happy wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>> happy wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>>
>>>> happy wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jason wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The manual for my 04 Sonata specifically said not to use Premium
>>>>>>> Fuel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So I am guessing it is a waste of money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not only is it a waste of money, but it will cause carbon buildup
>>>>>> in the engine over time. So basically, you're paying more to ruin
>>>>>> your engine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was told that higher octane fuels have higher amount cleaning
>>>>> additives to prevent this. And lover sulfur contamination, the most
>>>>> destructive part. True, if the engine is not running at the correct
>>>>> temperature, it will increase deposits. Some mechanics wrote, if
>>>>> you would like to make 1/2 mil km on the same engine, you must use
>>>>> premium gasoline. (Mercedes mechanic).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The additive part was true two decades ago, but not anymore. The
>>>> statement the mechanic made is not true for all engines. It may be
>>>> true for high compression engines that really need the higher octane
>>>> to avoid detontation, but it certainly isn't true for engines
>>>> designed for 87 octane.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Matt
>>>
>>>
>>> "The additive part was true two decades ago, but not anymore."
>>> CHEVRON gas station claim that premium gas have "more" Techlorin than
>>> a regular gasoline. It this claim untrue?
>>
>> I rarely buy Chevron gasoline, but I've never seen this claim at a
>> Chevron station. They claim their gasolines with Techron (never heard
>> of Techlorin) clean better than other brands of gasoline, but I've not
>> seen a claim of their premium having more Techron than their regular.
>> However, this wouldn't surprise me because, as someone else posted
>> earlier, high octane gasolines are more prone to cause combustion
>> chamber deposits so it only makes sense that Chevron would add more
>> Techron to help mitigate this problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Also, higher octane gasoline presents a less sulfur content due to
>>> higher fuels (More expensive as Pentane, Hectane, Octane, alcohol
>>> etc. All additives to increase octane ratings). This itself would
>>> increase the engine life span. (Mechanic comment) Regular benzene
>>> (87)is an inferior fuel by a comparison. Unfortunately, Hyundai does
>>> not utilize this option due to the low cost targeted market. Your
>>> power and the lifespan of the engine would be determent then by an
>>> octane rating, not by the manufacturer.
>>> I prefer options...............
>>
>> Personally, I prefer good information more than options. You are
>> getting bad information. Don't take my word for it. Search around on
>> your own. The information is plentiful. Here's just one sample I
>> found in less than 5 seconds.
>>
>> http://chemistry.about.com/library/w...abyb100401.htm
>
> I have searched for years and found nothing, more articles just like the
> link above. All abstract talk, no formulas, no real manufacturers. It
> does not even address the sulfur contaminants, or describe who really
> make a good low octane gasoline. (No, there are not all the same). All
> talks we all already know. Rule of thumb, a good information do not come
> from the Internet, but from the mechanic who fix the car every day. And
> he got no time to write about it, because he is fixing it.

What a load of crap! Heck, I know more about cars than a lot of the
monkeys I've met who work on them. The automotive business is rife with
folklore, myth and outright stupidity that passes for fact. Yes, there
are certainly intelligent, well educated mechanics that I know and
trust, but the fact that someone works on cars is no indication that
they understand anything about fuel chemistry or what happens inside an
engine. That doesn't mean they can't repair them, but it does make their
advice suspect. I repair computers all the time and I'm certified to do
so, but I couldn't tell you how a CPU works internally.

> Of course, the exception is the "HYUDNAI mechanic" helping us here.
>
> For example, please help me to find which gasoline manufacturer has the
> lowest and which highest sulfur content? The real engine and
> environmental killer.

Have you ever heard of Google? Try searching on "sulfur content in
gasoline" and you'll get more information than you know what to do with,
much of it from government regulatory agencies. Quit being so lazy and
don't give us any more crap about there not being good information
available on the Internet. If you really believe that, why are you here?

 

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "happy" <happy@camper.com> wrote in message
>> I have searched for years and found nothing, more articles just like the
>> link above. All abstract talk, no formulas, no real manufacturers. It does
>> not even address the sulfur contaminants, or describe who really make a
>> good low octane gasoline. (No, there are not all the same). All talks we
>> all already know. Rule of thumb, a good information do not come from the
>> Internet, but from the mechanic who fix the car every day. And he got no
>> time to write about it, because he is fixing it.
>> Of course, the exception is the "HYUDNAI mechanic" helping us here.
>>
>> For example, please help me to find which gasoline manufacturer has the
>> lowest and which highest sulfur content? The real engine and environmental
>> killer.
>
> The sulfur content has more to do with the crude than the brand. Since all
> the refineries take from different wells at different times, it is not
> possible to say a particular brand is exactly the same nation wide. Aside
> from that, the gas in the tank is not always from the refinery whose name is
> on the sign.
>
> A very few people say they can tell the difference, but I never cold. Over
> the years, I may have had a tank or two that did not seem up to snuff, but
> going back to the same station a couple of weeks later, no problem. I buy
> where it is convenient and the price reasonable. Not worth driving 20 miles
> to save two cents a gallon.

Here are some sulfur-related excerpts from one of the sources I found:

"Effective on January 1, 2006, the per-gallon sulfur cap for gasoline
produced at most refineries dropped to 80 ppm. This standard does not
apply to all gasoline because there are different regulations for small
refiners and for refineries in the Rocky Mountain area."

"On January 1, 2004, the first phase of the EPA low sulfur gasoline
regulations were effective. The phase-in of these standards was
completed in 2006 for most refineries and importers. In 2006,
specifications for gasoline content changed from the previous 500 ppm
sulfur ceiling for RFG outside of California to a required 30 ppm annual
average and a per-gallon cap of 80 ppm for most gasoline (with some
delays for gasoline produced in the Rocky Mountain area or produced by
small refiners)."

The rest of the article can be found at:

http://www.npra.org/issues/fuels/gasoline.cfm

 

Anyone I've ever spoken to at Hyundai with an opinion on this has said that
at best higher octane is a waste money and that it will likely cause more
engine deposits.

 

Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> PMDR wrote:
>>
>>> Drivers also sabotage themselves by letting their cars run down to near
>>> empty before refilling. Super fuel is not going to help with that
>>> either.
>>
>>
>> How so?
>
>
> I think he's referring the the problem of water accumulation in the
> tank. With the new MTBE-free fuels containing 10% ethanol, it's no
> longer a problem as you effectively have "dry gas" added to every tankful.

I don't think it is a problem even with regular gasoline since the EPA
started requiring vapor recovery systems.

Matt

 

Water and dirt and other debris.

Tanks rusting from the inside out is another issue. Plastic fuel tanks
have ended that.

Fuel also acts as coolant for the in-tank fuel pumps. Run it dry
enough and the pump will overheat and possibly wear faster.

Brian Nystrom wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> > PMDR wrote:
> >
> >> Drivers also sabotage themselves by letting their cars run down to near
> >> empty before refilling. Super fuel is not going to help with that
> >> either.
> >
> > How so?
>
> I think he's referring the the problem of water accumulation in the
> tank.

 

PMDR wrote:
> Water and dirt and other debris.

This is an issue even if the tank is half full as water and most debris
is heavier than gasoline and sinks to the bottom anyway.


> Tanks rusting from the inside out is another issue. Plastic fuel tanks
> have ended that.

What does tank rusting have to do with running near empty?


> Fuel also acts as coolant for the in-tank fuel pumps. Run it dry
> enough and the pump will overheat and possibly wear faster.

Yes, we've discused this hear before. I believe this is an OWT, but
many still believe it. I don't know if hyundaitech has ever weighed in
on this one though? How about it hyundaitech, does Hyundai have any
official word on fuel pump cooling/life as a function of running the
tank near empty?

Matt

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> Fuel also acts as coolant for the in-tank fuel pumps. Run it dry
>> enough and the pump will overheat and possibly wear faster.
>
> Yes, we've discused this hear before. I believe this is an OWT, but many
> still believe it.

It has come up on other groups also. You are right about the OWT. Many
have brought it up, but no one has actually given any evidence.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> What does tank rusting have to do with running near empty?

Assuming the tank is rusting inside, once the fuel level drops, more
surface will be exposed to air, oxidize, and produce loose particles
and debris.

This happened to car in my extended family. It was always driven with
less than a quarter tank of fuel to save weight and eventually the tank
rusted from the inside out and sent debris through the fuel lines and
clogged the fuel filter.

> > Fuel also acts as coolant for the in-tank fuel pumps. Run it dry
> > enough and the pump will overheat and possibly wear faster.
>
> Yes, we've discused this hear before. I believe this is an OWT,

I am pretty sure I've read that in more than one owners manual.

 

PMDR wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>What does tank rusting have to do with running near empty?
>
>
> Assuming the tank is rusting inside, once the fuel level drops, more
> surface will be exposed to air, oxidize, and produce loose particles
> and debris.
>
> This happened to car in my extended family. It was always driven with
> less than a quarter tank of fuel to save weight and eventually the tank
> rusted from the inside out and sent debris through the fuel lines and
> clogged the fuel filter.

With a modern closed system, you should not have air in the tank above
the fuel, only fuel vapor.


>>>Fuel also acts as coolant for the in-tank fuel pumps. Run it dry
>>>enough and the pump will overheat and possibly wear faster.
>>
>>Yes, we've discused this hear before. I believe this is an OWT,
>
>
> I am pretty sure I've read that in more than one owners manual.

I've owned more than 10 cars in 32 years and have never seen this once
in an official source. If you can post even one make/model and page
number in the manual, I'd much appreciate it.

Matt

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:LaJrh.2225$Oc.138682@news1.epix.net...

>
> With a modern closed system, you should not have air in the tank above
> the fuel, only fuel vapor.
>

Not sure I can go with this one Matt. Cars do not have a means of depleting
air from the gas tank. They have the means to control the pressure in the
tank relative to atmospheric pressure, but not the gases that make up that
pressure. There is no way to remove the oxygen (even the levels typical of
the air we breath) in a gas tank, thus oxidation is not only possible in a
metal gas tank, but common.

I'm not so sure though, how much of a problem oxidation from within the tank
really is though. I believe more of the issues with contaminants inside the
tank are from those contaminants being pumped into the tank at the gas
station.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Mike Marlow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
> news:LaJrh.2225$Oc.138682@news1.epix.net...
>
>
>>With a modern closed system, you should not have air in the tank above
>>the fuel, only fuel vapor.
>>
>
>
> Not sure I can go with this one Matt. Cars do not have a means of depleting
> air from the gas tank. They have the means to control the pressure in the
> tank relative to atmospheric pressure, but not the gases that make up that
> pressure. There is no way to remove the oxygen (even the levels typical of
> the air we breath) in a gas tank, thus oxidation is not only possible in a
> metal gas tank, but common.
>
> I'm not so sure though, how much of a problem oxidation from within the tank
> really is though. I believe more of the issues with contaminants inside the
> tank are from those contaminants being pumped into the tank at the gas
> station.

I can't find a reference at the moment, but I remember reading that one
reason that there isn't an explosion concern with in-tank electric fuel
pumps is that the tank has only liquid gasoline and gasoline vapor and
not enough oxygen to support combustion or explosion. The explanation
was that the charcoal canister traps excess gasoline vapor which is them
drawn back into the tank as the fuel is depleted. Proper operation of
this system requires the gas cap to be tightly in place hence the fact
that most modern cars (I think OBD II and later) will light the MIL
indicator.

And, as I've mentioned previously, I run my cars down to 1/8 tank (until
the light comes on) quite often and I've never had a tank rust out and
have had only one electric fuel pump fail and that was after about
150,000 miles so I don't think it was a failure due to overheating of
the pump due to lack of gas in the tank as that would happen much sooner
than 9 years and 150K miles.


Matt

 

"Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
news:9eVrh.2250$Oc.138625@news1.epix.net...

>
> I can't find a reference at the moment, but I remember reading that one
> reason that there isn't an explosion concern with in-tank electric fuel
> pumps is that the tank has only liquid gasoline and gasoline vapor and
> not enough oxygen to support combustion or explosion. The explanation
> was that the charcoal canister traps excess gasoline vapor which is them
> drawn back into the tank as the fuel is depleted.

That would be interesting to read. If you find a link, post it or email it,
will ya?


>
> And, as I've mentioned previously, I run my cars down to 1/8 tank (until
> the light comes on) quite often and I've never had a tank rust out and
> have had only one electric fuel pump fail and that was after about
> 150,000 miles so I don't think it was a failure due to overheating of
> the pump due to lack of gas in the tank as that would happen much sooner
> than 9 years and 150K miles.
>

I've never lost a fuel pump and I've driven my cars over 200K. I have lost
a couple of tanks though, to rust. It appeared to be from the inside out,
at the seams. These were all on GM's, but that's because except for the
wife's Hyundai, GM's are pretty much all that have graced our garage. I do
know of a lot of folks who have had tanks rot out on Fords as well. I don't
admit to knowing people who own Chrysler products.

--

-Mike-
mmarlowREMOVE@alltel.net

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Brian Nystrom wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> PMDR wrote:
>>>
>>>> Drivers also sabotage themselves by letting their cars run down to near
>>>> empty before refilling. Super fuel is not going to help with that
>>>> either.
>>>
>>>
>>> How so?
>>
>>
>> I think he's referring the the problem of water accumulation in the
>> tank. With the new MTBE-free fuels containing 10% ethanol, it's no
>> longer a problem as you effectively have "dry gas" added to every
>> tankful.
>
> I don't think it is a problem even with regular gasoline since the EPA
> started requiring vapor recovery systems.

Moisture still gets into the tank due to condensation. Air has to be
allowed into the tank as it drains and it brings moisture in with it.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> PMDR wrote:
>> Matt Whiting wrote:
>>
>>> What does tank rusting have to do with running near empty?
>>
>>
>> Assuming the tank is rusting inside, once the fuel level drops, more
>> surface will be exposed to air, oxidize, and produce loose particles
>> and debris.
>>
>> This happened to car in my extended family. It was always driven with
>> less than a quarter tank of fuel to save weight and eventually the tank
>> rusted from the inside out and sent debris through the fuel lines and
>> clogged the fuel filter.
>
> With a modern closed system, you should not have air in the tank above
> the fuel, only fuel vapor.

For that to be true, you'd have to have a vacuum in the tank. It simply
doesn't work that way. As the fuel level in the tank falls, air is drawn
in to replace it. There is no alternative.

 

Matt Whiting wrote:
> Mike Marlow wrote:
>
>> "Matt Whiting" <whiting@epix.net> wrote in message
>> news:LaJrh.2225$Oc.138682@news1.epix.net...
>>
>>
>>> With a modern closed system, you should not have air in the tank above
>>> the fuel, only fuel vapor.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Not sure I can go with this one Matt. Cars do not have a means of
>> depleting
>> air from the gas tank. They have the means to control the pressure in
>> the
>> tank relative to atmospheric pressure, but not the gases that make up
>> that
>> pressure. There is no way to remove the oxygen (even the levels
>> typical of
>> the air we breath) in a gas tank, thus oxidation is not only possible
>> in a
>> metal gas tank, but common.
>>
>> I'm not so sure though, how much of a problem oxidation from within
>> the tank
>> really is though. I believe more of the issues with contaminants
>> inside the
>> tank are from those contaminants being pumped into the tank at the gas
>> station.
>
> I can't find a reference at the moment, but I remember reading that one
> reason that there isn't an explosion concern with in-tank electric fuel
> pumps is that the tank has only liquid gasoline and gasoline vapor and
> not enough oxygen to support combustion or explosion. The explanation
> was that the charcoal canister traps excess gasoline vapor which is them
> drawn back into the tank as the fuel is depleted. Proper operation of
> this system requires the gas cap to be tightly in place hence the fact
> that most modern cars (I think OBD II and later) will light the MIL
> indicator.

That's simply impossible. Yes, fuel vapor trapped in the carbon canister
is drawn back into the tank along with outside air. The fuel is adsorbed
by the carbon, then released as air is drawn through it and into the
tank. There is no way to not have outside air entering the tank. To have
a completely sealed system, you would have to pressurize and
depressurize it as you add and subtract fuel from the tank. Fuel systems
in cars don't work that way.