New Green Fuel Could Cost Motorists Billions

[ItalianTuneUp]

http://www.motoring.co.uk/car-news/new-green-fuel-could-cost-motorists-billions_61157

Any thoughts? I presume this doesn't affect diesel, but maybe I'm mistaken?

 

[Sp!ke]

This has been on the cards for some time - older vehicles with carbs shouldn't use this fuel either apparently.

Fuel lines and seals having potential impact.

 

[Charles Morgan]

One of the most idiotic results of dumb greenwashing.

It's hard enough keeping an old car on the road without having to worry that the fuel is going to wreak slow havoc on your fuel system. This and the even more idiotic classic car directive have me spitting teeth.

 

[Sp!ke]

I believe the higher octane fuels are unaffected but I might be wrong.

I had a hunch that shell fuelsave had a higher ethanol content for a while based on poor mpg when using it.

What classic care directive?

 

[renault12ts]

I believe the higher octane fuels are unaffected but I might be wrong.

I had a hunch that shell fuelsave had a higher ethanol content for a while based on poor mpg when using it.

What classic care directive?

It could be the directive that pre 1984 cars are exempt the MOT.

 

[Sp!ke]

That doesnt make sense to me... it would be great for diligent owners of classic cars but it would open the door for 17 year old johnny to drive his death trap astra with impunity

 

[Charles Morgan]

The EU roadworthiness directive.

Originally worded it would have forced any classic car with any modification* from standard off the road. It still (insanely) is suggesting that any pre-80 car that is standard should be exempt from roadtesting.

* by modification I mean anything materially different from standard, not just upping the power or similar. So me fitting an Edelbrock head to my Allard would have forced it off the road.

 

[Sp!ke]

that is madness - would 1980's AMG's not all fall into the category of being modified?

 

[Charles Morgan]

I think if it had type approval at the time, it would be fine. But fit say an E36 engine in an E320 - nein.

I have (like numerous classic car owners) fitted an electronic dizzy. It takes away an awful lot of starting issues and misfiring. That would render the car unroadworthy under the original proposals.

For some cars finding original replacement parts are hopeless so you cannibalise or adapt. No go.

Forget uprated brakes.

Fitting different wheel size - nicht moglich.

I could go on.

Apart from making running one of these things close to impossible it would have wiped out a large and growing UK industry.

Not wishing to let politics intrude, but really, is this what any of us envisage the EU should be spending its time on?

Fortunately the Government here were pretty supportive of the classic car industry, but had there not been as many owners it could all have gone horribly wrong.

 

[grober]

http://www.autoleasewereld.nl/files/E10 compatibility.pdf

 

[Druk]

Forget uprated brakes.

Fitting different wheel size - nicht moglich.

Fortunately the Government here were pretty supportive of the classic car industry, but had there not been as many owners it could all have gone horribly wrong.

Uprated brakes are the least of my worries. What about this?...





.

 

[Charles Morgan]

Prison sentence, Derek.

 

[Sp!ke]

MAG (The Motorcycle Action Group) have been fighting TUV approval legislation for at least a decade.

Motorcycle Action Group

 

[Charles Morgan]

http://www.autoleasewereld.nl/files/E10 compatibility.pdf

Reading that, the only petrol engined car I own that might be compatible is the 190 2.5 16, assuming that has a catalyst. Allard and Citroens SM and XM, no.

So super-unleaded here we come. The mind-blowing absurdity of running a Flathead Ford V8 on super-unleaded.

Spike - they've got motorcycles in their sights as well. Keep fighting, but these two bits of legislation have in my case decided which way I'd vote in a European referendum.

 

[Chrishazle]

This has been known about over on PCGB for some years, as E10 has been available - or the norm - for 95RON unleaded in Europe for some time. Porsche themselves advised that pre-1996 cars should not use E10 as the original fuel lines are not compatible with it. Thankfully none of the 98-99RON fuels here or in Europe have more than 5% ethanol, and many owners of older Porsches (like me) run on 99RON all the time - the additional cost for limited mileage is acceptable, and the car seems happier on it than on standard unleaded.

 

[Chrishazle]

The mind-blowing absurdity of running a Flathead Ford V8 on super-unleaded.

Good friend of mine has a 1927 Austin Heavy 12, recently had to have the fuel system stripped and cleaned - the Autovac (whatever that is!) had gummed up through unleaded fuel and lack of use of the car.

 

[Charles Morgan]

Uprated brakes are the least of my worries. What about this?...

You will be pleased to know Derek that my Allard is now running a 3.25 diff ratio in place of the original 4.11. The mechanic used exactly the method you described it would need - "it was a horrible thing to do ". He didn't need to tell me that as I looked at the hours spent multiplied by the labour rate...

Of course, that would have rendered the car unroadworthy too.

 

[Charles Morgan]

Good friend of mine has a 1927 Austin Heavy 12, recently had to have the fuel system stripped and cleaned - the Autovac (whatever that is!) had gummed up through unleaded fuel and lack of use of the car.

Lack of use is always an issue, but in the case of most pre-war engines they ran on muck. Given the flathead V8 ran at very low compression and could take virtually everything backswoods gas stations could throw at it, and then powered virtually every Ford truck and gun carrier from Egypt to the Russian front, the notion that one has to run it on stuff designed for high performance engines is laughable if it weren't so depressing.

 

[Druk]

So Charles. What is the definitive position on this proposed legislation? Has it finally been kicked into touch or are 'they' still working on it?

It's one thing entirely knowing if there's a different ratio diff fitted or an Edelbrock head. Lift the bonnet on mine and even a Ford mechanic could tell there was something strange in there.




.

 

[Charles Morgan]

The worst nonsenses were kicked into touch *. There is a follow up in terms of how it is implemented in MOTs, but as it is a directive rather than a regulation, the EU colony, I mean sovereign country may implement it with a wider degree of latitude - but as currently suggested, totally original cars from pre 84 would be exempt from an MOT but non-original ones wouldn't, and I have rather lost touch with what exactly would be tested.

My Allard incidentally passed its MOT just a week prior to the brakes totally failing. I assume the tester really didn't have a clue about what brake performance on a 1948 car should be. Much as I understand the safety issues, in what way is a soot belching, non airbag or seatbelt equipped Allard with suicide doors, drum brakes and independently minded front suspension safer with an MOT than a 2000 Merc with an airbag warning light on?

* like the Emperor Barbarossa legend that he did not drown on the Third Crusade but is in a cave awaiting the day that the German Reich shall be re-born. It may take 10s or 1000s of years, but mark my words, it will be back. Hasta la vista, baby.