Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.

[alastairq]

Whilst it's raining,and I'm not keen to work on a car outside, I browsed my Youtube channels....and came across the piece below.

The young Canadian guy is a motorcyclist, and an enthusiast...and, whilst 'employed' by a large CAnadian motorcycle and snowmobile kit retailer, has been given a free reign to ''say it as it comes'....so to speak.
He has a background [degree] in Physics, and he brings his basic scientific approach to question a lot of what we all take for granted in our motoring world.
I like his abilities in front of a camera....But that's just me.....
In the video below, he looks at fuel stabilisers...used to assist with longer term storage and ethanol-laden fuels..[like, laying one's bike up over winter?]

He demonstrates a number of very simple but effective 'tests' to show his reasoning.

Much easier to understand than the boswellox that is written in the name of the FBHVC, whose advice I find inconclusive at best.
Very personable chap.....Not afraid to fall of his bike either. On camera. because, it happens, and will happen to us all at some point.

Anyway, if you lot have Youtube, or access to it, its worth a quick look..the results are quite surprising.

A pity many of the products aren't available in the UK, easily.

But, I think, it is about 'making the point??'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsGBhB5g7o
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.

[peter scott]

Yes, spend a bit more and use E5 rather than E10 and try to leave as little as possible fuel in your tank if you are not going to use your vehicle for any substantial time.

Peter
_________________
http://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon

[norustplease]

FBHVC are, like so many organisations these days, afraid to give firm advice in case either someone tries to sue them for a new carburettor, or the jolly old UK press decides to give them a roasting over some perceived piece of bad advice.
_________________
1953 Citroen Traction
1964 Volvo PV544
1957 Austin A55 Mk 1
Boring Tucson SUV

[ukdave2002]

[peter scott]

My thought was that the larger the quantity of hydroscopic liquid the less water that would be absorbed. I guess if the tank was filled so full that there was only a very small surface area exposed to the air then that could be preferable to exposing a small volume of fuel to a large surface area.

I don't know which is better. I suppose that when the fuel is totally saturated with water then it does just pass to the bottom of the tank as liquid water and the fuel continues to attract more moisture.

Anyway I think it's true to say that E5 is better than E10.

Peter
_________________
http://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon

[Crashbox]

I've used E10 in the Morris since it hit the forecourts last August/September. I've yet to experience any issues. The car starts immediately and runs well enough on the stuff. I haven't done anywhere near as many miles in the 2CV over the same period, as until a few days ago the Citroen had been in storage at a friend's place some 35 miles away. It's now back here with me and I'll be getting some decent use out of it over the next few months, using E10. There was a 1/4 tank of E10 in the 2CV that has been in the car since early April and it fired up and ran as sweet as a nut all the way back home. Over on the 2CV forum I use there are quite a few continentals who have been using E10 for most of the last decade, travelling tens of thousands of kilometres in that time, and they haven't experienced any problems. Given that between 1928-1968 there was a brand of petrol sold on UK forecourts with a higher percentage of ethanol content than even E10, and vehicles back in the day were more than happy to run on it, then I'm sure it'll be absolutely fine. The people who want you to believe the stuff is bad for your car's engine are the ones who want to sell you the 'snake oil' they produce.
_________________
1989 2CV

1932 Morris Minor S.V. Two-Seater

[Ray White]

There may be differing opinions about ethanol in petrol but the fact is it is a rip off. You get fewer mpg and the higher the ethanol content the less distance a gallon of petrol will take you.

[peter scott]

[Crashbox]

[mikeC]

Logic would suggest that a large volume of fuel with a small surface area will absorb less water. I had every intention of laying-up my Austin Seven over last winter with a full fuel tank, but circumstances caught me out and it over-wintered with less than a gallon in the tank. When I came to revive it this Spring it started with no problem, but would not run cleanly under load. I eventually drained the tank - the first pint or so was water! Even with fresh petrol I continued to experience running problems, which Tim Green at the Green Spark Plug Co diagnosed as contaminated electrodes - new plugs seem to have cured the problem.

The water was almost certainly down to the ethanol content, the plug problem probably down to other constituents in modern fuel... My conclusion is that I am going to have to drain the tank completely before a significant period of non-use and start again with fresh fuel.

As for the E5 or E10 question, my elderly modern is supposedly suitable to use E10, but I have found that it is actually cheaper to run E5 because of the poor performance and economy using E10.
_________________
in the garage: 1938 Talbot Ten Airline
Recently departed: 1953 Lancia Appia, 1931 Austin Seven, 1967 Singer Chamois, 1914 Saxon, 1930 Morris Cowley, 1936 BSA Scout, 1958 Lancia Appia coupe, 1922 Star 11.9 ... the list goes on!

[peter scott]

[Crashbox]

I popped down to Gloucester yesterday and managed 60mpg in my modern using E10. It's a 1.4TSI Golf Mk7 driving through a 7-speed DSG gearbox. It does have an Eco-Mode. but I just left it in Normal-Mode. I averaged 55mph on the M5. Before I left the motorway I was averaging over 62mpg. I can't see E5 improving the efficiency over E10 on the Golf, but it's probably a different matter with older stuff. Last month I took the 90-year-old Morris over to Suffolk and Norfolk, from Worcestershire where I live, and I averaged 33mpg at around 40mph. That was actually better than I had expected from previous guesses. I thought it would have been around 28mpg. These vintage side-valve cars are not at all efficient.
_________________
1989 2CV

1932 Morris Minor S.V. Two-Seater

[alastairq]

[alastairq]

Another of Fortnine's videos, which I thought might be of passing interest?
Certainly in a world where the 'classic' motorcycle is receiving a surge of appreciation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GAUo8eUXeU
_________________
Dellow Mk2, 1951 built, reg 1952.
Fiat 126 BIS
Cannon special [1996 registered. Built in 1950's]
----------------------------------------------
Ford Pop chassis, Ashley 1172 bodyshell, in pieces.

[mikeC]