LPG versus Petrol. What's your view

[Black XR6]

Originally Posted by nitrane

petrol powers cars, lpg powers bbq's... simple

Geez ive only read that joke about 3 times over the two threads on this topic.

[Racecraft]

Originally Posted by nitrane

petrol powers cars, lpg powers bbq's... simple

very informative and educated reply there mate, you have out done yourself with a catch phrase.. Kudos to you

[Sprint347]

The thread title states "what's your view". Sook all you like but my view is unchanging.

If you don't like my view, sorry... but that's how I feel. There was no joke intended I was being serious.

[Black XR6]

Well, on that note I think the thread has ran its course. Its been fun people.

Ciao.

[TURBOTAXI]

Yeah, I hate paying 51.9 cents per litre for gas....... you petrol people are right on!. Why would you want gas? (that is silly fuel for taxi's.......or BBQ's (apparently)) you keep buying petrol, and forget anyone tried to tell you anything about gas. You never heard anything, just keep buying petrol. Keep the demand for gas low - that will keep my fuel price low.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Steffo

LPG varies from 105 to 120 RON, depending on butane contents %. The worst LPG gets down to 102-103 RON. Now, putting a fuel rated at say.. 91 RON.. in a vehicle tuned for.. 98 RON.. will cause detonation etc, which is not good. Put putting 98 RON fuel in a vehicle tuned for 91 RON does no harm.

So, when tuning a performance orientated engine (s/charged, t/charged etc etc), I'd fill it up with a tank of LPG from BP (they're one of the worst.. 50% butane).. and tune it to suit that. So when you get LPG that's got less butane in it.. nothing bad will happen.. as the characteristics of the fuels are much the same, the butane is simply cheaper, but vastly reduces the octane rating of the fuel, ie: its easier to ignite.

LPG does not vary that much anymore. You can safely bet on getting something around the 100-105 mark all the time. Unless of course you choose to fill up from somewhere like Supagas that will fill cars with 100% propane. Of course there will always be occasional cases where you will get a batch of something higher than 50/50, say like 70/30 or even rarer up to 100% propane, but its not going to happen often.
Also it seems that even though the ron can drop as much as 5 (in normal conditions) it doesnt immediately make LPG start to detonate. LPG is very resiliant due to its slower burning characteristics.


Why do you keep putting down BP LPG in every thread about the topic?
Nearly ALL servos supply a mix of 50%. If that makes their LPG so sh!t then why do they openly disclose their mixture on their website?

When I use BP lpg I get about 30-50k's extra off just $10.
My average running fuel usage is about 20l/100km, on BP I quite often get around 17/100 and on shell I have seen as bad as 27/100, but mostly around 23-4/100.... All done in the same driving conditions (clogged city driving). The private servos though are quite different from these 2 big companies, their mixes vary HEAPS. Sometimes i get similar results to BP and other times I get simialr results to Shell.
I cant comment on mobil as I'm hardly ever near one when I need to fill up.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by EF_Dave

i will buy an LPG powered vehicle when car manufacturers start producing Electronic fuel injected LPG streight gas systems on their cars, taking off a perfectly good petrol fuel injection system , and throwing on a gas carbie seems a bit backwards to me

This has always been one of the major drawbacks as I see it, and also one of the reasons why LPG doesn't perform as well, contrary to what some here believe.

The E-gas BA is a perfect example of LPG not performing as well as it's petrol brother. The E-gas has an engine designed and tuned to LPG, and it is still quite a way behind the petrol engine.
This of course is of no consequence to some, as in reality it still performs admirably, however, to me it's not acceptable.

Dual fuel setups have always been a compromise either way, and and almost all of the systems are an abomination. Good installers are difficult to find.

I also believe that LPG is only inexpensive at present because it is a minority. The moment the pollies get the gist of increased LPG usage, you can kiss cheap LPG goodbye too. It may not increase to the levels of petrol, however if the gap closes, so will it's only real advantage.

Rick.

[Sprint347]

Hate me all you want, work is 10km away from home so the benifets of gas to me are minimal.

I have no question there are economic benifets for people who rack up big kms, but they personally dont assist me so i'm not a LPG user.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by TURBOTAXI

Yeah, I hate paying 51.9 cents per litre for gas....... you petrol people are right on!. Why would you want gas? (that is silly fuel for taxi's.......or BBQ's (apparently)) you keep buying petrol, and forget anyone tried to tell you anything about gas. You never heard anything, just keep buying petrol. Keep the demand for gas low - that will keep my fuel price low.

Why am I not surprised that you use a fuel thats under high pressure and is potentially explosive.

[Sprint347]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Why am I not surprised that you use a fuel thats under high pressure and is potentially explosive.

because it's 51.9 cents per liter!

[RED_EL_XR8]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Why am I not surprised that you use a fuel thats under high pressure and is potentially explosive.

I shouldn't have mentioned its an efficient refrigerant either, should I?

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by nitrane

because it's 51.9 cents per liter!

Cheap AND Explosive. Perfect. lol

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Sox

The E-gas BA is a perfect example of LPG not performing as well as it's petrol brother. The E-gas has an engine designed and tuned to LPG, and it is still quite a way behind the petrol engine.
This of course is of no consequence to some, as in reality it still performs admirably, however, to me it's not acceptable.

I'm not having a go at you or anything, but do you know for a fact that ford did all they could to tune the LPG properly? I could see a bit of an issue if they tuned up the LPG engine to outperform the petrol brother.
I'm not saying this is the case, but none of us know for certain that the LPG is not de-tuned. Yes they have upped the compression, but what else have they done? ignition maps? manifold changes?

[Racecraft]

there seems to be a huge discrepency on what people are paying for
A) their gas installs
B) the pump price

Both have as much of a bearing on the for and against arguement than most of the other arguements I have read. Consumption, performance, wear and tear issues aside the bottom line is it is usually soley an economic reason for going LPG. Save a few bucks on an install (which oddly enough seems to add value to your car on the second hand market) pay a decent price at the pump and the pros become exponential...


For example I only payed 39 cents a litre today as I am a BP frequent user card holder and get 4 cents off the bowser price.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

Why am I not surprised that you use a fuel thats under high pressure and is potentially explosive.

Show me a correctly fitted, untampered LPG system that has blown up.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Racecraft

there seems to be a huge discrepency on what people are paying for
A) their gas installs
B) the pump price

Both have as much of a bearing on the for and against arguement than most of the other arguements I have read. Consumption, performance, wear and tear issues aside the bottom line is it is usually soley an economic reason for going LPG. Save a few bucks on an install (which oddly enough seems to add value to your car on the second hand market) pay a decent price at the pump and the pros become exponential...


For example I only payed 39 cents a litre today as I am a BP frequent user card holder and get 4 cents off the bowser price.

This is very true, when considering an LPG install you have to work out if it really is going to work out cheaper for you. It may sem like you are saving everytime you fill up, but like racecraft said there is still the cost of the install to recover.

[johnydep]

Originally Posted by MADXF

Show me a correctly fitted, untampered LPG system that has blown up.

Actually, I've got a letter informing me of a faulty relief solenoid on an LPG tank.
One vehicle exploded becuase of it, I'll see if I have the letter here, other wise I'll post tomorrow from work.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by MADXF

Show me a correctly fitted, untampered LPG system that has blown up.

We had one catch fire and explode in my suburb last year. And in TurboTaxi's case, there isnt one thing in his car that hasnt been tampered with.

[PetesV8]

Having had two almost identical cars in the household, namely

1. 2004 BA XT (petrol) (July build)
2. 2004 BA Xt (E-Gas) (Oct Build)

Both were 'Sales Reps' Cars covering 500 - 700kms per week, 50/50 Highway/City Driving.

A) E-Gas obviously cheaper to run, even considering (slightly) higher maint. costs.
B) At Highway speeds and overtaking, both cars performed almost identically.
C) At city speeds E-Gas was noticebly slower of the mark and engine not as willing.
D) E-Gas engine 'rougher' at upper end of Rev Scale.
E) Noticeable idle roughness in E-Gas when A/C on.
F) Time taken to fill up with gas (about twice the time of petrol)
G) Lack of boot space with rear wheel mounted in Boot for E-Gas!!!

As a driver who (Luckily!) does not pay for petrol I would choose the petrol version everyday.
If I was paying for fuel in a private car....... different story!!

Have Subaru XT now as work car which only takes Pulp.......!!!!

[gtfpv]

i'm a licenced lpg fitter as well . and not in the business . lpg is safe if not safer than petrol . it has a higher octane rating . it is cleaner . less polluting . it's only downfall against petrol is that it is a slower burning fuel. hence requires more spark to explode . that is it . any one who is a high tech fuel engineer scientist will swear that lpg is a far far superior fuel over petrol . and in my experiance if correctly fitted and tuned the engine will run well and consistent for many years . lpg requires a differant optimum tune than petrol . but is 97% suited to a petrol tune which is acceptable.
its just a shame that politicians have to get there grubby hands on excises and taxes just to create an extra revenue at the cost of citizens. i hope this explains it plain and simple.

[Sox]

Originally Posted by MADXF

I'm not having a go at you or anything, but do you know for a fact that ford did all they could to tune the LPG properly? I could see a bit of an issue if they tuned up the LPG engine to outperform the petrol brother.
I'm not saying this is the case, but none of us know for certain that the LPG is not de-tuned. Yes they have upped the compression, but what else have they done? ignition maps? manifold changes?

Sure, however we all know that Fords petrol engines are also de-tuned to buggery.
I would have thought that even if it were a marketing issue to have the LPG engine have a lower power figure, it would not have had to be that much lower.
There must be some reason other than just marketing, and I have a pretty good idea as to what it is.

Rick.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by sourbastard

We had one catch fire and explode in my suburb last year. And in TurboTaxi's case, there isnt one thing in his car that hasnt been tampered with.

By 'untampered' I really only meant tampering with the excess flow valve and excess pressure valve.
I'd be interested to know the rest of the story about the car in your suburb. LPG tanks are not supposed to explode,even in a fire, so long as it is maintained properly with the appropriate checks every 10 years.

[Rastus]

I wouldn't convert my XY to gas, doesn't get driven enough. And I'd hate to have all that non original crap in the boot & engine bay.
I've had one of my cars converted to dual fuel, an XE ESP 351. It proberly wasn't worth it in the end as we didn't do too many miles in that either. Near always a compromise in the tune. It went ok on the gas but nothing like when on the PULP. It ran like a dog when really hot but never had any freezing issues. Was hard to start sometimes.
Then I've has my work utes. Doing the K's I do my boss would be mad having me in a ULP vehicle.
Mazda Bravo on gas...very poor, and burned out head, backfiring and constant issues under warranty.
AU2 Tonner manual with straight gas. Very good car, went hard enough and had no problems at all. 15L/100km mixed driving
BA E-Gas ute, auto. Even better car, and better on gas than the AU2 Manual. 12.5-14.5L/100km's. No service probs so far. Normal services are around $280.
Both the Falcon utes really only lacked top end Vs the Petrol powered brothers. No freezing/starting issues from both Falc's, even on these freezing Ballarat mornings.
So, pure economics, on a newer car that you dont feel for or don't get attached to, you'd be mad not being on gas if doing the miles.
Won't ever put it on my XY tho.

[MAD]

Originally Posted by Sox

Sure, however we all know that Fords petrol engines are also de-tuned to buggery.
I would have thought that even if it were a marketing issue to have the LPG engine have a lower power figure, it would not have had to be that much lower.
There must be some reason other than just marketing, and I have a pretty good idea as to what it is.

Rick.

I thought the same thing at first, but just have to look at the difference between the petrol and LPG fuelled 4.0 SOHC engines up to AU, there was not as much difference between them back then.

[bindi]

Originally Posted by Sox

Dual fuel setups have always been a compromise either way, and and almost all of the systems are an abomination.

Why does everyone say this? I talked to many, many, MANY mechanics about changing my EA cfi to straight LPG, and they ALL have said it's not worth it and it wouldn't achieve much.

Ok my two cents' worth. I love LPG, I have had many cars on LPG and have found them all to be wonderful. My dad converted his car after being impressed with our cars. All ours were straight LPG (XD, HZ, XF). His was a UC Torana. My sister converted her Torana too, and my other sister bought an HK with chev bored out to 396 on LPG. Then my dad bought a Magna (yes, 1990) manual on LPG (which now my sister owns after selling the HK).

So it's been a kind of family tradition in the last 10 years or so. We've all had petrol cars in between these times, and we discovered (like all of you here) that it is personal preference.

This EA is the first ever dual fuel car I have owned. And even though we've had issues, it's not "just" because of LPG.

I also have my 88 rolla, on petrol. To get her to run decently, I have to use Optimax. And cos she is running a bit rough right now (gee she has a few issues), I go through a tank of 50 litres in around 350ks around town. The EA does 350ks on 69 litres of LPG. And I can tell you now which one I prefer to fill up, which one's easier on the pocket!

Also the whole thing of engines wearing out etc. I believe that is more to do with older (leaded) cars imho (no alloy heads).

[bindi]

Originally Posted by MADXF

This is very true, when considering an LPG install you have to work out if it really is going to work out cheaper for you. It may sem like you are saving everytime you fill up, but like racecraft said there is still the cost of the install to recover.

Hmmm and why do I buy cars with LPG already fitted? Because I can pick them up cheaper and they come complete with a car attached.

[XplosiveR6]

back in the EF/EL days when tickford did the factory gas setups, wherent they guarenteeing no loss in power? I remember one of the ads saying that back then. Or was this proved to be a myth?

[Steffo]

The Barra182 and E-Gas engines differ in power produced. But the difference isn't that enormous.. the E-Gas is obviously less 'power' orientated then the Barra182.

Barra182 -
182kW @ 5000rpm
380Nm @ 3250rpm

E-Gas -
156kW @ 4750rpm
372Nm @ 3000rpm

26kW power difference, but only 8Nm of torque? Plus it revs 250rpm less on average. Put that down to cam specs... E-Gas is obviously tuned to what Ford believe is application specific.. and that's not performance cars (taxis, police cars [yes the non pursuit XT BAs they have are LPG], other fleet applications etc).

[Steffo]

Difference was even less aparant in AU days...

AU Petrol 4.0 -
157kW @ 4900rpm
357Nm @ 3000rpm

AU LPG 4.0 -
143kW @ 4500rpm
362Nm @ 2750rpm

It made more torque at less rev's. Again, cam specs is what you can really put that down to. And again, tuned to be a low revving, long life engine. And I've experienced both a petrol and LPG AU.. and the LPG versions tend to have more 'shove'... put that down to the higher torque peak at lower rpm...

[gtfpv]

well said BINDI . the reason dual fuel set ups are not good is because you leave the car tuned for petrol . at a small trade off to the gas tune . because petrol is more temperamentle to timing. it needs to be uncompromised . then however you drive around 99% of the time on lpg . the petrol system tends to sh1te itself.
also to the bloke complaining about lpg performance . if you want high performance from lpg you have to go radicle . then you will use copious amounts of the lpg . which defeats the purpose of having it in the 1st place.