More lies from the oil companies

No, this was not "more lies" from the oil companies. It was not the oil companies that were campaigning for unleaded fuel. It was the environmentalist who convinced the government to issue regulations requiring the new formulation.

If this is "more lies," what were the earlier lies?

George
 
Just paraphrasing...They thought that lead was the worst thing in gas. Lead was added as an octane booster and because it was so cheap. The oil companies knew catalytic converters could be used in the refining process but it would cost too much and was not compatible with catalytic converters. The eco crowd was steered toward the awful leaded gas as the boogy man that caused all the smog. So came unleaded gas that could use catalytic converters on the cars...which got the oil companies away from having to put in catalytic converters in the refining process.

If you read some of the stuff, the original tin lizzies had very low compression engines and a very highly refined gas to be able to run in these engines. Of course it was expensive. As more HP was developed with higher compression engines, the oil companies could use a lower grade gas with cheap lead as an octane booster to prevent the detonation/pinging from the lower grade of gas.

There's a lot more in the article. I haven't gotten to the dangerous stuff in unleaded gas.
 
Yeah, MTBE had something like alcohol in it. I used to clean my greasy tools and parts in gas or paint thinner. When MTBE first came out, gas wouldn't cut the grease and oil. It would ball up just like oil did in water.I used some paint thinner to clean oil based paint and it did the same thing, balled up the paint. The only thing I could think of was the refineries were adding the MTBE too early in the process and everything coming out of that layer in the tower got 'contaminated'. They fixed the problem fairly quickly so not many people became aware of it.

They started adding MTBE about the same time I quit drinking and I became super sensitive to the smell of alcohol. I could smell the alcohol whenever I went to the gas station.
 
Do oil companies manufacture catalytic converters? What do they care?
 
Hogan,
So you didn't read anything. Try this...

The third choice was the only acceptable one. All that was needed was to find some product, something that could be obtained cheaply, that could be added to petrol to reduce its tendency to "ping" under compression. Common lead was found to have all the right properties, and so "leaded" petrol was born.

By the late 'sixties, supplies of high-grade, low-sulphur, low-nitrate oil were becoming scarce enough to command premium prices. This type of oil was favoured by the petroleum producers, since removing these contaminants to an acceptable level is difficult and costly. The companies were refining increasing amounts of the cheaper, high-sulphur, high-nitrate oil, but using the same old processes. This in turn led to ever higher levels of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide in vehicle emissions, and people were starting to complain-if not about the environmental effect, then at least about the smell. The smog banks over the bigger American and Australian cities during this period were not, as most people believe, the result of so many more cars on the road, although this, of course, was a contributing factor. The main cause was the vastly increased levels of sulphur/nitrogen oxides in the vehicle emissions because of the higher levels of contamination in the fuels themselves. The oil companies were once again faced with the dilemma of cleaning up their product or finding another solution that did not affect their profits. The chemical theories and practices of catalytic conversion had been known for many years.

It had always been known to the oil companies that they could use these processes to further refine their petroleum products. This, however, would have meant major upgradings of their refineries. Far better if they could get somebody else to foot the bill. Even better if they could get somebody to meet the cost of total responsibility for all the oxides.

I wonder how the oil companies and the EPA and Ecologists intertwined.

There was a collision of 2 standard oil tankers in S.F. Bay in 1971. Many thousands of water birds were contaminated. Many hundreds of people went to help the birds. My brother was one of them so has first hand knowledge of what happened behind the scenes.

Standard Oil started donating supplies and money and eventually got the 'Bird Rescuers' to spout the oil companies clean up efforts. I believe 'Bird Rescue' still gets crazy high donations from Standard Oil. Oh, and those volunteres in charge became sell-outs to Standard Oil.
 
I will say this as someone who stills runs leaded fuel because I have to in my airplane. I CANNOT wait for unleaded aviation fuel. I spend more money fighting lead than any other maintenance cost. I recently purchased a 500 dollar spark plug cleaner. Lead is a big, big headache and I had forgotten how much it was until I bought this airplane.

Second, Ethanol. Love it, hate it. Yeah it costs too much, is difficult to transport and absorbs water. Now that we have non ethanol fuel on the lake, I've had to clean my fuel injectors, and mass sensor twice. Ethanol has a lot wrong with it, but it cleans like a white tornado.

Nothing in power plant engineering is free.
 
quote:

Originally posted by GeeBee

I will say this as someone who stills runs leaded fuel because I have to in my airplane. I CANNOT wait for unleaded aviation fuel. I spend more money fighting lead than any other maintenance cost. I recently purchased a 500 dollar spark plug cleaner. Lead is a big, big headache and I had forgotten how much it was until I bought this airplane.

Second, Ethanol. Love it, hate it. Yeah it costs too much, is difficult to transport and absorbs water. Now that we have non ethanol fuel on the lake, I've had to clean my fuel injectors, and mass sensor twice. Ethanol has a lot wrong with it, but it cleans like a white tornado.

Nothing in power plant engineering is free.






Your mass sensor is upstream from the fuel so if ethanol is helping clean that you have real problems. Are you backfiring through the intake?
 
Was until I cleaned the injectors, but the dirty injectors caused the MS to foul by backfiring.
 
Lead was added to increase octane so lower grade of gas could be used. That contamination was probably something like lead oxide. Lead being a 'lubricant' which worked good for exhaust valve guides.

Just remembered a commercial from one of the oil companies about using sugar cane for alcohol in gas. That would be great. That should lower the cost of food and hopefully fuel.
 
Avgas is very high quality stuff, but lead still screws everything up. It gets into the oil (thus you can't use synthetic) it fouls the engine with acids and after products that are not good. I'm not a wild eyed environmentalist, I just think there are more minuses than pluses to lead in fuel regardless of the base stock.
 
Was Avgas a kerosene base. I wonder if lead is an octane booster and lubricant in Avgas. Could it be that lead is needed as a lube. I doubt they would add something that was so problematic if it didn't have a necessary purpose.
 
quote:

Originally posted by GeeBee

I will say this as someone who stills runs leaded fuel because I have to in my airplane. I CANNOT wait for unleaded aviation fuel. I spend more money fighting lead than any other maintenance cost. I recently purchased a 500 dollar spark plug cleaner. Lead is a big, big headache and I had forgotten how much it was until I bought this airplane.

Second, Ethanol. Love it, hate it. Yeah it costs too much, is difficult to transport and absorbs water. Now that we have non ethanol fuel on the lake, I've had to clean my fuel injectors, and mass sensor twice. Ethanol has a lot wrong with it, but it cleans like a white tornado.

Nothing in power plant engineering is free.






Greg; I am in opposite ends on the lead issue.
Your lead fouling would almost go away if Lycoming would support lean of peak operations. I am just finishing our annual on the Cirrus SR20 (Continental IO360ES) that I fly. We run LOP during most cruise flights, 136K around 8 gph, 156k at about 11.5gph), When I cleaned the plugs at 79 hours, no lead was noted just light tan ash, mainly on the lower plugs.
My Warrior's Lycoming O320E3D (150 HP) was a lead fouler. It ran best on 80 oct when it was available, usually ran 100 LL. When I was based at San Martin, Ca in the early 80’S 100/135 Green was the only fuel available on field. It would clean the plugs every 25 hours. Later when back east I installed iridium plugs that minimized fouling. The same set of iridiums were still installed when I got rid of the plane almost 20 years later, electrode wear was nil. My IA used to laugh when I would repaint the outsides with gold heat resistant paint. I would always pick the iridiums clean but rarely blasted them. I installed egt/cht and fuel flow as a monitor then lean the heck out of it (never LOP on the Lycoming). I would always lean on taxi also. I would almost always make it annual to annual without cleaning plugs. Iridiums need to be run hot to work effectively, you must keep your egt/chp's with in limits. Not always easy on the carburetor engines. The IO360ES as well as the IO550 engines are designed to be run LOP.
I tried TCP but didn’t think the cost justified the gain.
I would clean parts with 100LL but would never stick my hands in car unleaded gas.
As a kid I would use a Coleman stove in our basement to melt lead for fishing weight & toy solder molds. I spent 3 ½ years ship board where everything was painted with lead based paints... You slept and worked around the lead stuff 24 /7, deck guys were either chipping or painting lead stuff all day (don’t know about their ill effects) I am still in good health at 73. I think the lead issue has been a big money maker for guys like Mr. Gore.

Ken
 
quote:

Originally posted by GeeBee

Avgas is very high quality stuff, but lead still screws everything up. It gets into the oil (thus you can't use synthetic) it fouls the engine with acids and after products that are not good. I'm not a wild eyed environmentalist, I just think there are more minuses than pluses to lead in fuel regardless of the base stock.






Av 1 (aircraft Mobil 1) was great oil in a Lycomings, I ran it until it was discontinued due to, as I recall, grey sludge in Continental IO470 and IO520 engines. Grey sludge is the result of excessive lead (from fuel) in the oil. These engines ran rich of peak and required excess fuel to keep the cylinders and valves cool, especially Continental solid valve engines (Lycomings use sodium filled valves to conduct heat away from the valve head). The Lycoming design and operation did not have grey sludge issues with AV1. My E320 ran much cooler and significantly less oil consumption with AV1
The P51 guys liked Av 1, at the time they were breaking, as I recall rocker shafts or rockers quite frequently. Av 1 stopped the breakage, that was 20 plus years ago; don’t know what the P51 guys are using today...

Ken
 
I tell you Ken, I lean on taxi (not all that effective as the carb is on the idle system, not the main jet). I have an engine analyzer (insight G2) and I run on peak during cruise, 100 ROP on climb. I run up the Lycoming suggested 45-60 secs before shutdown. However it is still a 91 octane engine in a 100LL world. IOW I keep a pretty clean shop. With magneto ignition, ..019 gaps and fixed advance, not to mention an inefficient updraft carb getting rid of lead would help. When I look at the oil analysis of my boat engine versus my plane, where the boat oil has twice as many hours you see the cummulative effects of antiquated engine systems coupled with leaded fuel. If we could get spark advance, electronic ignition and a good FADEC we could run these engines on anything and lead would be only an enviromental issue. As it is, I'm for going lead free as the quickest way to improve these engines.
 
With you leaning as you are it is hard to believe all your lead issues. I had one carb rebuilt the was running good but had loose bowl screws. With this carb I could flight plan 8 gph easy at altitude. After I installed my rebuild I flew locally about a month but not enough to document a good fuel burn #. Headed to Florida on my seasonal trip, normally refuel around Columbia with about 1.5 hours fuel remaining.
Was vectoring around KCLT when I noted my fuel was much less than it should have been. Landed, refueled then had to stop short again. Anyways my fuel burn was now near 12 gph. I sent this carb back to the overhauler no less than 5 times for excess burn, it got better but was never right. Bought a new carb from someone else,then installed a JPI 450 fuel flow, then things got back to normal.
You can install a clear tube in your carb drain to view your float level (not running), I did that more the once trying to determine what wrong with the rebuild.. I was the better part of 8 hours swapping out my carbs then recowling everything.
After I installed the last carb I didn't have much lead on my iridiums. I never fouled them between annuals in later years of ownership.

Ken
 
When was the last time anyone has had to replace a muffler or catalytic converter? I have not had to replace any exhaust components since I sold my 1972 Corvette in 1990. I'm convinced lead was a major contributor to exhaust component problems.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Flatsflyer

When was the last time anyone has had to replace a muffler or catalytic converter? I have not had to replace any exhaust components since I sold my 1972 Corvette in 1990. I'm convinced lead was a major contributor to exhaust component problems.






Big difference, newer OEM exhaust systems are stainless, older OEM and replacements were usually were not. You can buy replacement exhaust in stainless but most won't spend the additional costs.
Catalytics are designed to go at least 100k miles and can not be used with leaded fuel.

Ken
 
Interesting, the referenced article is 19 years old and it reflects an opinion at the time and is hardly relevant today or very accurate. It also reflects a primitive understanding of the manufacture and blending of today's fuel.

As others stated, it was the government, listening to the environmentalists that mandated all the changes including removal of lead, MTBE, catalytic converters, ethanol, and now cellulosic ethanol since factual studies have shown that ethanol from corn is probably less environmentally sound for the air and our waterways than fossil fuels.

One can argue the merits but it is clear to me that the emissions from the tailpipe is much cleaner, spark plugs don't foul, tune ups are less frequent, carburetors don,t foul until the fuel goes bad from ethanol , fuel injection is great. On the other hand the government mandated ethanol only has 2/3rd the energy, and it causes huge problems in boats, small engines, and older fuel lines. The mandate for ethanol destroys the incentive to develop better alternative fuels.

The article claims that old "petrol" was better which is false. Lead was added to increase octane as higher compression engines became more popular as it was economically the best means. The best alternative to lead was to raise the octane level by a Reforming refining processing which increases the proportion of iso-octane which has 100 octane. It is the reference fuel for measuring octane. Amoco provided high octane fuel using this process instead of lead although it is more expensive. The story goes that they had excess reforming capacity and marketed the idea that their fuel was cleaner.

I use to buy AMOCO for my high compression engines many years ago-no lead. It is a myth to claim that ethanol is necessary to make high compression fuel without lead.
 
Back
Top