mwatt Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 '98 OBLTD wagon; hard lesson learned: I said "the heck with that 'low fuel' lamp glowing brightly....that thing has always come on a little too early or a little too late anyway". So when it came time for my wife and I to go out to dinner with five other couples on Saturday night, 40 miles from home, and the "low fuel" light was on with the fuel guage reading 1/2, I figured "I've really got to clean that low fuel probe". Yeah, right. So along we went. And that damned car made it all the way to the restaurant, 40 miles away, just fine. On the way home at 11:45PM on a nice, chilly I70 west just outside of Ellicott City, MD with NOBODY around we learned that the low fuel light really does work well, but the fuel sending unit contacts are what actually need cleaning (as suggested in many previous posts)..... I'm just glad the MD State Police will answer "#77" at all hours because they dispatched a flat bed tow truck to us in about 20 minutes. Only $75.00 and four miles later we were deposited at a local gas station. Filled the tank and, gee whiz, away we went.... And then my wife said to me "you know, if I were alone I would have filled it up just because the light was on". What could I say? The drive home was VERY quiet...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reveeen Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 Mine seems to get, well, erratic in the cold, in fact the whole dam car gets "erratic" in the cold. A good shot of -25 (or colder) messes everything up quite nicely for about a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyhorse001 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 And then my wife said to me "you know, if I were alone I would have filled it up just because the light was on". What could I say? The drive home was VERY quiet...... Yet more proof that, while you're married, you can be either right, or happy, but not both. BTW I clebrate 19 years with "She Who Must Be Obeyed" next month, so I've been there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OB99W Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 [...]BTW I clebrate 19 years with "She Who Must Be Obeyed" next month, so I've been there!I assume that's a reference to Hilda, Rumpole's wife (of "Rumpole of the Bailey"), and not Ayesha, Queen of Death. To stay on topic -- yes, the "Low Fuel" light tends to be more trustworthy than the gauge, although not always. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
four-fleet-feet Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 The only time one can safely ignore the 'low fuel' light is when one has a burning desire to either burn airtime waiting for AAA to get to you, or an even more pressing desire to walk a ways to the nearest station. You could tell your Other Half this story. One GOOD thing about ignoring the fuel light: my aunt ignored hers as she went to a store and parked. She couldn't remember just how long it had been on (she's old enough to remember flappers, a valid excuse). Upon exiting the store she saw her car moving down the row rather quickly (and not with her in it ). She yelled, 'That's my car!' but figured it was already as good as gone. To her surprise, it coasted up to the exit and stopped dead. The thieves jumped out and ran. Had it been her shout which caused them to bail? No. It was finally out of gas... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cougar Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 That's a good story F-F-F. The low fuel sensor works a little different than the normal fuel level sensor. The low fuel sensor is a thermistor and has no moving parts or contacts that can cause trouble. So when it shows low I would tend to believe it and stop at the next station for a fill up. Mwatt, some folks have restored the normal service of the sensors by using some Techron in the tank to clean the contacts on the wiper arm of the sensor. You might try a using it on the next couple of fill ups to see if that will work for you also. Since you are seeing a half tank, the problem sounds like one of the two sensors is having trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EVOthis Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 i have waited for my gas light to come on a few times....i kind of like it because it gives you a good idea of exactly how many miles per tank of gas you can squeeze out.......though the fuel does cool the fuel pump......prob. not a good idea to let it get that low..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinthe202 Posted March 10, 2008 Share Posted March 10, 2008 My fuel light only comes on when it feels like it. I go by the trip-o-meter:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aircraft engineer Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 me too but at 3.50/gal I'm stretching things out a wee bit I wonder if I can make a gasifier and run on wood chips or charcoal? Actually, I think I can but I'm just not in the mood for development work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brus brother Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 And then my wife said to me "you know, if I were alone I would have filled it up just because the light was on". What could I say? The drive home was VERY quiet...... Mine seems to get, well, erratic in the cold, in fact the whole dam car gets "erratic" in the cold. A good shot of -25 (or colder) messes everything up quite nicely for about a week. Is it your wife that gets erratic in the cold as well as the car?? and does she come out of it after a week? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
screwbaru2 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 I always zero out my tripomder when I gas up. Driving 100 miles I day I always fill up. I get abt 300 miles to a tank so even if the gauge and light doesn't work I know when its time to fill up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinthe202 Posted March 11, 2008 Share Posted March 11, 2008 me too but at 3.50/gal I'm stretching things out a wee bit I wonder if I can make a gasifier and run on wood chips or charcoal? Actually, I think I can but I'm just not in the mood for development work OOOOHHHH Yeah!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aircraft engineer Posted March 13, 2008 Share Posted March 13, 2008 where did the pic come from? It's what I want to do combustor on the right, separator in the middle, "intercooler" on the left Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostinthe202 Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 where did the pic come from? It's what I want to do combustor on the right, separator in the middle, "intercooler" on the left I found it with a google image search. Turns out it's one of the photos used on Wikipedia when you type in gasifier. Nifty idea for sure, but size reduction is a must! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aircraft engineer Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 that's the main drawback - they tend to be large. it takes a bit of volume to make one large enough to handle the thruput requirements of even a small engine and still have enough "storage space" for the wood/coal/whatever. I wish I could find my old copy of "Mother Earth News" from maybe 40 years ago that showed a self sufficient house running on 2 co-linked Pontiac 195 CID 4 cyls with "swimming pool" sized coolant water storage and 2 gasifiers (and before anyone asks - they were 1/2 of a 389 Poncho V-8, long stroke, slow turning engines driving as I remember a single 15kw generator belt drive) heat and electricity both from an engine source running on wood chips - they just changed the engines' input to service the system and clean out the gasifier filters. Looks like the diagram in Wiki is in Swedish or some other scandahoovian languach Yah sure, ya betcha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OB99W Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 [...]Pontiac 195 CID 4 cyls [...](and before anyone asks - they were 1/2 of a 389 Poncho V-8, [...] Yes, and they were an inline slant-4; Pontiac cast the block with a wall where one of the cylinder banks was on the eight. long strokeNot really -- the 389 (and therefore the 194.5) had a bore of 4.06" and a stroke of 3.75", making it an "over-square" design. (Yeah, I used to own a '63 Tempest with one of the "195" engines.) For comparison (and to keep this Subaru-related ), a stock EJ25 has a bore of 3.92" and a stroke of 3.11" (also over-square), for 150 cubic inches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnceggleston Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 Yes, and they were an inline slant-4; Pontiac cast the block with a wall where one of the cylinder banks was on the eight. Not really -- the 389 (and therefore the 194.5) had a bore of 4.06" and a stroke of 3.75", making it an "over-square" design. (Yeah, I used to own a '63 Tempest with one of the "195" engines.) For comparison (and to keep this Subaru-related ), a stock EJ25 has a bore of 3.92" and a stroke of 3.11" (also over-square), for 150 cubic inches. how does this compare to the volvo engines of the 60s and early 70s? i thought some of them were used as power plants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OB99W Posted March 14, 2008 Share Posted March 14, 2008 how does this compare to the volvo engines of the 60s and early 70s? i thought some of them were used as power plants?I think you're referring to the Volvo B18 (1.8L) and B20 (2.0L) engines. They were both inline fours, and noted for their ability to keep going under hard usage (five main bearings helps). IIRC, their bores and strokes were closer to each other than the engines previously mentioned, although over-square by a small margin. BTW, most modern engines are over-square (larger bore than stroke). It tends to make for better fuel dispersion and higher-revving capability, at the cost of lowered torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aircraft engineer Posted March 15, 2008 Share Posted March 15, 2008 torque - which IIRC was the reason they went with the Poncho engine - trying to get the smallest bore for the displacement available for max torque (since the engine was running about 1900 or so) on that reduced power fuel mixture Nothing "new" fits that description, but maybe one of the older engines might still be avail in other than a museum. if anyone tries the gasifier, remember, you will lose probably 20% of the rated power output because of the nature of the fuel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.