I have not posted in a while, been a busy gardening summer. We have pretty much gone through all the parts I got with my 2 model T's. Amongst the 14 plus carburetors is one that says natural gas on it, One of the intake manifolds has small tubes attached to it, I am assuming it is also for natural gas operation. Does anyone here have a Model T running on natural gas or propane. I have a 7 gallon sidewise propane tank that would fit perfect where the gas tank is.
Sorry, title should say natural gas run Model T.
The intake manifold with the spray fittings and tubing is for a gasoline primer setup.
I've run stationary engines (not Model T) on gasoline, Diesel, natural gas, and propane, so I have a little experience here.
I can't imagine any circumstance where you could safely carry enough compressed natural gas in your car to make it go more than a couple of blocks or a mile. Add to that, the difficulty of obtaining compressed natural gas in the first place, and...
If you have found a Model T carburetor that says "natural gas" on it, it would almost certainly have been for a stationary-engine application. That could be an electrical generator, or perhaps to run a conveyor belt or machine-shop overhead belt line, or something like that.
As we found out in New Orleans after Hurricane Betsy (1960's), and have confirmed after every storm since then, in a natural-disaster situation, often times the supply of natural gas is the only fuel supply that can be counted on. If I were building any kind of emergency, or critical, power supply, I'd consider natural gas to be the most desirable fuel available (in areas where it is available). I'd put Propane next, if natural gas is not readily available, mainly because it can be delivered to you by a self-powered truck, and you can get fuel when there is no electricity on the grid.
While gasoline and Diesel have considerably more power in them than either natural gas or Propane, they both present other problems in emergency situations -- mainly in the area of availability when things are not normal, like when there is no electricity available to pump them, or when the only places that have the ability to pump them are clogged with customers and present you with long lines and rationing.
I could go on and on, and tell you about Katrina, etc., but I suspect you get my point.
Propane for motor fuel on water cooled engines comes out of the tank
as a liquid which is run through a vaporizer that uses the heat from the
engine coolant to vaporize it, and the vapor is fed to the engine through
the manifold air intake via a mixing valve.
If your ‘sideways’ tank is propane and looks like a trailer or barbeque tank (only
it lays on its side), then it should be clearly marked for horizontal use only.
These tanks have a special dip tube, and can deliver liquid propane when
standing vertical. At the very least you will need to grow new eyebrows
when 200 times more propane than expected hits the burner when you light it.
Natural gas tanks are similar, and both fuels feed through regulators but
natural gas tanks are filled to a very high pressure. 3000 lbs + compared
to propane with zero pressure at –42 degrees (its boiling point) and up to a
couple of hundred lbs on a warm day.
Propane and natural gas powered vehicles were used in Texas some years back. I drove a propane powered service pick-up in the early 1980's. It had a switch over to gasoline if you run out of propane. There were natural gas fill stations that had compressors that took natural gas from pipe lines and pressured it up to go into high pressure tanks on the vehicles. Some state of Texas vehicles were converted to natural gas.
I have not seen any of these stations in recent years. I have never seen a T powered by either one of the two gasses. (It could be done)
A little off topic but back in the mid '70's Winnebago had a multi fuel Motor Home that could run on propane or gasoline. Didn't hear too much about performance and didn't last too long.
NGVs are alive and well. For instance, Ford offers a bi-fuel option on the larger F-Series trucks. The system uses two tanks; one for gasoline, the other for the CNG. There are enough CNG stations in the US for these vehicles to travel coast to coast. There's a lot of positives with the natural gas fuels. The oil looks brand new when its changed and there are less deposits in the combustion chamber. The same injectors handle the gaseous and liquid fuels and the changeover is seamless.
In regards to our Ts, there was a Model A at the last old car festival with a refiner on the back bumper and a canvas covered rubber gas storage bag in a rack on the roof. In this instance, wood was distilled to provide the fuel but I have no doubt someone must have experimented with filling the bag with some other gaseous fuel during the rationing days.
I should have been more specific. What I meant was that I couldn't imagine any circumstance where using compressed natural gas as a motor fuel would have been easy or safe, let alone economical, in the 1920's.
Those who posted that natural gas as a motor fuel is feasible today are correct. I've driven those vehicles, and they have distinct advantages - as pointed out above.
And, almost every warehouse in the U.S. uses Propane powered fork-lift trucks. It's my understanding that is because the exhaust is far less poisonous than that from gasoline.
Tom mentioned a canvas covered rubber gas storage bag in a rack on the roof.
“Nothing new under the sun”… so goes the expression. When necessity is the mother of invention… look for ingenious man.
This was an alternative method for carrying auxiliary fuel for autos as practiced in the mid-teens (mostly in Europe).
The “bag” on top of the car could be filed from city mains via a flexible tube.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/13/gas-bag-on-roof-holds-bus-fuel/
In the picture below… this fellow survived when the Coal-Gas bag blew up on the bus he was on. He is on his GPS phone trying to find out where he wound up.
Some may not understand any humor to my adding this picture and description.
Tom mentioned a canvas covered rubber gas storage bag in a rack on the roof.
“Nothing new under the sun”… so goes the expression. When necessity is the mother of invention… look for ingenious man.
This was an alternative method for carrying auxiliary fuel for autos as practiced in the mid-teens (mostly in Europe).
The “bag” on top of the car could be filed from city mains via a flexible tube.
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/10/13/gas-bag-on-roof-holds-bus-fuel/
In the picture below… this fellow survived when the Coal-Gas bag blew up on the bus he was on. He is on his GPS phone trying to find out where he wound up.
Some may not understand any humor to my adding this picture and description.
Wasn't an intake manifold fitting also used to operate vacuum accessories such as a Trico or Ford vacuum windshield wiper motor? Jim Patrick
It would be interesting to find out if Ford did experiment with gas as a fuel for cars, it wasn't anything new to him as the power plant for Ford Canada 1912, was 2x 750 HP gas engines of his own design, maybe not natural gas but coal gas, as the power plant had a building that housed, coal storage, heating boilers and gas producers.
Re: Coal-Gas driven automobile photo above (Town Car Taxi).
Here is a previous thread . . .
http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/179374/185689.html?1296511015
Photo’s caption from World of Taxis - Culture and History
“A 1920s coal-gas powered taxicab operated by John Lee Automobile Engineers in Keighley, England.
The bag atop the vehicle stored sufficient fuel for 15 miles of driving.”
Regards
Art
As Jim Patrick indicated, I have a similar setup on my intake. One goes to a Trico fan and one for a wolf whistle.
Thanks for the confirmation John. A vacuum setup seems like a much more feasible use for the intake fittings as opposed to a dangerous propane or coal gas intake. I would think that a propane gas setup would need to go through the carburetor equipped with some sort of regulator in order to adjust the flow of gas instead of just allowing it to flow into the intake full force and unregulated. That would be a recipe for disaster. Jim Patrick