|
Jason,
Out here in California we just use tap water and drop those moth ball
pellets in the tank; can’t tell the difference in performance between our 91
unleaded and swamp water...
Gary P.
RAY
I LIVE IN INDIANA AND HAVE TO AGREE WHOLE HARTEDLY. I THINK THERE IS SOME DIRTY
POOL BEING PLAYED ON US. THE FUEL DOWN HERE AS YOU PUT IT IS VERY
CORROSIVE!! AND WONT KEEP MORE THAN A MONTH OR 2 AT BEST.. MY SNOWMOBILES
ARE A SOB TO START AND THE LEST WE EVEN DISCUSS THE CHAINSAWS AND WEED
EATER. MY GOODNES YOU CANT KEEP FUEL LINES ON THEM OR START THEM
RELIABLY. ALCAHOL FREE GAS DOES RUN BETTER THAN THE SWILL WE GET
SHOVED AT US. BUT… GET THIS …. MY 4 STROKE YAMAHA 426 DIRT BIKE LOVES 93 OCTANE
BLENDED FUEL. I PUT RACE GAS IN IT AND COULD NOT KEEP IT RUNNING.. WHAT
ARE THE ODDS.. ANYWAY WE HAVE EXPERIENCED MASSIVE CORROSION OF THE
GAS SYSTEM INCLUDING THE CARB BOWLS BEING CORODED TO THE POINT OF HAVING TO
REPLACE THE CARB. I WAS SHOCKED!! SOMETHING IS BEING PUT INTO THE
FUEL OR SOMETHING, I THINK TO CAUSE THIS. ( ON PURPOSE I THINK).
WELL
JUST MY RAMBLINGS JASON From:
1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Raymond J. Henry That’s interesting. Because ethanol blended fuels give a higher
effective octane rating. Meaning that is ACTS like higher octane, not that it
actually HAS higher octane rating. Which is why it’s been such a big hit around
here since the 80’s. The trick to making blended fuels perform better is to
simply run a slightly richer mixture. All of us that have been using it for
decades up here in our older and performance vehicles don’t have any of the
“problems” that are being reported in recent years by those in areas that are
now forced to use blended fuels. Which makes it very interesting, indeed. Why no
problems in Canada for decades, but all these issues in the
U.S.? My half million miles or so experience with blended fuels causes me
to wonder if your octane rating South of the border are perhaps fudged somewhat?
Mohawk (now Husky) actually sold ONLY E10 fuel for the longest time. Once
blending was legislated, they then followed the other stations with using
non-blended fuel for their 94 octane fuel. The resulting backlash against that
was so strong that they then re-introduced E10 94 octane. That was primarily due
the to petitioning of guys with older muscle cars, etc. On a side note, when I went down to the unveiling of Miss Belvedere,
I was running a ’65 Valiant with slant 6. At one point, I noticed that E85 was
being offered at a gas station for substantially less than non-blended. So I
topped off with half a tank of the stuff. The half tank that was in there was
the standard “may contain up to 10%” blend. I noticed no change whatsoever in
performance or mileage (and I checked the mileage every tank). Nor did I
encounter any of the problems I hear so much about. That car is still running
without any fuel/performance issues, almost 100,000 miles later. And all with
blended fuel. No fuel lines, carb, gas tank replacement since 2000. Prior to
that, we don’t know. The tank does look original, and there is no rebuild tag on
the carb. Rubber line between the frame and the steel line up to the carb have
been changed, but not since purchasing from the original owner in
2000. We have what is claimed to be the largest number per capita of
special interest vehicles on the road here (I can’t either deny or support the
validity of that claim), and all of us that I am aware of have been running
blended fuels, like I said, since the 80’s. Now, that’s E10. The M5 never took
off, I don’t know why, never ran it myself. It’s my understanding that the “new”
blended fuels are pretty much the same as the E10 we’ve run here, except that
they don’t have the guarantee of 10%, they may have “up to
10%”. When I was working as a GM tech, they did warn not to exceed 10%
ethanol, and that no amount of methanol was acceptable, or you could void your
warranty. GM also stipulated that E10 was perfectly acceptable, and that it
would have no undesirable effects on their vehicles. The story was that
exceeding that concentration (or using methanol) would damage the injectors.
Nothing was ever mentioned concerning other components. It’s very common for me to put on 1,000 miles/week on whatever old
car I have during our cruising season (May – November in a good year). Never
once have I had any components fail due to the rubber breaking down, nor have I
been subjected to idle or performance issues as a result of it. This is a
subject that has come up hundreds of times with friends and family South of the
border. And it just seems flat-out weird that you guys are having all these
issues with something that’s worked, literally, for decades up here without
those issues. The same fuel that’s causing grief for you guys was embraced years
ago by guys running identical stuff up here, without any problems…. We’re
all getting better performance, better idling, better mileage…. What are they
adding to your fuel down there with the ethanol that they don’t use up
here? In ~1985, I made a trip down through Montana (I have family there),
as well as hit up the Black Hills area. I was surprised to find some of those
country gas stations at the time had some pretty low octane ratings. At one
point, I was down to 81 octane. Pinging became a problem, and backing off the
timing only resulted in having real trouble getting up the hills with that 1800
cc engine. The engine bottom end was untouched, but I had done the valves. At
the time, I had installed a head gasket that was about ½ the thickness of the
factory. So I do not know what the compression ratio was. I finally figured out
how to combat the pinging issue, and that was to hit up a farmer’s supply
outlet, and buy gallon jugs of ethanol, and blend my own E10. By adding a gallon
of ethanol to my tank of pump fuel, I was able to return my timing back to where
it should have been, and all my problems went away. However, on that trip
I did have a fuel pump fail. But that was the factory pump with around 300,000
miles on it. The pump was replaced, and still ran fine until the car was
totalled in an accident some years later, with a documented 500,000+ miles on
it. The carbs had been services a number of times, but only the base gaskets
were changed as needed, and one replacement set of needles/seats. Floats were
original, as were the float needles. I have no end of stories about how well E10 has worked for me, and
how I’ve never had any issues from using it. Only good results
here. So you can see why I’m thinking that there has to be more going on
with your fuel down there than just the addition of
ethanol…. -Ray From:
1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Daniel McCormack The
Non ethanol ran so good in my 78 D-150 that I just came back from filling up my
68 Dart GTS stock 340. I’ve been hesitant to try it in the 340 because it’s only
90 octane and I’ve had some pinging problems with the 93 octane ethanol. Well
guess what, I have no pinging at all with the 90 octane non ethanol.
Interesting! From: 1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:1962to1965mopars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of cudaus1 Here in Florida the Governor
allows Non ethanol gas to be sold in the state. Very few Marathon stations have
it but at least I have one not far from me. The price is about 4.59 a gallon and
it's only 90 octane but it better than putting the other crap in your Mopar. The
ethanol ate up the fuel tank seal in my generator. Nasty crap! -- -- -- Please address private email -- email of interest to only one person -- directly to that person. That is, email your parts/car transactions and negotiations, as well as other personal messages, only to the intended recipient. Do not just press "reply" and send your email to everyone using the general '62-'65 Clubhouse public email address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine-tune the content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks! 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines: http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 1962 to 1965 Mopar Mail List Clubhouse" group. http://groups.google.com/group/1962to1965mopars?hl=en. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 1962 to 1965 Mopar Mail List Clubhouse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 1962to1965mopars+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- Please address private email -- email of interest to only one person -- directly to that person. That is, email your parts/car transactions and negotiations, as well as other personal messages, only to the intended recipient. Do not just press "reply" and send your email to everyone using the general '62-'65 Clubhouse public email address. This practice will protect your privacy, reduce the total volume of mail and fine-tune the content signal to Mopar topic. Thanks! 1962 to 1965 Mopar Clubhouse Discussion Guidelines: http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.org/mletiq.html and http://www.1962to1965mopar.ornocar.com/general_disclaimer.html. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 1962 to 1965 Mopar Mail List Clubhouse" group. http://groups.google.com/group/1962to1965mopars?hl=en. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The 1962 to 1965 Mopar Mail List Clubhouse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 1962to1965mopars+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. |
Back to the Home of the Forward Look Network