1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

air cooled fuel lines

Discussion in 'Performance' started by chris taylor, May 11, 2016.

  1. Alpal

    Alpal Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,982
    Location:
    Melbourne Bend of Islands
    Our observation is that fuel octane does not make a difference to Schmett.. Temperature or performance..
     
  2. Resnort

    Resnort Active Member

    Messages:
    347
    Location:
    Dbay QLD
    Freedom servos offer both
    E10 91 and regular 91
     
  3. Kai

    Kai Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,788
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW
  4. syncro

    syncro Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,219
    Location:
    Southern Highlands
  5. cbus

    cbus Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,442
    Location:
    sunshine coast
    Ha sorta like getting caught with your hands in the cookie jar when the cars have to get towed immediately:)

    Often its down the road and companies deny everything untill forced.

    Example of a local one( again a caltex wollies outlet ) was obvious once the info came in.
    People may think its random or another cause but a friend owns local parts place that supplies most of the local mechanics and once theres a dozen cars getting repaired for fuel contamination within a couple of days and all from the same source its pretty obvious.


    Not uncommon to have crap in the underground tanks.
     
    syncro likes this.
  6. Resnort

    Resnort Active Member

    Messages:
    347
    Location:
    Dbay QLD
    At least they admit fault.

    Ethanol is water soluble, so its easy to get some water into. On that note never ever use ethanol fuels in a boat. Ever.
     
  7. chris taylor

    chris taylor Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Location:
    adelaide sth aust
    I travel a lot to and from Mt Gambier, and would have to say that 90% of fuel out lets down that way are Caltex named and have never had a problem.

    Thought it was mandatory for them to do regular fuel checks ?

     
  8. chris taylor

    chris taylor Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Location:
    adelaide sth aust
    If I had a boat neither would I for obvious reasons.
     
    Resnort likes this.
  9. cbus

    cbus Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,442
    Location:
    sunshine coast
    The incidence may not be high due to protocols but its also not uncommon .

    The two examples above are confirmed cases.

    It is common for tanks to have some water and/ or sediment.
    Probably one of the reasons that tanks are not meant to be brought on line straight after a delivery.

    Have seen a few tanks removed because of issues such as deterioration which allowed contamination or leaks into surrounding soil which then means a contaminated site cleanup.

    Checks ( quality control) is a widely variable concept to some.
     
    chris taylor likes this.
  10. chris taylor

    chris taylor Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Location:
    adelaide sth aust
    Your right Col, its amazing how much information has come fore ward due to a leaking fuel hose.
    tks col
     
  11. cbus

    cbus Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,442
    Location:
    sunshine coast
    It is sometimes good to both cover the 'why' and also gain a broader base of knowledge.

    Something our govt seeks to limit by cutting research and basic education.

    If someone has a basis of a good education and learns to be logical in approach to problem solving or even just assimilating new information they may avoid the pitfalls of stupid advice.
    Unfortunately this appears to be a skill that is being diluted.
     
    Mordred likes this.
  12. syncro

    syncro Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,219
    Location:
    Southern Highlands
    Correction; has been diluted.

    How many mechanics actually know how to fault find nowadays?
     
  13. cbus

    cbus Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,442
    Location:
    sunshine coast
    Both.
    Continuing at an increased pace :)
     
  14. Alpal

    Alpal Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,982
    Location:
    Melbourne Bend of Islands
    Still not clear to me why 91 is 'dirty'???
     
  15. Kai

    Kai Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,788
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW
    I'm not knocking 91 standard. I'm knocking e10 or "91+ 10% ethanol" sometimes called 94
     
  16. chris taylor

    chris taylor Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Location:
    adelaide sth aust
    Even though it may not be labelled E10 its the uncertainty and the doubt as to whether 91 does or does not contain Ethanolo_O,,,,,, but it is always 91 that is in question :confused:!!!!! we just assume that 95 and 98 is clean, don't we.;). But I suppose that if those of us that drive these old prehistoric tanks:eek: with their metal fuel tanks and questionable fuel lines:( just stick to using the 95s and 98s then we really have nothing to worry about do we :) or dooooo we.:(. Now I have cleared all that up,
    You all have a happy day .;):):):):):):D
    Best regards. Chris
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2016
  17. Alpal

    Alpal Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,982
    Location:
    Melbourne Bend of Islands
    Not sure that works Chris. Some Shell 95 has Ethanol. Agree we don't want Ethanol in our old steel tanks..
     
  18. cbus

    cbus Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    13,442
    Location:
    sunshine coast
    Probably best to consider each issue and history separately.

    When introduced there were issues of poor running in many engines that should have run on it ok if just considering the octane rating.
    Both autos and small engine.

    It seems it doesnt behave as a 91 under some conditions.
    Actual validity historicaly of rating has been questioned.
    Cannot say if this is still an issue as likely blends get modified.
    My daughters 93 astra was rated for 91 but pinged badly on unleaded 91.
    Clean heads and timing not adjustable so no obvious mechanical reasons for the difference.
    Many instances of same problem in other makes that were designed to run on 91.

    May not ignite easily.
    Different aromatics in blends affect flame initiation and spread.
    Seems some unleaded blends may have issues here.?
    My injected AC t3 runs like a dog on 91.
    Behaves like its about to die and unlikely to get a few km to home.
    A top up with a premium fuel fixes the problem within a km or so of refill.
    Repeated this a few different times with attention to test mathod and consistent results.

    I suspect that the overall blend is considerably different from the leaded 91 other than replacement of the tetraethyl lead as the replacement anti knock agents would likely be different bulk solvents such as alcohol or increased volume of toluene.
    Toluene is harder to ignite in near pure form.
    There was illegal blending of high quantities of toluene in fuels some years back.

    In our vw air cooled engines we run low compression ratios so should be tolerant of low octane ratings generaly.

    Variations between actual engines, tune, mechanicaly and electricaly probably accounts largely for differences in experiences.
    Assuming those experiences are actualy fuel related.

    It would make sense that a motor with slightly higher compression or a bit extra advance would run better and cooler on a higher octane fuel.
    Also that any increase in power comes from smoother operation rather than percieved( incorrectly, any differences would be minimal other than a loss in fuels containing signicant % alcohol) increase in embodied energy in a higher octane fuel.
    To extract the potential power advantage of higher octane one would need to increase compression or timing.
    Such needs to be done with a good understanding of all related matters.

    Current premium fuels (95& 98.) were developed to in conjunction with engine developments to enable EURO emission standards to be established.

    The new fuels are different blends as distinct from 91 and along with higher octane rating also claim enhanced cleaning and burning properties.
    This is likely given the closer tolerances in emission requirements.
    Emissions from 1990 to 2010 fell dramaticaly.
    In some compounds to well less than 10% of earlier numbers

    Higher octane fuels may well give better performance under certain operating conditions but my personal take is run what suits a particular engine.
    The difference between engines is the relevent matter rather than the fuel.

    My expectation is that the premium fuels may well keep the fuel system cleaner.
    This is an assumption but one I used at times rather than run a bottle of cleaner.

    Some fuels will create more varnish than others.
    Dont know how this applies between the mixes but this is considered by some as the biggest factor in varnish formation.
    As a follow on the assumption is that higher grade fuels are more likely to have aromatics that are less prone due to the need of those fuels to assist in maintaining emission standards plus the requirements of maintaining operation in a design with closer tolerances.
    Plus these blends are likely to have better quality detergents and similar agents.

    The exception in choices is e10 or alcohol blended fuels.
    Unless you have changed your fuel pump and all fuel lines it will likely affect non ethanol tolerant ( read , older) rubber products.

    There is also ancedotal evidence that e fuels give less mileage so uneconomic.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2016
    chris taylor and Mordred like this.
  19. chris taylor

    chris taylor Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,007
    Location:
    adelaide sth aust
    Come to think of it ,on the way back from Forbes at Easter stopped at the Shell servo at West Wyalong and you are right it was 95 that had ethanol blend, why didn't I remember that ,S#@#t I must be getting old I think.
     
  20. Alpal

    Alpal Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,982
    Location:
    Melbourne Bend of Islands
    Googled to try to find something to add. Shell page is just propaganda. From another page got this info:

    "(98 RON)it burns differently. Perhaps counterintuitively given its association with high-performance engines, a higher octane rating makes fuel less volatile. This makes it less prone to premature (or pre-) ignition, the cause of a phenomenon known as knock, or pinging. That’s the rattling sound an engine makes when fuel in the combustion chamber detonates spontaneously, before the piston has assumed the optimal position to transfer the energy burst from combustion down to the crankshaft and out through the transmission."

    “As a rule of thumb, each octane increase delivers a fuel consumption improvement of about one per cent,” he says.

    “But that’s only in cars built and tuned to take advantage of it.” (This means in most cars, the benefits on this front go wasted.)

    But that’s not Shell’s primary selling point for V-Power. That’s in strongest evidence in a proprietary detergent additive that dislodges and disposes of grimy deposits on valves and other vulnerable components. This is the key point of attraction for owners of older cars and models that don’t need PULP.

    By Lambert’s explanation, it acts in two ways: it loosens up existing build-ups and gets rid of them, then it stops any new deposits accumulating.

    Lambert suggests that while it varies with external conditions such as climate, and from car to car, drivers of older cars will likely start feeling its benefits after two or three consecutive tankfuls.

    Again, NRMA’s Jack Haley thinks this needs qualification. Once again, he says, it’s a question of balancing out the magnitude of benefits against cost.
    “All petrols now have detergent in them,” he says.

    http://www.motoring.com.au/98-ron-fuels-are-they-worth-the-extra-coin-25725/
     

Share This Page