What are you doing to run the current 91-RON Corn Pump-ol?

[buick man]

Personally I have a 364 / 10:1 nail head. All stock, with 4-bbl carb, intake, cam, heads and distributor with points but not on the road just as of yet but coming up to that point soon.

So what is everyone doing to run their stock 10:1 engines CORRECTLY on this current 91 octane " corn pump" gas that is out there?

Any mix potion recipes you would care to share with the rest of us?

or

Would you care to share any modifications you had to make to enable the engine to run properly?

Hint: My math teacher says that 10:1 and 91 octane don't mix well without overrun, detonation or since it is corn-a-hol were talking about here - serious lean out and therefore hot spot running.

[buick5563]

My main problem is vapor lock....bad. This happens on my two barrel 55 with a 54-55 manual fuel pump, and it happens on my four barrel with a 56 pump.

I have installed electric fuel pumps on all of my cars so when it starts choking and sputtering I can override (assist) the manual pump).

[carbking]

THE CARBURETOR SHOP / Use of ethanol in older carbureted vehicles

Jon.

[buick5563]

Very informative Jon.

I have spoken with you before, and bought carb kits as well. Unfortunately, when it comes to rebuilding carbs, I am a "replace parts with parts in kit" rebuilder.

How do I determine what a different needle size is, etc? I don't (honestly) feel I am qualified to alter my carbs. Can you assist with "altered" components if we call you?

Thanks

[Aaron65]

Jon, when you say to increase main fuel flow 10%, do you mean stepping up jet sizes that much? Like, a size 50 to a 55?

[1957buickjim]

Jon,

Very informative article, but I am with Mike. How do you get there from here with a Carter 2bbl 2536S? Thanks for the information.

[buick man]

Well Jon, instead of re-jetting the mains, how about just recurving the distributor and enlarging the idle channel restrictor to cure this lean-off idle stumble and hard starting everyone is having? This is for an AFB Carter but similar could be done to others as well. If you do re-jet where are most of us to get the larger jets in the first place. Also, I would think one would have to have everything set up on a vacuum gauge and a tail pipe tap for a sensor to see where one was at for the full range of fuel vs. air through out the carb's range.

[NTX5467]

Here's ONE thing to consider . . . when the 1957 V-8s were new, the "premium" rated gasoline had a Research Octane rating of "97". As the years progressed into the earlier 1960s, "premium" fuel's Research Octane ratings ran up to "100", with a few getting to "101". This was to support the 10.0+ compression ratios of the time.

Before we got the full deal with unleaded fuel, even low-lead fuel, leaded premium fuels of 100 Research Octane started to have "Pump Octane" ratings of "95" on them.

"Research Octane" is what everybody taked about back then, but there was a more severe anti-knock rating for gasoline, "Motor Octane", which was lower. What's NOW on the gasoline pumps is the average of Research and Motor octane levels, hence "R+M" divided by "2" on the pump octane label.

When full unleaded premiums were first introduced, they were "91" Pump Octane, which would equate to approx 96 Research Octane . . . not that far from the earlier 97 Research Octane of 1957. Eventually, "super unleaded" gasoline pump octanes reached "93" with many brands, which would be about "98" Research Octane. But, at higher altitudes, where octane requirements are somewhat lessened due to the thinner air, "91" might be the highest octane you can find for "super unleaded".

In many cases, you can slightly retard the ignition base timing 2 degrees or so, or until "trace rattle" just appears at part throttle accelerations. IF it gets worse at WOT, that could mean some other issues. Some replacement vacuum advance units are internally adjustable, so a little vacuum advance might be adjusted out, too, for additional tweaking. In any event, start with full factory recommended tune-up specs and then go from there.

In some respects, getting the engine to run efficiently and not clatter can be highly variable from one engine to another. While what I've mentioned could be generally applicable, your engine might work just fine at factory specs, but another one just like it might need some tweaking to not clatter.

For good measure, you might want to ensure there are no or decreased carbon buildup in the cylinders. Carbon deposits can also act as "ignitors" for pre-ignition, in some cases.

Generally, dieselling and "run-on" were more related to how fast the idle speed was set and how well the idle mixture screws were adjusted. It wasn't, usually, until the later 1960s when base idle speeds were elevated into the 700rpm+ range (for emissions purposes) that dieselling really became an issue, necessitating that other engine tune-up specs were adhered to.

Reading in the back of the Chevron website, back in the 1990s, before everybody got the RFG which CA already had, it mentioned "longer crank times" to start. When I ran RFG in my '70 Skylark 2bbl 350 (CA emissions specs, sold new in Los Angeles), I didn't really see any real difference, other than the stated 2-3% of highway fuel economy loss. As things progressed into the E10 fuels, I noticed no real increase in cranking times on my '77 Camaro (with a Holley 4175 emissions-spec carb). If there's fuel in the carb, it should start about as easy as they every did. When I went to NGK V-power spark plugs, cold start performance on the Camaro improved enough to tell, even more on my '80 Chrysler 360 2bbl Newport. In general, I've noticed that as long as you adhere to the 1/3-1/2 throttle setting while starting, things happen like they should. When trying to get it to fire off at idle throttle setting, it can take longer . . . but this is highly variable.

IF you look in the Edelbrock website, you'll find a "strip kit", or what we used to call "strip kit" when it was Carter, which has a selection of main metering jets and primary metering rods. You can also download the "Owner's and Tuning Manual" for the Edelbrock AFBs, which details how to use the strip kit.

Upping the main jet size will affect the whole primary metering curve uniformly. If you tried to accomplish the same thing with metering rod changes, you might get close, but not exact-on, I suspect. Making ANY changes to one of the calibrated orifices in the venturi cluster is, from my perspective, NOT ADVISABLE . . . once that change has been made, especially enlarging something, it can take a good bit of effort to undo that particular modification. As in re-solder the hole and re-drill it to the earlier size.

Make sure the primary throttle plates, when at correct base idle, are not exposing too much of the transition slot at the bottom, or not enough. IF that relationship might have gotten out of sync, for one reason or another, that can cause an off-idle flat spot that you can't tune out. PLUS, be sure you've got a good accel pump shot at base idle, too. Sometimes, the accel pump bore can have some wear in it. Many have had better luck with leather accel pumps than otherwise.

Sometimes, I suspect that some of the performance issues which many desire to attribute to our newer gasolines in older vehicles are really issues of wear-and-tear or some things which need attention rather than "the gas" itself. Just my gut suspicion, from what I've seen. Not to discredit other issues which have been directly attributed to the gasoline and the vehicle it's been used in.

Just some thoughts,

NTX5467

[carbking]

To those who asked about upping the jet size:

NO - do not go from a 50 to a 55. What you are looking for is a 10 percent increase in fuel flow. This has to do with the fuel jet size AND the air jet size. Even if there were no air jet to consider, you would want to calculate AREA of the jet, not diameter.

And with most Carter carburetors; changing metering rods is a more precise method than changing jets, as the A/F ratio will change at different vacuum levels due to the effective metering area being the area of the jet less the dynamic area of the rod.

And Willis, the only change we make in the venturi cluster (for non-racing applications) is the idle tube. A 0.002 increase in the idle tube compensates for the lack of energy in ethanol. AND it will not hurt if the owner has access to real gasoline, as the idle mixture control screws can then be closed somewhat to compensate.

Remember that the term "idle mixture screw" is misleading as it does not control the idle mixture. The idle mixture screw controls the volume of the idle mixture. Idle mixture is controlled by the diameter of the idle tube, the diameter of the idle bypass, and the diameter of the idle airbleed; ALL preset in the carburetor. By slightly increasing the idle tube, one can actually change the idle mixture. An example I like to use is old-fashioned shower controls: the idle tube is the hot water control; the idle bypass and idle airbleed are the cold water control; and the idle mixture screw(s) control the pressure. No matter where you set the volume control, the water is the same temperature. Same is true for idle mixture.

Jon.

[Guest gunjeep444]

Check around your town. We have one station here that sells racing fuel and aviation gas, both are high octane, costs a couple of bucks a gallon more. We can get unleaded regular here, without ethanol, for 10 cents more a gallon.

[buick man]

Real nice informative and complete dissertations from you guys.

I agree with your points that minimal reversible adjustments be made first. However, when dealing with increasing bio slurp at the pumps some accommodations has to eventually be made to increase the air/fuel ratio equivalent in order to pleasure our 10:1 engines.

As far as fuels go, in my neighborhood ( as in State of California) there are unfortunately NO stations that currently carry non-oxygenated racing fuels at the pump. The small petroleum companies sell mostly the very costly oxygenated 5-gallon racing fuels at various octane levels though I can still get real gas unleaded 100 or unleaded 100 at a cost premium in the 5-gallon cans. Getting aviation fuel is somewhat involved and most want to see a pilots license or such. Still others are reporting that running on unleaded alcohol is being done but through a recurve of the distributor encompassing as well a tweaking of the vacuum advance springs. Installing slightly lighter ones as the case may be.

Many knowledgeable sources I have had correspondence with as of late, state the nailhead has high quality metal and is of a high nickel base which allows the nailhead to run unleaded without destruction to the valve seats unlike what one finds in the belly button chevy and ford engines.

Still, more information is being presented involving the use of electric fuel pumps which incorporate a return line back to the tank much like the systems you find used on EFI systems which have the pump in the tank thereby preventing vapor locking.

When I get my engine running, which will be shortly, I plan on using AV gas in the shop to start and tune it. Then I will then have to fill with unleaded to be legal on the street. In the summer that means alcohol base if I get it from the pumps, but for winter storage NO alcohol will be allowed to reside anywhere in the system. Leaded AV gas will be used for storage as it holds up much longer as in 6 months to a year as opposed to gas-a-ol which is about 4-weeks or so depending on humidity and dew points. The alcohol based oxygenate fuels cause storage problems and even diluted enough from that of a real gasoline product cause even more power problems as well.

I have been recently schooled to the fact that although our native later 50's and early 60 era nailheads had a stated 10:1 it appears they were more in the 9:1-5 arena and not truly 10:1 engines. But even with that tidy bid of information, that is still a respectable compression ratio and attempting running pea soup-a-ol through whatever dynamically challenged orifice is going to result in problems.

I will no doubt be looking into dealing as mentioned with my distributor, fuel supply, carb and spark delivery systems.

[carbking]

Well Jon, instead of re-jetting the mains, how about just recurving the distributor and enlarging the idle channel restrictor to cure this lean-off idle stumble and hard starting everyone is having? This is for an AFB Carter but similar could be done to others as well. .

The idle channel restrictor is another item with a name that is somewhat confusing. The purpose of the restrictor is NOT to restrict the total amount of fuel; rather to increase the velocity of the idle fuel and the initial air input as to more fully mix the two. While I have not done so, I believe that enlarging the restrictor would cause a worse stumble due to a less consistant idle mixture.

As to recurving the distributor: not my area of expertise. Will let others more knowledgeable about this subject converse on this item.

Jon.

[buick man]

I believe the reason this enlarging is done is to compensate for the lack of combustible fuel in any given volume mix when running alcohol laced fuel. This along with a recurve of the distributor and all of which that entails, work together to help accommodate the higher mass, lower volatile gas-a-ol in a higher compression engine. I suspect the mass of the gas-a-ol, while providing more potential combustion power, does not aspirate well under an non-pressurized induction system such as with carburetors.

With that said, I just cannot see where doing nothing and putting E85 in your late 50's - early 60's engine is going to make for a torrid love story plot line.

The reason I posted this thresd, was in hopes of seeing what everyone has been doing. If indeed folks are running a 9:5 or 10:1 stock engine on unleaded alcohol oxygenated fuel, with no additives, engine system tweaking with no problems please by all means tell us on how this is being done.

I would like to hear what type of fuel everyone is running. Including the octane rating and the size and compression of their engines. Also what spark advance have you set your timing at and is it stock or not. In doing this and if we can get a large enough response, perhaps we can chart to some extent if and when operational problems begin to occur and under what conditions.

Purely academic but it would in the end definitely shed some real and useable conclusive information relating to today's available fuels and

how our hobby and special interest cars are coping with it and what we can do to counter any adverse effects.

[carbking]

David - here is a really good article taking Willis treatise on octane somewhat further, and offering a conversion chart:

Octane rating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wish every old car enthusiast would read this article. Most seem really confused about octane.

As to what everyone is running, I currently have two American V-8 collector cars.

(1) Pontiac with HIGHLY modified Pontiac 350 engine (horsepower well above 400). Actual measured compression is 10.38:1. This engine (grudging) will run on 91 octane pump gas. The camshaft is the culprit, not the compression. It really likes a mixture of 91 octane pump (3 parts) to 1 part 101 octane race fuel

(2) Ford with modified 390. Again, well over 400 horsepower. Compession measured at 10.27:1 (similiar compression to the Pontiac). However, the Ford (in a pickup) is quite happy on 87 octane pump gas except when "driven in anger" or pulling a trailor in which case it is very happy on 89 octane pump gasoline. The Ford camshaft is a stock Ford performance cam versus the Pontiac very high performance cam. Cam overlap has a lot to do with octane requirement.

Both vehicles now have manual transmissions. The Ford came with an automatic. With the automatic at least 91 octane was required, but 93 octane was better. I was quite surprised at the octane reduction allowed when we switched to the manual transmission. Power and fuel economy also increased significantly.

Jon.

Edited May 23, 2012 by carbking (see edit history)

[buick man]

Good points Jon.

So you are saying you have really no "every day" adverse effects since you are mixing to get the octane up. Some report pouring xylene and the such into a mix ratio to get the octane number up. You may want to get a % recipe mix sheet from your 101 racing fuel supplier and see what they are using to push their unleaded fuel up on the octane rating chart.

The nailheads as they progressed from year to year, increasingly had a higher duration lift considered "hot" at the time to help provide the needed lower torque band that nailhead and dynaflow required to be able to work together and enabled a 4,500 lb car to get up and go. The grunt work for engines pulling or climbing comes into play since this is done at lower rpms thereby requiring a higher and longer torque band at these low rpms. This also translates into having the need for combustion power available when needed.

Are you using an oxygenated 101 unleaded racing fuel or a non-oxygenated 101 unleaded racing fuel? All we can get from a very select few drive up pumps in CA and in only geographically restricted areas, is oxygenated ( oxygenated via alcohol) unleaded 100 racing fuel which makes it a No-No for winter storage purposes.

[old-tank]

David

You probably just need to put some gas in your car and see how it does. The 322 nailheads in my 55's while not as high compression as your 364 did require premium leaded 'back in the day'. Later when unleaded became established, they ran well on mid-grade 89 octane. Now with E-10 they will run on the lowest 87 octane UNLESS the engine temperature is over 220* (a reflection of the increased cylinder head temperature contributing to detonation). 'Up to 10% ethanol' the pump says, but no one knows what the percentage is, but you can count on the higher octane fuels containing the highest percentage since ethanol is an efficient octane booster.

At the national meet in Ames it seems that the regular 87 octane is 'real gas' and is 10 cents a gallon higher than the higher octane fuel which has 10% ethanol. The 500 miles we drove around Iowa was the best mileage. Curiously the locals were observed all using the real stuff and that button on the pumps had the most wear. Seems they grow the corn, make the ethanol, maybe drink some, but don't use it in their cars. At least they have a choice.

Willie

[carbking]

David - I agree with Willie, try it. I checked the specs, and none of the Buick nailhead cams are within 0.050 lift of the cam I have in the Ford, and it will run on 87 unless driven in anger. The auto trans is hurting you more than compression.

Jon.

[NTX5467]

David, with respect to "quoted" compression ratio . . . this would most probably be the "blueprint" spec, rather than "production" spec. The production specs were usually a little lower, to probably compensate for later rebuilds and head resurfaces (which would affect combustion chamber "cc" volume). So, I suspect you're correct in the 10.0 to 1 motors (everybodys!) really being closer to 9.5 to 1 . . . which can't really be checked by a simple compression check, but only by actually cc-ing the heads, and the other effective combustion chamber areas.

Even "back then", some engines rated for "regular" (94-5 Research Octane) fuel in the 1960s would clatter on their rated fuel, but ran fine on "ethyl" (97-100 Research Octane) fuel. Similarly, some higher compression ratio engines of particular brands seemed to have lower octane requirements than other brands did. Cadillac comes to mind, as I saw waaayyy too many Cadillac customers regularly fuel their cars with "Regular" in the middle-later 1960s and claim their cars ran just fine on it . . . for it to have been "Cadillac owners are 'thrifty'". Back then, it was usually older males I saw do this.

Short overlap cams will generally build more cylinder pressure than performance cams with more overlap, at lower rpms (as probably below 2000-2500rpm). The additional overlap will serve to dilute the incoming charge of fresh air/fuel into the cylinder. Think "residual EGR", until it "comes on the cam" and cylinder pressures increase and a more clean intake mixture starts happening. The "short overlap" cams would usually be on 2bbl V-8s, for example, with many same-size 4bbls having the "more overlap" camshaft as part of the package. My '70 Dodge Monaco has the code "N" 383 high-performance 4bbl . . . at and below 62mph, the throttle response is a little soggy compared to our '66 Chryslser 383 2bbl, but at 63mph, throttle response tightenes up significantly, making it more responsive and "eager" past that particular rpm in high gear. For the record, the '66 383 is rated at 9.2 to 1 with closer chamber heads, the '70 has open chamber heads, dual exhausts, AVS 4bbl, and about 9.7 to 1 compression ratio. Although both are 383s, the "guts" of the engine's components are very different . . . and the '66 showed a desire for premium gasoline after we first got it, with 7100 miles on it, but stayed that way as it accumulated well past 100K miles.

Advancing the ignition timing map can slightly increase the octane requirement of the motor, plus slightly lean the mixture. Although there are now many general guidelines for the recommended advance curve (usually a little conservative for production factory engines), such things were usually difficult to come by in prior decades. In any event, it'll be a "cut and try" situation. Generally, start the mechanical advance at about 1200rpm, then let it increase to the known-optimum value at some recommended rpm, an "rpm" dependent upon if the engine is configured to be raced, or general high performance driving, or generally street-driven with an exxtra edge. For racing applications with a deep rear axle ratio, the total advance can happen as early as 2500rpm, but for street-driven engines on available pump gas, then probably more like 4500rpm. Start with 93 Pump Octane fuel and work backward to see where the clatter tolerance might be. The deeper rear axle ratio can decrese the load the engine "sees" at WOT, allowing it to rev up much quicker, whereas a "highway gear" will not let the engine rev so freely at WOT (more load).

Rather than run blindly to get one of the "advance curve kits" and put it in, I'd rather use the springs in the kit with the existing distributor weights, then get an adjustable timing light and check the rpm at which the mechanical advance starts. For a production engine of the earlier 1970s, say a 350-400 cid 2bbl V-8, many service station service manuals listed "reference" total advance (initial base timing + mechanical and vacuum) at 2500rpm in the 50 degree BTDC range, checked in "Park". That might seem like "a lot", but when you factor out the approx 10 degrees base initial timing, approx 18 degrees of mechanical, and approx 22 degrees of vacuum advance, it all fits somewhat nicely. With greater load and throttle openning, the vacuum will decrease and the mechanical + base will increase to approx 35-40 degrees total BTDC.

The effectiveness of the combustion chamber design, plus intake ports, determine the NEED for more timing advance, so the spark is lit at the most optimum time before or at TDC. One of the best examples is the 348-409 Chevy "W" motor, which has an optimum timing of about 33 degrees BTDC, but the 283-327 V-8s needed about 40-42 for optimum power. Back then, combustion chamber science was in a very un-developed era, so much was done "by sight" (remember the wild piston domes, which effectively didn't allow the flame front to get to the other side of the combustion chamber?), just as it was later determined that the Pontiac Ram Air IV (round intake port) cylinder heads didn't flow any better than the RA III (normal shape ports) heads . . . after flow benches came into greater availability. What looked "killer" really wasn't, but when they were "it", we had to have them. In more recent "Horsepower TV" dyno runs, engines which used to "spec" at 40 degrees BTDC, with current-tech cylinder heads, piston crown designs, and other things now build their best power with a few degrees LESS total advance, like 37-38 rather than 40 degrees.

David Vizard's book on cylinder heads also makes some good points as to detonation. "Detonation" is a sound, which as with any sound, has a particular wavelength. He determined that when the clearance between the top of the piston crown and the sqish part of a closed chamber head exceeded .020" (as I recall), detonation would happen, but if the dimension was less than .020", detonation didn't happen . . . which explains why an open chamber cylinder head engine with 8.2 to 1 rated compression ratio will rattle with too much timing just as a 10.0 to 1 compression ratio engine will, both with 93 Pump Octane super unleaded gasoline. His research also revealed that a correct closed chamber cylinder head/piston configuration can make more power than a similar open chamber cylinder head.

About 10 years ago, Hughes Engines came up with a piston crown design to transform an open chamber Chrysler combustion chamber into a closed chamber situation. Quite neat! Some cylinder head designs have "dead air" as others have lots of "active air". The latter would generally be closed chamber situations, which is what the "squish area" of the closed chamber head is all about, getting ALL of the mixture into play so it can all be fired-off. It prior times, it was felt tha the squish area was a place where unburnt hydrocarbons could hide, resulting in more exhaust emissions. But with the later research on "active air flow", a well-designed squish area can be "friendly". Then, combined that with some "swirl port technology" and more power with fewer emissions can result.

We went to open chamber combustion chambers in an effort to decrease exhaust emissions . . . a "surface area to volume" orientation, as I recall. The open chambers also tended to give us better cylinder breathing, compared to a "closed chamber" head. Back then, we knew about "shrouding" of the intake valve and how it could affect intake port flow (check those "stock, factory" Chevy small block, "2.02" heads for the factory chamfer cut by the intake valve!), and we knew about cylinder turbulence (earlier stratified charge research), but not "active air flow" (which came later in the 1980s NASCAR cylinder head research) for better power production.

ALL of these things combine to determine the optimum ignition timing for "Best Mean Torque" ("mean" = "average") production AND fuel octane requirements for the particular engine. You can build generalities within particular engine families, but NOT from OEM to OEM.

When the earlier V-8s were designed, it was more about fitting a V-style engine where an inline-style engine previously had been. The car bodies were designed with the inline engine in mind and generally didn't change until after V-8 production had begun. Hence, the end result of very tight exhaust manifold configurations and "tight radius" exhaust ports, which became much better when the engine compartments widened in later years. Later versions of many OEM's V-8s took advantage of the wider engine compartments in the later '50s and early '60s, with wider cylinder heads (and revised manifolding!) with later engine designs. Looking at the '57 Chrysler 392 Hemi exhaust manifolds, it's a wonder that thing breathed at all, much less made the power it did! Compare the '58 Ford 352 exhaust manifold to those of the later 427 "factory cast iron header" design of '63, too.

Perhaps I've wandered a little here, but I wanted to illustrate how engine design, in some cases, was influenced by the vehicles the engines were designed to be used in. Just as Chevy V-8 distributors being at the rear of the engine rather than in the front . . . it's about "packaging".

Jon's orientation of "metering jet area" is very accurate! Metering jet flow can be variable, although there is a flow spec for each diameter "hole" . . . depending upon the entrance bevel (or lack thereof). It's usually the flow spec that determines the "jet number" rather than the size of the orifice's.

I first ran across that orientation in the HP Books "Rochester Carburetor" book, in the 1980s. This is the ONLY way to do the computations accurately and effectively. There is a chapter in the book that explains it very well.

ONE other thing about 1950s-era automotive "literature" . . . it's highly possible that if the marketing department felt that they needed a "10.5 to 1 compression ratio", they managed to get one somehow or another, when the actual measured spec might be closer to 10.2 to 1, probably similar if the measured spec was "9.52 to 1" and they wanted "10.0 to 1". Not unlike a Pontiac 301 V-8 being a "4.9 Litre" and the Ford 302 V-8 being a "5.0 Litre", in more recent times.

Just some thoughts . . .

NTX5467

Edited May 25, 2012 by NTX5467 (see edit history)

[buick man]

Well I have been away working all week and thought there might be some more replies regarding how everyone's car is running on corn-ol.

So Let's Play: What Category Are You In?

I have created a number of possible category scenarios which folks may find themselves in as follows:

Category 1) Guess apparently everyone is having no real issues apparent or otherwise. No difference at all. Car runs great. "Just pull up to the pump, dump whatever their selling in and away I go. Car stops, starts and accelerates just fine on corn-ol and really can't see what all the fuss is about." ( Of course I have only driven a car with Corn-ol in it and would not know what to expect if I put real gas into the car)

Category 2) Do not realize they are having issues and just think old cars are suppose to run this way. "It's an old car so it is suppose to not want to start easily, right? Luckily I have a AAA card in my wallet and a can of either on the back seat floor just in case."

Category 3) Just living with whatever issues they have, and to cope with them they just point the hood of the car down the road and by habitual feathering of the gas pedal apparently move the car along form point A to point B. Then while coming out of the restaurant we hear one say " Oh dear it is hot out today, - I do hope it will start again".

P.S. Just kidding around here. Don't mean to be mean.

Edited June 2, 2012 by buick man (see edit history)

[Caballero2]

I am in catagory #4. Last Saturday, put a five gallon gerry can in the back of the truck and drove to Fort Lupton, filled the can with ethonol free 88 octane. Took wife for a bar-b-que sandwitch, and came home and added the mediocre lead free to the fuel tank, guage reads 1/4, added a jigger of valve lube. Then on Monday, I took the car for a short drive to town to the post office. What a treat :)to drive the car on decent fuel.

Political candidates will be in town today for a chamber of commerce function. I plan to remind them that the fuel is almost disfunctional in our old cars and tractors.

Dan

Edited June 2, 2012 by Caballero2 (see edit history)

[buick man]

That's a good point, Dan. Us 1 %'ers ( Old car owners ) have to realize that the other 99% may not even realize our combined plight and we should show up at any given opportunity to focus and educated the " others " that real gas should be served at the pumps instead of veggy soup admixtures. It would be good for everyone not to have to subsidize the other " 1%'ers. ( Corporate farms and oil companies ).

Glad you had a nirvana drive experience with the real stuff. How did the car run and what did you notice the most as an improvement?

[Caballero2]

Buick Man:

The stumble and the lag on acceleration was gone. No detenation, and when the car was parked, there was no percolation leaving the car smelling like spilt gasoline. Oh, after warm-up and a two mile run, the car restarted on a hot day as I would expect it to.

Dan

P.S. Lead free gasoline is a very limited supply in California, but here is a link to some.

http://pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=CA

Edited June 6, 2012 by Caballero2 (see edit history)

[Aaron65]

That would be AWESOME to not have heat soak for a hot start. I'd LOVE to run actual gas in all of these things.

[buick man]

Yeah thanks, I too have this ethanol list. Kinda sucks, these CA stations are up in the wooded boom docks. Nice country and drive about 200 miles or so, one way.

On another note, I searched South Dakota where I grew up and where they make this corn-ol stuff by the train tanker loads to ship all over the U.S. and the plants are located right next to railroad tracks for easy distribution. Look at the list of non-alcohol selling stations and it's more than one page long, and a whole page just for the town of Sioux Falls alone.

Kinda speaks volumes about what So Daks think of the corn-ol they sell to the rest of us. Apparently this is true in Iowa as well.

What a soft shoed peddled influenced racket and of course the "In Crowd" out here in CA have a primordial need to flood the market with Corn-ol cause MTBE was a real toxic wash out and they had to go somewhere fast. Of course good intentions still does not always make for good chemistry and reality usually follows right behind as will be the case in using alcohol in the long run.

Alcohol is being touted as the " ... well what else are we gonna use .." oxygenator to be the cracker to trim down emissions. However, the P-Chem arguments on this go both ways. IMO - In the end the acceptance out here for this kinda market saturation ( for now ) is the direct result of selected influence & science rather than applied science and of course they profit from it and want to be the shinning green jean example for the rest of you. One still has to SMOG your car out here if it has a build date newer than June 30th, 1975. Honestly the reality is you see precious few older cars out here that are everyday drivers older than 1995. They just get chewed up too fast with all the freeway driving and mind numbing commutes.

Yes clean air should be a top priority. However, mandating a complete market black out on anything but corn-ol availability, seems just a little too extreme considering that most cars on the road out here are newer than 1995. So, raise the cost of true gas to a higher unit cost/gallon and I can almost guarantee that the only ones buying it at the pump are the car crowd and not the commuter crowd. Even with that said, in an open economy this product should be realistically available as a common good and not selectively shuttled off and out to somewhere near Hooverville or the likes.