Alternative Fuels in a Model A

Jet fuel is your basic kerosene which is FAA certified for use in aircraft, jet and turbine engines.
 
Last edited:
RawhideKid said:
I guess you haven't heard of Tesla and the break throughs they have been making, enough to build their own battery plant!
Click to expand...

Tesla is the premier example of what is known as Crony Capitalism. The US taxpayer keeps them afloat. Google it. To the tune of 3.1 BILLION dollars. Investors say they will be the next big business failure.

Without government subsidies they will collapse. That is what happened in Denmark a couple years ago when the govt. pulled the plug; Tesla sales tanked.

Tesla crows because they sold 80,000 taxpayer-funded cars last year. Hell, Ford sold 830,000 F-Series trucks alone last year and they weren't government subsidized:p Ten trucks for every taxpayer paid for Tesla.
 
SeaSlugs said:
If they wanted to we would be driving 100mpg cars by now. Heck my 1980 full carb no computer iron head/block vacuum advance chevette gets 40mpg on the interstate and 32 mixed...thats screaming at 3100 rpm at 65mph...

37 years ago we didnt have fuel injection, variable valve timing, infinite mpg engine braking, cylinder deactivation, carbon fiber, aluminum car panels, aluminum blocks (ok we did but were disastrous - need not mention Vega...) and im still getting better mpg than half the economy cars out there today...
.
Click to expand...

"If they wanted to we would be driving 100 mpg cars by now." Really? Do you have proof/evidence? Or just wishful thinking? Or conspiracy theories?
Your old Chevette only weighs 2,000 pounds or less and has maybe 60 HP on a good day and has far fewer of the safety features on new cars (which add weight). It won't come even close to meeting current emission standards (which requires burning more fuel). Does it have A/C? Would a car without A/C and power accessories even sell today?
 
I hope that because of all this talk about running a Model A on Kerosene, nobody tries it. Back in the day, there were two types of Kero. Power Kero and lighting Kero. Power was the one they used in engines sometimes and lighting, as the name suggests was only used for lamps and heating. All we get these days is the poorer quality lighting Kerosene. Using that in an engine creates small, very hard particles that will destroy your engine in short time. DON'T DO IT!
 
Per the request:

1. "Any Model A owner volunteers?" in reply no. 38; and,

2. The: "DON'T DO IT!" in reply no. 45

Model A false rumors about running Model A engines on "real" Kerosene are no different from other concocted false rumors.

Kerosene, also referred to years ago as Coal Oil, and Insurance Oil, were dispensed from "inside" General Merchandise stores.

More volatile and more explosive tractor fuel, (falsely referred to by some as "Kerosene"), was never allowed to be dispensed from "inside" General Merchandise Stores.

We sold 10 cents a gallon "real" Kerosene from about a 100 gallon metal container in my Dad's store.

Hand pumped gas was pumped "outside" at our neighbor's store for 20 cents a gallon.

It was very common in the late 1940's to hear poor car owners next door ask for 20 cents worth of gas ...... poor, people in our rural area had knowledge of the harmful results of trying to mix "real" 10 cents a gallon kerosene with 20 cents a gallon gasoline.

Home Depot sells 5 gallon cans of "real" Kerosene in their stores ..... but not more volatile and explosive fuels designed to be used in internal combustion engines.

Good judgement years ago usually came from common sense after experiencing past bad judgement.
 
Last edited:
In 1958 while going to Port Huron jr. college I ran my 31 t/s on fuel oil ( home heating oil ). With a one gal. can with gas under the hood for starting and then switched to the heating oil in the main tank when the engine warmed up. I drove 21 miles to school each way and it ran fine though it smoked a lot, even thru the winter. There was an article in popular mech. or popular science describing how to do it, I wrapped the copper fuel line from the main tank around the exhaust manifold to pre heat the fuel oil
 
Kurt in NJ mentioned the wood gas generator. Tampa Bay Auto Museum has a 1929 Model A sedan with a Gazogene conversion, used in Spain in the late 30's. They claim that it still runs on charcoal. Take a look at the write up at http://www.tbauto.org. Like to see it run!
 
A couple of quotes from the Wikipedia link above:

"The resulting octane rating of TVO was somewhere between 55 and 70."

... "Because TVO has a lower octane rating than petrol, the engine needs a lower compression ratio. On the TVO version of the Ferguson TE20 tractor, the cylinder head was re-designed to reduce the compression ratio to 4.5:1. This reduced the power output, so the cylinder bore was increased to 85 mm to restore the power.[2] The petrol version had a compression ratio of 5.77:1 and a cylinder bore of 80 mm on early versions.."

So the 1920's fuel must have had an octane rating below 70 for a compression ratio of 4.5:1? So that is why the lead was added?
 
Possible vintage thoughts on Reply # 51:

Hydrogen Fuel?

Can anyone imagine possible thoughts of original Model A owners using Hydrogen fuel?

It was May 6, 1937 ........ the Hindenburg ...... Gasoline anyone? LOL
 
40 Deluxe said:
"If they wanted to we would be driving 100 mpg cars by now." Really? Do you have proof/evidence? Or just wishful thinking? Or conspiracy theories?
Your old Chevette only weighs 2,000 pounds or less and has maybe 60 HP on a good day and has far fewer of the safety features on new cars (which add weight). It won't come even close to meeting current emission standards (which requires burning more fuel). Does it have A/C? Would a car without A/C and power accessories even sell today?
Click to expand...

This is fact. The use of catalytic converters (to lower NOx emission) requires a "fuel rich" exhaust mixture. Think "afterburner" when you think catalytic converter.

We all remember the start of catalytic converters - the run-on dieseling of engines which were operated normally "fuel rich." As in until the carburetor bowl went dry, fuel was being reignited by incandescent carbon.

Fuel injection was basically driven to end this - when the solenoid valve closes on fuel injection - no more fuel.

As to fuel economy - that has been sacrificed in the name of environment.

Until recently I drove a 2003 VW TDI diesel. Computer controlled, the injection was timed in "spurts" to maximize output and minimize knock (which is what you get when all the fuel burns at once.)

The later versions of this engine were even more refined - the side effect being the "ruse" VW put over on both the EPA and the American public. However, that engine in the full size European Passat achieves regularly 65mpg - while the same car with the same engine struggles to clear 42mpg in the US.

The difference is in fuel management. As explained to me, for the VW diesel to carry its full rated load requires (typically) 4 pulses of the injector. In the US, a 5th pulse is added automatically and timed to occur AFTER the exhaust valve is open - thus this 5th pulse occurs without any associated power stroke and is added simply to keep that Catalytic Converter hot. And results in a 20 percent fuel penalty at full load - more at lesser loads.

Now is the diesel engine in domestic automobile use THAT big a polluter? In Europe, they feel that burning less fuel through using a diesel cycle is preferable to forced low NOx emissions. The two do follow directly together. But here in the US with the fuel industry a MAJOR Lobbyist of Congress, its easy to see how a "fuel rich" environmental solution might be the solution du jour.

The same regulatory thinking brought you Alcohol in your gas, Ethanol Subsidy, E10 and beyond, and does not save gasoline. Rather ethanol REDUCES miles per gallon - and you have to buy MORE fuel/ethanol mix to make up the difference. But ethanol is an oxygenator to fuel (why its used in racing) and results in cleaner burning.

Sigh. Maybe I SHOULD stick with the horse?

Joe K
 
Hmmm ... New Fuel? ... New Fuel Lobbyist? ... New Fuel Decisions? ... New Fuel Laws?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from Will Rogers, (1879 - 1935), about 80 years ago, way back in Model A days:

"Last year we said ... "Things can't go on like this," ... and they didn't, they got worse!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmmm ....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top