Re: [AMC-list] AMC-list Digest, Vol 71, Issue 16

["Stu Fitchett" <amckiwi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think the motors work on revs rather than torque (unless turbo charged)
They are quite heavy and not very economical.

-----Original Message-----
From: AMC-list [mailto:amc-list-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Johnohsee
Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2015 10:37 AM
To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [AMC-list] AMC-list Digest, Vol 71, Issue 16

Just curious- has anyone seen/heard of/tried dumping a rotary engine into a
pacer to see if it would've been an adequate power plant? 


John O'C 

> On Feb 14, 2015, at 15:00, amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Send AMC-list mailing list submissions to
>    amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    amc-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    amc-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific 
> than "Re: Contents of AMC-list digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. LPG/CNG vs. Gasoline (farna@xxxxxxxxxxx)
>   2. Re: 78 amc amx undergoing restoration (Armand Eshleman)
>   3. Re: 78 amc amx undergoing restoration (Sandwich Maker)
>   4. Re: LPG in AMC's was   RE:  AMC-list Digest, Vol 71,    Issue 14
>      (Sandwich Maker)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 08:12:41 -0700
> From: farna@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [AMC-list] LPG/CNG vs. Gasoline
> Message-ID:
>    <e670676db97cbd77c3af601f37b335fd.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
> 
> Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:42:09 -0800
> From: Jim Blair <carnuck@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: amc <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [AMC-list] 4 barrel intake for a 290
> 
> I keep hearing that yet the most I see is about 10% difference. Less 
> than that on a higher compression engine unless your LPG is cut with 
> Butane. E85 runs 20-30% lower economy.
> 
> From: Ken Ames <ameskg@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Rambler AMC, Nash, Jeep and family" <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [AMC-list] 4 barrel intake for a 290
> 
> 
> But don't you have to use more gallons of LPG compared to gasoline to 
> go the same distance?
> Or am I thinking of a different fuel?
> 
> Ken
> ==========================================
> 
> In a dual fuel configuration you'll burn more LPG than gasoline by 
> volume to produce the same power/go the same distance. There aren't as 
> many BTUs in LPG as in the same volume of gasoline. CNG (compressed 
> natural gas) is a bit more than LPG, but much harder to store and 
> needs a heavier vessel to carry a comparable amount (of LPG). 
> According to an alternative fuels chart 
> (http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf), 1 gallon 
> of LPG has 73% of the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline, so in the same 
> engine (dual fuel setup) you should expect to burn ~27% more LPG for 
> the same power/distance. I've heard it being in the 20-25% range -- 
> depends on vehicle and driving habits as well as load. For ease of 
> math figure 25% more. LPG is usually cheaper than gasoline, but it has 
> to be at least 25% cheaper to equal costs. Right now gasoline is at a 
> five year low, average about $2.20 in the US (national average). LPG 
> is actually a bit higher at $2.36 (national average) from what I can 
> find. That's for residential heating, not road fuel, which would be a 
> bit more. Typically LPG goes down with gasoline since it's a 
> by-product of gasoline, but in the middle of heating season it's a bit 
> higher due to demand (less demand for gasoline is driving those prices 
> down... for now!). So at the moment LPG conversions don't make sense, but
that's not likely to last long. For comparisons, E85 has about the same
20-25% less power as LPG.
> 
> You can regain that 20-25% loss on a pure propane (or E85) build. 
> Propane is 105 octane, E85 is 100-105 (depends on season -- ethanol is 
> reduced to 70-75% in cold winter areas, brought back up to 85% in warm
weather).
> Since premium gasoline is 93-94, you can build an engine to run at 
> least one whole point of compression higher -- around 11:1. The 
> problem is you won't be able to run anything less than premium if you 
> can't find E85, and that might not even be enough. A pure LPG 
> conversion would have the issue of being able to find fuel at all. 
> You're not supposed to run heating fuel as there are no road taxes on 
> it. LPG road fueling stations are few and far between, and many are 
> only open during regular business hours (9-6 or so), so you have to 
> carefully plan your driving. TomJ ran his 63 Classic wagon with 232 on 
> LPG for about 10 years as a pure LPG vehicle. Here's his conversion info:
http://worldpowersystems.com/AMC/LPG/LPG-book-final.html.
> 
> 
> Here's a good report with gas mileage on both gasoline and LPG:
> https://www.utmb.edu/tstem/tstemutil/Uploads/192013_8_41_29_PM_2037Ans
> is%20MannieRondina_Propane_Vs_Gasoline_2.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 09:16:27 -0600
> From: "Armand Eshleman" <aje1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Eddie Stakes" <eddiestakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,    "AMC, Rambler,
>    Nash,Jeep and family" <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [AMC-list] 78 amc amx undergoing restoration
> Message-ID: <9DF8C4114B374B8F8033906D5BA19150@computzer3>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>    reply-type=response
> 
> Interesting work being done, I really like the metal work part.
> 
> I do have a question as I am not that up on Concords. Is this a Hornet 
> with different parts hung on the front end?
> 
> Armand
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eddie Stakes" <eddiestakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <BaadAssGremlins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2015 7:35 AM
> Subject: [AMC-list] 78 amc amx undergoing restoration
> 
> 
>> Nice to see people taking a interest in some of the other great cars 
>> AMC built, this is a 78 Concord AMX being restored for example. Not a 
>> whole lot of them made you know, I believe 1931 total and guess is 
>> less than 200 exist in 2015, not high survival rate, as most want them
for 'Concord AMX'
>> unique parts like air dam, louvers, flairs and dash pieces. Here are 
>> some neat photos a customer, Phil sent me of his ongoing restoration, 
>> he will be adding photos as he goes along.
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/tloftus/sets/72157645555444837/
>> 
>> Eddie Stakes
>> 713-464-8825 days
>> www.planethoustonamx.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> AMC-list mailing list
>> AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:55:25 -0500 (EST)
> From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [AMC-list] 78 amc amx undergoing restoration
> Message-ID: <201502141655.t1EGtP9v006381@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> " From: "Armand Eshleman" <aje1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "
> " []
> " 
> " I do have a question as I am not that up on Concords. Is this a 
> Hornet with " different parts hung on the front end?
> 
> yup, reworked, mostly the same.  same for spirit/gremlin.
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
> internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
> adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 12:04:28 -0500 (EST)
> From: adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Sandwich Maker)
> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [AMC-list] LPG in AMC's was   RE:  AMC-list Digest, Vol
>    71,    Issue 14
> Message-ID: <201502141704.t1EH4SqF006436@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> " From: "Stu Fitchett" <amckiwi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> "
> " []
> " 
> " 
> " My daily driver is a Holden (Pontiac GTO) Ute with a Chev L98 in it 
> running " Liquid Injection LPG.
> " 
> " I have a custom tune in it and it has 10 more rwkw and 25more rwNM 
> of torque " than on petrol, it uses between 5-10% more fuel than on 
> petrol, lpg is " approx. 50% of petrol here.
> " Down side is conversion is very expensive
> 
> i understood that lpg needed special injectors because its lubrication 
> qualities aren't the same as gasoline/petrol, and because of the 
> frosting effects of near-instant vaporization.  is this not the case 
> anymore, or are such injectors now readily available?
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Andrew Hay                                  the genius nature
> internet rambler                            is to see what all have seen
> adh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx                       and think what none thought
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> AMC-list mailing list
> AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of AMC-list Digest, Vol 71, Issue 16
> ****************************************
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2015.0.5646 / Virus Database: 4284/9114 - Release Date: 02/14/15

_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com