Classic cars forum & vehicle restoration.
|
Author |
Message |
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1954 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:42 am Post subject: Fuel stabilisers? Do they ''work'' in our modern petrol? |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peter scott
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 7118 Location: Edinburgh
|
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
norustplease
Joined: 11 Apr 2011 Posts: 779 Location: Lancashire
|
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ukdave2002
Joined: 23 Nov 2007 Posts: 4104 Location: South Cheshire
|
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peter scott wrote: | 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 | I keep tanks full; near empty tanks offer E5/10 with all the elements required to do some damage.
Dave |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peter scott
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 7118 Location: Edinburgh
|
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Crashbox
Joined: 30 Apr 2021 Posts: 139
|
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ray White
Joined: 02 Dec 2014 Posts: 6313 Location: Derby
|
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peter scott
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 7118 Location: Edinburgh
|
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Crashbox wrote: | 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. |
I haven't found any problems running on E10 either. I just wonder if having a layer of water in the bottom of the tank might rot it through eventually.
Peter _________________ http://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Crashbox
Joined: 30 Apr 2021 Posts: 139
|
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peter scott wrote: | Crashbox wrote: | 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. |
I haven't found any problems running on E10 either. I just wonder if having a layer of water in the bottom of the tank might rot it through eventually.
Peter |
Might do with the Morris, which has a metal tank, but the 2CV's tank is plastic
There seems to be the suggestion that ethanol can dissolve the solder used in the construction of the brass float in the float bowl of the S.U. Carburettor fitted to my 1932 Minor. So far, after a couple of thousand miles, there hasn't been a failure. There's also a suggestion that rubber fuel lines will fail due to the ethanol attacking the rubber. On the Morris there is only a short section between the electric pump fitted to the engine side of the firewall/bulkhead, and the carburettor. That was replaced a few years ago with a type that the numbers printed on the pipe suggests is suitable for use with ethanol rich fuel. The 2CV has more rubber pipes and they're most likely not suitable, so that is a job I'll get around to doing ASAP. _________________ 1989 2CV
1932 Morris Minor S.V. Two-Seater |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mikeC
Joined: 31 Jul 2009 Posts: 1775 Location: Market Warsop, Nottinghamshire
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
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! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
peter scott
Joined: 18 Dec 2007 Posts: 7118 Location: Edinburgh
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2022 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
mikeC wrote: | Logic would suggest that a large volume of fuel with a small surface area will absorb less water. |
I agree, but my tank has the filler at one side and a vent pipe at the other side. If I filled the tank to the brim I very much doubt that there would less than the full surface area of the top of the tank exposed to the air by the time I had driven home.
Peter. _________________ http://www.nostalgiatech.co.uk
1939 SS Jaguar 2 1/2 litre saloon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Crashbox
Joined: 30 Apr 2021 Posts: 139
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2022 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1954 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | There seems to be the suggestion that ethanol can dissolve the solder used in the construction of the brass float in the float bowl of the S.U. Carburettor fitted to my 1932 Minor. |
[Not a criticism of your post, BTW. just a continuation link.]
This is a common misconception.
everyone thinks 'ethanol' is some nasty magic chemical.
In reality, it is, alcohol...pure & simple.
Can alcohol dissolve solder? I think not.
What folk refuse to consider, regarding modern petrol, is, what else is added..and has been added, to petrol in the past 20 to 30 years or more?
Many fuel additives have been added, to improve the performances of modern engine designs.....Who is to say some of these additives don't have an adverse effect on solder?
Personally I believe a lot of these war-stories are down to the owners themselves, the state of their equipment, and they look for something modern to blame?
The other day I was reading an old book[published in the 1950's] concerning the making of specials. Mention was made back then of brass carb floats having incomplete solder joints, creating leaks...and how to test them.
So that suggests there were solder issues for a lot of decades before modern fuel came along?
Whilst considering solder and carb floats, I am reminded that one of the most common issues in the world of electronics happens to be......dry solder joints?
These can work well enough to start with, but eventually conspire to stop the flow of electricity.
Who is to say, those brass carb floats [made in their hundreds of thousands, no doubt?} have perfect solder adhesion from new? Who is to say, those solder joints may have contained a 'dry' section?
Which, eventually, and encouraged by the presence of petrol itself [not ethanol], the dry soldered section may eventually fail?
The solder isn't just being used to structurally join the halves of the brass float. It is also expected to act as a seal as well.
If the soldering work has been less than perfect [like a weld, which has an air bubble, or incomplete melting]...then eventually, in that environment, it will ceases to seal.
CAnnot blame ethanol for that, can we? But, we do!
Going back to my original post, that Youtuber was merely trying to cut through the bullsh#t put out by the commercial world regarding the products he tested. To sort the wheat from the chaff?
He wasn't advocating the use of fuel conditioners as such.....
I happen to like his videos.
I just watched his simple test rig to find out which was the 'best' oil filter material....the cheapest was proved to be far and away the best..... _________________ 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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
alastairq
Joined: 14 Oct 2016 Posts: 1954 Location: East Yorkshire
|
Posted: Sun Jul 03, 2022 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mikeC
Joined: 31 Jul 2009 Posts: 1775 Location: Market Warsop, Nottinghamshire
|
Posted: Mon Jul 04, 2022 8:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crashbox wrote: | ... 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. |
I assume that's your s/v Minor, in which case I'm surprised at those figures. I would have expected similar figures to my 1931 Austin Seven, and it's a poor day if I get worse than 45mpg from that; running at a steady 40-45mph it will return better than 50mpg, and it's only on stop-start hilly running that it may drop to around 40mpg. _________________ 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! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
php BB powered © php BB Grp.
|