Talk:Multifuel

Added page

I am not an engineer and would greatly appreciate revisions and expansion by engineers. Thanks. Larry Dunn (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

This seems very similar to flexible-fuel vehicle Perhaps the two could be merged? Frank | talk 17:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bifuel/flexfuel, etc, are terms usually just used for vehicles -- multi-fuel can be used for anything that burns any type of fuel. Merging might go the other way -- the various types being merged into multi-fuel. I suspect the article might get unwieldy as a result. Larry Dunn (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Larry Dunn, this is a more general article, and flexible-fuel vehicle is just a specific application in the automobile industry, they must be kept separate. Mariordo (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good perspective. I didn't put an official merge template on it because I wanted to get some initial feedback. I'll shut up now :-) Frank | talk 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M35 truck

This says "aviation fuel", but AVgas is not Jet fuel, and the truck's article is not helpful, since AVgas is similar to gasoline, while Jet fuel is similar to diesel. Which is meant by the sentence, or is both meant? (Indeed you can run a piston airplane on gasoline, and you can run an old pre-computer car on AVgas ; similarly you can run an old pre-computer diesel truck on jet fuel, and you can run some auxillary jets on diesel ) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of clarity

Two quotes from the lead section:

One common application of multifuel technology is in military settings, where the normally-used diesel or gas turbine fuel might not be available
A multifuel engine is constructed so that its compression ratio permits firing the lowest octane fuel of the various accepted alternative fuels

The first implies a compression-ignition multifuel engine while the second implies a spark-ignition multifuel engine. This should be clarified. Biscuittin (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Continental/Hercules LDS 427 (427 cu in (7.0 L)), LD 465 (478 cu in (7.8 L)), and LDT 465 (478 cu in (7.8 L) turbo) compression ignition engines could run on diesel, gasoline, jet fuel, kerosene, or any mix. Gasoline needed motor oil mixed in. They were used in M35 series 21⁄2-ton and M39 series 5-ton trucks. In the real world, they were only operated on diesel and were pretty lame. Sammy D III (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Multifuel engines (per the 1957 STANAG) are (broadly) compression ignition engines, running on road diesel fuel with the option to swap to another fuel, if needs be. The British L60 tank engine was a diesel, run on diesel. It took several hours to swap it from fuel to fuel - longer than a whole engine pack change! The US truck engines were, AFAIK, much less fussy. By the time smarter engine control systems which could have swapped automatically came along though, multifuel had been abandoned as a concept in favour of plain diesels, with the ability to run on the poorly lubricating jet fuels as well (through either improved pump metallurgy, or an oil admixture system). This was largely to keep petrol off the vehicle for fire safety reasons. Octane (of course) is irrelevant to any engine, of any fuel, that isn't using a carburettor (or manifold injection). Andy Dingley (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The US engines needed no preparation, they ran bad on anything. Introduced in the early 1960s, the design was licensed from M.A.N.

In 1980 acceptable fuels were: diesel A, 1, 2 (above freezing), JP5, 7, 8, Jet A, A1, AVGAS 80/87 (with motor oil), commercial gasoline (with or without lead) 89 octane or lower (with motor oil), “other fuels” with 10-30% diesel. No high octane gasoline, unless it was an “other fuels”. Sammy D III (talk) 03:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]