Petrol "stretching"

fryup

Its on liveline now

jca

fryup wrote: »

Its on liveline now

I hope it isn't derry or he'll have his chance to misinform the whole nation.

derry

jca wrote: »

Have you ever seen the inside of an engine? Do you realise the stresses and temperatures involved? A dribble of two stroke won't make a damn bit of difference in preventing wear in any type of engine but will certainly wreck the emissions. Pistons are lubricated from underneath via a spray hole in the connecting rod.

Yes I have seen the inside an fixxed many engines mostly marine types but car and small truck engines in my time .

In the older engines due to the fact that Irish petrol for decades was always crap with less lubrication oils in it it was common practice to add lubrication oil to the petrol for old engines to help stop this problem
Low quality Petrol like what ROI has lacks the lubrication that many petrol cars and engines were designed to use .The adding the lubrication was done to make the ROI petrol resemble normal good petrol fuels which would contain some lubrication qualities.
In the two stroke engine the problem is the engine made for typically 2% oil to petrol mixture using the ROI fuel wear was excessive .Adding 4% lubrication oil to ROI petrol solved most of the wear problems but could increase the carbon deposit problems .

In typical petrol engine only 20% the energy is extracted from the fuel .Often some of the fuel will hit the walls of the cylinder stick there and remain as lubricant type agent for the piston walls especially after the cylinder have burnt up the lighter more volatile components .Some 80% the fuel will exit the engine still burning and take with it the rest of the lubrication oils within the fuel . The modern engines with the CAT will burn up those unburnt fuels.
Adding small amounts of lighter types of lubrication oil might work with some engines and not over load the CAT and its ability to burn the lubrication oil
Modern engines with lean burn and recycling the exhaust with the ~80% still burning fuel back into engine can burn up the excess lubrication oil on the cylinder walls and speed up Piston and cylinder wall wear
Yes the underneath of the piston is supplying lubrication to under the piston but burning petrol will supply some lubrication oil to the cylinder walls .
The modern petrol car with CAT and all sorts of new sensors will probably not be so happy to accept extra lubrication oil .However older engines it often doesn't seem to be a major problem

Derry

mikeecho

derry wrote: »

Derry

Can we make a rule that no one quotes derry in full.

and can someone give a synopsis of his posts.

derry

fryup wrote: »

Its on liveline now

Yes I heard some of it same story a sholder to cry on with no real information on how to stop the problem .Also ringing in Joe these days isnt the way thye can control the show from exposing the goverment as the bad guys they are . RTE they have all the people for that days show lined up several days in advance so trying to ring in these days often wont work . Joe Duffy only wants sad stories and isnt there to supply any solutions and isnt gonna allow the real story the real fuel bandits be exposed .No point to waste my time to ring that sock puppet Joe Duffy who kisses the rear end of the government and sticks his brown nose whre he can get the most money from the gombeens of the Royal Oireachtas

Derry

Dartz

jca wrote: »

Have you ever seen the inside of an engine? Do you realise the stresses and temperatures involved? A dribble of two stroke won't make a damn bit of difference in preventing wear in any type of engine but will certainly wreck the emissions. Pistons are lubricated from underneath via a spray hole in the connecting rod.

It's common enough for Rx-8 owners. Saves the seals. Most cars will burn oil without doing any harm at all to the emissions equipment.

Chimaera

derry wrote: »

In typical petrol engine only 20% the energy is extracted from the fuel .Often some of the fuel will hit the walls of the cylinder stick there and remain as lubricant type agent for the piston walls especially after the cylinder have burnt up the lighter more volatile components .Some 80% the fuel will exit the engine still burning and take with it the rest of the lubrication oils within the fuel . The modern engines with the CAT will burn up those unburnt fuels.
Adding small amounts of lighter types of lubrication oil might work with some engines and not over load the CAT and its ability to burn the lubrication oil
Modern engines with lean burn and recycling the exhaust with the ~80% still burning fuel back into engine can burn up the excess lubrication oil on the cylinder walls and speed up Piston and cylinder wall wear
Yes the underneath of the piston is supplying lubrication to under the piston but burning petrol will supply some lubrication oil to the cylinder walls .
The modern petrol car with CAT and all sorts of new sensors will probably not be so happy to accept extra lubrication oil .However older engines it often doesn't seem to be a major problem

Derry

What a surprise, you're wrong again! Yes, it's true to say that only a portion of the petrol's thermal energy is extracted as work, but the remainder isn't rejected as unburned fuel, it's rejected as heat in the block and exhaust gas. The maximum thermal efficiency of a petrol engine is about 25 - 30 %: this is the maximum portion of the fuel's thermal energy that can be extracted as work to turn the crankshaft.

But the engine must burn all or at least most of the fuel that's injected in order to realise this efficiency: if it burns less than all the fuel, then the usable energy becomes reduced (this is why engines that misfire have less power).

The reason some fuel remains unburned in the exhaust is due to the requirement for petrol engines to run rich so they don't overheat. I've seen the damage done by leaning out a cylinder firsthand and it's not pretty. It's only with modern, highly controlled stratified injection systems that petrol engines can reliably run lean, and even those engines switch to conventional operation under high loads.

To reiterate, and I'll put it in caps so you'll see it clearly:

FUEL IN AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE DOES NOT SERVE AS A LUBRICANT IN THE CYLINDER.

If it's managing to do that, then your engine is in trouble. The only exception to this might be rotaries, but even those are unlikely to tolerate having the cylinder walls coated in petrol. The other major problem fuel coating the cylinder walls is likely to bring is fuel dilution of the lubricating oil as the fuel gets past the piston rings into the sump.

As a favour to the unwary out there, please stop posting your crap before someone actually takes your advice and comes after you when it goes wrong.

dgt

Chimaera wrote: »

What a surprise, you're wrong again! Yes, it's true to say that only a portion of the petrol's thermal energy is extracted as work, but the remainder isn't rejected as unburned fuel, it's rejected as heat in the block and exhaust gas. The maximum thermal efficiency of a petrol engine is about 25 - 30 %: this is the maximum portion of the fuel's thermal energy that can be extracted as work to turn the crankshaft.

But the engine must burn all or at least most of the fuel that's injected in order to realise this efficiency: if it burns less than all the fuel, then the usable energy becomes reduced (this is why engines that misfire have less power).

The reason some fuel remains unburned in the exhaust is due to the requirement for petrol engines to run rich so they don't overheat. I've seen the damage done by leaning out a cylinder firsthand and it's not pretty. It's only with modern, highly controlled stratified injection systems that petrol engines can reliably run lean, and even those engines switch to conventional operation under high loads.

To reiterate, and I'll put it in caps so you'll see it clearly:

FUEL IN AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE DOES NOT SERVE AS A LUBRICANT IN THE CYLINDER.

If it's managing to do that, then your engine is in trouble. The only exception to this might be rotaries, but even those are unlikely to tolerate having the cylinder walls coated in petrol. The other major problem fuel coating the cylinder walls is likely to bring is fuel dilution of the lubricating oil as the fuel gets past the piston rings into the sump.

As a favour to the unwary out there, please stop posting your crap before someone actually takes your advice and comes after you when it goes wrong.

Sadly, I think your posts are being replied to as per the GIF accompanying below:

jca

Dartz wrote: »

It's common enough for Rx-8 owners. Saves the seals. Most cars will burn oil without doing any harm at all to the emissions equipment.

The Rx-8 is a wankel rotary engine that doesn't use a conventional pressurised lubrication system. It is lubricated by carrying the lubricant in the fuel/air mixture. An engine burning oil will affect the emissions, end of....God this thread is becoming tedious.... getting near time to hit the unfollow button:mad::mad:

jca

Chimaera wrote: »

What a surprise, you're wrong again! Yes, it's true to say that only a portion of the petrol's thermal energy is extracted as work, but the remainder isn't rejected as unburned fuel, it's rejected as heat in the block and exhaust gas. The maximum thermal efficiency of a petrol engine is about 25 - 30 %: this is the maximum portion of the fuel's thermal energy that can be extracted as work to turn the crankshaft.

But the engine must burn all or at least most of the fuel that's injected in order to realise this efficiency: if it burns less than all the fuel, then the usable energy becomes reduced (this is why engines that misfire have less power).

The reason some fuel remains unburned in the exhaust is due to the requirement for petrol engines to run rich so they don't overheat. I've seen the damage done by leaning out a cylinder firsthand and it's not pretty. It's only with modern, highly controlled stratified injection systems that petrol engines can reliably run lean, and even those engines switch to conventional operation under high loads.

To reiterate, and I'll put it in caps so you'll see it clearly:

FUEL IN AN INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE DOES NOT SERVE AS A LUBRICANT IN THE CYLINDER.

If it's managing to do that, then your engine is in trouble. The only exception to this might be rotaries, but even those are unlikely to tolerate having the cylinder walls coated in petrol. The other major problem fuel coating the cylinder walls is likely to bring is fuel dilution of the lubricating oil as the fuel gets past the piston rings into the sump.

As a favour to the unwary out there, please stop posting your crap before someone actually takes your advice and comes after you when it goes wrong.

I don't think its worth your while replying to either Derry or Dartz they both obviously haven't the slightest clue how an internal cumbustion engine works.

Alibaba

Surely the Customs are going around the country taking samples of petrol in garages and checking them for 'stretched' fuel.

If they are not they should be.

mikeecho

Alibaba wrote: »

Surely the Customs are going around the country taking samples of petrol in garages and checking them for 'stretched' fuel.

If they are not they should be.

Customs are only interested in the detection of revenue avoidance.
Unless they can prove vat, duty, excise was not paid, then they don't care.

If you listen to any interview they have done in relation to dodgy petrol, they will say that they didn't detect any revenue offence.

Harold Finchs Machine

Is their a comsumer test for stretcted petrol?

Dionysius2

Derry - methinks you will have to go for reprogramming. You are clearly out of touch with the functions of 21st century auto engines.

mikeecho

Dionysius2 wrote: »

Derry - methinks you will have to go for reprogramming. You are clearly out of touch with the functions of 21st century auto engines.

We'll have to have an intervention with Derry.
And we can plug him into the obdII reader

It might explain a few things

Joe 90

ironclaw wrote: »

Was working a contract for a 6 month stint and had the exact same commute 5 days a week in pretty much identical traffic conditions. Decided to see for myself did it make any difference at all. Esso and Maxol, I'd top out at about 380 miles per tank. Tesco and AppleGreen, I'd be lucky to get 340/360 miles. Topaz sat right in the middle. Same car, same driver and the same amount of fuel each time.

Not overly scientific but the results, at least for myself, indicated you certainly get what you pay for.

Could the Tesco and Applegreen be higher alcohol percentage than the Esso and Maxol?

delahuntv

mikeecho wrote: »

Customs are only interested in the detection of revenue avoidance.
Unless they can prove vat, duty, excise was not paid, then they don't care.

If you listen to any interview they have done in relation to dodgy petrol, they will say that they didn't detect any revenue offence.

eh - that's the offence they can get the conviction on quite easily. They can then pass their findings onto gardai who can take criminal proceedings.

Customs can't take criminal proceedings themselves, but can very easily take a revenue case and its a hell of a lot easier to prove - even a small amount of kerosene being passed off as petrol is an offence.

What the likes of the hysteric media and Joe "hysteric" Duffy don't seem to understand is it only takes ONE garage in an area to affect hundreds of cars.

Think of average garage - its serving 200+customers a day - probably a lot more in some areas. If they have a tank of say 30,000 litres of dodgy fuel, that could affect 600-800 cars.

Then the next delivery would be good fuel - 30,000 litres of good fuel mixed in with remnant of bad fuel would barely register on a test, so by the time customs have had a complaint, the garage has taken a new delivery and the proof cannot be gotten.

And without real PROOF - there's very little that can be done.

mikeecho

delahuntv wrote: »

eh - that's the offence they can get the conviction on quite easily. They can then pass their findings onto gardai who can take criminal proceedings.

Customs can't take criminal proceedings themselves, but can very easily take a revenue case and its a hell of a lot easier to prove - even a small amount of kerosene being passed off as petrol is an offence.

What the likes of the hysteric media and Joe "hysteric" Duffy don't seem to understand is it only takes ONE garage in an area to affect hundreds of cars.

Think of average garage - its serving 200+customers a day - probably a lot more in some areas. If they have a tank of say 30,000 litres of dodgy fuel, that could affect 600-800 cars.

Then the next delivery would be good fuel - 30,000 litres of good fuel mixed in with remnant of bad fuel would barely register on a test, so by the time customs have had a complaint, the garage has taken a new delivery and the proof cannot be gotten.

And without real PROOF - there's very little that can be done.

I agree, my previous post may have come across that were reluctant to deal with other matters which is not what I meant to imply

Alqua

Not contributing anything new to the thread but...petrol stretching must have been the cause of death of my little 1.2 corsa's engine in 2012 - gazing at all the carbon deposits, someone suggesting dodgy oil to me and it just not adding up. I only wonder had I acted quicker at the time could it have been saved..!
There have been a serious amount of cars hit in Mayo recently..

ironclaw

Alqua wrote: »

There have been a serious amount of cars hit in Mayo recently..

Granted I'm not in the country at the moment, but people keeping say 'lots' and 'many' affected, but I've yet to see any real proof or figures past the few posters here. If a station, serving hundreds of cars per day was stretching fuel there would be queues around local garages for repairs. Is this the case?

jca

mikeecho wrote: »

We'll have to have an intervention with Derry.
And we can plug him into the obdII reader

It might explain a few things

To use a Jeremy Kyle phrase he's "on a break" at the moment, having been bold on another thread.

keno-daytrader

Pat Kenny did a story today on his show about petrol stretching, hopefully it will bring it more into focus as the media picks up on it.

They had some plonker from revenue on, what a dh, nothing to see here move on........waffle

mayo.mick

ironclaw wrote: »

Granted I'm not in the country at the moment, but people keeping say 'lots' and 'many' affected, but I've yet to see any real proof or figures past the few posters here. If a station, serving hundreds of cars per day was stretching fuel there would be queues around local garages for repairs. Is this the case?

167 cases reported to Swinford Gardai to date (2 weeks ago, most likely more reported since) Yet the Revenue "only" 90 cases reported countrywide?? 15 of them in Mayo. That figure will probably change as the Gardai were meeting with Revenue after the last meeting in Swinford.

duckcfc

mayo.mick wrote: »

167 cases reported to Swinford Gardai to date (2 weeks ago, most likely more reported since) Yet the Revenue "only" 90 cases reported countrywide?? 15 of them in Mayo. That figure will probably change as the Gardai were meeting with Revenue after the last meeting in Swinford.

How can one tell if cars has dodgy petrol

ironclaw

duckcfc wrote: »

How can one tell if cars has dodgy petrol

Thats kinda my point. People barely know to keep oil in their cars, so any fault, niggle or hang up will instantly be 'dodgy fuel' I mean proven cases, beyond doubt. I don't believe for a second its 167 'true' cases.

mayo.mick

ironclaw wrote: »

Thats kinda my point. People barely know to keep oil in their cars, so any fault, niggle or hang up will instantly be 'dodgy fuel' I mean proven cases, beyond doubt. I don't believe for a second its 167 'true' cases.

167 people let the oil out of their engines all at the same time and all the cars seized all at the same time?? :rolleyes:

They stripped down a number of engines, not them all and they all had the same problem. Large carbon deposits, warped blocks, melted pistons etc. I'm not a mechanic so I might have some of them names wrong! Plenty of mechanics at the meeting, were they all lying too?

fryup

its strange that its happening mainly in mayo and galway

i thought it would be more in provoland...i.e, louth & monaghan

duckcfc

I've been having problems with my car, that's why I asked for symptoms. Mines is like spitting power(best way to describe it) when I'm driving but when I release my foot of pedal then put down again, it goes away for awhile. Mostly in the lower gears.

Wheelnut

keno-daytrader wrote: »

Pat Kenny did a story today on his show about petrol stretching, hopefully it will bring it more into focus as the media picks up on it.

I heard that report. They interviewed some local people who had engine damage due to stretched petrol (allegedly). The first woman they interviewed said she always looked after her car properly. She said that when the problem started she went to her garage, they topped up the oil and it took 3 litres. It still was not right so she went back again and they diagnosed engine damage due to stretched petrol.

Kenny and Newstalk seem to have missed the point in regard to her first visit to the garage. Most cars on the road today have an oil capacity of between 3 and 5 litres. So if her car took 3 litres of oil it was already dangerously low on oil. Still she claims her car is well minded and the problem is the petrol.

Crumbs868

fryup wrote: »

its strange that its happening mainly in mayo and galway

i thought it would be more in provoland...i.e, louth & monaghan

Washing diesel dye is complex hence why it normally happens around the border counties in a fa shed full of complex machinery where people know how to keep their mouths shut(eg unusual tanker activity to a farm). Whereas adding a few hundred litres of kero into a tanker compartment of petrol is very straightforward