quote:
Originally posted by MrPink
I guess hes removing the gas so he can get rid of all the junk that some ar*ehole installed on his car. Now he can have more room in the boot or somewhere that Holdens thought you should place a spare wheel, not to mention more horses for using what the car was designed to run on ... petrol. Then when he opens the hood he wont be looking at a mess with an ugly thing hanging off his carburetor and a mixer busting up the inner guard. Then he can buy some dash plastics to get rid of the cr*p inside.
This is because hes not a pauper and can afford petrol.
You guys are still living in the last century.
My daily driver is a VT V6 Calais, with sequentially injected gas. Other than the loss of boot space (still plenty of it left) your comments are way off base.
The only reason that many engines running on LPG, produce less power than when they were on petrol is because of the intake restriction of the gas mixer or venturi. Lousy fitting & bad tuning adds a lot to the argument as well. LPG has a higher octane rating & with an injected system, makes more power than petrol.
Ive dyno-tested a VY HSV which made 20 more RWkW than when on petrol.
If you have an old carby car, use dedicated gas mixer (LPG only, not dual-fuel) & the same will apply.
Modern computerised LPG systems do away with all of that untidy, amateurish, aftermarket wiring & crappy dash switches & gauges. Have a look at a VZ or VE Commodore factory system to see what I mean.
I dont do a lot of mileage (500 km a week in the city) & Im not a penny-pincher, but at $30-$35 to fill the tank, Ill go LPG every time. I resent being used a cash-cow by the Federal Government & the oil companies.
The fact that it is a cleaner fuel that Australia has ample supplies of, also adds to its attraction.
Dr Terry.
Edited by user Tuesday, 19 May 2009 10:16:45 PM(UTC)
| Reason: Not specified