 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / April 2006Is it possible to use a 10 to 15% mix of methanol in 1997 Volvos without any problems?
Hello, I just found out that a local fuelling station sells methanol. Is it possible to use a 10 to 15% mix of methanol in 1997 850 Volvos without any problems to the fuel systems? I had hoped that ethanol would be sold at my local fuelling station (along with the biodiesel they already sell); as ethanol would be much less likely to dmamge fuel systems than methanol. With such high-gas prices, is 2.5 gallons (per fill-up) of methanol economical? I read that it is best to add ethanol/methanol before filling-up with regular 87 octance gasoline in order to assure the beast mixing of different fuels. Thank-you 10% is being introduced as we speak, almost nationwide. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thank-you > 10% is being introduced as we speak, almost nationwide. Ethanol, not Methanol. Neil, I was " asleep at the helm" on that one, alcohol funny car guys should kick in here on the issues with methanol. >> 10% is being introduced as we speak, almost nationwide. > > Ethanol, not Methanol. > Neil, I was " asleep at the helm" on that one, No problem... > alcohol funny car guys should > kick in here on the issues with methanol. As luck would have it, the only guy I know CC'd nitro fuel dragsters 8-( In article <1145744890.116155.187240@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, > Hello, > > I just found out that a local fuelling station sells methanol. Is it > possible to use a 10 to 15% mix of methanol in 1997 850 Volvos without > any problems to the fuel systems? I would have to emphatically say no unless your owners manual specifically states that XX% methanol can be used. Methanol is nasty stuff, not something that one should casually mess around with. > I had hoped that ethanol would be sold at my local fuelling station Why? > (along with the biodiesel they already sell); as ethanol would be much > less likely to dmamge fuel systems than methanol. It is, but only up to 10% typically. > With such high-gas prices, is 2.5 gallons (per fill-up) of methanol > economical? Do you realize that methanol is highly toxic? > I read that it is best to add ethanol/methanol before > filling-up with regular 87 octance gasoline in order to assure the > beast mixing of different fuels. You may want to ponder why 'to go' coffee cups have lids on them. Here in Portland, Oregon all the gas stations sell a 10% of alcohol with their gas during the cooler months. Supposed to combat air pollution. No real problems noted with it. In article <1145753328.577376.66840@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, > Here in Portland, Oregon all the gas stations sell a 10% of alcohol > with their gas during the cooler months. It's not methanol. (there is a BIG difference) > Supposed to combat air pollution. Supposed to... > No real problems noted with it. Your considerations aren't broad enough. wouldn't that be some sh.t now, if us texans had to use in excess of 10% ethanol in our gasoline - just because a bunch of ignoramuses - didn't have, didn't want to, or had nothing else better to do than let it happen? I like the option or even the necessity of using 10% ethanol in gas, if mtbe is as hostile to the environment - as we have been led to believe. gets sillier by the minute.:--) mho ve > wouldn't that be some sh.t now, if us texans had to use in excess of 10% > ethanol in our gasoline - just because a bunch of ignoramuses - didn't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > mtbe is as hostile to the environment - as we have been led to believe. > gets sillier by the minute.:--) Why? > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thank-you Meth is nasty, dangerous stuff. It will eat the aluminum out of your engine. It takes special equipment to use it. Stay away from it. It is difficult to wash off and it is skin adsorbent. Even the exhaust vapors are dangerous unless catalyzed. "« Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?="@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:444ADDD3.C370F02A@houston.rr.com... >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > unless > catalyzed. I didn't know that about aluminum, but wikipedia concurs: "One of the drawbacks of methanol as a fuel is its corrosivity to some metals, including aluminium. Methanol, although only a weak acid, attacks the oxide coating that normally protects the aluminium from corrosion: 6CH3OH + 2Al ? 2Al3+ + 6CH3O- + 3H2 The resulting methoxide salts are soluble in methanol, so the corrosion continues until the metal is eaten away." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol Considering your cylinder head is aluminum and it is exposed to raw fuel, methanol sounds like an exceptionally bad thing to put in your tank. Mike > I didn't know that about aluminum, but wikipedia concurs: > "One of the drawbacks of methanol as a fuel is its corrosivity to some > metals, including aluminium. Methanol, although only a weak acid, attacks > the oxide coating that normally protects the aluminium from corrosion: > 6CH3OH + 2Al ? 2Al3+ + 6CH3O- + 3H2 Hmm... the punctuation didn't survive the copy and paste! Maybe this is Martian chemistry notation. Mike > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thank-you That would be an excellent question to pose to your local Volvo dealer. >>Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > That would be an excellent question to pose to your local Volvo dealer. Hah, the chances that anyone at your local dealer would really know what the technical issues are an how well a '97 Volvo is or is not suited for dealing with methonal is almost zero. Sure you will find people there who will answer the question, but what makes you think the answer will be well founded ????? JOhn "John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:JdE2g.350> Hah, the chances that anyone at your local dealer would really know what > the technical issues are an how well a '97 Volvo is or is not suited for > dealing with methonal is almost zero. Sure you will find people there > who will answer the question, but what makes you think the answer will > be well founded ????? > > JOhn Well said...you might get an answer but it is likely to just be an opinion. I don't think it is too wise to use methanol in this application, but it has little to do with the toxicity: - Methanol will mix with gasoline only if it is rather anhydrous. A little water and the mixture falls apart. Ethanol is much better, isopropanol is better still, etc. - Methanol will attack some metals with the formation of metallic methoxides. The higher alcohols do it too, but apparently less readily. Get accustomed to paying higher prices for gasoline.....or driving less....or getting a more economical ride. While there is no physical petroleum shortage at the moment, the prices are being forced up by speculation in the market. There is a concentrational shortage of petroleum products, and in the nearing future, I believe the shortages will become physically real. > >>Hello, > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > who will answer the question, but what makes you think the answer will > be well founded ????? I think the chances of his getting an informed and accurate answer to a technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are far far better at a dealer than they are on a news group. >> >>Hello, >> >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> who will answer the question, but what makes you think the answer will >> be well founded ????? ============================================================== >I think the chances of his getting an informed and accurate answer to a >technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are >far far better at a dealer than they are on a news group. "Used Car Salesman" is a derogatory epithet when used in the USA. I would rather google newsgroups. Lg > I think the chances of his getting an informed and accurate answer to a > technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are > far far better at a dealer than they are on a news group. I disagree, especially in this forum where there are some top-level gurus. Few if any dealers have the expertise and experience available here. You just have to be able to vet information. Mike > > I think the chances of his getting an informed and accurate answer to a > > technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Mike Self-important internet "gurus" are not in my experience reliable sources of information. They are usually good for more than one partially informed opinion however. The dealer technicians and corporate support staff are going to be a far more reliable source of information. >> > I think the chances of his getting an informed and accurate answer to a >> > technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > corporate support staff are going to be a far more reliable source of > information. It is we who validate the gurus, not they who validate themselves (as dealers do, after all... money to invest is the main qualification for that rating.) Because of the cross-posting I'm not sure which forum brings you here, but alt.autos.volvo has a couple of professionals and at least one very talented amateur who rarely set a foot wrong. I've been following the group since we got our Volvo about 16 years ago and I trust them more than I did my dealer... when we still had one in the state. I am a dedicated DIYer who has resorted to dealers only three times in as many decades and regretted it once, but at least three of the Volvo gurus are several notches above me by any sane reckoning. One of them - a pro - has posted in this thread. My partner, who used to work at a Porsche dealership in Phoenix, warned me that service writers are usually the least experienced mechanics at a shop. The experienced ones are busy with cars, not with customers. But to each their own - believe whom you will. Mike "The main, if not the sole, purpose of education is to be able to detect when a man is talking rot." John Alexander Smith (1914), as reported by Harold Macmillan > It is we who validate the gurus, not they who validate themselves (as > dealers do, after all... money to invest is the main qualification for that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > when a man is talking rot." John Alexander Smith (1914), as reported by > Harold Macmillan And while I also would trust something I read on the internet, especially from someone who has a history of knowing what they're talking about, over some dealer service advisor whose function is to sell, sell, sell, a source better than either is the owners manual. The one for my '98 V70 (which is almost identical to the OP's '97 850 from a fuel system standpoint) states: "Do not use gasolines containing methanol (methyl alcohol, wood alcohol). The practice can result in vehicle performance deterioration and can damage critical parts in the fuel system. Such damage may not be covered under the New Vehicle Limited Warranty." That seems pretty conclusive.  SignatureMike F. Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont. Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly. (But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.) >> It is we who validate the gurus, not they who validate themselves (as >> dealers do, after all... money to invest is the main qualification for that [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > That seems pretty conclusive. In general, Mike F, I agree with you. However, the owner's manual (esp. well-pass warranty) may not be the best source of information either. For example, I use regular (87 octane) in my Volvo 850 - which is normally aspirated. Neither the manual, nor the dealer recommend using 87 octane fuel. However, others on this group - such as Dr. Stephen Henning have used it with no ill effects on several Volvos including one similar to that which I drive. So, I guess, whatever the source of information, one has to be able to whet it. AC SignatureEmail: echo 142322093203359315271794620168064975321554275890186P | dc > And while I also would trust something I read on the internet, > especially from someone who has a history of knowing what they're > talking about, over some dealer service advisor whose function is to > sell, sell, sell, a source better than either is the owners manual. I generally agree with you. However, you have to understand that the car company also has a vested interest in saying what they do--it's a form of CYA. Tell the owner that they can't do anything but a very narrowly defined set of "correct use", and you've got a basis to void the warranty if something goes wrong with the car. I'm not saying that's true in this case, just pointing out that the owner's manual is not exactly an objective source of information. For example, I frequent the Miata newsgroup, and that owner's manual says to never, ever, ever, ever tow anything with the Miata. There are a several people on that newsgroup that have thousands of miles of towing trailers, without a mishap or damage to their car, and nobody there is saying "hey, guys, I have had problems towing a trailer with the Miata." Seems pretty clear that that part of the owner's manual is nothing but CYA. > The > one for my '98 V70 (which is almost identical to the OP's '97 850 from a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > That seems pretty conclusive. Conclusive specifically about methanol. Methanol and ethanol are very different--methanol is much more hydroscopic and corrosive, and much more polar (i.e., likely to extract rubber additives), and thus much more likely to cause damage to an engine. Since they specifically mentioned methanol, I would read that to mean ethanol-containing fuels are fine. Eric Lucas > > And while I also would trust something I read on the internet, > > especially from someone who has a history of knowing what they're [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Eric Lucas Well what you are saying is true to an extent - and I know lots of people who tow with cars where the owners manual warns against it. But owners manuals are written also with a worst case scenario too, like if you're towing a trailer with your Miata up a mountain road at high speed on the hottest day of the year in the deserts of Arizona with the A/C on full blast while tailgating another car so closely that airflow to the rad is blocked. Or perhaps it's brake related, same scenario, this time going down the mountain, automatic transmission in Drive, riding the brakes all the way. However in cases like using fuel, there's really only one scenario - using it is using it. And in this particular owners manual, I didn't post everything written about the fuel requirements, that was more than a whole page. It did allow a composition of up to 10% ethanol, as well as allowing other additives. SignatureMike F. Thornhill (near Toronto), Ont. Replace tt with t (twice!) and remove parentheses to email me directly. (But I check the newsgroup more often than this email address.) > I think the chances of his getting an informed and accurate answer to a > technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are > far far better at a dealer than they are on a news group. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is one I do not share. Dealerships tend to be staffed by salesmen. While some dealerships have excellent mechanics (and some don't), few - if any - employees at a dealership would have the basic engineering skills to comment on this issue with any authority. If any of them would take the time to go to Volvo engineering and pose this question, I would be a little surprised. > > I think the chances of his getting an informed and accurate answer to a > > technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dealerships tend to be staffed by salesmen. Well, yes dealerships do employ salespeople (men and women). But I don't take my car to the sales rep for repairs nor do I buy parts from her. > While some dealerships have excellent mechanics (and some don't), > few - if any - employees at a dealership would have the basic engineering > skills to comment on this issue with any authority. There is a far greater chance of getting an informed opinion from the technical department in a dealer than on a news group. Wish the news groups were like they once were, but they are not. They no longer reliable sources of technical information. Is good information there...yes there can be, but it is usually buried. > If any of them would take the time to go to Volvo engineering and pose > this question, I would be a little surprised. I was watching a CNN special last night on energy crunch. They had a segment on Brazil's ethanol push. They claim regular gasoline (not E85) had 25% ethanol (making it E25, I guess). >I was watching a CNN special last night on energy crunch. They had a >segment on Brazil's ethanol push. They claim regular gasoline (not E85) >had 25% ethanol (making it E25, I guess). E75 http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/982531.pdf Regards, Boris Mohar Got Knock? - see: Viatrack Printed Circuit Designs (among other things) http://www.viatrack.ca void _-void-_ in the obvious place >>I was watching a CNN special last night on energy crunch. They had a >>segment on Brazil's ethanol push. They claim regular gasoline (not E85) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/982531.pdf No - E75 would be 75% ethanol, 25% gasoline. The gasoline in Brazil has 25% ethanol, 75% gasoline. That would be E25. My understanding is that Brazil also leads the world in the sale of flex-fuel vehicles, as a percentage of total vehicle sales. AC SignatureEmail: echo 142322093203359315271794620168064975321554275890186P | dc > > >>Hello, > > >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are > far far better at a dealer than they are on a news group. The dealer has the great majority of their business from new cars. a 9 year old model is not goig to be their strong suit. All the dealer will do is to say whatever volvo says anyway, therefore the correct course is to write a email or call here: Volvo Customer Care Center For questions about the Volvo you currently own. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC Attn: Volvo Customer Care Center 7 Volvo Drive Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647 Tel: 1-800-458-1552 Email: customercare@volvocars.com Hours: 8:30 AM to 7:00 PM EST, M - F I rang Volvo Australia and was told 5% max and then I am not sure as even between brands there seems to be a difference in my Turbo if I push it .So far I have avoided the use of Methanol but as our Prime minister has a mate who is in to producing methanol it no doubt will be forced on us .My hose between my tanks rotted so did my wifes both cars were brought second hand from Sydney Australia where Methanol is common and it does rot hoses rubber and such . >> >>Hello, >> >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are > far far better at a dealer than they are on a news group. In alt.autos.volvo John Robertson <johnnr@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > I rang Volvo Australia and was told 5% max and then I am not sure as even > between brands there seems to be a difference in my Turbo if I push it .So [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > from Sydney Australia where Methanol is common and it does rot hoses rubber > and such . Australia is moving towards the use of up to 10% _Ethanol_, *not* _Methanol_. Completely different stuff. Ethanol is the alcohol in drinks - it's not as poisonous or carcinogenic as methanol, or as corrosive. :-) SignatureAthol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace. I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss. > In alt.autos.volvo John Robertson <johnnr@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Completely different stuff. Ethanol is the alcohol in drinks - it's not as > poisonous or carcinogenic as methanol, or as corrosive. :-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel SignatureCheers Andrew In alt.autos.volvo justobservant@hotmail.com wrote: > I just found out that a local fuelling station sells methanol. Is it > possible to use a 10 to 15% mix of methanol in 1997 850 Volvos without > any problems to the fuel systems? Depends whether it's a diesel and you're making biodiesel from waste frying oil. If so, you'll need methanol as part of the processing, and it'll be used at a rate of 10% of the final fuel quantity made. If not, methanol should not be used. SignatureAthol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace. I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss. Usually it is possible to use 10% metho. but is any hight concentrations are used then the tubing in the fuel pipes needs to be replaced to be compatible with metho > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thank-you When we bought our '85 (used) the dealer warned us not to put methanol blended fuel in the tank - ethanol and MTBE were okay. Mike > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thank-you In addition to what's already been posted about the corrosive effects, will you really save money? What does 2.5 gal of methanol cost? And how much mileage per gallon will you lose by using methanol? The is not likely a real cost savings at work here, so unless you have a reference that says otherwise, you really shouldn't do it. > What does 2.5 gal of methanol cost? And > how much mileage per gallon will you lose by using methanol? The is > not likely a real cost savings at work here, so unless you have a > reference that says otherwise, you really shouldn't do it. That is another good point. I remember, dimly, when technical grade methanol could be purchased in bulk for $0.40 per gallon. Not any more. > > What does 2.5 gal of methanol cost? And > > how much mileage per gallon will you lose by using methanol? The is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That is another good point. I remember, dimly, when technical grade > methanol could be purchased in bulk for $0.40 per gallon. Not any more. 'Couse not. Methanol is made from petroleum. Well, natural gas anyway. Now if some nation or locality has tons of natural gas and no petroleum, and wants to make some money, they can try and get their synthesis subsidized ... Maybe we'll see it be cost effective. Hey, it works for corn producers in the US, sugar cane growers in Brazil, and wine makers in the EU (I'm talking ethanol here). But still, its not energy effective. That oxygen atom in the molecule causes the fuel to produce more water, and volatizing water, with its high specific heat, robs the engine of power. That's not oil company propaganda, that's chemistry. Everyone's trying stuff like this. People were using used frying oil in their disel engines. Got for free from fast-food places ... until they found out what it was being used for. Then the supply dried up. Dear raconte: ... > But still, its not energy effective. That oxygen atom in > the molecule causes the fuel to produce more water, > and volatizing water, with its high specific heat, robs > the engine of power. That's not oil company > propaganda, that's chemistry. Any internal combustion engine uses air/oxygen as an oxidizer, and produces water where *hydrogen* is present in the fuel. Alcohol has no leg either up *or* down on petroleum fuels, because they all oxidize with oxygen and they all have hydrogen. So is it the carbon chain that provides the most energy? David A. Smith > Dear raconte: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > David A. Smith Alcohol has some oxygen already built into it, so you might think of it as an already partially oxidized hydrocarbon. (I can hear chemists cringing as I type this) In any case a given volume of *thanol will not react with as much atmospheric oxygen as will a given volume of gasoline; that is why it is less energy dense. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Any internal combustion engine uses air/oxygen as an oxidizer, and > produces water where *hydrogen* is present in the fuel. Alcohol has no leg [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > David A. Smith Both provide energy. A significant part of the problem is that methanol is already partially oxidized, as are all alcohols. The energy content of methanol is about 60% that of gasoline (http://tinyurl.com/f6nyl). The same site proclaims that at the time of publication (1997) methanol fuel M-85 was selling for the same price as gasoline in California. Your guess is as good as mine where the price stands today, if it is available. Of course, the 40% reduction in fuel efficiency would still apply. Mike > So is it the carbon chain that provides the most energy? > > David A. Smith Let's answer this one definitively. No, the combustion of carbon in a hydrocarbon chain doe NOT provide the most energy. The hydrogen combustion is the clear winner. While alcohols may not be desirable in terms of our traditional perceptions of energy economics, we may have to change out perceptions. $100 per barrel oil is a possibility if not a likelihood. Brasil does indeed have alcohol fuel available at many stations and ALL their regular gasoline has 25% ethanol added. Most of their cars have Flexifuel capacity, and can burn just about any mixture. The factories produce both sugar and alcohol, and the energy to do this is provided by burning the bagasse for heat. Brasil did it because they HAD to do something. We might be seen as lagging behind them, yearning for cheap petroleum to return. (Cheap petroleum and Vaudeville are two things we are not likely to see again.) I have wondered why the 'water gas' reaction has not gotten more hype. Carbon reacts with water at high temperatures to yield hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and other by-products. At least the first two are reasonably good fuels. And we have plenty of coal...and water. Dear HLS: ... > I have wondered why the 'water gas' reaction has not > gotten more hype. Carbon reacts with water at high > temperatures to yield hydrogen, carbon monoxide, > and other by-products. At least the first two are > reasonably good fuels. And we have plenty of coal... > and water. Not really plenty of either. As far as coal goes, if it isn't destined for a power plant, then it is being shipped to Japan. We are already using every drop of water that falls on the US pretty close to x1 before it hits the ocean again. Plus siphoning it out of the ground... David A. Smith >> So is it the carbon chain that provides the most energy? >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > carbon monoxide, and other by-products. At least the first two > are reasonably good fuels. And we have plenty of coal...and water. The contaminants in the coal are the problem. The electric utility I work for used to make "coal gas" and the production sites have cost us a fortune to clean up. The heavy metals left behind made for mighty toxic waste. Mike Dear Michael Pardee: ... >> I have wondered why the 'water gas' reaction has >> not gotten more hype. Carbon reacts with water [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The heavy metals left behind made for > mighty toxic waste. They have lots of power and heat available. Couldn't they either allow the water to boil off/evaporate, or simply plate the heavy metals onto something? Heavy metals are being removed in municipal drinking water systems through their adsorption onto iron... As a side light, medical product sterilizers that use ETO have to get rid of this gas once it has been used. They convert it into ethylene glycol, which they still have to dispose of as a hazardous material... and we get cheap(er) engine coolant (I guess). Is it just a "regulation thing"? David A. Smith "Michael Pardee" <michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote in message > The contaminants in the coal are the problem. The electric utility I work > for used to make "coal gas" and the production sites have cost us a fortune > to clean up. The heavy metals left behind made for mighty toxic waste. > > Mike That is one thing that always comes to the top...that the cost of energy is increasing. Petroleum has been the king for a long time. There is no obvious and immediate successor to the throne. However, in electric plants where coal is burned, the same heavy metals are left behind in the ash. The sulfur is still freed by the process. Maybe your gas process is expensive, and the waste is nasty, but it is unlikely to be any worse than the waste generated by burning the coal. There just is no free lunch, is there? > > Hello, > > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > not likely a real cost savings at work here, so unless you have a > reference that says otherwise, you really shouldn't do it. Since this post was also published in the 'sci.chem' forum, is it possible to use additives that would diminish methanol's corrosive effects? And would a 10 to 15% ratio of methanol to gasoline be enough to yield fuel-economy savings simply by defraying gasoline use, yet not enough methanol to "lessen fuel-economy" overall? > Since this post was also published in the 'sci.chem' forum, is it > possible to use additives that would diminish methanol's corrosive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fuel-economy savings simply by defraying gasoline use, yet not enough > methanol to "lessen fuel-economy" overall? I suppose it could be possible, but where are we going with this? Methanol really isn't a cheap substitute for gasoline, and any dilution of a fuel with a less energy dense fuel will proportionately reduce the energy available. I know that is an oversimplification, but I still don't see why we'd want to. I'm reminded of the acetone additive posts. Big risks, small motive to take them. Mike > > Since this post was also published in the 'sci.chem' forum, is it > > possible to use additives that would diminish methanol's corrosive [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Mike The other part of the calculation is that since alcohols burn cooler (lower heat of oxidation, lower latent heat overall) you would theoretically be able to run more advance and utilize more power from the gasoline fraction. However the control unit won't allow the advance numbers you would need to neutralize the lost energy (from dilution) so that adding oxidizers of any sort just waters down the fuel. The O2 sensor output to the control unit will maximize efficiency and reduce emissions if the engine is running correctly. Most incomplete combustion byproducts are cleaned in the converters. Adding O2 to the exhaust stream just fools the O2 sensor output causing the control unit to feed more fuel in an attempt to bring the air-fuel ratio back to calculated lambda which is just slightly richer at 14.65:1 vs. 14.7:1. AS far as methanol goes there was a bulletin of somekind that circulated through the dealerships disallowing the use of methanol fuels. Among the components affected were the fuel sock in the tank, the bellows hose on the tank, the bracket and some of the plastics used for the in tank pumps, the hard plastic nylon fuel lines were somewhat affected, and most all rubber hoses were destroyed. There was no mention of engine damage that I recall. Bob SignatureThe goal when driving is to miss the maximum number of objects.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.