount for
>spending in one year at least equal to the price of a catalytic converter.
>Another good one would be to ban the car off the road if it fails to
>meet emmissions 2 years in a row until it does meet them.
Comment a: I don't set policy, I just report on it.
Comment b: That will never happen because it would cost "poor people"
money and would not be "progressive".
>>Fuel economy has nothing to do with performance. Naturally your mileage
>>would go down as your engine's ECU compensates for the leanness. If you
>>ran pure methanol whose stochiometric ratio is 6:1, your mileage
>>would go through the floor.
>1.) Fuel economy and performance generally go hand in hand, an increase
>in one causes a decrease in the other. Both of mine decreased.
No they don't. If you change fuels so the mixture is lean under most
conditions, you will make less power because of less than optimum
power AND your economy will decrease because you open the throttle
more to compensate for the loss of power. If you don't believe that,
look in any elementary engine text and observe a brake specific fuel
consumption vs mixture graph.
>2.) I believe the specific energy of methanol is lower than gasoline,
>requiring more to be burned for same horsepower, resulting in lower
>fuel economy.
Specific energy is almost the same for alcohol and gasoline:
Gasoline 2.92
methanol 3.08
Ethanol 3.00
The issues are
oxygen content:
Gasoline 0 % by weight
Methanol 50.0
Ethanol 34.8
Heating value
Gasoline 42.7 MJ/kg
Methanol 19.9
Ethanol 26.8
Stoichiometric ratio (derived from oxygen content)
Gasoline 14.6:1
Methanol 6.45:1
Ethanol 9.0:1
Reference: "Automotive Fuels Handbook", Owens & Coley, Tbl 12.3, P267
>3.) I base the above on the fact that propane powered cars run about
>1.8:1 compared to gas in fuel economy, and the knowledge that power
>also drops in these vehicles. (Emissions were said to much better, though.
>Maybe all older cars should be forced to convert to either modern engine
>emissions or propane?)
The economy difference between propane and gasoline is due to the different
density and molecular weight of the fuels and thus the difference in
the number of fuel atoms per gallon of fuel. Propane does NOT produce
less power than gasoline. Propane's slight loss in volumetric efficiency
due to its being introduced as a gas instead of a liquid is more than
offset by its high octane. When the engine is tuned for propane (NOT
duel fuel, add-on conversions), it makes as much power as a gas motor.
I've built propane-powered turbocharged 280Z engines that made quite enough
power, thank you. (actually not, since there is no such thing as enough
power but enough to dust the porches and 'vettes.)
Ron Bense
>be...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense) writes:
>Umm maybe so but I'll bet on my sources at API (American Petroleum Institute)
>over day labor on a loading dock.
If you want to call a guy that has attained the rank of captain a day
laborer, be my guest.
>Not suprising. Hourly workers have all kinds of superstitions that
>can't be changed by any amount of fact. When I used to work in a
See above.
>>Alcohol requires oxygen to burn. Something like Potassium Perchlorate
>>decomposes and yields extra oxygen. That's what I would call an oxygenate,
>>but no one has answered that yet, so I'll wait and see what occurs.
>ethers fit the category. If you think that ANY of these fuels can
>burn without oxygen and thus are hard to extinguish OR you believe
Obviously I don't, would you care to check your reading comprehension
by going over this thread again?
>that potassium perchlorate or any other oxidizer is blended into
>pump gas, then, well... I have some nice seafront property to sell...
My point was that NaClO5 is a chemical that will produce excess oxygen
when it decomposes. According to all the snake-oil type commercials
and other bull going on about this new "oxygenated" gas, this is what
the additives are supposed to do (add oxygen, that is). As for the seafront
property, that wouldn't be near the Dewey beach region, would it? :)
[deleted response to 1]
a) I believe the technical aspects of your response to one.
b) My car compensates for "leanness" by reading the O2 value in the
exhaust and regulating fuel input to the engine. This does not
apply.
>Specific energy is almost the same for alcohol and gasoline:
>Gasoline 2.92
>methanol 3.08
>Ethanol 3.00
very good, now let's look at:
>Heating value
>Gasoline 42.7 MJ/kg
>Methanol 19.9
>Ethanol 26.8
Heat and gas expansion are where the energy comes from. Which would
you rather be running your car on?
>oxygen content:
Doesn't really mean diddly to the average consumer, who just notes that
the amount he pays to go one mile just increased by 10-20%.
>The economy difference between propane and gasoline is due to the different
>density and molecular weight of the fuels and thus the difference in
>the number of fuel atoms per gallon of fuel. Propane does NOT produce
>less power than gasoline. Propane's slight loss in volumetric efficiency
Ok, so it was an unfair comparison, but when you're taxed by the gallon...
>due to its being introduced as a gas instead of a liquid is more than
>offset by its high octane. When the engine is tuned for propane (NOT
>duel fuel, add-on conversions), it makes as much power as a gas motor.
Ah, but the add-on conversions (which, from what I remember about them,
don't cost an excessive amount) would significantly reduce pollution
in older cars, would they not? More so than this meager reduction offered
by the "new" gas, after you factor in how much more of it is burned.
Ron
John De Armond
>If you want to call a guy that has attained the rank of captain a day
>laborer, be my guest.
>>Not suprising. Hourly workers have all kinds of superstitions that
>>can't be changed by any amount of fact. When I used to work in a
>See above.
Rank means he can salute when required and a few other things unrelated
to knowing about the constituents of motor fuel. Believe what you'd
like. No concern to me.
>>ethers fit the category. If you think that ANY of these fuels can
>>burn without oxygen and thus are hard to extinguish OR you believe
>Obviously I don't, would you care to check your reading comprehension
>by going over this thread again?
If you want to bring potassium permanganate into a discussion about
motor fuels, expect to be treated like either a very uneducated
person or an idiot or both.
>b) My car compensates for "leanness" by reading the O2 value in the
> exhaust and regulating fuel input to the engine. This does not
> apply.
It does not compensate at wide open throttle which is where power is
made. Yes it will compensate and even learn the new fuel but it will
NOT compensate for the loss of power associated with WOT leanness.
>>Specific energy is almost the same for alcohol and gasoline:
>>Gasoline 2.92
>>methanol 3.08
>>Ethanol 3.00
>very good, now let's look at:
>>Heating value
>>Gasoline 42.7 MJ/kg
>>Methanol 19.9
>>Ethanol 26.8
>Heat and gas expansion are where the energy comes from. Which would
>you rather be running your car on?
I'd personally be running Methanol, assuming I could get it at a
specific energy equivalent price. Specific energy is the prime
indicator of a fuel's power potential.
>>oxygen content:
>Ah, but the add-on conversions (which, from what I remember about them,
>don't cost an excessive amount) would significantly reduce pollution
>in older cars, would they not? More so than this meager reduction offered
>by the "new" gas, after you factor in how much more of it is burned.
Since I used to own a company that did propane conversions, perhaps
I can comment with a bit of specificity. A duel fuel conversion, ie,
an IMPCO propane carburator added on top of the gasoline carb cost about
$1000 in materials and about $300-500 in installation in 1985.
A single fuel conversion optimized to use the higher octane available
would run $700-1000 more because the heads have to be pulled and milled
and/or higher compression pistons fitted. I
assume the price has done nothing but go up. Propane WAS cheaper than
gas to run because it used to be cheaper than gasoline. I used to
pay 60-65 cents a gallon and retailed it at 75-85 cents a gallon plus
tax which was 20 cents back then. That compared favorably to the
$1.20 a gallon for gas back then. Last bulk load of propane I bought
for my cabin was 1.20 a gallon. No bargain. As far as emissions,
the only thing propane brings to the table is a reduction in HC
emissions and to a less extent, CO emissions due to there being no
liquid fuel involved.
As to the economics of conversion for emission purposes, for the
$1500-2000 involved, I can install a port fuel injection system and
cat converter, meet modern emission standards for everything except
evaporative emissions and still be able to fill up at the corner
station. For about $600 I can install an aftermarket cat converter
and closed loop air bleed system that makes even an carburated
engine meet emission standards. No bargains for propane there.
The only real bargains for propane involve situations where one
can buy propane in bulk and it will be used off-road so road tax
can be avoided. That's why you find it in fork lifts and yard
trucks and not much on the road.
Ron Bense
>Rank means he can salute when required and a few other things unrelated
>to knowing about the constituents of motor fuel. Believe what you'd
>like. No concern to me.
Your lack of respect is virtually astounding. Besides that, these guys
are certified inspectors. But then, perhaps the only concern of yours
is how brown your surroundings are.
>If you want to bring potassium permanganate into a discussion about
>motor fuels, expect to be treated like either a very uneducated
>person or an idiot or both.
Then consider yourself both uneducated and an idiot.
That was potassium perchlorate, NaClO5, in case you don't understand
chemistry. When it decomposes, it yields oxygen. That was my point.
>Since I used to own a company that did propane conversions, perhaps
So you could be qualified to comment in 1993....
Try a PC computer programmer from 1985 and move him into 1993....
>for my cabin was 1.20 a gallon. No bargain. As far as emissions,
>the only thing propane brings to the table is a reduction in HC
>emissions and to a less extent, CO emissions due to there being no
>liquid fuel involved.
So it's about the same price as a fuel now days. I'm sure we could also
go through some other nitpicky details that a propane engine has/has
not compared to a gas engine, etc, but why? And as an aside, doesn't
a propane engine have less wear and tear and last much longer than a
gas engine? (This could be rumor)
Ron
Don Robinson
: A recent San Jose Mercury News article mentioned the complaints
: of motorists about an especially oxygenated gasoline that's
: being pumped everywhere in California. Their MPGs have gone down
: anywhere from 5 to 25 [!]%. Taxi companies are complaining.
:
: The idea was supposed to lower pollution. It sounds to me like
: a ploy that results in 5 to 25% more gasoline burned per mile.
:
: Where else is this happening? The paper vaguely mentions 35
: other places across the country but does not say where.
:
: What times of the year is this stuff being introduced?
: just winter time?
Here in the Phoenix metro area. I believe we suffer with this stuff
from Sept thru April. It smells bad while pumping and coming out
the exhaust, plus it does not yield as many miles/gal.
DER
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Don Robinson (602) 752-6466 Internet: vlsiphx!do...@asuvax.eas.asu.edu
** Any resemblance between the above views and those of my employer, **
** my terminal, or the view out my window are purely coincidental. **
Dave Williams
-> > That depends, of course, in what you're burning the gick in. For a
-> >late model car in good tune there's not much difference.
-> >
->
-> Baloney. I've watched my '92 Chevy S-10 drop from 24 to 21 mpg. i've
It didn't seem to make much difference to the Cavalier I rented a few
months ago. Of course, it needed pedals to help keep up with the
traffic anyway.
John DeArmond keeps talking about how wonderful the built-in oxidizers
are, but I'd just as soon pay my money for straight gas - air is free,
no need to buy it by the gallon too!
John F. Whitehead
>>>j...@dixie.com (John De Armond) writes:
>>>Methyl teriary butyl ether, CH3*O*C4H9, a very high octane fuel that
>
>fewer NOx emmissions and more CO2.
According to a little handout from BP Oil, the "additional oxygen [from
MTBE or Ethanol] promotes more efficient combustion and reduces tailpipe
emissions of carbon monoxide up to 30%".
--
________________________________________________________________________
| John j...@neuro.duke.edu Duke University Medical Center |
| Whitehead j...@well.sf.ca.us Department of Neurobiology |
|________________________________________ Durham, North Carolina ________|
Ron Bense
gas regardless of that "winter effect". I drove to Columbus, OH from
Wash., DC this past weekend, and have been using oxygenated gas exclusively
for the last several months, so when I started this trip, it was all
oxygenated. I drive a Celica turbo alltrack, which requires (recommended
anyway) 91+ octane gas. It had 87k on the odometer, and has had the
O2 sensor replaced recently and is in fairly good working order.
The gas tank holds 15.9 gallons, according to the manuals, of which
13.9 is about the max. usable volume. (This is important to show the
effects of the diluted oxygenated gas I experienced on the trip.)
All driving was pretty much highway, with some small portion of each
tank being city driving (<30 miles).
1st tank, 20.6 mpg - 241 miles, 11.7 gallons on fill-up, 100% oxygenated gas.
driving was two 40 mile highway segments, w/ cool down of engine,
and then continuous driving at about 65 mph.
2nd tank, 22.2 mpg - 251 miles, 11.3 gallons on fill-up, 26% oxy gas.
driving was ~65 highway, with a 30 mile stretch of mountain driving
to get to ski resort. (downhill was icy conditions - slow)
3rd tank, 24.2 mpg - 261 miles, 10.8 gallons on fill-up, 7.6% oxy gas.
driving was ~65-70 highway, with 30-40 miles driven in Colombus.
There were cool-down segments in Col.
4th tank, 26.5 mpg - 239 miles, 9.0 gallons on fill-up, assume non-oxy gas.
continuous driving at 75-80, through the mountains.
It's pretty obvious that oxy gas is the culprit, as even driving at
higher speeds through mountainous terrain caused oxy gas to cut almost
25% off my mpg. Anybody know who we can write to to cancel this idiotic
approach to pollution control?
Ron
PS - the 26.5 mpg figure was a bit of a surprise, since the best previous
recorded mpg for highway driving was a little under 26 mpg, but this
was also the first time I did a continous drive at speed with only one
stop (bathroom:) before filling up.
Chris Prael
round trip from the Bay Area to Vancouver, B.C. and back. I would
suggest that you write any local newspapers. If you are a resident of
the state you are living in (since you are Navy), write your governor,
state legislator, and state senator. It also can't hurt to write to
your congress-person and your U.S. senator.
These frauds don't hold up so well when they get exposed to the light of
day.
Chris Prael
From article <30...@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, by be...@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Ron Bense):