EPA Moves To Cut Sulfur In Gasoline

[Frank Lee]

I like the old 283s, so it's worth it!

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Sulphur is not 'added' to either gasoline or diesel, it is intrinsiclally a part of the crude oil itself, a component of the biomass decomposition into oil.

That doesn't mean you have to burn it along with it, because we always did so in bygone days.
Those were also the days of acid rain killing forest etc ...

The sulphur content (now 10ppm) in our European fuels, has been lowered for years.
Rather than getting burned and converted into noxious H2S and SO2 on its way to become acid rain, the extracted sulphur is now used for other (industrial) purposes.

@ work, we go through tons of this stuff every single day

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Strange, then, that so many older cars seem to be able to run just fine on unleaded gas, and some have been doing so for hundreds of thousands of miles. When's this mysterious sinking valve problem supposed to show up?

Just depends on the quality / softness of the valves and valve seats used.

Some manufacturers used quality hardened items, and didn't have issues.
Some still use rubbish to this very day, so their cars end up on the LPG-conversion blacklists.

When I found out that Japan had already phased out lead fuel additives by the time my first hand-me-down car was built, I started feeding it ever more unleaded fuel - which was cheaper than leaded fuel to help its introduction.
Ultimately, it ran almost exclusively on unleaded.
Rust and electric issues got it in the end ... not the valves


As some might argue, lead wasn't originally in gasoline - it was added from the 1920s on to cure what was and is essentially a manufacturing issue.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Can not speak for others, but I've had to replace valve seats in early Plymouth/Dodge 318 engines because the valves pounded themselves into the heat/seat...and personally know of similar problems happening with early Ford 6-cylinder engines...and, was TOLD (I know, 2nd hand) of similar problems with GM products.

And no one ever had to replace valve seats &c before the introduction of unleaded gas? I have to call BS on this: you are blaming unleaded gas for the automakers' poor design & manufacturing quality.

Moreover, the private pilots were/are totally afraid of valve problems, hence their delayed transition to Low-LEAD (and NO-lead!) gasoline even now.

Wrong again. First, a lot of us do run our planes on autogas. I added an autogas STC to my Piper Cherokee back around 1990, flew it for two decades without problems, and when I sold it last year, the AP who did the inspection for the buyer said it was in fine shape.

The reason some people objected to low/no lead avgas (other than unthinking anti-environmentalism) was the few very high compression engines that require 100 to 130 octane.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

The reason some people objected to low/no lead avgas (other than unthinking anti-environmentalism) was the few very high compression engines that require 100 to 130 octane.

Back here in Brazil some folks have been converting piston-engined planes to ethanol, and Embraer even manufactures a dedicated-ethanol agricultural plane. Regarding some lack of lubricity, it's always possible to blend some castor oil (or eventually some synthetic 2-stroke oil instead) to overcome it.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by cRiPpLe_rOoStEr

Back here in Brazil some folks have been converting piston-engined planes to ethanol...

Here there are concerns about ethanol absorbing moisture, even with the E10 or whatever that's used as an octane booster/oxygenator. I was never bothered by it myself, principally because I live & do most of my flying in a pretty arid climate.

[mechman600]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

And no one ever had to replace valve seats &c before the introduction of unleaded gas? I have to call BS on this: you are blaming unleaded gas for the automakers' poor design & manufacturing quality.

These guys are speaking the truth. Back when I used to be into hot rods and I built a couple 60s V8s, it was common knowledge that valve seats must be replaced because of the [now] absence of lead. Scouring Hot Rod magazine or equivalent quickly confirms this. And doing a quick Google search quickly confirms this as well: https://www.google.ca/search?q=unlea...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by mechman600

These guys are speaking the truth. Back when I used to be into hot rods and I built a couple 60s V8s, it was common knowledge that valve seats must be replaced because of the [now] absence of lead.

I think Mark Twain said it best:

It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

Looking at the first few of those Google hits, I notice a lot of discussion about whether there really is a problem on older cars. (And comments about how it's "normal" to do a valve job every 60-100K miles!) I see a bunch of people trying to make money selling hardened valve seats, mostly for crap engines like Harley-Davidson, where the valve seats were cast as part of the head... So I'll stick with my stated opinion: if in fact there ever was such a problem, it was due to the automakers' choice of substandard design & material.

[Beau]

With all due respect, it appears we've lost focus on this thread - which is about sulfur (not lead) reduction.

[Frank Lee]

I see a bunch of people trying to make money selling hardened valve seats, mostly for crap engines

That would make most any engine from the pre-unleaded gas era "crap".