"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> >
> >>Elle wrote:
> >>
> >>>You seem to be assuming that, simply because air is compressed in a
> >
> > diesel,
> >
> >>>with diesel fuel (ordinarily) then injected "at the right instant,"
that
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>timing could not be messed up via the use of a fuel with a much higher
> >>>resistance to ignition and/or different ignition properties.
> >>
> >>absolutely i'm assuming that - diesels ignite fuel instantly on
> >>injection.
> >
> >
> > You're saying any old fuel you inject into a diesel engine will ignite
at
> > the same instant as diesel fuel?
>
> no, that's you putting words in my mouth for the sake of picking a fight.

When you're wrong, you're wrong, Jim.

Can't take it? Get out.

> > First, ignition is not "instant." Ignition may start, but full ignition
of
> > all the fuel in the cylinder at any instant takes a certain amount of
time,
> > occurring over a certain number of degrees of the diesel cycle.
>
> eh? ignition /is/ instant. combustion takes time. you're confusing
> the two terms, seemingly because it suits your pitch.

You miss the point.

People can go to authorities and verify the essence of what I posted.

 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 03:26:25 GMT, "Elle"
<elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

>"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>> Elle wrote:
>> > "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>> >
>> >>Elle wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>You seem to be assuming that, simply because air is compressed in a
>> >
>> > diesel,
>> >
>> >>>with diesel fuel (ordinarily) then injected "at the right instant,"
>that
>> >
>> > the
>> >
>> >>>timing could not be messed up via the use of a fuel with a much higher
>> >>>resistance to ignition and/or different ignition properties.
>> >>
>> >>absolutely i'm assuming that - diesels ignite fuel instantly on
>> >>injection.
>> >
>> >
>> > You're saying any old fuel you inject into a diesel engine will ignite
>at
>> > the same instant as diesel fuel?
>>
>> no, that's you putting words in my mouth for the sake of picking a fight.
>
>When you're wrong, you're wrong, Jim.
>
>Can't take it? Get out.
>
>> > First, ignition is not "instant." Ignition may start, but full ignition
>of
>> > all the fuel in the cylinder at any instant takes a certain amount of
>time,
>> > occurring over a certain number of degrees of the diesel cycle.
>>
>> eh? ignition /is/ instant. combustion takes time. you're confusing
>> the two terms, seemingly because it suits your pitch.
>
>You miss the point.
>
>People can go to authorities and verify the essence of what I posted.
>
>
Why am i getting flashbacks?

 

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Elle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You seem to be assuming that, simply because air is compressed in a
>>>
>>>diesel,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>with diesel fuel (ordinarily) then injected "at the right instant,"
>
> that
>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>timing could not be messed up via the use of a fuel with a much higher
>>>>>resistance to ignition and/or different ignition properties.
>>>>
>>>>absolutely i'm assuming that - diesels ignite fuel instantly on
>>>>injection.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're saying any old fuel you inject into a diesel engine will ignite
>
> at
>
>>>the same instant as diesel fuel?
>>
>>no, that's you putting words in my mouth for the sake of picking a fight.
>
>
> When you're wrong, you're wrong, Jim.
>
> Can't take it? Get out.
>
>
>>>First, ignition is not "instant." Ignition may start, but full ignition
>
> of
>
>>>all the fuel in the cylinder at any instant takes a certain amount of
>
> time,
>
>>>occurring over a certain number of degrees of the diesel cycle.
>>
>>eh? ignition /is/ instant. combustion takes time. you're confusing
>>the two terms, seemingly because it suits your pitch.
>
>
> You miss the point.
>
> People can go to authorities and verify the essence of what I posted.
>
>
>
what /is/ your problem?

 

"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote
E wrote
snip
> >People can go to authorities and verify the essence of what I posted.
> >
> >
> Why am i getting flashbacks?

I am not yet ready to agree with you that putting gasoline into a diesel
engine is likely to result in premature ignition. Jim is right insofar as
the fuel enters the diesel cylinder at the same time whether it be gasoline
or diesel fuel. (I imagine you're aware of this, too, if you have any
familiarity with the diesel cycle.) Gasoline, however, is designed to be
more "auto-ignition resistant under pressure." Octane is a measure of its
resistant to auto-ignition. Higher octane = less knock, as I think most
people here know. Diesel fuel doesn't have an octane number but instead has
a cetane number, which measures something different... google yada.

The timing will be off because the gasoline requires a spark or, if it does
ignite, it will do so at the wrong time and burn at the wrong rate. You said
similar.

Michael's wording was a little off. He didn't deserve to be jumped all over
and told his comments were rubbish, etc. His post needed a bit of tweaking,
though I think he would have served the group better if he simply cited a
well-written web site or two, preferably one that was a dotcom or maybe
dotedu, so reputations were at stake.

 

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 04:02:03 GMT, "Elle"
<elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

>"flobert" <nomail@here.NOT> wrote
>E wrote
>snip
>> >People can go to authorities and verify the essence of what I posted.
>> >
>> >
>> Why am i getting flashbacks?
>
>I am not yet ready to agree with you that putting gasoline into a diesel
>engine is likely to result in premature ignition. Jim is right insofar as
>the fuel enters the diesel cylinder at the same time whether it be gasoline
>or diesel fuel. (I imagine you're aware of this, too, if you have any
>familiarity with the diesel cycle.) Gasoline, however, is designed to be
>more "auto-ignition resistant under pressure." Octane is a measure of its
>resistant to auto-ignition. Higher octane = less knock, as I think most
>people here know. Diesel fuel doesn't have an octane number but instead has
>a cetane number, which measures something different... google yada.

I've not seen propogation fronts of the different fuels in the same
engines. and i've not seen, or driven a diesel now since i moved to
the US, so i'm a bit rusty. Never realy been into diesel engines
myselfso my basis is mainly theoretical, but my gut feeling is, were
we to see the flame wave propigation in slow motion, we'd find the
petrol (gasolene) irniting before, probably at the injector tip, and
would continue throughout the pulse of the injector. This, to my mind,
would also produce a very smokey combustion, due to the limited
combustion area, and thus poor oxygen availability.

>
>The timing will be off because the gasoline requires a spark or, if it does
>ignite, it will do so at the wrong time and burn at the wrong rate. You said
>similar.
>
>Michael's wording was a little off. He didn't deserve to be jumped all over
>and told his comments were rubbish, etc. His post needed a bit of tweaking,
>though I think he would have served the group better if he simply cited a
>well-written web site or two, preferably one that was a dotcom or maybe
>dotedu, so reputations were at stake.
>
I would also be interested to see how the new highly refined, high
performance diesels that are becomming not so much commonplace, as the
norm (something like 33% of new cars in the UK are diesels) in
comparison with the older, noisier smokier designs more commonplace in
the US, would handle gasolene injection. I have a good video somewhere
of a kid who's running a late 70s golf GTi (rabbit to americans) and
has just put a couple of gallons of diesel in the tank, and is driving
home. Lots of white smoke everywhere.

 

In article <9YadnbVKtNuACoHeRVn-jg@speakeasy.net>, jim beam <nospam@example.net> writes:
> Michael Wojcik wrote:
> >
> > The higher the compression in the cylinder, the more likely the fuel
> > is to ignite, because of higher density and temperature (by Boyle's
> > Law). So high-compression engines need fuel with a higher ignition
> > point, which means a higher octane rating.
>
> ok, so if that's true, how come you can't run a diesel engine on
> gasoline? the compression is much higher and the adiabatic heating is
> much greater in diesel engine....

I'd guess it's because of the poor combustion characteristics of
gasoline under diesel-level pressures. For maximum efficiency (in a
diesel) you want ignition at the forefront of the vapor wave as it
enters the cylinder, with combustion proceeding smoothly back through
the cloud. Gasoline vapor would tend to spontaneously ignite at
unpredictable points within the vapor cloud, resulting in turbulent
combustion, poor oxygenation of the flame, and inefficiencies.

According to Wikipedia, some diesel engines can run on E95, which
is 5% gasoline and 95% ethanol; the high "octane" (ignition
temperature) of the ethanol prevents the vapor from igniting at the
wrong places.

Surely you're not denying that higher compression means higher gas
temperature (volume being constant)? And that higher temperature
increases the likelihood of ignition? I'm not sure what exactly
you're taking exception to in the quoted paragraph.

> > High-compression engines get more output per unit volume, but they're
> > more expensive (because they have to withstand higher stresses), so
> > they're generally found on more expensive models. Thus it's common
> > for more-expensive cars to take more-expensive gasoline.
>
> rubbish. the compression on even the most high compression si engine is
> low compared to diesels.

Indeed it is, but I fail to see how the comparison is relevant.

> the price differential comes down to paying a
> premium for "performance", but that's nothing to do with having to build
> an engine that can cope with compression stress.

Perhaps so. I'll retract my claim about why high-compression engines
are more expensive.

At any rate, the basic point is that the "octane" rating of a sample
of gasoline refers to its ignition temperature, and that higher
octane means less knock, and that the appropriate octane for an
engine will maximize gasoline performance for that engine, with no
additional benefit for going higher.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Against all odds, over a noisy telephone line, tapped by the tax authorities
and the secret police, Alice will happily attempt, with someone she doesn't
trust, whom she can't hear clearly, and who is probably someone else, to
fiddle her tax return and to organise a coup d'etat, while at the same time
minimising the cost of the phone call. -- John Gordon

 

In article <%IOTe.7648$Wd7.2355@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink. net>, "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> writes:
>
> Michael's wording was a little off. He didn't deserve to be jumped all over
> and told his comments were rubbish, etc. His post needed a bit of tweaking,
> though I think he would have served the group better if he simply cited a
> well-written web site or two, preferably one that was a dotcom or maybe
> dotedu, so reputations were at stake.

Perhaps so. In the fifteen years or so that I've been posting to
Usenet, I've certainly written messages I've later regretted, and
many others that could have been better. I don't feel this was
one of the former, but it probably falls into the latter category.

--
Michael Wojcik michael.wojcik@microfocus.com

Sure we're tossing out fluff, but tell me, where does anyone deal in words
with substance? -- Haruki Murakami (trans Alfred Birnbaum)

 

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> dude, you can't use gas in a diesel because the ignition temperature of
> gas at those pressures exceeds the adiabatic heating temperature.

Would someone please define "adiabatic heating temperature"? Please provide
your source for this definition. What is the approximate number, in degrees
F, for the "adiabatic heating temperature" (AHT) of gasoline at the
pressures with which we are concerned here?

Or is Jim just being sloppy?

I know what "adiabatic heating" is, but the statement above seems to be
implying the AHT phrase altogether is part of engineering or scientific
parlance.

Rather than impetuously call this statement "rubbish," he or someone gets a
chance to tweak it.

 

"Michael Wojcik" <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote
jim beam wrote
> > the price differential comes down to paying a
> > premium for "performance", but that's nothing to do with having to build
> > an engine that can cope with compression stress.
>
> Perhaps so. I'll retract my claim about why high-compression engines
> are more expensive.

Not so fast. It's a fact that diesels are higher compression engines, and
they do require greater cylinder wall thicknesses, in some proportion to the
higher pressures they see, for one. The material cost of a higher
compression engine will, in general, be higher.

I would wager that this is true for higher compression "power performance"
gasoline engines vs. lower compression gasoline engines, too.

But don't use, say, dealer price for a "performance" car to gage the cost of
materials to build the engine. Too many other variables. So we can't go to
the net and compare edmunds.com prices for car D with compression ratio x to
car G with lower compression ratio y.

> At any rate, the basic point is that the "octane" rating of a sample
> of gasoline refers to its ignition temperature, and that higher
> octane means less knock,

A higher octane does not correspond to a higher ignition temperature. Higher
octane means "more resistance to self-ignition, particularly, ignition due
to high pressure instead of a spark."

Unless you regularly deliver (carefully prepared) lectures on the subject,
this is a complicated topic that you should not attempt to summarize off the
top of your head. You're butchering a number of points.

> and that the appropriate octane for an
> engine will maximize gasoline performance for that engine, with no
> additional benefit for going higher.

Optimize...

 

"Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
news:a8ETe.2176$9x2.653@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net:

> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote

>> absolutely i'm assuming that - diesels ignite fuel instantly on
>> injection.
>
> You're saying any old fuel you inject into a diesel engine will ignite
> at the same instant as diesel fuel?
>
> First, ignition is not "instant." Ignition may start, but full
> ignition of all the fuel in the cylinder at any instant takes a
> certain amount of time, occurring over a certain number of degrees of
> the diesel cycle.
>
> There is a certain "rate of burning" (or "rate of ignition") that will
> vary with the fuel used.



Sort of. Both gasoline and diesel in a diesel engine will autoignite
(detonate), exactly as the diesel cycle expects them to. The difference is
in the preflame reaction. Cetane fuels (diesels) have a much shorter
preflame reaction time than heptane fuels (gasolines). Once the preflame
reactions have occurred though, both go up instantly.

The above gleaned from this Google search:
http://tinyurl.com/8h9hj

Additonal reasons gasoline is not used in diesels set up for diesel fuel:
1) Low viscosity results in excess fuel delivery
2) Gasoline has insufficient lubricity to protect fuel pump.


>
>> injection timing may be off, or there may be a fuel problem,
>> but by definition, ignition cannot preceed injection.
>
> The difference in "ignition rate" (or "rate of burning") is
> significant for gasoline vs. diesel fuel. Using gasoline in a diesel
> engine will mess up the diesel engine's timing, with a potentially
> (highly likely?) catastrophic outcome (massive engine damage).


It will result in very low power, lots of smoke, and high probability of
fuel pump damage. Other than that, according to what I get from the search
above, it won't do any damage in the short term. Long term usage /could/
coke up the rings.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

TeGGeR® wrote:
> "Elle" <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote in
> news:a8ETe.2176$9x2.653@newsread3.news.pas.earthli nk.net:
>
>
>>"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>
>
>>>absolutely i'm assuming that - diesels ignite fuel instantly on
>>>injection.
>>
>>You're saying any old fuel you inject into a diesel engine will ignite
>>at the same instant as diesel fuel?
>>
>>First, ignition is not "instant." Ignition may start, but full
>>ignition of all the fuel in the cylinder at any instant takes a
>>certain amount of time, occurring over a certain number of degrees of
>>the diesel cycle.
>>
>>There is a certain "rate of burning" (or "rate of ignition") that will
>>vary with the fuel used.
>
>
>
>
> Sort of. Both gasoline and diesel in a diesel engine will autoignite
> (detonate), exactly as the diesel cycle expects them to. The difference is
> in the preflame reaction. Cetane fuels (diesels) have a much shorter
> preflame reaction time than heptane fuels (gasolines). Once the preflame
> reactions have occurred though, both go up instantly.
>
> The above gleaned from this Google search:
> http://tinyurl.com/8h9hj

thanks for bothering to dig up such a great citation. your summary is a
little light in that it's important to distinguish the circumstances
under which you can run compression ignition [ci] engines in "multifuel"
mode, i.e. even higher compression ratios than required for normal
diesel operation. i can tell you from experience, a normal diesel just
won't run on gas.

>
> Additonal reasons gasoline is not used in diesels set up for diesel fuel:
> 1) Low viscosity results in excess fuel delivery
> 2) Gasoline has insufficient lubricity to protect fuel pump.

yup.

>
>
>
>>>injection timing may be off, or there may be a fuel problem,
>>>but by definition, ignition cannot preceed injection.
>>
>>The difference in "ignition rate" (or "rate of burning") is
>>significant for gasoline vs. diesel fuel. Using gasoline in a diesel
>>engine will mess up the diesel engine's timing, with a potentially
>>(highly likely?) catastrophic outcome (massive engine damage).
>
>
>
> It will result in very low power, lots of smoke, and high probability of
> fuel pump damage. Other than that, according to what I get from the search
> above, it won't do any damage in the short term. Long term usage /could/
> coke up the rings.

the military spent a lot of time & a lot of money researching multi-fuel
vehicles. ateotd, i think intent was more propaganda in an effort to
divert soviet resources than the desire to impliment it in practice
because very few vehicles could run in multi-fuel mode, and those that
could were run on diesel pretty much all the time.

 

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>
>>dude, you can't use gas in a diesel because the ignition temperature of
>>gas at those pressures exceeds the adiabatic heating temperature.
>
>
> Would someone please define "adiabatic heating temperature"?

"squeeze" temperature.

> Please provide
> your source for this definition.

my old lecture notes.

> What is the approximate number, in degrees
> F, for the "adiabatic heating temperature" (AHT) of gasoline at the
> pressures with which we are concerned here?

you're not compressing gasoline, you're compressing the air charge in
the case of a diesel or the air/fuel charge in the case of spark
ignition. for diesels final compression temp is 500-600C. for spark
ignition engines, it's in the range 250-350C approx. iirc, diesel fuel
ignites in the 400C range, gasoline in the 600C range approx.

>
> Or is Jim just being sloppy?
>
> I know what "adiabatic heating" is, but the statement above seems to be
> implying the AHT phrase altogether is part of engineering or scientific
> parlance.
>
> Rather than impetuously call this statement "rubbish," he or someone gets a
> chance to tweak it.
>
>

 

Michael Wojcik wrote:
> In article <9YadnbVKtNuACoHeRVn-jg@speakeasy.net>, jim beam <nospam@example.net> writes:
>
>>Michael Wojcik wrote:
>>
>>>The higher the compression in the cylinder, the more likely the fuel
>>>is to ignite, because of higher density and temperature (by Boyle's
>>>Law). So high-compression engines need fuel with a higher ignition
>>>point, which means a higher octane rating.
>>
>>ok, so if that's true, how come you can't run a diesel engine on
>>gasoline? the compression is much higher and the adiabatic heating is
>>much greater in diesel engine....
>
>
> I'd guess it's because of the poor combustion characteristics of
> gasoline under diesel-level pressures. For maximum efficiency (in a
> diesel) you want ignition at the forefront of the vapor wave as it
> enters the cylinder, with combustion proceeding smoothly back through
> the cloud. Gasoline vapor would tend to spontaneously ignite at
> unpredictable points within the vapor cloud, resulting in turbulent
> combustion, poor oxygenation of the flame, and inefficiencies.

kinda, but as i understand it, it's more along the lines of diesel
having individual droplets with boundry layer combusion, whereas gas is
full vapor that can be detonated by compression waves anywhere.

>
> According to Wikipedia, some diesel engines can run on E95, which
> is 5% gasoline and 95% ethanol; the high "octane" (ignition
> temperature) of the ethanol prevents the vapor from igniting at the
> wrong places.

diesels can't really ignite at the wrong places because once fuel is
injected, it's starting to burn. it doens't get a chance to evaporate
into a detonatable vapor. with gas engines, you're trying to get a
smooth flame front progressing from the center of the chamber [more or
less]. combusion chamber irregularities [think old detroit iron] cause
local pressure spots & detonation ahead of the flame front because the
fully evaporated vapor is already there.

>
> Surely you're not denying that higher compression means higher gas
> temperature (volume being constant)?

of course not.

> And that higher temperature
> increases the likelihood of ignition?

of course not.

> I'm not sure what exactly
> you're taking exception to in the quoted paragraph.

"So high-compression engines need fuel with a higher ignition point,
which means a higher octane rating."

strictly speaking, that's detonation point, not ignition.

>
>
>>>High-compression engines get more output per unit volume, but they're
>>>more expensive (because they have to withstand higher stresses), so
>>>they're generally found on more expensive models. Thus it's common
>>>for more-expensive cars to take more-expensive gasoline.
>>
>>rubbish. the compression on even the most high compression si engine is
>>low compared to diesels.
>
>
> Indeed it is, but I fail to see how the comparison is relevant.

you're saying that higher compression gas engines are build stronger to
take that compression. that's not true. output pressure dwarfs
compression pressure. the build difference [if any] is ability to cope
with the output.

>
>
>>the price differential comes down to paying a
>>premium for "performance", but that's nothing to do with having to build
>>an engine that can cope with compression stress.
>
>
> Perhaps so. I'll retract my claim about why high-compression engines
> are more expensive.
>
> At any rate, the basic point is that the "octane" rating of a sample
> of gasoline refers to its ignition temperature,

kinda, but it's more detonation sensitivity than just plain temp. rate
comes into the equation as well.

> and that higher
> octane means less knock, and that the appropriate octane for an
> engine will maximize gasoline performance for that engine, with no
> additional benefit for going higher.
>

 

Elle wrote:
> "Michael Wojcik" <mwojcik@newsguy.com> wrote
> jim beam wrote
>
>>>the price differential comes down to paying a
>>>premium for "performance", but that's nothing to do with having to build
>>>an engine that can cope with compression stress.
>>
>>Perhaps so. I'll retract my claim about why high-compression engines
>>are more expensive.
>
>
> Not so fast. It's a fact that diesels are higher compression engines, and
> they do require greater cylinder wall thicknesses, in some proportion to the
> higher pressures they see, for one. The material cost of a higher
> compression engine will, in general, be higher.

to cope with combustion pressure, combustion temperature & mechanical
output, not initial compression.

>
> I would wager that this is true for higher compression "power performance"
> gasoline engines vs. lower compression gasoline engines, too.

output, not compression.

>
> But don't use, say, dealer price for a "performance" car to gage the cost of
> materials to build the engine. Too many other variables. So we can't go to
> the net and compare edmunds.com prices for car D with compression ratio x to
> car G with lower compression ratio y.
>
>
>>At any rate, the basic point is that the "octane" rating of a sample
>>of gasoline refers to its ignition temperature, and that higher
>>octane means less knock,
>
>
> A higher octane does not correspond to a higher ignition temperature. Higher
> octane means "more resistance to self-ignition, particularly, ignition due
> to high pressure instead of a spark."
>
> Unless you regularly deliver (carefully prepared) lectures on the subject,
> this is a complicated topic that you should not attempt to summarize off the
> top of your head. You're butchering a number of points.
>
>
>>and that the appropriate octane for an
>>engine will maximize gasoline performance for that engine, with no
>>additional benefit for going higher.
>
>
> Optimize...
>
>

 

jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote in
news:TuKdnZ2dnZ29hJvenZ2dnelyvd6dnZ2dRVn-052dnZ0@speakeasy.net:


>>
>> The above gleaned from this Google search:
>> http://tinyurl.com/8h9hj
>
> thanks for bothering to dig up such a great citation.



That was a good one, citing many concrete refernces from credible
textbooks.


> your summary is
> a little light in that it's important to distinguish the circumstances
> under which you can run compression ignition [ci] engines in
> "multifuel" mode, i.e. even higher compression ratios than required
> for normal diesel operation. i can tell you from experience, a normal
> diesel just won't run on gas.


I printed the citation off to read it better to find out why.

Apparently this is because diesel is injected into a diesel engine at about
the same time the spark plug fires in a spark engine (16~30deg BTDC). Since
it takes gasoline so long to "light off" (detonate), the engine is well
past TDC before it can. Therefore, if it ever does detonate, the piston is
pretty near the bottom of its power stroke. And usually it never detonates
at all, but just gets pumped into the exhaust.


>
>>
>> Additonal reasons gasoline is not used in diesels set up for diesel
>> fuel: 1) Low viscosity results in excess fuel delivery
>> 2) Gasoline has insufficient lubricity to protect fuel pump.
>
> yup.


Actually, I read that wrong. I printed off that citation so I could read it
better, and discovered that gasoline's low viscosity results in
INSUFFICIENT fuel delivery for two reasons:
1) Gasoline's lower density packs less punch per volume, and
2) Some of it squeezes back past the injection pump's plunger instead of
going into the injectors the way it's supposed to.


>>
>> It will result in very low power, lots of smoke, and high probability
>> of fuel pump damage. Other than that, according to what I get from
>> the search above, it won't do any damage in the short term. Long term
>> usage /could/ coke up the rings.



Another mistake here: In that thread, somebody suggested using WD-40 in a
diesel. Somebody else said this would coke up the rings in the long term.
During my on-line read, misread it as being /gasoline/ as the coker-upper.


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/