Help me learn more about petrol
Discussion
Spannerski said:
No worries. FYI I use Shell V Power in my Mcycle. It does make a difference on smoothness and MPG.
Same with the Focus. Much better MPG as it is fitted with a knock sensor so picks up the change in fuel.
Little diff in the old Rover.
The acetone is an experiment I've been doing for sometime.
probably for another thread another day.
Intriguing, maybe when you have more data you can share your findings Same with the Focus. Much better MPG as it is fitted with a knock sensor so picks up the change in fuel.
Little diff in the old Rover.
The acetone is an experiment I've been doing for sometime.
probably for another thread another day.
Edited by Spannerski on Friday 8th July 12:28
Trabi601 said:
Oil companies spend millions on fuel technology research every year - I'm not convinced that a bloke in a shed chucking toluene and 2-stroke in his fuel is making things better!
Next post: "Engine blown, BMW don't want to know"
Ha, get your point, but a blown engine is just not going to happen. Pump fuel is an ever changing mix of whatever cheap stuff the refineries can get and still comply with the minimum standards. Don't kid yourself it's something sacred like a ancient single malt recipe!Next post: "Engine blown, BMW don't want to know"
And all these pricey "booster" additives are just aromatics and oil & diesel etc for a lot of money.
Adding Toluene wont add any add bad ingredients to the mix and it's already in fuel anyway. It's is a pure hydrocarbon (C7H8) so it contains only hydrogen and carbon atoms. Complete combustion of toluene yields mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). There are no metallic compounds (lead, magnesium etc), no nitro compounds and no oxygen atoms in toluene. Toluene is made up of exactly the same ingredients as ordinary petrol.
Edited by mikeN54 on Friday 8th July 14:55
mikeN54 said:
Ha, get your point, but a blown engine is just not going to happen. Pump fuel is an ever changing mix of whatever cheap stuff the refineries can get and still comply with the minimum standards. Don't kid yourself it's something sacred like a ancient single malt recipe!
And all these pricey "booster" additives are just aromatics and oil & diesel etc for a lot of money.
Adding Toluene wont add any add bad ingredients to the mix and it's already in fuel anyway. It's is a pure hydrocarbon (C7H8) so it contains only hydrogen and carbon atoms. Complete combustion of toluene yields mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). There are no metallic compounds (lead, magnesium etc), no nitro compounds and no oxygen atoms in toluene. Toluene is made up of exactly the same ingredients as ordinary gasoline.
Whilst you may be right about how the base fuel is refined - how do you know that you're not adding something that interferes with the additive pack? - that's the big worry for the fuels technologists - people sticking additives into something without understanding if there will be a reaction.And all these pricey "booster" additives are just aromatics and oil & diesel etc for a lot of money.
Adding Toluene wont add any add bad ingredients to the mix and it's already in fuel anyway. It's is a pure hydrocarbon (C7H8) so it contains only hydrogen and carbon atoms. Complete combustion of toluene yields mainly carbon dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O). There are no metallic compounds (lead, magnesium etc), no nitro compounds and no oxygen atoms in toluene. Toluene is made up of exactly the same ingredients as ordinary gasoline.
Given the cost of a new engine, I'm leaving well alone!
McVities said:
MikeN54 that is a useful source of toluene.
Some folks use paint thinners (also made up of large amounts of xylene) which also contain methanol......more corrosive than ethanol. In low conentrations of 5%, the actual end concentration of methanol is pretty low. Best to check out the MSDS (safety sheet) for the composition of the products before you put it in the car.
One other thing to beware of is that there is no fuel duty paid on toluene, and it has a pretty distinct smell. You could fall foul of HMRC if using it on the road and get caught (did that happen once on one of those traffic cop reality shows?). Using at a track day however is just fine.
I was after pure toluene for the very reasons you state, I wanted just C7H8 with no other junk in it.Some folks use paint thinners (also made up of large amounts of xylene) which also contain methanol......more corrosive than ethanol. In low conentrations of 5%, the actual end concentration of methanol is pretty low. Best to check out the MSDS (safety sheet) for the composition of the products before you put it in the car.
One other thing to beware of is that there is no fuel duty paid on toluene, and it has a pretty distinct smell. You could fall foul of HMRC if using it on the road and get caught (did that happen once on one of those traffic cop reality shows?). Using at a track day however is just fine.
I also considered the road fuel tax issue, but I'm using it as a additive. Not sure when the amount of additive becomes high enough for the additive to be considered as the fuel though!
I would challenge anyone to sniff toluene in unleaded, unleaded is just a mass of aromatic solvent smells.
Edited by mikeN54 on Friday 8th July 14:48
Trabi601 said:
Whilst you may be right about how the base fuel is refined - how do you know that you're not adding something that interferes with the additive pack? - that's the big worry for the fuels technologists - people sticking additives into something without understanding if there will be a reaction.
Given the cost of a new engine, I'm leaving well alone!
Guess I just like tinkering with things? Given the cost of a new engine, I'm leaving well alone!
But again, I wouldn't worry about it. It won't "react" negatively with the additive pack as fuel already has toluene and similar substances in it. It will thin it out or reduce its concentration yes though.
As the fuel tech guy on here said "The specifications guarantee a minimum QUALITY level, but have no PERFORMANCE requirements". So the suppliers have no obligation to make the fuel "good" for your engine, only achieve manufacturing quality standards. They may make crap fuel, but it's well made crap fuel, and that is ok.
For the premium fuels however, the millions they (may) spend on fuel design is really all about getting a cheap product that passes the minimum quality standards and also has a unique selling point engineered in as a marketing tool.
Higher MPG and "cleaning" is what sells. But whoever thought their engine needed cleaning until the forecourt billboard told you it did?
Edited by mikeN54 on Friday 8th July 14:55
Interesting thread I tend to use V Power simply because AIUI it's consistent and whilst hard fact is thin on the ground as to exactly what you're paying for I also figure Shell and others spend a few hundred million a year on research and stuff like the Pearl plant so I'm sure there's more to it than just marketing but I'm not sure exactly how this varies between brands.
Tbh I find it a bit depressing that after spending all those millions on R&D the way it's sold is an advert with a neon anchor and a Scottish bloke banging on about a thousand ravenous piranhas.
I tend to use V Power simply because AIUI it's consistent and whilst hard fact is thin on the ground as to exactly what you're paying for I also figure Shell and others spend a few hundred million a year on research and stuff like the Pearl plant so I'm sure there's more to it than just marketing but I'm not sure exactly how this varies between brands.Tbh I find it a bit depressing that after spending all those millions on R&D the way it's sold is an advert with a neon anchor and a Scottish bloke banging on about a thousand ravenous piranhas.
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: Interesting thread I tend to use V Power simply because AIUI it's consistent and whilst hard fact is thin on the ground as to exactly what you're paying for I also figure Shell and others spend a few hundred million a year on research and stuff like the Pearl plant so I'm sure there's more to it than just marketing but I'm not sure exactly how this varies between brands.
Tbh I find it a bit depressing that after spending all those millions on R&D the way it's sold is an advert with a neon anchor and a Scottish bloke banging on about a thousand ravenous piranhas.
I tend to use V Power simply because AIUI it's consistent and whilst hard fact is thin on the ground as to exactly what you're paying for I also figure Shell and others spend a few hundred million a year on research and stuff like the Pearl plant so I'm sure there's more to it than just marketing but I'm not sure exactly how this varies between brands.Tbh I find it a bit depressing that after spending all those millions on R&D the way it's sold is an advert with a neon anchor and a Scottish bloke banging on about a thousand ravenous piranhas.
That's BP.
<spit>
Trabi601 said:
That's BP.
<spit>
I kind of get it that the headline has to have broad appeal so everyone "gets it" but it's not even as if there's a deep-dive for those that want it.
It doesn't help dispel the snake-oil myth.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Shell are as bad "gunk" is about the limit of the info they give.
I kind of get it that the headline has to have broad appeal so everyone "gets it" but it's not even as if there's a deep-dive for those that want it.
It doesn't help dispel the snake-oil myth.
I always thought that. For years I figured if it wasn't snake oil they'd come up with a better way of advertising it than "gets rid of gunk". Then they started blending GTL derived fuel into V-Power Diesel, which I know to have real and well documented benefits, and still just advertised it as "being good with gunk 'n' sI kind of get it that the headline has to have broad appeal so everyone "gets it" but it's not even as if there's a deep-dive for those that want it.
It doesn't help dispel the snake-oil myth.
t". Seems they are just patronising wkers.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff