Mopar Action On-line – Tech Questions

HOMEIN PRINTTECHEXTRASCONTACT

Tech Question

Brent Levinson, Bismarck, ND, 1968 Plymouth Barracuda, 460

I happened to re-read my Dec 2005 issue Tech Topics andcame across “Gassed Up?”, a question regards propane conversion. Youcommented “to me, the read drawback is the hazards posed by driving aroundwith what is, basically, a bomb behind your seat”.

Note, LPG and CNG have proven in may crash studies to be as safe, or saferthan gasoline tanks. They are 20 times more puncture proof and whenpunctured/vented flame-out quickly. As opposed to gasoline which typicallyand rapidly involves the entire vehicle.

Thanks for a great magazine.

Brent

Brent, actually, I didn’t pull that out of my butt:

http://www.rspa.dot.gov/dra/hydrogen/docs/alt_fuel.pdf

See p 3-11, etc.

I’d much rather have a visible liquid slowly evaporating – so I can seewhere the hell it is and go the other way. Also, I’ve witnessed severalmajor car fires – one just yesterday. While I’m sure that there’s plenty ofcases of occupants trapped and/or unconscious and roasting in a fire, thiscan happen with any flammable fuel, Including modern plastic car interiors,etc. But gasoline -powered wrecks I’ve seen have all allowed the occupantample time to get the hell outta there – I’m not at all sure that the samecan be said for methane or propane.

Does that mean I’d never drive, or own, a car fueled by a compressed gas?No, on the contrary, even getting out of bed is a risk, we face dangersevery day that we take for granted. If LNG or LPG became widespread andcheap, I’d consider it.

Still, overall, I stand by what I said.

Rick

http://www.moparaction.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/burn.jpg - 40415 Bytes

NextIndexPrevious

Main Index | Current Issue | Tech Q & A | Tech Archive | Subscription | Advertisers Links | Contact Info