CNG Powered Hudson

Aaron D. IL

Hi all,

Maybe this thread belongs in the discussion section (moderator feel free to move it if that's so) BUT I was reading an article about Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) used in Utah to power cars as an alternative to gasoline, that it had a higher octane rating and gave slightly longer engine life because it was cleaner. The article said an owner of such a vehicle was able to fill up for $5 a tank and that it is possible to refuel such a vehicle overnight from your own home. That many fleet vehicles already use CNG and there is infastructure for it in place in the US.

Well I'm due for a rebuild on my 232 when I get back from Romania and I was wondering what everyone would think of making such a conversion to a Hudson 6 ??? Pros, cons, thoughts ?



(original article) http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/SavingandDebt/SaveonaCar/FillUpFor5DollarsYouCanInUtah.aspx

ESSX28-1

CNG was extensively used here in NZ a few years ago. Some hassles were: bulky tanks took up lots of trunk space, only some gas station sold it (it needs to be compressed into a liquid to make carrying round feasible), special kits needed were pretty pricey as was the fitting, most cars found the trade off between the number of expensive tanks needed v the distance able to be traveled was hard to manage & last but not least special tuning was needed,

Still CNG achieved wide acceptance among cabbies (low costs) & many of the general motoring public especially with the larger cars.

Sorry to be so long winded!!!

Jon B

Believe me, if the price of gasoline keeps ascending, and CNG (is that the same as LP gas?) proves to be a viable alternative, it will begin to be offered in many more places! Time will tell.



One question: don't I recall hearing that valves are more likely to burn, using gas (as opposed to a liquid petroleum)? I was once told that this is because gasoline tends to cool things down when it enters the engine, but I could have got that wrong. I guess the answer would be stainless steel valves.



If it comes down to someday retrofitting my Terraplane to run on CNG or LP gas, versus simply using it for a planter in my front yard, I'll choose the former.



These are "interesting times" to live in: exciting but scary. No one knows how this whole gasoline situation will play out. But if there is a truly "cheaper" alternative to gasoline -- which is in any way practical -- you can count on the Marketplace to come up with a whole new way of fueling your car. It will be inevitable and unstoppable. And with any luck, some genius will come up with a cheap way to retrofit our Hudsons in order to use this new type of fuel.

Unknown

Aaron, etal

In the 90s the USG mandated CNG use for some of the federal agencies and the military. The mandate was an attempt, just like E85 production to help establish what was a fledgling energy industry. The mandate included tax credits and then air pollution credit as well as set aside contracts for conversion of fleet vehicles. The actual conversions were accomplished on mail carrier trucks, military vehicles, school buses and public transport buses.

The initial activity was in the conversion arena, but this quickly turned to the manufacture of new vehicles when it was determined conversion would be better served as a new build vehicle. The cost to convert a passenger car vehicle in the 1993 time frame was 6-10 K dollars. The most expensive portion of that cost was in obtaining a safe tank whose weight could be reasonably carried and the size and shape feasible for installation.

Refueling infrastructure did not exist then and DOES not exist now in the public domain. Granted there are refueling sites in major cities, but these are usually NOT available to the public. The primary infrastructure is at gas companies and the larger federal and state agencies sites. These filling stations required appointments to utilize if at all. Refueling from the home is definitely possible and I purchased a home refueling station to use as part of my tradeshow and briefing support. Long gone it was an innovation the California natural and LP gas industry embraced, but I found in other states there was little or no desire to hook these stations to existing home gas lines. Think safety and regulatory matters.

Why do I know this... in 1993 I returned to Texas from California to establish a CNG conversion facility. At that time and since CNG was a novelty. The technology while sound...is not something that can be attempted by a hobbyist. At the center of the use of CNG is tank technology. Economic personal use might be possible if the cars came from the manufactures with lightweight tanks. Several of my business associates have spent mega dollars trying to establish a lightweight tank of sufficient volume, which meets the safety requirements. The weight penalty in 1994 for a safe tank used in a FORD Crown Victoria Police interceptor was around 500 lbs. That tank was made of fiber wrapped steel.

All of the automobile manufacturers have been in CNG and have quietly backed out. Mostly in the area of Public use (police, fire and emergency vehicles) others in the Military and Utility service and finally those like School Buses, Public transportation and myself.

The CNG bullet is the initial conversion cost (where I was at when I realized the margins could not support my costs) and the lack of refueling infrastructure. CNG is a fuel that requires different skills for all... consumer, repair and distribution. Until there is a major acceptance this is just another alternative fuel like E85, BioDiesel etc.

Happily CNG does not cause a backlash in other costs like food.

If you get moving in the Hudson conversion direction, I would be glad to open that 6 foot file cabinet in the garage and share what I knew in the 90s.

Happy Memorial Day

Park_W

Back in '57 when stationed in Lincoln, NE, several members of the NE Air National Guard, with whom I was working, were driving cars converted to "either-or" gasoline/LPG fuel (maybe LPG isn't technically correct term - perhaps propane, etc.). They were quite happy with cost and performance. Apparently in that farming country the LPG (?) wasn't hard to find. The conversions must not have been very expensive or these guys surely wouldn't have done it. They liked how cleanly the fuel burned ... told about tearing down an engine and how clean the combustion chambers and valves were. Maybe someone out that way could comment on exactly what they were burning and how the conversions were done.

Jon B

Here's a shade-tree mechanic who's been driving an LP-gas-converted '63 Rambler for 19 or 20 years:



http://wps.com/LPG/index.html#INDEX

Unknown

1955/56&57 As service manager for a Buick dealership we had several customers who ran the LPG. A couple of Jeeps and a 50s Plymouth. The Jeeps were driven by Game wardens and the Ply by a guy who hauled the morning paper from Memphis 220 mile round trip daily. A salesman who drove a Buick. Could be switched back and forth between gas and LGP if needed. Worked good, Oil stayed clean and no problems. 1960 went to work at a paper mill in maintance. The fork trucks (Hysters) used to load the paper rolls ran on LPG for several years before switching to gas.

dwardo99

My father was like Hank Hill, he sold "propane and propane accessories" so he always had company cars that ran on propane. He and my uncle converted a lot of trucks for the local steel mill to run on propane and my uncle's '47 pickup ran on a switchable propane/gasoline setup and I believe his Hornet did too. He was still driving those in the 70s and maybe later. The conversion is really easy, requiring a regulator, suitable tank, and propane carburator or an adaptor that fits the original carb. A lot of industrial engines that were intended to run on propane back in the day, such as forklifts, had hardened valve seats but I don't think there was any problem with valve seats in the Hudsons.

Aaron D. IL

Dwardo - that's true shouldn't be a problem with the valve seats in a Hudson since the whole block was a hardened chromium alloy. I'm not sure that propane is necesarily cheaper than gasoline though. I'd still be interested un information on how to do a propane conversion.



Ken - Your response is exactly why I posted this thread I want to know who in Hudson land has been out there and lookd at these options. I'd be willing to sacrafice my Hudson's trunk to run on CNG if it was a cost savings, the travel range was about the same and of course I could re-fuel effectively. I'd like an alternative that would let me keep the Hudson engine though since it's part of the historical significance of the car and the company that built it. I read that the tanks are under a pressure of 3000 psi... but that as far as ignition it's generally safer for home use than gasoline since it only ignites within a narrow range.

Us old car guys will really have to take these alternatives seriously if we want Hudsoning and the rest of the hobby to be around another 50 years. But one thing is true, they're not making many of the currently available alterative fuel systems friendly to the hobbist or home garage mechanics. They seems to be taking the approach of "lets make it so regular folks can't mess with it." (control)

dwardo99

As far as I know, the conversion to CNG is the same as for propane except a different orifice is required (same as running a gas stove on propane v. natural gas). That is assuming a carbureted car. I don't know what the availability is of the regulators and carbs, solenoids and such are these days but it was very low-tech and I don't see how such a conversion could be that costly, especially if you had access to parts that were laying around since the 60s and 70s. Maybe they figured out a way to complicate everything. The other issues are: filling the tank isn't the easiest thing in the world, and the government wants its 10 pounds of flesh, so if you are running a fuel that has not been taxed you may have trouble there. Just my .02.

MikeWA

Seems to be some confusion on terminology here. Propane (or LP) is not a problem- its what you use in your barbecue grill, readily available at many locations, lots of conversion stuff around. I don't know the taxation situation on propane, but converting could be worthwhile. CNG is compressed natural gas- its totally different than propane, and compresses to liquid at a much higher pressure. As Ken noted, the technology just isn't economically feasible. It isn't just a matter of different carburetors, connectors and so on- the tank is the problem.

[Deleted User]

As Mike points out... there is a HUGE difference between CNG and LPG. LPG is low tech and potentially a home installation for the user. But, CNG is not a low tech solution and never has been. The use of CNG in motor vehicles is a proven technology with the advent of computer controlled engines it can be better controlled for use in motors originally designed for use with gasoline.

As one who invested thousands of dollars and three years of my life in an attempt to start and operate a CNG conversion facility... I believe there is the potential this could be a solution to the long haul truck fuel costs... use in a non fleet personal vehicle will depend on the cost of conversion coupled with the miles driven.

Hope Mikes comments and mine disconnect LPG experience from CNG

Geoff

I go along with Ken. CNG - Compressed Natural Gas is a totally different beast from LPG - Liquified Petroleum Gas. The latter is much lower pressure. CNG cylinders are big and heavy, and you have to have two of them, to give a range of around 150 miles. As Dave mentioned, CNG was promoted as "The fuel of the future" here in N.Z. around 20 years ago, but after a huge number of Service Staions put in the equipment, and the Government subsidised every car that was converted, the whole thing slowly ground to a halt, and is now largley forgotten. L.P.G. is still used fairly widely here, but the price differential between it and regular petrol is such that unless you are doing around 50,000 kilometres a year minimum it is just not economically feasible. Disadvantages of both CNG and LPG are that unless you have your vehicle dedicated to the respective fuel, you can only get a compromise as far as performance and economy are concerned. The Octane rating of both CNG and LPG are around 120, so the engine needs to be tuned for this. Hence, if you have to go back to petrol, the engine will "ping" badly, and this is extremely damaging. Plus the hassle of cold starting, lack of filling facilities, and a loss of around 20% in fuel economy, means it is not worth consideration in a low mileage situation such as hobby cars. I did have a Vauxhall Cresta on LPG for 7 years, which I used while I was restoring my Jet, but the hassles I had with it convinced me it was not worth the effort. The cost of installation , even though subsidised, was considerable, and the loss of economy, the extra cost of annual inspections, broken starter bendix because of kick back caused by the ignition advance, hard starting when cold, were just some of the factors that made it both uneconomic and inconvenient. . I was originally going to convert the Jet to LPG, but after my experience decided to keep it original.

Geoff.

Unknown

What happened to the Hornet coupe that was on eBay a year or two ago that was converted to LP? I think it was even a twin H set-up if memory serves correct?

Unknown

here's the thread....Natural gas powered hudson

Unknown

I guess I'll throw in my 2 cents here. I ran my company trucks for 20 years on propane as it was about 1/3 the cost of gasoline. I just sold my business and retired my last truck 1 year ago. I did notice a slight loss of power and fuel economy was very close to the same. Coming from Canada cold weather starting was not a problem unless it was colder than -30. Then I had to plug in my vehicle. The oil was always clean and because the carburator is only partly in use ,once the engine was running it always ran nice. I did occasionally burn a valve but chev engines have fairly soft valve seats, I don't think Hudsons would have too much of a problem. It all boils down to a comparison of fuel costs to see if its feasible in your area. I am thinking about it for one of mine. However for the amount that I see some hudsons being driven it would be a total waste of time and effort. 2 or 3 tanks of fuel a year does not make it worth while converting.

Aaron D. IL

I hope to drive my Hudson most of the year except for during the middle of winter. I guess it's a matter of calculation as to where the conversion is really worth it. What would be saved in regular gas vs. costs to operate with a CNG or even propane setup over the life of the car until it needs another engine rebuild. I still wanted to at least consider all these options given that if I'm tearing down the drivetrain anyway, that would be that time to make a conversion. I really appreciate everyone's input on this and other options.

Also from an emotional standpoint having a "green" Hudson might be the right thing to do as a concerned citizen and from that standpoint I'd hate to give up Hudsoning because of the environment when something could be done about it. I know old cars are not much of a pollution factor when compared to the 205 million cars on the road in America because they're a small percentage, and the majority of them are driven very infrequently, but I'd still like to be part of the solution if I don't have to go broke to do it.

dwardo99

I had no clue CNG was so different. Thanks for the schoolin' !!

Unknown

Those who are interested might look into E85 instead of CNG or LPG. Safer to carry, (not under pressure) but you still have to modify the fuel system to cope with the corrosive propeties of E85. This is what I plan on running on my 1925 Packard Speedster clone. It will also have twin turbochargers and have about 13:1 total compression.

Unknown

No intent to sound reactionary...



but I believe you will find in the next year or two the "Darling" of the farm belt congressional lobbyists is about to become their nemesis. E85 is a very disruptive economic and sociologic product. The speculation that is going on in corn futures is the same as what is driving the price of gasoline today. Because we are not so in tune with our food costs we have yet to recognize the true effects of E85 production.



The availability of corn and other staple food stuffs worldwide is at an all time low and the future is bleak for many of the poorest countries who previously depended on the purchase of US produced grains for primary food.

Recently the US Congress began hearings that will determine the continuance of very large financial incentives being paid to those who will manufacture ethanol... E85.



For those who wish to investigate... take a look at the current speculators blogs and websites whose focus is oil or ethanol based fuels. I suspect some will be quick to grab the phone to quiz their congressional delegations. The picture is not good. And that picture has been developed with YOUR TAX dollars. This is not statement that is focused on any politician or political party... you can ferret out who is doing the string pulling.



Point... before going to the cost of conversion make sure you know the future of the fuel of choice... current products may not have the staying power being suggested.



Good Luck to all who find that cheap fuel to keep our antique cars running.... for me that is the cheapest cost gasoline.

davegnh

I had a freind in the late 70's that had a propane powered Dodge Polara, about a 74 I think. It had two big tanks in the trunk and a lever/knob on the dash that would switch from one to the other. As I recall, he said he started it on regular gasoline and then switched it over to propane using the lever on the dash. I remember driving it, it didn't seem any different than any other car.