Is it possible to use a 10 to 15% mix of methanol in 1997 Volvos without any problems?

[aarcuda69062]

Neil, I was " asleep at the helm" on that one,

No problem...

alcohol funny car guys should
kick in here on the issues with methanol.

As luck would have it, the only guy I know CC'd nitro fuel
dragsters 8-(

 

[Guest]

I think the chances of his getting an informed and accurate answer to a
technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are
far far better at a dealer than they are on a news group.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is one I do not share.

Dealerships tend to be staffed by salesmen.


While some dealerships have excellent mechanics (and some don't),
few - if any - employees at a dealership would have the basic engineering
skills to comment on this issue with any authority.

If any of them would take the time to go to Volvo engineering and pose
this question, I would be a little surprised.

 

[Guest]

What does 2.5 gal of methanol cost? And
how much mileage per gallon will you lose by using methanol? The is
not likely a real cost savings at work here, so unless you have a
reference that says otherwise, you really shouldn't do it.

That is another good point. I remember, dimly, when technical grade
methanol could be purchased in bulk for $0.40 per gallon. Not any more.

 

[justobservant]

In addition to what's already been posted about the corrosive effects,
will you really save money? What does 2.5 gal of methanol cost? And
how much mileage per gallon will you lose by using methanol? The is
not likely a real cost savings at work here, so unless you have a
reference that says otherwise, you really shouldn't do it.

Since this post was also published in the 'sci.chem' forum, is it
possible to use additives that would diminish methanol's corrosive
effects?

And would a 10 to 15% ratio of methanol to gasoline be enough to yield
fuel-economy savings simply by defraying gasoline use, yet not enough
methanol to "lessen fuel-economy" overall?

 

[Michael Pardee]

Since this post was also published in the 'sci.chem' forum, is it
possible to use additives that would diminish methanol's corrosive
effects?

And would a 10 to 15% ratio of methanol to gasoline be enough to yield
fuel-economy savings simply by defraying gasoline use, yet not enough
methanol to "lessen fuel-economy" overall?

I suppose it could be possible, but where are we going with this? Methanol
really isn't a cheap substitute for gasoline, and any dilution of a fuel
with a less energy dense fuel will proportionately reduce the energy
available. I know that is an oversimplification, but I still don't see why
we'd want to.

I'm reminded of the acetone additive posts. Big risks, small motive to take
them.

Mike

 

[raconte]

That is another good point. I remember, dimly, when technical grade
methanol could be purchased in bulk for $0.40 per gallon. Not any more.

'Couse not. Methanol is made from petroleum. Well, natural gas
anyway. Now if some nation or locality has tons of natural gas and no
petroleum, and wants to make some money, they can try and get their
synthesis subsidized ... Maybe we'll see it be cost effective. Hey,
it works for corn producers in the US, sugar cane growers in Brazil,
and wine makers in the EU (I'm talking ethanol here).

But still, its not energy effective. That oxygen atom in the molecule
causes the fuel to produce more water, and volatizing water, with its
high specific heat, robs the engine of power. That's not oil company
propaganda, that's chemistry.

Everyone's trying stuff like this. People were using used frying oil
in their disel engines. Got for free from fast-food places ... until
they found out what it was being used for. Then the supply dried up.

 

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

Dear raconte:

....

But still, its not energy effective. That oxygen atom in
the molecule causes the fuel to produce more water,
and volatizing water, with its high specific heat, robs
the engine of power. That's not oil company
propaganda, that's chemistry.

Any internal combustion engine uses air/oxygen as an oxidizer,
and produces water where *hydrogen* is present in the fuel.
Alcohol has no leg either up *or* down on petroleum fuels,
because they all oxidize with oxygen and they all have hydrogen.

So is it the carbon chain that provides the most energy?

David A. Smith

 

[John S.]

I disagree, especially in this forum where there are some top-level gurus.
Few if any dealers have the expertise and experience available here. You
just have to be able to vet information.

Mike

Self-important internet "gurus" are not in my experience reliable
sources of information. They are usually good for more than one
partially informed opinion however. The dealer technicians and
corporate support staff are going to be a far more reliable source of
information.

 

[Nate Nagel]

Dear raconte:

...



Any internal combustion engine uses air/oxygen as an oxidizer,
and produces water where *hydrogen* is present in the fuel.
Alcohol has no leg either up *or* down on petroleum fuels,
because they all oxidize with oxygen and they all have hydrogen.

So is it the carbon chain that provides the most energy?

David A. Smith

Alcohol has some oxygen already built into it, so you might think of it
as an already partially oxidized hydrocarbon. (I can hear chemists
cringing as I type this) In any case a given volume of *thanol will not
react with as much atmospheric oxygen as will a given volume of
gasoline; that is why it is less energy dense.

nate

 

[John S.]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but it is one I do not share.

Dealerships tend to be staffed by salesmen.

Well, yes dealerships do employ salespeople (men and women). But I
don't take my car to the sales rep for repairs nor do I buy parts from
her.

While some dealerships have excellent mechanics (and some don't),
few - if any - employees at a dealership would have the basic engineering
skills to comment on this issue with any authority.

There is a far greater chance of getting an informed opinion from the
technical department in a dealer than on a news group. Wish the news
groups were like they once were, but they are not. They no longer
reliable sources of technical information. Is good information
there...yes there can be, but it is usually buried.

 

[User]

I suppose it could be possible, but where are we going with this? Methanol
really isn't a cheap substitute for gasoline, and any dilution of a fuel
with a less energy dense fuel will proportionately reduce the energy
available. I know that is an oversimplification, but I still don't see why
we'd want to.

I'm reminded of the acetone additive posts. Big risks, small motive to take
them.

Mike

The other part of the calculation is that since alcohols burn cooler
(lower heat of oxidation, lower latent heat overall) you would
theoretically be able to run more advance and utilize more power from
the gasoline fraction. However the control unit won't allow the advance
numbers you would need to neutralize the lost energy (from dilution) so
that adding oxidizers of any sort just waters down the fuel. The O2
sensor output to the control unit will maximize efficiency and reduce
emissions if the engine is running correctly. Most incomplete combustion
byproducts are cleaned in the converters. Adding O2 to the exhaust
stream just fools the O2 sensor output causing the control unit to feed
more fuel in an attempt to bring the air-fuel ratio back to calculated
lambda which is just slightly richer at 14.65:1 vs. 14.7:1.

AS far as methanol goes there was a bulletin of somekind that circulated
through the dealerships disallowing the use of methanol fuels. Among the
components affected were the fuel sock in the tank, the bellows hose on
the tank, the bracket and some of the plastics used for the in tank
pumps, the hard plastic nylon fuel lines were somewhat affected, and
most all rubber hoses were destroyed. There was no mention of engine
damage that I recall.

Bob

 

[Michael Pardee]

Any internal combustion engine uses air/oxygen as an oxidizer, and
produces water where *hydrogen* is present in the fuel. Alcohol has no leg
either up *or* down on petroleum fuels, because they all oxidize with
oxygen and they all have hydrogen.

So is it the carbon chain that provides the most energy?

David A. Smith

Both provide energy. A significant part of the problem is that methanol is
already partially oxidized, as are all alcohols. The energy content of
methanol is about 60% that of gasoline (http://tinyurl.com/f6nyl). The same
site proclaims that at the time of publication (1997) methanol fuel M-85 was
selling for the same price as gasoline in California. Your guess is as good
as mine where the price stands today, if it is available. Of course, the 40%
reduction in fuel efficiency would still apply.

Mike

 

[Michael Pardee]

Self-important internet "gurus" are not in my experience reliable
sources of information. They are usually good for more than one
partially informed opinion however. The dealer technicians and
corporate support staff are going to be a far more reliable source of
information.

It is we who validate the gurus, not they who validate themselves (as
dealers do, after all... money to invest is the main qualification for that
rating.) Because of the cross-posting I'm not sure which forum brings you
here, but alt.autos.volvo has a couple of professionals and at least one
very talented amateur who rarely set a foot wrong. I've been following the
group since we got our Volvo about 16 years ago and I trust them more than I
did my dealer... when we still had one in the state.

I am a dedicated DIYer who has resorted to dealers only three times in as
many decades and regretted it once, but at least three of the Volvo gurus
are several notches above me by any sane reckoning. One of them - a pro -
has posted in this thread.

My partner, who used to work at a Porsche dealership in Phoenix, warned me
that service writers are usually the least experienced mechanics at a shop.
The experienced ones are busy with cars, not with customers.

But to each their own - believe whom you will.

Mike

"The main, if not the sole, purpose of education is to be able to detect
when a man is talking rot." John Alexander Smith (1914), as reported by
Harold Macmillan

 

[Steve]

I think the chances of his getting an informed and accurate answer to a
technical question about the use of modified fuels in an older car are
far far better at a dealer than they are on a news group.

The dealer has the great majority of their business from new cars. a 9 year
old model is not goig to be their strong suit.

All the dealer will do is to say whatever volvo says anyway, therefore the
correct course is to write a email or call here:
Volvo Customer Care Center
For questions about the Volvo you currently own.

Volvo Cars of North America, LLC
Attn: Volvo Customer Care Center
7 Volvo Drive
Rockleigh, New Jersey 07647

Tel: 1-800-458-1552
Email: [email protected]
Hours: 8:30 AM to 7:00 PM EST, M - F

 

[Don Stauffer]

I was watching a CNN special last night on energy crunch. They had a
segment on Brazil's ethanol push. They claim regular gasoline (not E85)
had 25% ethanol (making it E25, I guess).

 

[Guest]

So is it the carbon chain that provides the most energy?

David A. Smith

Let's answer this one definitively. No, the combustion of carbon
in a hydrocarbon chain doe NOT provide the most energy. The
hydrogen combustion is the clear winner.

While alcohols may not be desirable in terms of our traditional
perceptions of energy economics, we may have to change out
perceptions. $100 per barrel oil is a possibility if not a likelihood.

Brasil does indeed have alcohol fuel available at many stations and
ALL their regular gasoline has 25% ethanol added. Most of their
cars have Flexifuel capacity, and can burn just about any mixture.

The factories produce both sugar and alcohol, and the energy to
do this is provided by burning the bagasse for heat. Brasil did it
because they HAD to do something. We might be seen as lagging
behind them, yearning for cheap petroleum to return. (Cheap
petroleum and Vaudeville are two things we are not likely to see
again.)

I have wondered why the 'water gas' reaction has not gotten more
hype. Carbon reacts with water at high temperatures to yield hydrogen,
carbon monoxide, and other by-products. At least the first two
are reasonably good fuels. And we have plenty of coal...and water.

 

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

Dear HLS:

....

I have wondered why the 'water gas' reaction has not
gotten more hype. Carbon reacts with water at high
temperatures to yield hydrogen, carbon monoxide,
and other by-products. At least the first two are
reasonably good fuels. And we have plenty of coal...
and water.

Not really plenty of either. As far as coal goes, if it isn't
destined for a power plant, then it is being shipped to Japan.
We are already using every drop of water that falls on the US
pretty close to x1 before it hits the ocean again. Plus
siphoning it out of the ground...

David A. Smith

 

[Michael Pardee]

Let's answer this one definitively. No, the combustion of carbon
in a hydrocarbon chain doe NOT provide the most energy. The
hydrogen combustion is the clear winner.

While alcohols may not be desirable in terms of our traditional
perceptions of energy economics, we may have to change out
perceptions. $100 per barrel oil is a possibility if not a likelihood.

Brasil does indeed have alcohol fuel available at many stations and
ALL their regular gasoline has 25% ethanol added. Most of their
cars have Flexifuel capacity, and can burn just about any mixture.

The factories produce both sugar and alcohol, and the energy to
do this is provided by burning the bagasse for heat. Brasil did it
because they HAD to do something. We might be seen as lagging
behind them, yearning for cheap petroleum to return. (Cheap
petroleum and Vaudeville are two things we are not likely to see
again.)

I have wondered why the 'water gas' reaction has not gotten more
hype. Carbon reacts with water at high temperatures to yield hydrogen,
carbon monoxide, and other by-products. At least the first two
are reasonably good fuels. And we have plenty of coal...and water.

The contaminants in the coal are the problem. The electric utility I work
for used to make "coal gas" and the production sites have cost us a fortune
to clean up. The heavy metals left behind made for mighty toxic waste.

Mike

 

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

Dear Michael Pardee:

The contaminants in the coal are the problem. The
electric utility I work for used to make "coal gas"
and the production sites have cost us a fortune to clean up.
The heavy metals left behind made for
mighty toxic waste.

They have lots of power and heat available. Couldn't they either
allow the water to boil off/evaporate, or simply plate the heavy
metals onto something? Heavy metals are being removed in
municipal drinking water systems through their adsorption onto
iron...

As a side light, medical product sterilizers that use ETO have to
get rid of this gas once it has been used. They convert it into
ethylene glycol, which they still have to dispose of as a
hazardous material... and we get cheap(er) engine coolant (I
guess).

Is it just a "regulation thing"?

David A. Smith

 

[John Robertson]

I rang Volvo Australia and was told 5% max and then I am not sure as even
between brands there seems to be a difference in my Turbo if I push it .So
far I have avoided the use of Methanol but as our Prime minister has a mate
who is in to producing methanol it no doubt will be forced on us .My hose
between my tanks rotted so did my wifes both cars were brought second hand
from Sydney Australia where Methanol is common and it does rot hoses rubber
and such .