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

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.

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.

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

'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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message news:sSU2g.1382$AB3.385@fed1read02...

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

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

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

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: snipped-for-privacy@volvocars.com Hours: 8:30 AM to 7:00 PM EST, M - F

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).

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.

Dear HLS:

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

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

Dear Michael Pardee:

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

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 .