£229 for 30 litres of unleaded.
:(
Printable View
£229 for 30 litres of unleaded.
:(
Hire car perchance? Been there done that :(
Amateur...
I once spent over $4000 of my company's money in a single gulp! (Of about 800 US Gallons!)
:p
Diesel car?Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
He said unleaded so unlikely to be diesel :)
Edit : Unless as stated below, miss fueled :)
I get the feeling someone miss fueled :(
Maddaussie - spot on.
I’ve been driving diesels for 20 odd years without ever doing that. Don’t know why, but quite happily put unleaded in. Fortunately realising as I put the nozzle back in the pump.
Long story short, left car on forecourt, got the name of someone to come out. I had to drive about 10 yards to clear the forecourt, but that apparently is not far enough to introduce contaminated fuel into the fuel pump (£1500 worth) where he pumped out the tank both through the filler and (because it’s a saddle tank over the prop shaft) the other side through the tank access port under the back seat. Put in some fresh diesel, started it up and it didn’t miss a beat.
Filled right up to dilute any remaining petrol and drove home.
Won’t be making that mistake again, but could have been a lot worse. The Shell garage staff were very helpful. Still not sure how I came to do it. I was in a hurry, tired, and not feeling too good and it wasn’t a garage I use regularly. Maybe hoses were arranged differently. Or just a brain fart. Who knows?
Never ever start the engine on a mis-fuel. Stick it in neutral and manually push it - recruit others if you have to but NEVER start the engine.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
mate... it's not unusual. So long as it's not driven ( a Diesel car miss fueled with Petrol) it's just a dent on the ego and the wallet and ruins your day.
Lots of worse stuff occuring
You are safe.
Diesel in an old Petrol car is a lot less dagerous for engine damage but still a royal pain in the arse. And the SMOKE before it splutters to death!!!!!!
That’s what I thought, but the specialist that came out said that it takes about 1/4 mile for the contaminated fuel to reach the engine. I moved it 10 yards at low revs so the amount of contaminated fuel entering the lines was minimal, and flushed about as soon as the tank was filled with the correct fuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Oops.... Not managed to do that myself yet, but there's always time!!
AFAIK, the damage that fuel pump sustains is due to the diesel providing lubrication to it in normal use - petrol being a bit thinner doesn't do this and also eats the seals, and you end up eventually with the pump shredding itself and firing swarf through the injectors :shocked2: which is why just moving the car out of the way under its own power is ok, as you'll need to get everything warmed up to start damaging stuff.
Feel for you m8, I have switched from Petrol to Diesel and am quite frankly papping it in case I forget.
Ouch.
One of my work mates added petrol to the work van. realized after putting £20 in it and then paid for the fuel and drove the van back to site ( about 7 miles ). Told our boss as what happened and we got the tank emptied and the van was fine.
must have been lucky
PeterB if it makes you feel any many years ago I worked for Tesco in the petrol filling station, one night the manager and a tanker driver got the compartments mixed up and dropped 6000ltrs of petrol into the diesel holding tank and visa-versa. Luckily the forecourt was closed and they realised, cue having to get a specialist company out to pump the fuel out clean the tanks... That was a long night but they had a very cool brass pump on a flatbed they used to pump the fuel.
Oh and it used to happen at least once a month with customers...
It's not just it being thinner - petrol is a rather effective degreaser, so it will strip the lubrication off the pump, injectors, anything else really. Definitely not good news.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tumble
Diesel in a petrol is less of an issue as a run of petrol will clean any diesel out in short order.
Definitely a whoops moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddAussie
With hindsight, (and with my normal ‘glass half full’ hat on) it could have been a lot worse. I might not have noticed and the effects would have kicked in when I got on the motorway - worse case, stranded on the motorway at night, knackered car. So apart from a mildly dented wallet and slight embarrassment, I came out of it OK (and got a fuel tank clean :) )
It'll play merry hell with the cat and any other filters it contacts though. Gunk them up nicely. Car will still run but emissions tests won't go well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butcher
So what do they use in a petrol car then? Having gone to the bother of sourcing petrol resistant parts for use in petrol engines I wouldn't be surprised if they reused the same components where possible for diesel engines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Butcher
I just moved to petrol from diesel, I am dreading the day I do this also....
The pressures are much lower in a petrol injector system, so I suspect the tolerances may be less demanding.
A diesel is injecting against the cylinder pressure at or near tdc, a petrol injector is injecting at near atmospheric pressure well before the compression stroke completes. The compression ratio of a diesel is also higher than a petrol engine.
The lubrication requirements of high pressure pumps is more demanding than of lower pressure pumps.
I did this a few years ago, I'd driven a diesel for a while but it was in the garage and I'd borrowed a petrol for a couple of weeks, got used to putting petrol in. Got the diesel back, practically empty and autopilotted about £10-£15 worth of petrol before I realised what I'd done
I just brimmed it with diesel and kept it topped up for a few days. Engine was fine. German, of course.
but because diesel is more viscous it can clog petrol injectors and you get loss of peak power and laggy response - we got that when a garage put diesel contaminated petrol in our car a while back. It never was the same again, even after all the cleaning solvents they threw into it. Petrol in a diesel is more dangerous due to the compression causing auto-ignition explosions contrary to the timing strokes and cylinder positions - so actual mechanical damage to multiple components is possible if you keep it running.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Absolutely, and there is risk of catalyst poisoning. From what the guy who came out to me said, a Diesel engine will just die when the petrol gets to the engine (having created havoc to the fuel components on the way)Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Diesel in a petrol engine may run, but it won’t be doing a modern petrol engine any favours at all. You might get away with it in a carburettor B series engine or an old Ford Kent engine, but that’s about it.
As an aside, some old farm engines used to run on something called tractor vaporising oil - something akin to paraffin. They used to start on petrol, then once started and warmed up, they would be switched to TVO. But that was in the days when a cat was something to control the rat and mouse population (and keep the farm dogs in order :) )
The cylinder pressure is irrelevant in remotely modern engines. A Direct Injection petrol engine will have its fuel pressured to around 500 atmospheres! A common rail diesel is closer to 2500 atmospheres.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Unbelievable pressure for the fuel before it even goes bang!
Outside y area of expertise, but my understanding is that common rail diesel injection pressures are 250Bar, while a Common rail petrol system is around 100Bar to achieve optimum atomisation and fuel/air mixing.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
and that's the point, try and compress petrol to common rail pressures and it will auto-ignite before it gets half-way.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Where does it get the oxygen from to ignite? It can only burn when injected into the cylinder.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Quite so - neither petrol nor diesel ignite under pressure. Diesel burns when it is injected into the cylinder because the air in there has been compressed and is hot. Petrol won't readily ignite under those conditions, which is why it needs a spark plug to get it burning.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Oh petrol will burn very happily in those conditions, which is why petrol engines work at lower compression ratios than diesel engines so that they don't "diesel" and the spark plug can control the combustion.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
There is a video on youtube of someone driving an old diesel car filled with petrol. Apparently it drove quite well. That wouldn't have had the modern common rail diesel pump though, those do seem to be the weak link if not the injectors which won't be designed for a fuel that runny.
Liquids don't compress as much as gases, so would there even be enough heat for autoignition with an oxidiser when you're compressing liquid fuel?
A beemer M47 diesel (from 20 years ago or so) has an injection pressure of 250-1350 bar[1], so it wouldn't surprise me for a modern diesel to hit double that peak pressure.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Faster you can get the fuel in, the less the piston moves during the burny bit - and the less the piston moves during the burny bit, the less wasted energy goes down the exhaust.
[1]: Rover 75 & MG ZT owners workshop manual, haynes (2010) (not sure why they quoted a range)
IIRC that was an old trick with an air rifle - a drop of light oil behind the pellet.Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
But yes, you are right about compression ratios - I didn't explain myself very well.
Common rail diesels are up to around 2000 bar these days. My car's petrol direct injectors run at up to 210 bar (compare to ~4 bar for the port injectors).Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Fuel going in fast makes the car sound even more like a tractor. The whole point of common rail is to break the burn up into lots of smaller injections to spread out the noise into something more like the flame front of a petrol explosion and make the engine acceptable in a consumer vehicle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
I cannot wait for electric vehicles to become the norm and read all the threads about people putting in AC batteries instead of DC, or a Twenty-Seven Hundred (2700) cell instead of a Twenty Seven-Hundred (20700) one and borking their cars!!
You just know it will happen... :lol:
You're missing a zero off the back end of that figure ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Source: 30-second Google.
I'm told there are some models up to 5,000bar (Citroen I think), but mostly that's just for maritime engines.
Two responses. Both wrong but very different.
A polite "that doesn't sound right but not my area of expertise type response" Perfectly reasonable. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
The usual internet type response. Complete rubbish based on a knowing nothing about the subject at hand, but nonetheless stating opinion as fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
In both cases, 30 seconds on Google would reveal my figures are correct. In the first case, that's just politely adding to the discussion. In the second - well you can see how fake news spreads so rapidly. See also: automotive forum advice on needing jet engine grade oil and needing to change it every 3000 miles or you'll destroy your engine.
Hmm my above post looks grumpy. Probably because I am. Mainly because of my diesel [s]piece of[/s] car.
It's the idea of jet fuel being a high grade that amuses me. Jets will run on anything. You can run them on gasoline for a set period of time, and that's only a limitation on the fuel pumps that rely on the oily fuel for lubrication. Change the pump and the engine is good for more hours of gasoline abuse.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Jet Engine Oil is a high grade synthetic. But it's a very low weight oil, so not good for a car engine.
Isn't jet fuel similar to diesel but less carefully refined (and thus cheaper) because jet engines don't really care?
Indeed. Capable of withstanding very high temperatures for a decent amount of time without breaking down too quickly. Not easy for organic compounds.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
you know I shall listen to my own advice and not inflame the situation. Better response further downQuote:
Originally Posted by badass
yes it does look grumpy. because it is. Try the edit button.Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
Interestingly enough the first jet engines like the BMW 003 actually ran on petrol or diesel,unlike modern ones which seem to be more orientated towards keroscene.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
Having said that I thought there were military engines in MBTs which could run different kinds of fuels fine??
Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
compare and contrast the immediate helpful responses moving the discussion along vs the less helpful and by their own admission, grumpy post that presumably just seeks to provoke a response. You'll notice I'm sure the big pause in my posts while I chewed on their responses and did just what you accused me of not doing - looked it up. I started by wanting to simply caveat that my statement applied in the presence of oxygen - but actually it's more tricky than that as whatever the correct applicaiton of the old PV=nRT there is a big problem that diesel actually auto-ignites (at standard pressure) before petorl does. Which just pops my little head as it is heavier HC chained and less volatile but nope, there it is grinning at my like a fat cheese wedge and saying "you sure that guy at the garage told you truth there bruv?" and your old chemistry teacher - was he pulling your chain too? "Quote:
Originally Posted by badass
So I spent a while trying to chew on the science. And I have a weird car-crash in my head: PV=nRT so as you compress something (and do work in the process) it gets hot. At some point - assuming there's some air in there - you hit the point at which it goes bang without any spark required. But according to wiki's tables (yes those ones apparently I don't know how to look at) petrol should get there 2nd to diesel, so why is it a problem, and so bad that we should be told in our labs at Uni (oh those uneducated internet types...) that if we fed the petrol into the diesel test rig it would explode? Surely they had some basis for telling us this (more than just scare the dimwit undergrads needlessly).
Then I spent a wadge of time trying to find the papers on how auto-ingition might vary in non-standard pressure, and what that looks like inside a petrol engine vs diesel engine and their operating pressures. Sadly the decent papers on this are hidden behind the academic firewall and I am too long out to have access anymore. At that point I stopped while other life got in the way.
The slightly longer response is thus, and more detailed than perhaps I would have given it, hopefully suitably self-moderated for a public forum. Needless to say, I don't think much of a smug poster who reads his own posts, thinks he's been a bit unpleasant, publicly says so, then leaves it there just to stir up the pot. By all means contribute to the science debate and useful comments, even correct me if I get something wrong, but kindly refrain from any further unecessary snide remarks. Cheers.
Turbines (eg jet engines, tanks, odd-ball cars/bikes, generators etc.) can indeed run on almost any old junk. But they're a bit pricey for mainstream cars.
IK9000: Thank you for your detailed reply.
I think (and I am second guessing another poster here) that the point being made about the pressures in the rail itself was emphasising that the fuel is still in the liquid phase and as such is pretty much incompressible - it may be pressurised, but it is not compressed in the gaseous sense.
Of course, in the cylinder the fuel is vapourised and is compressible and Boyle’s law then applies.
My own comment was pointing out that combustion cannot take place with an oxidising agent (gaseous atmospheric oxygen in this case but for some specialised ic engines a self oxidising fuel may be used) and while the fuel is in the fuel rail there is no oxygen. If my post came over as a bit smart Alec, I apologise.
One ‘problem’ with a forum (even one as good as HEXUS :hexlub: is that it isn’t always easy to determine the level of expertise of individual posters, which is why we tyre to encourage debate and discussion of ideas ( and abhor personal attacks)
Whilst I suspect there is always some entertainment in scaring the undergrads, I can only see the problem if air gets into the fuel line. Usually that is pretty rare, but I can imagine a machine in an undergrad lab would have a high chance of starting the day with an empty tank.Quote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Couple of data points for the discussion though:
Diesel engines used to have much higher compression ratios than they do now for emission purposes and because of the turbo.So compression has changed, but not the fuel. AIUI the engine running depends on hot spots within the cylinder head rather than auto ignition. I gather some new engines are getting quite dependant on the glow plugs.
Pouring powdered magnesium into the air makes it burn. Being atomised is as important as compression.
Which is a crying shame, as turbines sound awesome starting up...Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
Tik-tik-tik-tik-tik-tik-tik-tiktiktiktiktiktiktikt-t-t-t-t-t-t-BWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!
Yeah it is - If their profile says Admin, they're practically perfect in *every* way. If it don't, they're a peasant just like the rest of us :)Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Chim-chimminey, chim-chimminey,
Chim-chim cherroo...
I posts stuff on Hexus, it's what I likes ta do
Chim-chimminey, chim-chimminey,
Chim-chim cherree...
It's just my opinion, so please don't ban me!
And the 2017 HEXUS award for the most shameless bit of grovelling goes to... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
The tik is the spark plugs! Usually two per engine, but they only run at start and really low power settings when Auto-ignition is on to stop flame outs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Grovelling...???!!Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Oh... yeah.... sure... why not... if you see yourself a a bit of a Mary Poppins, I guess, yeah.... sure... whatever makes you smile.... yes, I was 'grovelling'.... Mmm-hmm.... :lol:
I want to see turbines in cars. They're crazy light and compact for their power, and give good efficiency under load (which is why they're used for power generation). They'd make a good range extender engine for a plug in hybrid, and since they can run on kerosene you don't need to worry about the fuel offgassing all the volatiles (like petrol does).
Autoignition shouldn't be an issue in a diesel, because there's no fuel in the cylinder until ~TDC. It could be there's something going on with the timing where they squirt some fuel in before TDC to improve the combustion dynamics and noise, as danceswithunix pointed out
You do get multifuel gas turbines and diesels (normally two-stroke, although I'm not sure about modern MBT's), but petrol isn't normally used by militaries - jet fuel, diesel and heavy fuel oil (for ships) are the normal fuels of choice, so those are the ones that multifuel engines ought to aim forQuote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
Yeah, but based on what I've heard of the things, the BWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRRRRRRHHHHHHHHHH bit is loud enough to drown out a lot of the subtler sounds at that point... and the rest of it is moot when you actually get moving, with the best sounds only audible if you're standing still as the vehicle rockets past you anyway!!Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
It's not a growly 1970s Dodge V8 engine, but I wouldn't kick it out of bed either!!
The Jaguar C-X75 concept originally planned 2 turbines, but ended up with a 1.6l 500hp supercharged Cosworth in the end.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
Having done many "see-offs" on the Eurofighter, if after a few seconds of clicking and the engines hadn't ignited yet, you started to step back because when it does go, you get a nice flame and "boom". :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
I was thinking of something between an F-14 Tomcat and an MTT Y2K motorcycle... either of which I'd happily have for nipping down the shops in!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerrard
They also 'tik' when they are shut down on windy days. If the wind is strong enough, they will rotate the engine, and the loose fan blades make a ticking sound. It's pretty neat walking across a busy ramp listening to a bunch of jets that just can't wait to get going!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ttaskmaster
Rover made a gas turbine powered car in the 1950s based on the P1 chassis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_JET1
The car didn’t go into production, but the engine went on to be a successful industrial small turbine, with a range of uses from a firefighting/ damage control pump mounted in a four man lift space chassis, to the APU in the nimrod aircraft.
There was also a Rover/BRM gas turbine powered racing car
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover-BRM
And according to that Wikipedia article, Chrysler also experimented with GT powered cars.
ISTR that range extender is a home power generator which Jaguar re-purposed, so if you are really into turbines you could have one at home (well two, I think they come in pairs :) )Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerrard
This car is also gas turbine powered, and has been very successful!Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
As were some Russian MBTs like the T80,but the main problem is that the exhaust is so hot that it can cause issues for Infantry standing near the tank for extended periods.Quote:
Originally Posted by TeePee
http://www.bladonjets.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by DanceswithUnix
That is the UK company which supplies the microturbine for the range extender.
The Bladon brothers were microturbine enthusiasts who took 20 years to engineer quite an innovative axial flow microturbine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyLvrRB-snM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUf_NFOM1L4
Interestingly enough one of the reasons the Germans pushed forward with jet engine development during WW2 was because the jet engines needed much lower man hours to build,and had an overall lower production cost than the piston engines of the day!! However,this came at the expense of greater fuel consumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalniel
I think they are - I wonder if it would be viable to make a Stirling Engine based car?? All you would need is a heating element which could use any normal liquid fuel,and it could be use to generate electricity to run an electric motor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
Da, but in Siberian winter, comrade infantry glad of heat.Quote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
:DQuote:
Originally Posted by ik9000
Actually there are some comments from US infantry who said they would stand briefly behind the exhuast of the M1 to warm up!!
The exhaust temperature of a gas turbine is a significant problem for military use - a nice infra-red beacon advertising your presence and loved by an IR homing missile.
Considerable thought goes into cooling the exhaust gases in naval propulsion systems to reduce the IR signature.
Another issue,is that for MBTs,the turbines also consume more fuel,and apparently the M1 has to carry far more fuel than say a Challenger 2 or a Leopard 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by peterb
Gas turbines are great under load but terrible at idle, as there's less you can do with the gas generator section than you can with a piston engine to reduce fuel consumption at idle. Fine for aircraft or ships, of course, as you normally stay at one power setting for hours or days (less traffic lights at sea or in the air!). For a range extender that only gets used under load (turn on, charge batteries, turn off), that's not a huge issue. Integrate it with the sat nav so you only charge as much as you need to get to your destination, and it should be a lot of fun.
There isn't a huge difference in fuel between M1 and a challenger - 421 US gal (per wiki, quoting janes) in the challenger compared to 505 US gal per hunnicut.
Much lower fuel & volumetric efficiency than an internal combustion engine, so it'd probably be lighter to fit a diesel. You do get stirling engines on some submarines, as it's easier to make an air-independent heat source than an air-independent diesel engine, but they're generally low power installationsQuote:
Originally Posted by CAT-THE-FIFTH
The range is greater on the Challenger 2 and Leopard 2. OTH,turbines do weigh less,are more compact and possibly have more flexibility with regards to what fuel is used.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlucine
Also a lot of ships seem to use combined gas and diesel propulsion systems - our Type23 frigates for example.
The T23 is CODLAG (Combined Diesel Electic And Gas. Normal propulsion I’d diesel electric for low noise emission (the diesel generators can be mounted high up and reliiently mounted) with a gas turbine clutched in to augment the electric drives whenspeed is more important than stealth.
The time taken to start a gas turbine for marine use is usually immaterial (a minute or so) but in a vehicle propulsion, you couldn’t shut it down or start it in an acceptable time.