Gas news. Problem I dont know.

[Flathead man2]

I recently heard on the news they're gonna take the sulpher out of the gasoline, if they do go through with it, how will it affect us? Idle circuts stopping up, plugs fouled, accelerator pumps getting gummed up?

[mrtexas]

Higher cost and more crude run to make the same amount of gasoline. They have already taken out 90+% of the sulfur. They don't know when to stop.

[Flathead man2]

It's bad huh? Will they run fairly decent on the stuff or am I gonna have to use octane booster? Fuel system cleaners? Lucas or seafoam

[V12Bill]

The EPA in their desire to prolong their jobs and increase their importance (in their eyes anyway) will not be satisfied until every car and truck on the road is battery powered. I wonder if they have some kind of scrubber to put on volcanoes to keep the sulfur out of the atmosphere? Look out cattle farmers, they are thinking of banning all cattle and making us go vegan to eliminate the sulfur coming from the cow pies. And it won't end there.!

[Flathead man2]

Thanks for lettin us know, we got 21 head.

[russcc]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

As a senator once remarked about the EPA, is that not all of their regulations are based on sound science, many of them are a result of slow day at the office. Don't forget, the EPA is self funded, that means they need to keep creating regulations to be able to fine folks who originally had it covered.

[Flathead man2]

That is wacky. I cant wrap my head around that, your robbing Peter to pay Paul. It dont make sence.

[brien]

The EPA is a self serving government agency whose only interest is to keep themselves in the business of interfering with the industrial progress of the USA. The EPA is a bureacracy full of self appointed intolerant radicals who feel it is their mission to save the world from ourselves. Elect only those candidates who will reduce the size of government...please..

[Flathead man2]

You'd think they be on our side or go to something less impactive on us like garbage collector. LOL

[Flathead man2]

Originally Posted by brien

The EPA is a self serving government agency whose only interest is to keep themselves in the business of interfering with the industrial progress of the USA. The EPA is a bureacracy full of self appointed intolerant radicals who feel it is their mission to save the world from ourselves. Elect only those candidates who will reduce the size of government...please..

I'm listening to the news and the canidates I'm viewing their profiles.

[Torchie]

So before this post turns into a typical anti gov rant that gets posted on lots of other forums lets answer the original question.

The biggest thing that I look for in current fuel is Ethynol. It tends to make problems for older carburated engines.
There seems to be two trains of thought in regards to fuel additives. 1. Miracle in a can and 2. Snake oil. I have never used any additives in any of the old cars that I have had and have never had a problem including the ones that have been used for everyday driving.
One of my local gas stations sells RV fuel. It is 90 octane fuel with no Ethynol just like most marinas sell for boats. When ever I am in need of fuel and nearbye that is what I get.
Torchie.

[Flathead man2]

So just watch the pocket book and fuel quality?

[Mark Slight]

You sure have a lot of free time.

Mark

[Motorhead6]

("That is wacky. I cant wrap my head around that, your robbing Peter to pay Paul. It dont make sence.")

It makes perfect sense if you happen to be Paul.

[rotorwrench]

The EPA won't slow down until we put a halter on them. I swear we will be made to wear fart filters at some point.

[Mike51Merc]

Before getting your panties in a twist about the EPA, you should get some facts. Sulphur is not added to fuel (like lead was). It is a natural contaminant and is actually bad for engines. Removing sulphur will not harm your engine, it will help it.


Automakers have welcomed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposal for low-sulphur gasoline, reports the Detroit News. The regulator aims to cut by two-thirds the amount of sulphur in fuel sold in the US by 2017 - a move that is advantageous for automakers trying to comply with stricter emissions standards. "Our cleaner cars will need even cleaner fuels like those already sold across Europe and Asia, so we are pleased EPA is proposing lower-sulphur fuels," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which includes General Motors (GM), Ford, Chrysler, Toyota, and Volkswagen (VW) among others. Under the proposal, the average sulphur content of gasoline will be reduced from 30 parts per million currently to 10 parts per million by 2017.

[Uncle Bob]

Going back to your original post, one would believe you think sulphur is a useful component of gasoline. It helps none of those things you listed, so rest easy on that.

Keep in mind that in gasoline from the nozzle the sulphur component is in solution and is thus practically innocuous. AFTER the combustion process is when some amount of it is released as free sulphur and other sulphur compounds depending on what other elements/compounds are available (e.g. oxygen and water which could form sulphuric or sulphurous acid ). It's that potential for acids that could deteriorate the down stream emissions control systems that the auto manufacturers (because they have to warrant performance for extended operation cycles) and the EPA gestapo are interested in. What visible damage it will inflict is the cost of removing such small (thus more difficult) amounts of additional sulphur, which in turn is passed on to the consumer. The diesel guys got hit with this a few years ago when similar demands where put on diesel fuel (if interested look at the labeling on a diesel fuel pump at the station next time you're there, there will be some commentary about "ultra-clean", plus probably some reference to reduced sulphur).

[Seth Swoboda]

I would say that the automakers would have to agree and go along with anything a government agency tells them to do, after all the govenment does own them. If someone is giving you support why would you betray them?

[Charlie ny]

Only my jaundiced opinion.....I know the government is crooked and going back to
the days of George Washington pretty much always has been, read your history.
We are being played by Washington and some posters here !
Charlie ny

[Mike51Merc]

Originally Posted by Charlie ny

Only my jaundiced opinion.....I know the government is crooked and going back to
the days of George Washington pretty much always has been, read your history.
We are being played by Washington and some posters here !
Charlie ny

Charlie, if you're referring to me as one of the "players", I assure you I have no dog in this hunt. I'm well aware of the crookedness of politicians back to the days of the Egyptian Pharoahs.

That doesn't change the fact that the OP voiced concern over sulphur removal which is a non-issue for our old cars. People get carried away with political rants on forums like this and politics is off topic.

As for the EPA, I wouldn't want to go back to leaded fuel and uncatalyzed exhaust and the smog problems of the 1970s. I say it's OK to have some old hobby cars, but I wouldn't want a couple million smoke belchers on the road today.

[Charlie ny]

Mike,
I am absolutely NOT referring to you.
You nailed it in the last paragraph. The auto industry came up with the
converter and Standard Oil perfected no /low lead fuel but it was the Gov't that
pushed it down the motoring publics tanks before compatibility issue could be
fully resolved. The fuel thing was quite honestly instituted in part by the industry
to stretch out maintenance intervals which in turn would hopefully increase sales.
Let's face it guys its always about the money.....
I now relinquish the soap box !!
Charlie ny

[Flathead man2]

When I get my hot rod biult I'm gonna get a portable micron filter for fuel and filter it at the nossle at the pump. Filter it before it goes in the tank that's what I always do on my atv, lawn mower, and tiller plows.

I was just seeing if you guys knew they were gonna do this, and your right we all need to like the EPA on one hand but watch out for there legislation.

[rotorwrench]

My biggest problem with the logic being used today is that the aim is to keep greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere which would be a great thing as long as it doesn't stifle the already weak economy. You can completely stop using coal as a fuel but you can't stop volcanoes from errupting. That makes me wonder what the point is of leaving no human footprints where mother nature can still jump up and down all she wants. Johnny Appleseed had the only idea that made much sense. Plant a tree then hug the damn thing.

[Mike51Merc]

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

My biggest problem with the logic being used today is that the aim is to keep greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere which would be a great thing as long as it doesn't stifle the already weak economy. You can completely stop using coal as a fuel but you can't stop volcanoes from errupting. That makes me wonder what the point is of leaving no human footprints where mother nature can still jump up and down all she wants. Johnny Appleseed had the only idea that made much sense. Plant a tree then hug the damn thing.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Johnny Appleseed didn't love trees. He was an entrepreneur who sold apple tree saplings to immigrants so they could grow apples to produce hard cider.

[Flathead man2]

So the moral of the story, our hot rods and autos dont pollute as much as a volcano?

[Flathead man2]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

My biggest problem with the logic being used today is that the aim is to keep greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere which would be a great thing as long as it doesn't stifle the already weak economy. You can completely stop using coal as a fuel but you can't stop volcanoes from errupting. That makes me wonder what the point is of leaving no human footprints where mother nature can still jump up and down all she wants. Johnny Appleseed had the only idea that made much sense. Plant a tree then hug the damn thing.

That makes sence.

[rotorwrench]

Originally Posted by Mike51Merc

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Johnny Appleseed didn't love trees. He was an entrepreneur who sold apple tree saplings to immigrants so they could grow apples to produce hard cider.

You sort of missed the point. We can completely stop using all fuels and there will still be harmful gasses generated by mother nature. What happens to the ecconomy if we stop using fuels? We may even need the volcanic eruptions to cool the planet off although I think I'd rather be warm than freezing.

At least planting a tree will scrub some CO2. Nobody looks for a way to combat CO2 they just want us to stop generating it.

[Flathead man2]

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

You sort of missed the point. We can completely stop using all fuels and there will still be harmful gasses generated by mother nature. What happens to the ecconomy if we stop using fuels? We may even need the volcanic eruptions to cool the planet off although I think I'd rather be warm than freezing.

At least planting a tree will scrub some CO2. Nobody looks for a way to combat CO2 they just want us to stop generating it.

Sorry didnt quite get it but now I do.

[dude]

Haven't figured out Washington yet??? No one else has either...Bet there's no EPA in China and India.

[Flathead man2]

Yeah I seen some shows about india and their diesels spew smoke like crazy.

[Mike51Merc]

Originally Posted by dude

Haven't figured out Washington yet??? No one else has either...Bet there's no EPA in China and India.

Right, and the air there is just SO good.

[mrtexas]

Originally Posted by Uncle Bob

Going back to your original post, one would believe you think sulphur is a useful component of gasoline. It helps none of those things you listed, so rest easy on that.

Keep in mind that in gasoline from the nozzle the sulphur component is in solution and is thus practically innocuous. AFTER the combustion process is when some amount of it is released as free sulphur and other sulphur compounds depending on what other elements/compounds are available (e.g. oxygen and water which could form sulphuric or sulphurous acid ). It's that potential for acids that could deteriorate the down stream emissions control systems that the auto manufacturers (because they have to warrant performance for extended operation cycles) and the EPA gestapo are interested in. What visible damage it will inflict is the cost of removing such small (thus more difficult) amounts of additional sulphur, which in turn is passed on to the consumer. The diesel guys got hit with this a few years ago when similar demands where put on diesel fuel (if interested look at the labeling on a diesel fuel pump at the station next time you're there, there will be some commentary about "ultra-clean", plus probably some reference to reduced sulphur).

The sulfur levels in diesel at 15ppm are lower than in gasoline at 30ppm. It is much more difficult to get the sulfur out of diesel and the yield is less as well. That is the reason diesel costs more than gasoline as it is so expensive to manufacture and fewer refineries can make diesel anymore. The sulfur gets converted to SO2 and then sulfuric acid. Expect more expensive gasoline if sulfur is lowered again.

I looked at the EPA site and gasoline max was 30ppm in 2011 but 80ppm for imported gasoline. So clamp down more on the domestic refiners and relax on the overseas ones!

[mrtexas]

Originally Posted by rotorwrench

My biggest problem with the logic being used today is that the aim is to keep greenhouse gasses out of the atmosphere which would be a great thing as long as it doesn't stifle the already weak economy. You can completely stop using coal as a fuel but you can't stop volcanoes from errupting. That makes me wonder what the point is of leaving no human footprints where mother nature can still jump up and down all she wants. Johnny Appleseed had the only idea that made much sense. Plant a tree then hug the damn thing.

You don't get it. Environmentalism is a religion. They don't want you to use gasoline or electricity generated by fossil fuels ir-regardless of whether enough could be generated by "green" methods which it can't. How about concrete? Can't make concrete without emitting CO2!

[OldDad]

This thread has nothing to do with old Fords, but I'll raise my glass of hard cider to Johnny Appleseed and W.C Fields any day!