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

Not meaning to nit-pic any nomenclature used here but simply for detail clarity. Someone correct me if i am wrong:

1. There is a distinction between rubber and neoprene.
2. Alcohol disolves neoprene but not rubber.
3. Gasoline (with NO alcohol) will disolve rubber but not neoprene.

Are any of those 3hree statements incorrect???

As far as i know things like heater hoses and wnindshield washer hoses are rubber (as in NOT neoprene)

I do realize that 'rubber' is often used to describe what is really neoprene as a matter-of-speaking in some situations. But there is in fact a difference as i have outlined in the 3hree points i detailed above. No?

ok. I just found this from 2006. (try a google on your own).

Carbopress SAE J30R7:
Technical description;
"Black rubber hose with NBR tube and CR cover. Tube and cover are smooth and antistatic, textile yarn reinforced."

The article goes on to say resistant to oils, abrasion, weather, fire and so on but NO statement with regards to alcohol unless alcohol is considered a fuel.

Let me put it another way: The term alcohol, ethanol or any reference that mite be construed as alcohol is NOT made other than "aromatic content" to which the J30R7 is resistant.

I'll have to double check my 56 Exec and other applications around here but i know i have used this hose in numerous gasoline powered applications with no problems.

Someone got a better SAE number for a hose to use???

I don;t know.

Your statements 1,2, & 3 may be correct or incorrect, depending on what type of rubber is in question. There are MANY types even of natural rubber, and then modified natural rubbers, synthetics, and synthetic blends. Things like butyl rubber, polyisoprene, and hypalon come to mind. Variations in chemical resistance and elastomeric properties are extensive. So you've really got to be specific as the exact "rubber".

IIRC Hypolon is (was?) a DuPont trademark and with Packard folks may be best remembered as the sublayer of the 55/56 Caribbean tops, convertible and hardtop.

PS - you might want to rattle around this site a bit.

http://www.irrdb.com/

Keith -

SAE 30R9 is the stuff that's used with modern fuel injection systems. I've been using it for several years on all of my cars, to replace the old stuff, with no problem.

Although I've seen heater hose used for fuel vapor applications in a pinch (even in late model cars), I prefer to use a hose that's properly rated for that purpose. I'd rather not make a mistake that will be revisited upon any subsequent owner.

Not to digress, but there's even hose rate specifically for use with ATF applications - where other rubber hoses won't last for long.

When I was stripipng a 50 Packard I bought in a local junkyard, i pulled the tank and gas sender. Half of the copper float was gone, with a large hole eaten in it. Only thing is that the car had been sitting for years, and ethanol gas has only recently become universal in MT. I suspect that some other culprit other than ethanol may be the reason, perhaps similar to the process where a radiator will dry rot if not kept filled with water.

Thanks Owen for the irrdb link. I'll take a look at it.
Thanks BH for the SAE 30R9 number.

As for a few reports of brass floats that are corroded i doubt that it is due to ethanol. The problem is that such floats are made of extremely thin brass. Most likely would have failed anyway over the many decades of use and exposure to water whether due to absorption of water by the ethanol or just any condensation otherwise over such a long period of time.

Same problem with radiators, especialy POST WAR radiators. They are extremely thin material. Have to be to disapate heAT. Not to mention vibration acting on the solder seams of both the the flaots and radiators. Carb floats a little different story. Most moisture will be driven out the carb due to engine heat. Most failed carb floats i've seen are due to solder seams leaking, not corrosion. Again the problem with floats of anykind and radiators is due to extremely thin material that is necessary due to the nature of the float or radiators intended function.

I'm with Dr. Dyneto on corn-produced ethanol. Monumental waste of land, resources, water, not including the Virginia-sized "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico devoid of any life where the Mississippi dumps heartland petrochem herbicides, fungicides, fertilizer, pesticides.

Gasoline has higher BTUs than any fuel, more bang for the drop. But ethanol's with us, so it's good to know what materials are compatible.

Off the subject, perhaps, but Henry Ford originally intended his Model T and Fordson tractor, comprising fully
half the nation's, and world's, automobiles and tractors, to run on agwaste ethanol, as Brazil wisely uses today. But at the time, John D. Rockefeller controlled 90% of all US bulk oil transport, so with gasoline prices as low as a dime a gallon, Ford followed suit, despite believing it was "....folly to burn petroleum. It makes a great lubricant."

Had Henry pervailed, GM, Reo, Nash, Hudson, Packard, the Dodge Brothers and the entire industry likely would've followed.

I've heard veteran engineers say a given i.c. engine runs "sweeter" on alcohol than gasoline. And the entire Indy 500 field runs on methanol, which is vile stuff.

We should welcome any and all alternative fuel cars so there's some gas left for those of us who really need it.

I couldn't care less what powers what we drive to the grocery store. The overarching threat to us all, and our cars, is overpopulation, but that's a juggernaut decidedly off topic. Had we stablilized national population at around 140-150 million, where it was during the 1940s, as many scientists urged and urge, we could all relax, and the steam buffs among us still enjoy a restored "Hudson."

Like the late publisher of Hemmings Motor News, Terry Ehrich, I'm a card-carrying environmentalist. What's a better example of reduce/reuse/recycle than rejuvenating and driving judiciously a Packard? Go easy on the EPA. Like any bureaucracy, they've blundered. But on balance, as someone who recalls LA smog in the mid '50s, greater NYC and Boston in the '60s, and the cesspool the beautiful Hudson River became, the EPA helps us all breathe a whole lot easier.

Some of us are also in favor of turning on the tap and having clean water, since if there's anything dumber or more wasteful of energy, resources than bottled water, we've yet to hear of it.

But, yeah, corn ethanol is for the birds. Corn is for popping while we watch the Packards in 1942's Tracy/Hepburn Keeper of the Flame.

To those who believe that ethanol is not a problem and could not cause problems with brass or other metal parts, then do a little homework and get informed. Maybe a place to start is this article, dated June 2011 (my emphasis added):

http://www.hagerty.com/classic-car-articles-resources/sitecore/content/HomeUK/Hagerty-Online/Articles/All-lifestyle-articles/2011/06/06/The-battle-to-save-classic-motoring

The facts about ethanol

-At higher percentages, ethanol causes corrosion in fuel systems, reduces economy and can "wreak havoc" with fuel injectors

-It's not cost effective, costing $2.24 to produce compared to 63 cents for petrol

-Ethanol requires $1.4 billion in government subsidies to fill this gap

-It has negligible environmental impact because it increases nitrous oxide and other smog-forming emissions

-A 10 per cent ethanol blend worsens fuel consumption by three to five per cent; figures become worse at higher percentages

-It increases corn prices because of higher costs to livestock and poultry producers

-Food prices - particularly meat, milk and eggs - rise

-Ethanol can't improve the USA's energy security, because even if production were increased by 1000 per cent, it would account for only one per cent of USA consumption

Here's just one weapon in the war chest of facts that the Historic Vehicle Association, which has 325,000 members, is building up: The average classic car in the USA covers just 484 miles per year. A filthy polluter? Not at that mileage.

Su8.
EPA or no EPA. Breathing easier or not. ANY opinions or "facts" of fuel based on environmental issues is not the fundemental problems faced by the those who own 'older' vehicles.

The real question is how OFTEN will fuel changes take place to the extent that the owners of 'older' vehicles have to make modifications for fuel change compatability? Is there anyone that looks forward to modifying their fuel system every 10 years and not mention the cost/confusion involved?????

Yes, 'BIG oil" as well as big money in general is always suspect of veiled agendas. But then again, that begs the question as to what kind of veiled agendas the EPA has (ever heard of lobbiests??).

There are many 'environmentalists' in the world with well meaning heart felt intentions. But they are nonetheless mostly out of touch with reality and are, more often than not, oblivious to contradictions within their own claims and ideals.

From the VirtualIndian (Indian motorcycles) web list. i'm not abale to view it myself due to computer limitations so i don't know if it has any value or not.

From the VI list:

"I saw a cheap way to check the alcohol contents here. If one don't care about the exact percentages It can be done cheaply in a ordinary glass tube with felt pen lines drawn."

http://www.eaavideo.org/video.aspx?v=82010108001