Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Prewar Studebakers and ethanol?
Collapse
X
-
-
It would be interesting for us to have a truly educated petrol-chemical engineer discuss what the difference is in vintage fuel blends and the current formulations. I doubt they are the same. I agree with the "combustible" comment, except that there are some consequences to operating an engine with less than ideal combustible qualities.
When I was in the Air Force, we used a small turbine powered generator to power a forward air control command center during war games. Once, during a mission in a remote area...we ran out of JP4 fuel. We bought some kerosene from a small country store. The engine ran on the stuff, but we had to tear the combustion can out and clean out the worst tar looking gunk you'd find in an expensive turbine engine. It was a good thing the engine was powering a generator on the ground and not an aircraft during flight. Just because it will burn, don't mean it burns well.John Clary
Greer, SC
SDC member since 1975
Comment
-
Note the wording on the bottom of the sign against the building, "Development Means Cornbelt Prosperity!"
Clearly from Nebraska State Archives.
A 10% ethanol mix back then would be nowhere near as corrosive to our cars as is today's 10% blend. Consider the base gasoline stock with which the 10% was being blended back then, as opposed to the base gasoline with which 10% is blended today. BPWe've got to quit saying, "How stupid can you be?" Too many people are taking it as a challenge.
G. K. Chesterton: This triangle of truisms, of father, mother, and child, cannot be destroyed; it can only destroy those civilizations which disregard it.
Comment
Comment