laimeduck Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 My 1986 2CV "Doris" spurts petrol back all over you if you fill her too quickly. Still..... she only holds 20 litres so it doesn't take long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakaleg Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 It wasn't the same lady that I met in a garage in Weston Super Mare a few years back was it? she was filling up slowly (or so it seemed to me) with a lit cigarette in her mouth as she leaned over the tank, I suddenly decided to fill up on the m5 as it was cheaper. lol yes really. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 The logic behind the claim that 'slow-fuelling’ a vehicle offers a financial benefit does not really relate to vapour loss back through the vehicle’s filler inlet to the outside air, nor to certain vehicles being difficult to fuel quickly (I don’t recall my Transit Mk 5-base motorhome presenting any problems in that respect, incidentally.) The ’slow fuelling’ advice seems to have originated in the USA in 2007 and can be summarised as follows: "You should pump fuel slowly, thereby minimizing petrol-vapour created while you are pumping. Fuel delivery-hoses incorporate a return system that recovers vapour from petrol that already has been metered. If you pump quickly the agitated petrol produces more vapour, which is being sucked back into the underground tank so you're getting less petrol for your money." The critical analysis of this claim was "The primary claim is that service station pumps have vapour recovery systems, and those systems recover and recycle vapour produced during the process of dispensing petrol which the consumer has already paid for. (That is, the pumps do not adjust price or volume to reflect vapour recovery, so the consumer is essentially paying for losses due to "waste" even though the retailer is recouping those losses through a recycling process.) The efficacy of this tip is another issue of dispute. Advocates maintain that pumping gas more slowly produces less vapour, and therefore consumers get more for their money by pumping slowly (because less petrol is lost to vaporization). Critics (including state regulators) assert that the amount of vapour loss produced during the pumping process is so small as to be economically insignificant to the ordinary consumer. One has to consider the time factor: Is the aggregate amount of time you're going to lose by pumping slowly at every fill-up really worth whatever modest amount of money you might save?” As will be seen from this webpage http://www.ukpia.com/industry_issues/air-quality-climate-environment/vapour-recovery.aspx the ‘slow-fuelling’ advice has a degree of credibility, but - unless ethanol-content petrol is known to have a higher tendency to vaporise than non-ethanol petrol - the principle behind the ploy will apply to all petrol dispensed at UK service-stations and not just to the ethanol-content variety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted December 24, 2015 Author Share Posted December 24, 2015 Derek Uzzell - 2015-12-24 1:49 PM ....As will be seen from this webpage http://www.ukpia.com/industry_issues/air-quality-climate-environment/vapour-recovery.aspx the ‘slow-fuelling’ advice has a degree of credibility, but - unless ethanol-content petrol is known to have a higher tendency to vaporise than non-ethanol petrol - the principle behind the ploy will apply to all petrol dispensed at UK service-stations and not just to the ethanol-content variety. But if you are the sort of person who likes to assert your independence and even to impose a display of doing so on others, this is a useful belief system to hold to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rambling robin Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 Dave C - 2015-12-24 10:50 AM I seem to remember that the Austin A30 was one of the worst fillers. The older Landrover (that had the fuel tank under the seat) was the best. Yes, I had a p/t job in a filling station while a schoolboy in the early 1960s. Dave The Austin A40 Farina (rustbucket) was THE worst ever - guaranteed thigh soaker. Better than the Landy was the pre-67 Beetle with the tank under the luggage bay. Open the bonnet, remove cap and that's the tank - no neck, just a hole - filled at max speed. Happy days - not forgetting the big Fords with the filler hidden behind the rear number plate - real finger chopper that was....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannie2400 Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 rambling robin - 2015-12-24 4:50 PM Dave C - 2015-12-24 10:50 AM I seem to remember that the Austin A30 was one of the worst fillers. The older Landrover (that had the fuel tank under the seat) was the best. Yes, I had a p/t job in a filling station while a schoolboy in the early 1960s. Dave The Austin A40 Farina (rustbucket) was THE worst ever - guaranteed thigh soaker. Better than the Landy was the pre-67 Beetle with the tank under the luggage bay. Open the bonnet, remove cap and that's the tank - no neck, just a hole - filled at max speed. Happy days - not forgetting the big Fords with the filler hidden behind the rear number plate - real finger chopper that was.... Can't beat my '51 MGTD flip the filler and a nice big slab of a tank waiting to bankrupt you!... :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vannie2400 Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 best I've found is my MGTD flip the filler and a nice big slab of a tank waiting to bankrupt you! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.