Packard Forum Index » Post-War (1946-54)

I can either purchase 87 Octane gas with Ethanol or I can purchase 92/93? Octane without Ethanol. Which would be better or does it matter. The Car has been sitting for years but does run.

If the car has been sitting for a long period and there is a chance it still has the original type rubber in the fuel pump and maybe a fuel line hose, there is a good probability the Ethanol will cause the rubber to fail within a short time. If the car has had the fuel pump rebuilt or any other rubber in the fuel system replaced using modern alcohol resistant rubber then I do believe your Packard will run quite nicely on 87.

There are some who will go to length to avoid any Ethanol and it is nice you have the option even if it does cost more. Others are not that fortunate and have no choice but to use E gas in our cars as that is all that is sold in some states. As long as the rubber is modern then no real problems have been encountered although some but not all do feel the drivability suffers.

Thanks for the response, as I am unsure what has been rebuilt and what hasn't I think I'll use the higher octane gas that contains no ethanol - I think the octane is 92 or 93 which is my only concern. -J

G'day Jay M,
to PackardInfo. And I invite you to include your '52 200 Touring Sedan in the Packard Owner's Registry.

Jay checkout this link:https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=9418&viewmode=flat&order=ASC&type=&mode=0&start=0
Wes

The rule is your octane should look like your compression ratio. Your 52 Packard has a compression ratio of 7:1 so you should use 70 octane or thereabouts.

This is not a hard and fast rule, just a guide. But it shows that either 87 or 92 is plenty for your car. If anything, it might run better on the lower octane.

But, I don't blame you if you want to avoid the alcohol blends. They give about 10% less mileage anyway so the cost difference is small.

I would suggest adding a little Marvel Mystery Oil, Redex, Bardhal or your favorite upper cylinder lubricant to the gas. It will help protect your rings and valves from wear, and prevent getting stuck valves. Packards seem to be patsies for stuck valves if the car is left sitting for long periods of time.

I really abhor the E10 gasoline, but mostly because it just violates simple economic sense. I've driven countless thousands of miles as have my Packard friends and, once we changed over our fuel pump diaphragms and rubber gas lines maybe 17 or 20 years ago, none of us have ever had a problem attributable to it, no vapor lock problems, pump or carb problems, gas tank liner problems, nothing. It just irritates me every time I fill up to think of Congress' boondoggle and gift to the corn lobby.

Hello Owen:

And guess who agrees with you - yes, Al Gore

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703572404575634753486416076
Wall Street Journal
November 27, 2010

"It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for first-generation ethanol," Al Gore told a gathering of clean energy financiers in Greece this week. The benefits of ethanol are "trivial," he added, but "It's hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going."

And his reason for first supporting ethanol were political. "One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the state of Iowa because I was about to run for President."

"Mr. Gore's mea culpa underscores the degree to which ethanol has become a purely political machine: It serves no purpose other than re-electing incumbents and transferring wealth to farm states and ethanol producers."

So tell me why, exactly, does this madness continue?

Hi Roger:

That Al Gore and I agree on something isn't likely to happen again, and in fact I'm a bit embarrassed to be associated with him. But anyway, do you recall a year or two ago when EPA solicited comments from the public to support the elimination of the ethanol requirement? I wonder how many of us took the time to write to EPA supporting that? Not many would be my guess.

See you at the Gilmore, I just (finally) got my tickets today.

Hello Owen:

Yes, I remember when you started that thread. I even posted a letter for others to copy and send to their members in congress.

https://packardinfo.com/xoops/html/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=13215&forum=4&post_id=135272#forumpost135272

The points I listed then are still valid today:

1. The auto industry in Michigan is just now starting to recover from a disastrous five years and E85 is NOT compatible with the auto engines and fuel systems as currently designed. Our automakers have said that their warranties will NOT cover any damage caused by using E15 fuel.

2. E15 is much more corrosive than E10, and even the EPA has deemed NOT suitable for:
a. Cars built before 2000
b. Heavy-duty trucks and vehicles
c. Motorcycles
d. Boat engines
e. Vehicles for off-road use - snowmobiles, quad-trackers, etc.

3. Former Vice President Al Gore now admits that ethanol is often counterproductive as a green energy source and that its subsidized uptake has fueled price increases and Third World food shortages.

4. Ethanol production has proven to be a huge strain on our water resources. And because more than one-third of our corn crop is now used for ethanol, corn prices have risen more than double, causing a parallel rise in the cost of food.

5. An investigative report, dated November 11, 2013 by the Associated Press shows that the ethanol has done irreparable damage to the environment. Millions of acres of conserved land have been transformed into corn fields needed for ethanol. Water supplies have been contaminated and animal habitats have been destroyed, all in the name of an untested green energy solution. Please read here:http://bigstory.ap.org/article/secret ... obamas-green-power-push-4

6. Service stations are not equipped to handle the more corrosive effects of E15 and must purchase new pumping and storage equipment for a product that will see little use.

This seriously flawed government mandate is an anachronism in 2013 that puts consumers and their cars at risk.

It is now time to show a little leadership.

When the EPA asks congress if they can reduce the ethanol RFS mandate by about 16.2% for 2014, then push them to do better. Tell the EPA that consumers are tired of the broken promises and that they do not want ANY ethanol diluting their gasoline.

BTW, I can only attend the Gilmore for one day - Sunday. See you then. Do you have time to visit the PPG on your way either to or from Gilmore? Would like to show you what we've done to the place.