Methyl Hydrate
mark
in the tank prior to an emissions test, can help lower HC/CO
I am considering giving it a try on my older vehicle with a car that is
giving me fits being just barely over the edge on both HC and CO, but
believe it or not, I am not finding it in the hardware store..... Lots
of wood alchohol, methanol, and other branded names, and home depot
seems to be manned by dingalings who have no idea.
A new cat is the best solution, but being jobless and having few bucks
to spend, I just need to get past this time to keep moving ahead.
Is methly hydrate just a generic name, and something that I need to
read all the labels to find? Is there a product name I should be
looking for? I wish these stores had people running the depts. who at
least graduated high school....
Much obliged for any help or suggestions. I really don't want to
waste my car putting something wrong in the tank.
Mark
H...@nospam.nix
"mark" <singlew...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150854314.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> I see lots of folks who claim that putting an amount of methyl hydrate
> in the tank prior to an emissions test, can help lower HC/CO
They are talking about methanol, in a rather goofy way.
Raymond J. Henry
wrote:
>I see lots of folks who claim that putting an amount of methyl hydrate
>in the tank prior to an emissions test, can help lower HC/CO
>
I've seen where this works. However, you need to run a good couple of
tanks through prior to the test. What you want is 10 ethanol or 5%
methanol.
If you're mixing your own, you may want to try a farmers supply
outlet. When I was desperately seeking methanol in the U.S. prior to
them waking up to the benefits of it, the only place I could find it
was in farmer's supply outlets. Sold as simple gas line antifreeze.
Despite the added cost of dumping into the tank prior to fueling,
doing so saved me a ton of cash in mileage on my trip, and completely
removed the pre-ignition on my ~10:1 four cylinder.
TeGGeR®
news:1150854314.2...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> Is methly hydrate just a generic name, and something that I need to
> read all the labels to find? Is there a product name I should be
> looking for? I wish these stores had people running the depts. who at
> least graduated high school....
Methyl hydrate = methanol. It has other names too.
http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/ME/methyl_alcohol.html
--
TeGGeR®
Ted Mittelstaedt
> in the tank prior to an emissions test, can help lower HC/CO
>
> I am considering giving it a try on my older vehicle with a car that is
> giving me fits being just barely over the edge on both HC and CO,
HEET gas tank dryer is the same thing.
The way it works is rather simple, since alcohol has less energy and it
displaces fuel, your engine has less power and produces less pollutants.
But the caveat is that it only works if the HCs are coming from
gasoline combustion.
If the real problem is that oil is being burned in the combusion chamber
along with gasoline, due to bad rings or due to valve seal leaks, and
that is why your HC's are high, then dumping alcohol into the gas tank
will do absolutely nothing. It does not take a lot of oil burning to
raise HC's past the legal limit. In fact, much less oil burning than is
needed to produce the signature "blue smoke exhaust"
About 4 months ago some friends of ours moved and had a Toyota
Tercel (real POS) that was not passing emissions that they could not
take with them, and as a favor I sold it for them. Because I of course
wanted to get the best money for it and because I did not want to put
any serious money into fixing the engine problems with it, since I was
going to sell it, I decided to try every low-ball cheap trick in the
emissions passing book. And as a point, my friends had got it through
emissions 2 years earlier by the bottle-of-magic-fluid in the gas tank
routine. It also helped that I could put the costs of the various magic
fluids against the proceeds from the vehicle sale, and I had always wanted
to try out the mystery fluids and see if any would work. So I had
zero financial risk, I could play as much as I wanted, and if I struck
it lucky my friends would benefit from the increased sale price that
a good inspection report would produce.
After trying many different things and putting several hundred miles on
it burning through partial gas tank after partial gas tank (the usual trick
is to put the magic fluids in when the tank is down to it's last gallon
in order to maximize their concentration) I can say with absolute
certainty that none of the "emissions passing fluids" on the market
that you pour into your gas tank, and none of the other magic fluids
(like HEET) that are sold ostensibly for legal purposes but are really
bought to try to snake past emissions, will make one iota of difference
if the engine is polluting simply because it's worn out.
If the car is polluting because the catcon has decreased efficiency, and
ONLY if it's polluting because the catcon has decreased efficiency, THEN
as many bottles of HEET as you dare to put into the tank may possibly
allow you to squeak by.
But is is very rare that a catcon will just up and fail like that. The vast
majority
of the time the catcon fails because the engine is out of tune and is not
producing exhaust that has the chemistry that the catcon was designed
for. Either it's too rich in which case the catcon gets sooted up or it's
too lean in which the catcon runs too hot and burns up. Shotgunners
will replace the catcon and think they fixed the problem, by the next
emissions inspection the new catcon is ruined. Unethical mechanics
will replace the catcon without fixing the other stuff because they know
the customer will have to come back the next year, and get another
catcon. As a result there are far too many ignoramuses running around
telling people to replace catcons when most of the time the problem
isn't the catcon at all.
>
> A new cat is the best solution, but being jobless and having few bucks
> to spend, I just need to get past this time to keep moving ahead.
>
Most states have waviers, if you are too poor to fix your car you can
get a wavier. Some states even have programs where they fix your car
at a reduced cost if you are poor. You need to investigate those options
first. But, you really ought to think hard about selling your car now
and buying a replacement. Some car buyers live in areas that don't
test for emissions and don't care if it passes or not, and a great many
other
buyers simply don't think to check for emissions. The buyers that bought
my friends Toyota, for example, paid $1000 for it, believe it or not,
and the car was puffing smoke when they test drove it - they were just
too unobservant to notice that. If your car sounds like it's running
very smoothly then now is the time to dump it, while you can still get
some money out of it.
Ted
mark
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> Most states have waviers, if you are too poor to fix your car you can
> get a wavier. Some states even have programs where they fix your car
> at a reduced cost if you are poor. You need to investigate those options
> first.
Thanks. I live in Utah, and they said that after I paid $400 for
repairs, I could get a waiver, and I would have to do it all again next
year. Not a chance :-) Couldn't even sell a car this old for much more
than that.....
>But, you really ought to think hard about selling your car now
> and buying a replacement.
If I could afford a newer car....... but really, I like the car, and as
the original owner, it is in great shape, and I keep it because of
40mpg on the freeway, and 33 around town. :-)
> If your car sounds like it's running
> very smoothly then now is the time to dump it, while you can still get
> some money out of it.
>
Thanks Ted. I appreciate your experiences, and taking the time to pass
them on. I was unaware of the burning oil issue. The engine is in
pretty good shape, and I guess I will be finding out of its oil or a
dead cat :-) Compression checks show all is well. I wish I could do a
leak down test as well.. <shrug>
What you and others have pointed out to me has made me realize what may
be the overall problem, because, without getting too long winded <g> I
run without the EGR valve connected, and only use it when I go to
inspection. FWIW, the thermal vacuum switch is no good, and the car
won't run with EGR connected when its cold, so it stays off.
Replacements for the TVS are expensive, and not really available
anyway, being a 1984. its possible that running without EGR may have
overheated the CAT, and done it in as you pointed out can happen, since
the emissions are not that far off, so if I replace the cat, (which is
probably my only legal, ethical route) and don't deal with the EGR
problem, you may be right that I will be getting a new cat again,
sooner, than later....
I did replace the plugs yesterday, and noted that they were showing
things to be on the lean side, which as never happened before so
perhaps I am on to something.....
I appreciate you throwing all that out there for consideration. Not
sure if I am right, but its important to know that so I can make the
right choices.
Much obliged,
Mark
Raymond J. Henry
<te...@toybox.placo.com> wrote:
>
>The way it works is rather simple, since alcohol has less energy and it
>displaces fuel, your engine has less power and produces less pollutants.
>
I'll never try to become a chemist or an engineer, but you're off
track on this one. ET's show a different story around here.
Say, why would they build alcohol powered race cars if it wasn't
working?
mark
Raymond J. Henry wrote:
> I'll never try to become a chemist or an engineer, but you're off
> track on this one. ET's show a different story around here.
>
> Say, why would they build alcohol powered race cars if it wasn't
> working?
Seems to me, if you build it from the ground up for alcohol, it would
be fine, and can be used to generate lots of power, but just putting
into a FI or Carb set up for gas would cause a decrease in power. Just
a guess....
Mark
Raymond J. Henry
wrote:
Bad guess. Seems that adding it to gasoline provides a more controlled
burn, according to a friend of mine that builds race engines. He used
a 10% methanol blended fuel himself. In fact, he even uses it in his
stock mid-90's GMC 1/2 ton.
He informs me that he's seen dyno tests improve using blended fuel,
and that reflects exactly what I've seen in about 98% of the vehicles
I've used it in. My 1986 Aries sees 2 MPG over unblended fuels, but
tends to crank a rotation or two longer prior to start on warm days.
My Fiats and Volvos all responded very favorably to it, whereas my
stock NA V8 engines ran the scale between moderate to zero change.
Raise the compression, and it's time to get out the blended fuel.
Works great, as it has a higher effective octane.
He's some reading, if you're so inclined... He directed me to this
site, I'll take a look at it when I have time. All I know is that at
-40, I better have blended fuel. And if I want my car to have more
power, I better have blended fuel (except if it's a worn-out V8).
http://www.distill.com/World-Fuel-Ethanol-A&O-2004.html
Kaz Kylheku
> I see lots of folks who claim that putting an amount of methyl hydrate
> in the tank prior to an emissions test, can help lower HC/CO
They are idiots whose idea does not hold "dihydrogen oxide".
Alcohols like methanol and ethanol do not even mix with gasoline.
The ethanol-blended gasoline you can buy at the pump is specially
formulated. Emulsifiers are used to mix it in.
You don't just dump some alcohol into a vat of gasoline and stir it
with a stick.
If you think ethanol-blended gasoline will reduce your emissions, just
go out and fill up with it.
> I am considering giving it a try on my older vehicle with a car that is
> giving me fits being just barely over the edge on both HC and CO, but
> believe it or not, I am not finding it in the hardware store..... Lots
> of wood alchohol, methanol, and other branded names, and home depot
> seems to be manned by dingalings who have no idea.
Methanol /is/ methyl hydrate. Chemical formula CH3OH. A carbon atom
with three hydrogens stuck on it and an OH. Wood alcohol is also the
same thing.
I would also suspect that the methanol available in hardware stores
probably contains varying amounts of water, which is another good
reason not to put it into your tank.
> A new cat is the best solution, but being jobless and having few bucks
> to spend, I just need to get past this time to keep moving ahead.
Is it a fuel-injected car or carbureted? What make, model, year? How
many miles?
Maybe it just needs a bit of a tune up.
Too much hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide could simply indicate that
it's running too rich: a bit too much fuel in the fuel/air mixture.
Also, it could be that the ignition timing is off.
What else? In fuel-injected cars, the amount of fuel that is mixed
with the air is determined by measurements from sensors like the mass
airflow sensor and the oxygen sensor. Those have to work right,
obviously.
Maybe the fuel injectors are squirting instead of spraying, because
they are dirty.
Maybe the car is burning too much oil that is getting past worn valve
stem seals and rings. (Don't assume that the hydrocarbons came from
gasoline only!) How quickly does the car consume oil?
So I wouldn't rush to the conclusion that a catalytic converter is the
thing. Getting a new cat for the beater could turn out to be a complete
waste of money.
Can you answer the question how many miles ago did that car have the
last, oh, sparkplug change?
> Is methly hydrate just a generic name, and something that I need to
> read all the labels to find? Is there a product name I should be
> looking for? I wish these stores had people running the depts. who at
> least graduated high school....
Well, did /you/ graduate from highschool? Yet somehow you don't have
any more of a clue that methanol, methyl alcohol, wood alcohol and
methyl hydrate are the same stuff than they do. Out of 100 randomly
picked USA highschool graduates, how many do you think would know that?
How about college graduates, even?
People who know things like that don't want to work in retail. Besides,
if retail actually paid them what they are worth, you would have to pay
a heck of a lot more for that methyl hydrate. So it's cheaper for you
if they are dumb and you know exactly what you want.
H...@nospam.nix
"Kaz Kylheku" <kkyl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1150959413....@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> They are idiots whose idea does not hold "dihydrogen oxide".
>
> Alcohols like methanol and ethanol do not even mix with gasoline.
!WRONG!!!!!!!!!!
> The ethanol-blended gasoline you can buy at the pump is specially
> formulated. Emulsifiers are used to mix it in.
!WRONG!!!!!!!
> You don't just dump some alcohol into a vat of gasoline and stir it
> with a stick.
!!Finally correct...You don't, but if you did, it would go into solution
unless you get too much water in it. If you do, it will separate. Ethanol
is much more forgiving than methanol. The higher alcohols are even
more forgiving, but begin to behave more like ordinary alkanes...that is
to say, the effect of the oxygen in the molecule is effectively diluted.
Don Stauffer
The methanol has a MUCH higher octane than most gasolines. Thus one can
use a higher compression ratio. With a higher compression ratio the
output of the engine is higher in terms of horsepower per cubic inch.
Most racing santioning bodies limit engine size by capacity (cubic
inches). The efficiency in terms of horsepower per gallon of fuel is
much less important than horsepower per cubic inch.
The pollution is a MUCH more complex issue. Methanol and ethanol do
produce LESS CO than gasoline, because they are oxygenated fuels.
Alcohols DO produce more aldehyde emissions. The specific ones are not
regulated, though.
Because of the high compression ratios, there would be a tendency to
increase HOX levels, but the cooler combustion due to richer mixture
when running methanol helps alleviate the NOX. I have never seen a good
study on the NOX production of racing engines, though.
This cooling effect is another reason for use of alcohol in a racing
engine. Gasoline will not ignite properly with a very rich mixture,
whereas methanol WILL. The very rich mixture cools valves and piston
heads. People who tried running the old Offies on gasoline ran into
lots of problems.
jeffcoslacker
People tend to confuse octane and energy delivered on detonation...leads
to some confusion sometimes. Meth and Eth are higher octane, but deliver
less energy when burned than gasoline.
So to use it in a passenger car with low compression and no forced
induction, it creates less power per volume than an equal amount of
straight gas, but also a more controlled (and possibly more complete)
combustion event.
In racing engines, the idea is to cram the most mixture into the
cylinder that can possibly be burned efficiently, so alcohol fuels'
power defecit is overcome by sheer volume delivered....by contrast, the
passenger car's purpose is to deliver the LEAST amount of fuel possible
for a stable idle and reasonable power output, so the equation is
reversed.
--
jeffcoslacker
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jeffcoslacker's Profile: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?userid=219638
View this thread: http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=581669
mark
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> mark wrote:
> > I see lots of folks who claim that putting an amount of methyl hydrate
> > in the tank prior to an emissions test, can help lower HC/CO
>
> They are idiots whose idea does not hold "dihydrogen oxide".
Congratulations. Out of an honest guess of forty different sources,
you are the only one who diss'es the theory :-) Of the forty, about
half actually posted their before and after results from their e-tests
and the results seemed to be remarkable
>
> If you think ethanol-blended gasoline will reduce your emissions, just
> go out and fill up with it.
I think you misunderstood the statement of "putting an amount" into the
tank, to mean filling up the whole tank. What I have come up with is
something like 10% methyl hydrate, in about half a tank. Such a small
amount would be rather benign, regardless of whether it helped or not.
Plus, I never said that it would help, I said others believed that,
and I was looking for experiences and comments from those who may have
tried it. You are making too many assumptions
>
> I would also suspect that the methanol available in hardware stores
> probably contains varying amounts of water, which is another good
> reason not to put it into your tank.
And that is why I have not run out and just bought stuff that 'appears'
to be methyl hydrate. Some of it is highly questionabl. Methyl Hydrate
would be 99% alcohol, and 1% water. Anything other than that, is not
pure Methyl Hydrate, near as I can figure, which is why I didn't buy
any of that stuff, and was hoping to find someone who knew of a brand
name. Guess you don't?
>
> > A new cat is the best solution, but being jobless and having few bucks
> > to spend, I just need to get past this time to keep moving ahead.
>
> Is it a fuel-injected car or carbureted? What make, model, year? How
> many miles?
1984 Chevette four banger, carb, 180,000 miles 140lb compression in
each cylinder, +/- a few lbs, burns no apparent amount of oil, gets
40mpg on the freeway, and about 33 around town. I am the original
owner, it has been meticulously cared for since the day I bought it.
>
> Maybe it just needs a bit of a tune up.
Now you really don't think someone would just drive into an e-test with
an older car without at least a tune-up, right? :-)
>
> Also, it could be that the ignition timing is off.
No one in their right mind goes to an expensive, time consuming e-test
without a tuneup first.
>
> So I wouldn't rush to the conclusion that a catalytic converter is the
> thing. Getting a new cat for the beater could turn out to be a complete
> waste of money.
Yes, it could, it was a "beater" but it really isn't. Old? Yes. Beat?
No. Please don't rush to the conclusion that I don't know how to take
care of a car and keep it tuned and running well.
>
> Can you answer the question how many miles ago did that car have the
> last, oh, sparkplug change?
Oh, how about a day before the test last year, when it passed, with the
HC right on the top of the allowed column, and CO nearly over the top?
And again, last weekend in prep for the test?
>
> Well, did /you/ graduate from highschool? Yet somehow you don't have
> any more of a clue that methanol, methyl alcohol, wood alcohol and
> methyl hydrate are the same stuff than they do. Out of 100 randomly
> picked USA highschool graduates, how many do you think would know that?
> How about college graduates, even?
Fact is, wood alcohol contains methyl, but it is NOT 99% pure methyl
hydrate. Its says so right on the can. I know that because I graduated
college and can read.
I figure that with forty rational saying it will work, and giving
examples and explanations of why, up against what you said, and the
way you said it, forty are right, and you have no idea what you are
talking about.
Thanks a lot,
Mark
H...@nospam.nix
> Fact is, wood alcohol contains methyl, but it is NOT 99% pure methyl
> hydrate. Its says so right on the can. I know that because I graduated
> college and can read.
Wood alcohol is a common name for methanol. The name implies nothing
about the purity. Don't know what purity was on the can you saw, but it
has no direct relationship to the name.
I graduated from college...making all those little calibration marks was too
much work.
Kaz Kylheku
> > The ethanol-blended gasoline you can buy at the pump is specially
> > formulated. Emulsifiers are used to mix it in.
> !WRONG!!!!!!!
My bad; this applies to ethanol blended with diesel fuel, not gasoline.
Kaz Kylheku
mark wrote:
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > If you think ethanol-blended gasoline will reduce your emissions, just
> > go out and fill up with it.
>
> I think you misunderstood the statement of "putting an amount" into the
> tank, to mean filling up the whole tank.
Not at all; I only meant that the effect of having around 10% alcohol
in your gas can be achieved by filling up with ethanol-blended
gasoline. Does it have to be methanol?
> > I would also suspect that the methanol available in hardware stores
> > probably contains varying amounts of water, which is another good
> > reason not to put it into your tank.
>
> And that is why I have not run out and just bought stuff that 'appears'
> to be methyl hydrate.
There is a form of methanol that are intended to be dropped into the
tank, namely methanol packaged and sold as fuel-line antifreeze. Not
all such antifreezes are methanol.
If you live in a warm climate, finding a retail outlet that carries
fuel-line antifreeze could be a bit of a problem. It tends to come in
small bottles too, which are overpriced for what it is.
Brand name? How about Heet. (Not Iso-Heet, that is made from
isopropanol). Regular Heet is 99% methanol and 1% of some proprietary
additive.
FAQ:
mark
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>
> Brand name? How about Heet. (Not Iso-Heet, that is made from
> isopropanol). Regular Heet is 99% methanol and 1% of some proprietary
> additive.
>
> FAQ:
>
> http://www.goldeagle.com/heet/faqs_heet.asp
Thanks. I am off to check that out. I am sure they will restrict the
recommended amount to where it would not have the effect that a gallon,
to ten gallon of gas would have, which are the kinds of numbers I have
been reading about.
Just trying to learn, and seeing what other people know.
There is no ethanol where I live, at least not yet. I recall using it,
or probably a weak sister of it, many, many years ago, and after I
filled the tank, I could barely get my car home. It wasn't pinging, it
was banging, and clanking.
Not a good experience for sure..... :-)
Much obliged.
Mark
*
Raymond J. Henry <rayhenr...@THISautoclubs.ca> wrote in article
<cmfj92tji6j51rg3c...@4ax.com>...
Alcohols contain fewer BTUs than gasoline.
Heat = Horsepower. It is the heated expansion of gases in the cylinder that
drives the pistons downward.
The reason alcohols are used as racing fuels is that you can run so much
more compression with them. They are less prone to detonation than
gasoline.
The horsepower in alcohol-fueled racing enginse comes from the 16:1 or 17:1
compression ratios - not the fuel.
When running any alcohol as a fuel, the general rule of thumb is that you
must run twice the volume of alcohol as gasoline.
Alcohol burns much cooler than gasoline. It is this reason that Indy-type
car sanctioning bodies REQUIRE alcohol as a fuel. This came about shortly
after the tragic gasoline-fueled inferno at Indianapolis in the '60s that
killed Eddie Sachs and Dave MacDonald.......
.....that, plus the fact that alcohol fires can be doused with ordinary
water.
I haven't run Methanol for a while, but I can remember the car coming in
after a 35 lap feature with a quarter-inch of frost on the intake manifold
on a steamy August night.
You're smart to not try becoming a chemist or engineer!
*
Raymond J. Henry <rayhenr...@THISautoclubs.ca> wrote in article
<aj8k921fii5lo913s...@4ax.com>...
>
> He informs me that he's seen dyno tests improve using blended fuel,
> and that reflects exactly what I've seen in about 98% of the vehicles
> I've used it in. My 1986 Aries sees 2 MPG over unblended fuels, but
> tends to crank a rotation or two longer prior to start on warm days.
> My Fiats and Volvos all responded very favorably to it, whereas my
> stock NA V8 engines ran the scale between moderate to zero change.
>
You are definitely the exception to the rule......
Everybody else in North America experiences a drop in fuel mileage when the
winter blends - containing higher percentages of alcohol, thus fewer BTU -
are introduced.
If your "K-Car" fuel mileage IMPROVES on an alcohol/gasoline blend over
straight gasoline, then you need some serious tuning work.
jeffcoslacker
Yup, timing's slightly overadvanced or something....
Moxie
I'm a gal from WI who's older, 1991, Acura Integra just missed passing
the NOx emissions test by .14.
I don't want to replace the CatCon since I plan on buying a new car
within a year, and the car's just too old to warrant throwing that much
money at it. A mech told me to add a can of ISO Heet to the fuel and
run it hot for twenty minutes before giving it another try at the
testing facility. In WI we get two tests free, then have to pay for
any additional ones, I'm not sure if we have a limit to the number of
tests or not. I'd like to do whatever will give it the best chance of
passing I can. Not to mention it's getting near the end of the month
when my plates expire.
I appreciate any advice and consider myself lucky to have found such a
knowledgable group 'cause I sure don't know beans about engines..
aarcuda69062
<1151170974.2...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"Moxie" <airm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I think adding the ISO Heet will make the NOx go up.
The Wisconsin emissions program has two Technical Assistance
Centers in he Milwaukee area, one is near 76th and Good Hope Rd,
the other is at 11th and College, the service there is free, an
appointment can be made for you by any inspection station manager.
You get three free tests, you can buy as many re-tests after the
free three as you wish but the station inspectors will do an
underhood component inspection before selling you any tests.
Can't remember whether a 91 Acura has an EGR valve, if so, it
needs to be working correctly to pass NOX, if not, the CatCon
needs to be able to reduce NOx in order to pass, if it needs a
CatCon, here's little else you can do.
Moxie
aarcuda69062 wrote:
> In article
> I think adding the ISO Heet will make the NOx go up.
> The Wisconsin emissions program has two Technical Assistance
> Centers in he Milwaukee area, one is near 76th and Good Hope Rd,
> the other is at 11th and College, the service there is free, an
> appointment can be made for you by any inspection station manager.
>
> You get three free tests, you can buy as many re-tests after the
> free three as you wish but the station inspectors will do an
> underhood component inspection before selling you any tests.
>
> Can't remember whether a 91 Acura has an EGR valve, if so, it
> needs to be working correctly to pass NOX, if not, the CatCon
> needs to be able to reduce NOx in order to pass, if it needs a
> CatCon, here's little else you can do.
Thank you for your reply. I'll certainly call the Technical Assitance
centers you referred me to on Monday. It was actually the owner of one
of the "Recognized Repair Facilities" that told me to add Heet. Also,
I had been using "Regular" fuel, per the operationing hand book, but
switched to Premium after failing the test. Do you think that since
I'm now using that higher fuel grade that might help? I've burned a
full tank of the Premium. I'm frustrated because it failed the test by
such a slim margin ... seems like I should just be able to give it a
swift kick in the tailpipe to get it to pay attention and pass.
aarcuda69062
<1151173818.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
"Moxie" <airm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Thank you for your reply. I'll certainly call the Technical Assitance
> centers you referred me to on Monday. It was actually the owner of one
> of the "Recognized Repair Facilities" that told me to add Heet. Also,
> I had been using "Regular" fuel, per the operationing hand book, but
> switched to Premium after failing the test. Do you think that since
> I'm now using that higher fuel grade that might help?
No, but stranger things have happened.
Visiting a different test station might help. Then again, you
might see worse numbers.
> I've burned a
> full tank of the Premium. I'm frustrated because it failed the test by
> such a slim margin ... seems like I should just be able to give it a
> swift kick in the tailpipe to get it to pay attention and pass.
Doesn't work that way.
Raymond J. Henry
>
>You are definitely the exception to the rule......
>
>Everybody else in North America experiences a drop in fuel mileage when the
>winter blends - containing higher percentages of alcohol, thus fewer BTU -
>are introduced.
>
>If your "K-Car" fuel mileage IMPROVES on an alcohol/gasoline blend over
>straight gasoline, then you need some serious tuning work.
>
Uh, no.... Funny thing about it is the difference between using it on
your own and having the gov't enforce it. See, we've had it available
here since the early 80's by one station. And hundreds of thousands of
drivers have experienced EXACTLY the same benefits that I have.
Primarily those with high performance engines.
Blended fuels made Mohawk stations a serious competitor in the market
at a time when they were almost out of business. And as a pilot
program, they did virtually no advertising of the product at the time.
It wasn't until after they had developed such a good market share that
they invested in real advertising.
It's funny that when one does their own evaluation on something, the
results are different than when they are forced to use it, isn't it?
The claim that mileage DROPS may be true in a very small percentage of
vehicles on the road. 95% of people here that try it see an INCREASE
in mileage and performance.
This is not the fist time that I've heard this horrible urban legend,
and every time it comes up, I mention it to a few cars guys around
town. That ignorance always provides us with comic relief.....
You are definitely NOT an exception to the rule, in spreading that
bogus rumor that it affects mileage in a negative manner.
Raymond J. Henry
<jeffcoslac...@no-mx.nodomain.com> wrote:
>Yup, timing's slightly overadvanced or something....
Yeah...... Right..... Gee, wouldn't that cause pre-ignition?
jeffcoslacker
Yeah, but it affects performance at levels mush lower than you can
hear...so if you are over-advanced slightly, you likely wouldn't know
it, and when you begin to use a fuel that slows combustion slightly, of
course you will see a performance/mileage gain, which was precisely my
point, Mr. Sarcasm. :lol:
Moxie
aarcuda69062 wrote:
> > I've burned a
> > full tank of the Premium. I'm frustrated because it failed the test by
> > such a slim margin ... seems like I should just be able to give it a
> > swift kick in the tailpipe to get it to pay attention and pass.
>
> Doesn't work that way.
I was reading about PRI-G fuel additive being proven to lower
emissions. Do you think that's baloney?
aarcuda69062
<1151271391.1...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
"Moxie" <airm...@earthlink.net> wrote:
No. I think anything can be proven given the correct
circumstances.
If you needed to use PRI-G fuel additive to pass an emissions
test, would you continue to use that additive for as long as you
owned/operated that particular car?
Kaz Kylheku
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2006 09:58:49 -0500, "*" <nos...@this.addy.com> wrote:
> >
> >You are definitely the exception to the rule......
> >
> >Everybody else in North America experiences a drop in fuel mileage when the
> >winter blends - containing higher percentages of alcohol, thus fewer BTU -
> >are introduced.
> >
> >If your "K-Car" fuel mileage IMPROVES on an alcohol/gasoline blend over
> >straight gasoline, then you need some serious tuning work.
> >
>
> Uh, no.... Funny thing about it is the difference between using it on
> your own and having the gov't enforce it. See, we've had it available
> here since the early 80's by one station. And hundreds of thousands of
> drivers have experienced EXACTLY the same benefits that I have.
> Primarily those with high performance engines.
Hi, I live in Vancouver, Canada. I tried Mohawk gas for a while, less
than a year ago. My car is a 1998 Civic DX Hatch (definitely /not/ a
high performance engine). It's a smooth-running, well-maintained car,
with timing set up (by ear) to run on 87 octane gas without pinging.
Mohawk gas was consumed at at a rate of about 8.3 l/100 km in this car,
which compares unfavorably to Shell or Esso, from which I consistently
get about around 7.4 (both city mileages). Under pure highway driving,
I see a consumption of 5.6 of normal gasoline, but I have no data about
Mohawk. After my trial, I basically just said: no mo', no hawk. (Not
to me, anyway).
Raymond J. Henry
wrote:
>
>Hi, I live in Vancouver, Canada. I tried Mohawk gas for a while, less
>than a year ago. My car is a 1998 Civic DX Hatch (definitely /not/ a
>high performance engine). It's a smooth-running, well-maintained car,
>with timing set up (by ear) to run on 87 octane gas without pinging.
>Mohawk gas was consumed at at a rate of about 8.3 l/100 km in this car,
>which compares unfavorably to Shell or Esso, from which I consistently
>get about around 7.4 (both city mileages). Under pure highway driving,
>I see a consumption of 5.6 of normal gasoline, but I have no data about
>Mohawk. After my trial, I basically just said: no mo', no hawk. (Not
>to me, anyway).
So what you're saying is that Mohawk (now Husky) fuel may not perform
well in an unprofessionally tuned engine. I can buy that theory.
Kaz Kylheku
''Not professionally tuned'' isn't the same thing as ``badly'' tuned.
My car runs silky smooth now and gets terrific mileage on normal
gasoline. In city driving, it gets around the same figure, 32 mpg, that
is cited at www.fueleconomy.gov (and note I don't have a particularly
fuel-efficient driving style, either; I /can/ push that consumption
lower with a more conservative style). On the highway, I've gotten an
amazing 42 mpg. www.fueleconomy.gov cites the highway economy of this
car as 37 mpg. I've read a few reports from owners getting 40.
Therefore, while it may be unprofessionally tuned (no trained
professionals were paid during the tuning of this vehicle), based on
these observations, nothing needs to be done to this car.
The same car, as I bought it, did have a little bit of pinging during
acceleration and hill climbing. That was when I experimented with
different fuels and timings. Even if I'm too incompetent to find the
perfect, "professional" setting, I would have passed through that value
in probing through the range. I'm not too incompetent not to know how
to probe through a range of values, and connect the dots. I was not
able to find an ignition timing for which Mohawk gas performed
favorably compared to 87 gas from Shell or Esso. Not even close. In
fact, no base timing setting produced fuel economy out of Mohawk better
than around 8.3 liters per 100 km. That was the 89 octane stuff, by the
way, too.
The professional engine tuner can only set that timing somewhere
between the most advanced and the least advanced. Now maybe there is
some magic value in that range that I missed: perhaps the consumption
of Mohawk gasoline sharply drops at some particular timing that must be
identified within a small fraction of a degree by a Real Pro! Even so,
that would indicate that maybe the fuel is way too sensitive to engine
tuning to make it practical for real world use.
There is another thing: Mohawk (now Husky) stations tend to be pretty
run down, badly maintained little dives around here; dirty and dimly
lit at night. Maybe that is changing with the change to Husky; I
woudn't know, and don't care. My final experience with Mohawk ended
with fuel spilled on the ground: the nozzle's venturi shutoff wasn't
working! The employees manning the station acknowledged that they knew
about it, yet they hadn't marked the pump out of order! I drove by
there later that same evening and that pump was still open! Prior to
that, at a different Mohawk, a pump was filling excruciatingly slowly.
Something like 1 liter per minute! The employees manning /that/ station
didn't do anything either; they just let frustrated customers pay for a
few drops of fuel and drive off or move to a different pump, allowing
new customers to to drive up and give it a try.
Good grief.
jim
Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> My final experience with Mohawk ended
> with fuel spilled on the ground: the nozzle's venturi shutoff wasn't
> working! The employees manning the station acknowledged that they knew
> about it, yet they hadn't marked the pump out of order!
Yes I have found pumping the gas onto the pavement can definitely impact
negatively on fuel economy.
-jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Kaz Kylheku
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > My final experience with Mohawk ended
> > with fuel spilled on the ground: the nozzle's venturi shutoff wasn't
> > working! The employees manning the station acknowledged that they knew
> > about it, yet they hadn't marked the pump out of order!
>
> Yes I have found pumping the gas onto the pavement can definitely impact
> negatively on fuel economy.
Keep in mind that when that happens, it invalidates the measurement you
were trying to make of the capacity of the /previous/ tankful that was
just consumed.
Raymond J. Henry
wrote:
Fuel on the road doesn't equate to good mileage...
Anyways, trip out of town Sunday with my Aries resulted in round trip
mileage of 34.76 MPG running 105 to 120 KPH on an engine with over
260,000 KMs.
Speaks for itself, I'm sure. BTW, I'm probably within the top 10% of
accelerating drivers off the line, so it's not like I baby this wreck
myself....