Fuel

With 4.22 to 1 compression;
Any swill will do.
As low as possible with the octane.
Think cheap.

The only possible deviation would be to purchase a premium grade with no ethanol in the mix. But those fuels are disappearing and are being replaced with 5~10~and 15% fuels. A sad day indeed when there will be no more 'pure' fuel. Growing corn to feed cars, not people!


In the depression days 'A's were started on gasoline and when warmed up ran on 'Stove Gas' and other fuels. Stove gas was used to refill the German aeroships when they visited the U.S. in the 1930's. You see back then America had the only sizable supply of helium and we sure weren't going to let the Germans have any. And that's why the Hindenburg was a disaster waiting to happen.

skip.
 
Last edited:
A Model A is forgiving, as far as gasoline goes. Today's fuel is much better, quality-wise than fuel in the 20's and 30's, so your Model A will run well on 87 octane. If you should feel "guilty" about the dryness of today's fuel and you want your Ford to feel a little more at home, add about 1/4 cup of kerosene every second or third tankful. I've been told that it helps lubricate the valves. Just my two cents worth... :cool:
 
Years ago, when I was a poor Airman First class stationed at Otis Air Force Base (mid 1959 - April 1961), in the evening, I would take whatever jet fuel I had left over in a bucket for cleaning the belly of F-101s and pour it in my Coupe (still have the car). As long as I had a least a few gallons of gas left in the tank, the engine would run on a heavy mixture of jet fuel and regular leaded gas. It did start hard in the winter and sure smelled funny but it kept my cost per mile down significantly. Gar Williams
 

Attachments

  • Picture 011.jpg
    Picture 011.jpg
    78.5 KB · Views: 16
Last edited:
When Model As were being produced, only "straight run" gasoline was available; about 60-70 octane. As Skip mentioned, today's gasolines (swill?) will do just fine octane-wise. Adding light oils (kerosine (a lower class of jet fuel), Marvel, whatever) to gasoline may lubricate valve stems (I haven't seen any data), but I can tell you they ALL boil over the end point of gasoline (437F). This will result in oil dilution and unburned "fuel" in the crevice volume between the piston and cylinder wall above the top ring and, over time, can form varnish, gums, and sludge from heat and oxidation. I would advise adding any of this stuff conservatively if at all.

Hey, Gar: I was an A1C at Otis too (1970). ;)
 
Old182 knows his fuels. I would just add that Turbine fuel/kerosene also resembles (similar distillation cut) Diesel fuel/Heating oil #1 to put it in context. I think it would be difficult to find legitimate data supporting the lubrication of valves.........lots of opinion though.

Another Otis alum, 1967, EC121R
 
Fortunately, in our area (Iowa), we can usually purchase 87 octane gas with no Ethanol. This runs great in the Model A. Although you never know for sure what you get as illustrated by the following:

Recently my brother filled his Caddy with gas labeled as 87 Octane/NO Ethanol (and by the way, his caddy runs well on 87 octane). Upon leaving the station the car began to run rough and his "check engine" light came on. He went immediately to the Caddy dealer, they hooked it up to their computer. Result was the gas had 20% alcohol, they advised to drain tank and put in gas from another station.

He returned to the station, where he purchased the supposedly non-alcohol gas, and showed them the report from the dealership. The lady shrugged her shoulders and could have cared less.

We do pay a premium for Non-alcohol gas, makes you wonder just what we are getting. If it had been 10% the car would have run OK and he wouldn't have known it.
 
Gary/IA said:
Fortunately, in our area (Iowa), we can usually purchase 87 octane gas with no Ethanol. This runs great in the Model A. Although you never know for sure what you get as illustrated by the following:

Recently my brother filled his Caddy with gas labeled as 87 Octane/NO Ethanol (and by the way, his caddy runs well on 87 octane). Upon leaving the station the car began to run rough and his "check engine" light came on. He went immediately to the Caddy dealer, they hooked it up to their computer. Result was the gas had 20% alcohol, they advised to drain tank and put in gas from another station.

He returned to the station, where he purchased the supposedly non-alcohol gas, and showed them the report from the dealership. The lady shrugged her shoulders and could have cared less.

We do pay a premium for Non-alcohol gas, makes you wonder just what we are getting. If it had been 10% the car would have run OK and he wouldn't have known it.
Click to expand...

Gary, when you buy from a reputable station like "J20 Fuel" you get exactly what the pump says!! 87 octane unleaded does not have ethanol in it. 89 octane has 10%. Thanks for being a good customer!!

Leonard
 
Non-ethanol gas in middle-of-the-corn-belt Iowa?? I've heard it all! :eek: Thank God they've decided to make more Bourbon with it. It seems your brother could have saved a few bucks by draining half the tank and filling it with all-hydrocarbon gasoline. That'd get him to 10%. Twenty percent made his engine go too lean. :(
 
Here in the Colorado Front Range, we have 85 octane as the lowest grade.

The gas pumps indicate that 10 % Ethanol is used.

Marc
 
Look at your marina.

Ethanol is a great magnet for H2O, so we pay more for real gas when on the water. It is also more expensive (usually splitting the difference to upgrade to the mid-level octane ethanol 20%), but well worth it in a boat, and well worth it in a car that does not drive daily.

Some non-water front stations also carry straight gas so fishermen can fuel up before they get to the boat ramp (and save the Corp of Engineer's tax on waterfront fuel).
 
Refiners sell sub-octane (85) in the higher elevations because (normally aspirated) engines can't make full power at altitude and don't need the antiknock performance there. Problems can arise if you fill up in the mountains and then drive downhill to where there's more pressure. Not a problem for Model A engines.
 
Sorry - because most of the country uses 87 (R+M)/2 as the standard Regular grade, 85 is considered sub-octane. I love the Rockies :o.
 
Hah! Good hit, Skip! The judge was right; it's the OXYGEN that's mandated by EPA to be in the gasoline (except Calif.); there is no rule addressing how you get it in there. Refiners used to put MTBE in gasoline, but when leaking tanks released it into water supplies, people could smell it and the whole country went to ethanol to meet the requirement. Interestingly, the tanks still leak but you can't smell the ethanol (a known carcinogen), but - hey: now everybody (well, almost) is happy. I think the author is mistaken about E10 causing problems with fiberglass tanks - it just doesn't happen...maybe with methanol, but not with ethanol, and definitely not at 10%. Also, IMHO the boaters will have to prove the excess water came from the marina tank and not their own. If the marina was the source of the problem, there should've been boats crapping out all over the place. Don't mean to be defensive of oil companies, but my guess is that this suit dies. Love the cartoon :).
 
Agreed, the cartoon demonstrates the adage, picture worth a 1000 words.

Too bad the phase separation article doesn't have a date on it as it is an incomplete story as is. Lawyers, especially the ambulance chasing types who target deep pockets, love technicalities. While technically Federal Law doesn't mandate universal use of ethanol as THE oxygenate (which is mandated), the law does pile a bunch of incentives (mostly tax rebates, wavers, and subsidies) on that make ethanol the defacto mandate. Here's a good analysis for those interested enough: http://www.bakerobrien.com/documents/NPRA%20AM-06-38.pdf That along with "remewable" fuel mandates that further favor ethanol over nearly all other practical oxygenates. Further most states have banned the use of MTBE as noted, and a number of states (15 is the last number I saw, but could be more) have mandated the use of ethanol at the state level. Likewise, I'm not here to defend the oil guys, they have lots of attornies on their payroll to do that, but they do have to try to stay in business within a heavily regulated (despite what a biased news media might say or imply)environment, complicated by a matrix of state laws that overlap and sometimes conflict with federal law.

I would be nice to know if that suit eventually failed or not.
 
Opps Uncle Bob. Let's back up on second. Stated was this..."That along with "renewable" fuel mandates that further favor ethanol over nearly all other practical oxygenates.

There is no such thing as RENEWABLE ENERGY anything. The opposite of the word energy is the word ENTROPY. When one understands ENTROPY then one will understand the above statement. Name one energy source that is renewable? You can't. An alternative yes, but not renewable.

skip.

skip.
 
You're talking to the wrong guy Skip, I don't create the terminology, just quote it.:) You need to contact your Congressional representatives..........I'm sure they'll hang on your every word.:D

I'm no fan of ethanol, nor any other subsidized "green" energy source (don't jump on me for that one either bud;))...........they're all boondoggles as far as I'm concerned. When something legitimate comes along that really gets the job done, I'm a believer that it will be private enterprise that gets the job done, just as in the past.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top