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

Which then caused it to rust up from any moisture in the tank.

I believe there have also been several articles in various magazines accompanied by some gross pictures showing similar problems. They were caused by condensation remaining on the inner tank surfaces when storing less than full tanks under less than proper conditions.

Please take this post detached from the above shown rust trouble. Rusted sensors have been invented long before biofuel. Wesley please don't get me wrong, as you will see this comment takes the same line as yours.
rhlevine, my supplement will not help you but gives some indication of a certain hazard potential of biofuel to older / unprepared engines. The provisions made to safeguard conventional fuel within the European Community are valid until 2013 but according to the German Biofuels Directive conventional fuel has to be available without time restriction. Our fuel stations have to have usual fuel tomorrow and the time after tomorrow.

Your sending unit looks remarkably simular to the one I pulled out of my '55 that had sat in a heated garage since '85. Also, while the tank looked solid, when I took it to be cleaned out (old paint smell would be flattery compared to the smell of whatever the creature in my tank had become) pressure washing blew little holes in the tank at the level the "gas" had sat for 25 years. Oregon didn't have ethanol that I'm aware of in '85 so old gas can collect water too.

The difference is that with old "traditional" gasoline the water was immiscible (completely insoluble) and therfore formed a discrete layer on the bottom since it was more dense. With alcoholic gasoline a certain amount of the water is absorbed by the ethanol and remains in the gasoline. In excess, more will settle to the bottom.

I had three exhaust valves that were diffcult to pull out and two of the three were almost impossible to pull out by hand. (Now that I think of it, it also the same valves (exhaust) sticking in my B/S engines for my lawn tools.)

Since I work so slow, I would guess 3 to 6 months and than after that the tank was removed the engine wasn't cranked over for about a year. (Ouch) That's when I found no compression in four out of eight cylinders.

The tank had been cleaned and coated by a local Raditor Shop, so I'm don't know what all they used but I had ran many tanks of gas though and had no problems, until this. The sender was removed during the cleaning and checked and in good working condition and I replaced the cork float with a brass float. (I don't know what happen to the brass float.)

Around here (Memphis, TN) it's been the small engines that are beening effected more than anything else, lawn mowers, boat motors, and ATV's.

Lately I heard that if you keep your gas tank full that less air with moisture will get into the tank and less chance of what they call fuel seperation and use a good fuel stabilizer.

OK - another 2 cents. I don't really disagree with what has been said here - but I will relay my own experience.

I have a '54 Packard with the original tank and fuel line up to the fuel pump. The tank has never been off. The float isn't working - but that problem existed long before I got it, and probably before the use of newer fuels.

Anyway - I have been using the Packard after many years of very little use. (only 25K original miles). I use 87 octane fuel with the standard amount of ethanol and no additives. I have had no problems whatsoever. I have put roughly 1500 miles on the car this way, which is quite a few gallons run through it.

Now - separately - I have restored quite a few motorcycles - and seen many, many problems with all kinds of tank coatings. The problems fall into two categories, a coating that cannot withstand ethanol fuel or a coating that improperly applied - usually the tank was not perfectly clean or rust free inside.

The coatings break down, sometimes in little chunks - and clog your filters and carb jets. It is a major problem.

I have seen problems with the red coating that radiator shops use, and with the old Kreme product, and newer epoxies. (The epoxies usually is a bonding problem)

For these reasons, I will not coat a tank unless it is absolutely necessary.

Wesley, It would be my assumption that there is a problem with the coating that was applied to your tank. The broken down coating is now wreaking havoc on the engine and fuel system. - Of course I'm not there to see it, nor the expert, but based on my experience - it is likely,

My own experiences with my 56 Carib pretty much parallel 54Clipper's experience; the tank has never been down (to my knowledge), is unlined, and the fuel line to the front is original. I only run the original mechanical fuel pump and I've never had a fuel problem due to the tank or fuel line. Vehicles that sit dormant for many years or are only used intermittently are bound to have fuel problems long before those that see regular use. These are mostly tank floor rot and fuel gauge problems due to the formation of a water layer on the bottom and water-saturated vapor above the fuel.

Before putting the car away in the winter for 4 months or so, I try to run the existing fuel down to almost nothing, top it off with fresh gas, and then seal the filler neck with a piece of kitchen wrap (Saran) before putting the cap on.

I did ultimately have to have the tank cleaned and lined on my 34 but I had it done professionally and that was about 20 years ago - no problems since and I live in an area where you cannot obtain alcohol-free gasoline.

Fortunately for those with 51-56 models, new repro gas tanks should soon be available.

Yes, it just goes to show that when one cheaps out, it will cost you in the end.

But I still can't believe how bad the sender was eaten up with corrosion. This just didn't happen over night, it took time and the only thing that had changed was where I buy my gas they switched to ten percent ethanol. I'm thinking about four or five years ago was when they made the switch and I didn't think too much about. I would here stories about ethanol and think it was just another hyped up story like no-lead gas and no zine in the oil and how bad all of this is for our old cars.

So from now on I'm using a fuel stabilizer with a full tank and try to use my car more often.

Ethanol is a big problem in our fuel.

As editor of our regional Packard publication I re-printed and article (with permission from the author) about the issues with ethanol in fuel. His comments centered about how E-10 (10% ethanol and 90% gas) may be OK in our modern cars it is problematic in our older cars because:
(1) We don't use our cars enough and the fuel sits around

(2) Parts (mostly rubber items) are NOT compatible with ethanol,

(3) Ethanol attracts and holds water in our fuel systems causing rusting and

(4) Water-saturated ethanol can go into "phase separation" and create a separate compound - also known as "gunk."

I have summarized/condensed some of his comments:

? Fuel with 10% ethanol causes carbureted engines to run 3.4% leaner than initially calibrated. The leaner mixture results in poor starting and drivability problems caused by carburetion leaner than the vehicle manufacturer intended. This was ignored by the EPA and proponents of ethanol.

? There are concerns when E-10 is first used in place of straight gasoline in vehicles that are used intermittently and particularly in "barn finds". Water absorption by E-10 fuel is probably the biggest concern.

? E-10 can hold up to about four teaspoons of water per gallon; once this amount is exceeded phase separation occurs. The water-saturated ethanol becomes a separate compound or phase. It settles to the tank or bowl bottom, while the gasoline floats on top. E-10 can absorb enough water to reach phase separation in just a few months under adverse storage conditions.

? An ethanol/water mix is heavier than gasoline and settles to the bottom of the fuel tank, where the fuel pickup is located. It causes hard starting, erratic running, clogged fuel filters and eventually rusted tanks. Worse, this ethanol/water mix supplies a much leaner mixture than even E-10; if the engine is run hard before the vehicle motion remixes the fuel, the ethanol/water mix can cause detonation and serious engine damage.

? Another concern is that ethanol is a solvent. On initial use it will loosen up years of accumulated gum and dirt throughout the fuel system and cause problems.

? Ethanol is corrosive to many metals, including brass and aluminum, and attacks some gaskets, rubber and plastics. With E-10, metal corrosion has been a minor problem, but you may encounter hardening and cracking of fuel hoses and swelling or shrinkage of other non-metallic fuel system parts, including the fuel pump diaphragm and accelerator pump piston.

Recommendations:

? For vehicle storage, either fill the tank full or run the fuel system completely dry. For shorter periods like over winter a full tank with Stabil and a fuel injector cleaner containing Techron (read the label) is highly recommended.

? It is preferred to spray a marine fogging oil through the carburetor as you shut the engine down to keep the rings and cylinder walls from rusting.

Coincidentally, I have been adding Techron to ALL my older cars, snow blower and other small engines. Recently, I have also been using Startron in my vintage motorcycles and my daily driver. It keeps phase separation from occurring. I buy it at my local West Marine store.
Click on here and then go onto their video:
mystarbrite.com/startron/

Thanks for summarizing, Roger. That really sums it all up quite nicely. If you live in a area where only E10 is sold (as I do), some carburetor rebuilders will, on request, resize jets to compensate for the leaner mixture with E10. Of course you can do the same yourself but you need to do the math to determine how much to resize, or what larger sized jet to use. I did this on my 56 Carib some years back.

After my initial rebuild of fuel pumps and replacement of rubber fuel lines at the time E10 was introduced, I've had no further problems with E10, not even vapor lock issues (no electric pumps), but I do DETEST the stuff and shudder to think what action may come on the bill in Congress to go to E15 (currently on hold). Besides the impact on our older cars, it makes absolutely no economic sense either - except to members of the corn lobby; lower power output, lower gasoline mileage, higher feed prices for livestock which translates into higher food prices, etc. We've been swindled (again) by the EPA and Congress.