Talk:Gasoline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Chemistry Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, which collaborates on Chemistry and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Energy Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, which collaborates on articles related to energy.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High	This article is on a subject of high importance within energy.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Additional information: B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. Feel free to make short comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. ??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. This article is a vital article.

There was a proposal concerning this article's title - whether it should be moved to Petrolium-based fuel. The unanimous consensus was to keep the original editor's title. The page is currently protected from moving, and any attempts to move it will be reverted. For previous discussion see #Requested Move.

There was a dispute about this article's title - whether it should be moved to Petrol. Many arguments have been presented for both sides. After all else failed, consensus was to keep the original editor's title, as per the Wikipedia:Manual of Style: "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article." The page is currently protected from moving, and any attempts to move it will be reverted. For previous discussion see Archive 2 for the extent of the dispute.

== Error == "Hydrogen 25.7 MJ/litre" ... Well ! But for what pressure ? Or is it liquid hydrogène ? Does not seem to be explicit!

Contents 1 Archives 2 Page 3 3 Octane in percent 4 Leaded gasoline causing damage to children's growth? 5 Relating to "The Day after Tomorrow" 6 Is smell a gas? 7 Origin of "petrol" 8 Broken Link on this page 9 Origin of Terms 10 Petrol Redirect 11 Rework table of energy content of fuels 12 Inflation adjusted gas price graph should include the record prices of the 70s 13 Clear gasoline 14 Super 15 Contradictory data 16 Energy Content...Ideal? 17 Oxegenate Blending 18 Petrol Diesel Mixes 19 Use as a cleaning product 20 Gasoline and Petrol 21 News 22 History 23 Gasoline's freezing point 24 Cost statistics 25 Name again 26 Litre spelling 27 Diesel 28 Picture 29 Pricing Table 30 Price Calculating/Converting 31 Quality measures other than octane 32 Redirection from "Petroleum Spirit" 33 The second paragraph 34 Possible math error on energy content table 35 First word of the article? 36 Ordering 37 World War II and octane ratings section 38 My recent revert 39 Combustion of diesel and petrol. 40 Petrol/ Gasoline naming idea 41 psychoactive inhalant 42 Shelf life of gasoline/petrol 43 Comment on article name - "will be removed" 44 Early uses 45 Detonation vs. Autoignition 46 Energy Content/Compression Ratio 47 Lead substitution by aromatics 48 Gasoline Composition 49 Lead data? 50 MTBEs 51 Usage 52 Requested move 52.1 Survey 52.2 Discussion 53 Stability 54 Contradictory numbers in Energy Content table 55 New name 56 On Kerosene ??!!

[edit] Archives

Archived discussions:

• Talk:Gasoline/archive1 to 10 June 2005 23:35 (UTC)
• Talk:Gasoline/archive2 to 1 July 2005 19:12 (UTC) "Requested Move" to Petrol. Result keep at Gasoline.

[edit] Page 3

I think we need a lock on this article for the moment. GraemeLeggett 14:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Or an IP block. See User_talk:Omegatron#gasoline_flame_war - Omegatron 14:51, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

81.154.229.150 is one of my compatriots, I fear, RIPE shows them on BT Broadband. GraemeLeggett 15:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

What were you expecting?  :-) Don't worry, we won't make sweeping generalizations about your imperialistic tendencies.

It seems that whoever archived the talk page forgot that we were going to leave a note about the dispute and the consensus decision, however. - Omegatron 15:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well that was fun. Come get me next time before it lasts this long. --Golbez 00:19, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

"This long"? You caught it in two minutes.  :-) - Omegatron 01:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I believe that Golbez was referring not to this specific instance, but to the repeated vandalism / 3RR violation on the part of 81.154.229.150 (blocked by Golbez for forty-eight hours). —Lifeisunfair 01:18, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, my usual block is 24h but he had violated the vaunted 18 revert rule. :P --Golbez 01:31, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Octane in percent

I still am confused as to why gasoline octane ratings refer to a percentage (which, in this case can't be over 100%) but fuels with octanes of over 100 exist.

Its percentage compared to another fuel (2,3-dimethylpentane, if my chemistry serves me right). Same way as, say, height can be compared to a percentage of, say, 6 foot - 7 foot would be 116%. --Kiand 19:58, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

2,2,4-trimethylpentane, according to this encyclopaedia. Ah well. --Kiand 20:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Leaded gasoline causing damage to children's growth?

I learned in my economics course that leaded gasoline had faded out of use, because it had a negative impact on the growth of children (it supposedly caused mental disorders and what not). Could someone investigate this and incorporate it into the article? --Ted 05:53, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

The article Tetra-ethyl_lead seems to cover this. Do you think it should be made clearer that TEL damaged people and the environment in this article? --65.167.23.134 19:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It didn't "fade out of use", it was outright banned in most of the world. Across the EU no new car from 1993 onwards could use it, for instance. It was used a lot later in the EU than the US for some reason, possibly down to EU cars being designed for higher octane fuel - no cars here can touch petrol under 95RON, and yet the US "87 Octane" stuff converts to around 91 RON, for instance. --Kiand 21:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

That's just silly. I looked it up, the Honda Civic uses 91 RON in the UK, just like it does elsewhere in the world. --Bollinger 20:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relating to "The Day after Tomorrow"

Does fuel REALLY freeze at -108*C (-150*F) as they say in that movie when the RAF helicopters go down?

It depends... Gasoline stops burning at -98F, I believe. --SodiumBenzoate 00:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The helicopters used Jet-A fuel not gasoline. --Gbleem 22:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it gels up at a low temp. trentc

[edit] Is smell a gas?

apples have smells, so do woods...while we classify these things as solids, how do you explain the smell?

Asking on a page about Petrol, no matter how annoying misnamed it is, isn't going to get you an answer to this. Asking on Smell might. --Kiand 18:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Odors are the result of volatile chemical compounds that are released by a substance as vapor and that can be detected by sensor cells in the nose. Many solids as well as liquids give off these compounds; those that give off a lot are "smelly." Gasoline is highly volatile, meaning that it readily become vaporous, which is why it has a strong odor. In fact, it is these vapors that burn rather than the liquid; hence the need for a carburetor or fuel injection. --Tysto 17:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

if I remember right, the smell in gasoline is not natural--it's added so people can detect the presence of gasoline...important if you have a leak. But the above reason would be why the odor spreads so easily. --Tenfour 14:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The smell in natural gas is added; I believe the smell in gasoline/petrol is it's "native" odor. Dculberson 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin of "petrol"

So which is it? Does "petrol" come from "petroleum spirit" (opening) or from French "petrole"? (Pharmeceutical section) --Tysto 22:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

At some British "Petrol Stations" it can be referred to as "petroleum spirit". For example, in signs such as "Danger: Petroleum Spirit, Highly Flammable!", so i would consider it likely that the former is true (without discounting the possibility of both being true, or having elements of truth). Guinness 15:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't have time to look it up when I asked before, but Answer.com's Houghten-Mifflen Dictionary says the origin is French "petrole".

I'll take your word for it in that case, as, I have to confess that the "petroleum spirit" was an educated guess. Guinness 09:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

It actually comes from both, since they have a common origin! The Oxford Dictionary of English says the following: "ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from French pétrole, from medieval Latin petroleum, from petra ‘rock’ (from Greek) + Latin oleum ‘oil’". It is quite possible that both English and French derived the word from the Latin. Incidentally, if you asked most British people what Petrol was short for, they'd answer 'Petroleum' - but i've never heard anyone talk of 'Petroleum Spirit'... Perhaps its a regional thing? Twrist 15:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

No, the English word "petrol" does come from petroleum spirit. The French word pétrole is an umbrella term referring to paraffin/kerosene. Rusty2005 06:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think it's more complicated than that. Pre-War there was a retail brand of motor gasoline in the UK that had the clever name "Petrol" - from all the derivatins you cite. It became a household term in the UK - much as Kleenex or Hoover or Zipper - for mogas/gasoline/benzin/essence/gas or any of the other terms for motor gasoline around the world.212.24.224.18 10:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Reference to the French page http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A9trole will show that petrole is the French for crude oil, as in Compagnie Francaise des Petroles. The French for petrol is essence. Bearfoot 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

In the industry the failure of Carless to register their trade name "Petrol" is often cited as a cautionary tale for those using and misusing trade names.Bearfoot 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Broken Link on this page

The link, Gasoline Images - Vintage American gas station and fuel dispenser stock photography, link courtesy of http://www.coolstock.com Links to a 404... Am I allowed to fix/remove it?

[edit] Origin of Terms

This article needs some information on origin of the terms Gasoline and Petrol, especially so for the "petrol" people who have to conform to the American usage. Personally I've always viewed the usage of "gasoline" as unfortunate because of the shortened term "gas". - Diceman 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I have some definitions from the Oxford Dictionary of English:

Petrol

→ noun [mass noun] (Brit.)

1. a light fuel oil that is obtained by distilling petroleum and used in internal-combustion engines.

ORIGIN late 19th cent.: from French pétrole, from medieval Latin petroleum, from petra ‘rock’ (from Greek) + Latin oleum ‘oil’".

Petroleum

→ noun

[mass noun] a liquid mixture of hydrocarbons which is present in suitable rock strata and can be extracted and refined to produce fuels including petrol, paraffin, and diesel oil; oil.

Gasoline

→ noun

North American term for petrol.

ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: from gas + -ol + -ine4 (or -ene)." Twrist 16:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you should also look up the definition of Living Language.

[edit] Petrol Redirect

I don't know if I'm the fifteenth person to have this idea, but would it be acceptable to the wikipedians with deletion powers for there to be a seperate Gasoline and Petrol page that are exactly the same except for the terms "petrol" and "gasoline"? - Diceman 17:27, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We had them, for about ten minutes before everybody went nuts over it. It was done with templates, so both were updated at once. If you had a fecking clue what was going on with all the template code with the names. --Kiand 17:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

So we don't use templates this time. I assume the bulk of new contributions will be on the Gasoline page, so the petrol page could be compared and updated accordingly every week or two. - Diceman 14:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This is possibly the worst idea I've ever heard here. POV forks aren't allowed, and what is more POV than your locale's chosen language? From your point of view, petrol is correct. We chose gasoline. You don't get a fork, a likely poorly updated fork, because of that. It's a word. Get over it. --Golbez 16:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

That is ludicrous! How is speaking and researching in your native tongue POV? By that logic, there shouldn't be any non-English Wikipedias, since 'We chose English - get over it'. How patronising! Twrist 02:21, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the English language Wikipedia. You and I speak different dialects of the same language, and there are numerous others. Should we have forks for each and every difference in terminology?

Whenever possible, we attempt to use neutral terms. For example, both aeroplane and airplane redirect to fixed-wing aircraft. Unfortunately, no such term exists for petrol and gasoline (and it would be inappropriate for us to invent one).

I don't understand why the word "gasoline" is so objectionable to some people. I accept the existence of the cheque article, despite the relative uncommonness of that spelling in the US. In fact, the page originally used the spelling "check," but I supported its move (because "cheque" is less ambiguous on a worldwide level). The word "aluminium" is virtually unheard-of in the US, but I don't interpret the aluminum redirect as some sort of slight. (The former term is preferred by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. There is no comparable authority on the subject of petrol/gasoline, but "gasoline" appears to be used more prevalently among major international organizations.)

In some cases, the same term is applied to different subjects. For example, Americans use the term "vest" to refer to the garment that you call a "waistcoat." Meanwhile, you use the term "vest" to refer to the garment that Americans call an "undershirt." Should I complain because our waistcoat/vest article is located at waistcoat? Of course not, because this is the less ambiguous term. We don't have a dedicated undershirt/vest article, but if someone were to write one, it would be located at undershirt (which presently redirects to undergarment). Similarly, "apartment" is less ambiguous than "flat," and "elevator" is less ambiguous than "lift."

Is any of this truly problematic? Is it so bad to be exposed to a different culture? —Lifeisunfair 12:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I demand that the title of the article be changed to 'cardrink' which is what we call it in my culture. Your attempt to destroy my peoples' way of life with your imperialist verbiage is intolerable! My car gets 300 qualongs to the galiter of cardrink and that's the way Wikipedia should report it! Jburt1 00:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My vote goes to "bangwater" --Angry mob mulls options 07:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't go wrong with Esperanto! There, problem solved! (Why do I have to think of everything?) Ewlyahoocom 06:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I think it's silly that this article is located at gasoline is because I suspect very few people actually refer to it as gasoline except occasional formal circumstances. I wonder how many Americans ever actually use the term gasoline? From what I've seen, in the vast majority of cases it is refered to as gas. While gas may derive from gasoline and most Americans may know that, the fact remains it is referred to as gas not gasoline. Therefore, when it comes down to debate, it should be between the terms gas and petrol not gasoline and petrol. Clearly petrol wins since gas is too confusing. Also I think the bigger issue is that many people who prefer petrol see many of the arguments but up in favour of gasoline as silly. Gasoline may be preferred by many international organisations, but this primarily reflects the influence of the US. While this is not insignificant, trying to compare this to IUPAC on aluminium is rather silly. Similarly, the argument that Americans make up the majority of native English speakers seems rather silly. Who care's rather the majority of native speakers are? The most important thing, if anything would seem to be the majority of speakers who use English in everyday life or maybe the majority of speakers able to speak English at a level they can conduct a conversation about everyday things. Arguments on the entomology have some some merit but again, some people appear to be trying to draw to much from them. Gasoline is not a chemical name even if that was it's original entyomology. The fact that a user of CE is perhaps more likely to recognise gasoline then a user of AE is to recognise petrol has little merit since it simply reflects the fact that many Americans have little exposure let alone understanding of cultures other then theirs. The flaws of internet searches has been widely discussed and I won't go in to that. In conclusion, the biggest problem for me (and I suspect other people) is not so much that the article is named gasoline but the flawed arguments that supporters of gasoline have put up in favour of gasoline and their apparent assumption that we have no right to claim petrol has just as much merit in most regards as gasoline when on balance, I think many of us feel it does. But in the end based on the previous arguments, I would have to support keeping it as gasoline however this is only a tiny victory. Personally, I feel the previous arguments missed one key point which I have discussed elsewhere but I have no desire to take this any further so I will leave it at that. Nil Einne 07:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Your mentioning of the "fact that many Americans have little exposure let alone understanding of cultures other then theirs" was pretty uncalled for and nothing short of racist (nationalist?), and demonstrates to me your level of bias on the subject (aside from that, I could cite plenty of examples which would deny your assertion on that count). I would have expected a more civilized remark out of an non-American English speaker, seeing as how you're... you know... oh so much more "civilised" than we Americans are. Mikhajlovich 4:19, April 11, 2008 (PST)

I'd like to know the relevance of the study of insects in this debate. Since you mentioned it Nil I think you should explain yourself fully. Alun 11:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Most Americans do call it "gas" in everyday speech, but it is very frequently referred to as "gasoline" as well. This definitely should not be between "gas" and "petrol". Using "gas" to refer to "gasoline" is very similar to using "plane" to refer to "airplane". --SodiumBenzoate 13:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll be honest - i'm english and so would prefer the use of petrol over gasoline. However, there's probably more people reading this who are more familiar with gasoline (re: line 17 ...since it simply.... from Nil Einne). so, lets find a compromise. so lets just use gasolineMovingpictures100@hotmail.com 11:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a supporter of 'petrol', because, well, that's how we refer to it in my country, and from what I understand, everywhere except North America. I'm not saying that Americans aren't special, quite the contrary - you have your own language, and I respect that. I agree with what Nil Einne said in that the arguments supporting Gasoline don't seem to be much more than "we like the word". I don't mean to sound facetious, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from. Perhaps a large majority of the people involved in this discussion do use the word "gasoline", but the dialect of a majority of wikipedians shouldn't be adopted as a native wikipedian dialect, for obvious reasons. The article itself seems to indicate that - excluding international corporate communication - the word gasoline is used mostly, if not exclusively, in North America. The word petrol, however, is used by all Commonwealth countries, which I naively assume represent a majority of the English speaking western world. As for the international corporate use of the word, someone already mentioned that this usage is more than likely caused by American economical influence in this commercial sector (in the English speaking, western world), rather than the word's widespread use.

As a fervent student of linguistics, and someone who has a lot of experience with arguing (it's good fun), I should point out that arguments like "it's just a word" and "what's the big deal" aren't going to be helpful if someone is passionate about dialectic equality. If Wikipedia has the ultimate goal of "universal knowledge", then the most universally applicable lexicon should be used, with alternative dialects included in the article synopsis. Whether the most universally applicable lexis in this case is petrol or gasoline, I'm [not going to say], but it definitely should be discussed further.

One more thing: language can be extremely divisive. Different terms for the same thing - as in this case - can cause an "us and them" situation. Perhaps it could be considered to have the page named after the actual chemical in discussion, "Petroleum". I don't think anyone would object if the title wasn't in "the other team's" language. - Fluck 16:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, Fluck. The title of an article should be the word that is most commonly and unambiguously used to refer to the subject in question. No one in the world, not even petroleum engineers, refer to gasoline / petrol blends by their chemical compositions, because this is neither practical nor standardized. People call it gasoline or petrol, and if the article were titled something other than these two, I would object.

Lifeisunfair has had the most intelligent thing to say here about this subject. A solution like a POV fork causes more problems than it solves (it solves none), and in the end, it's just a title. All English-speaking users will be able to find this article easily, so long as both terms redirect to the article--and they do. So what's the big deal here? Ultimately, the article has to be titled something, so even if exactly 50% of English speakers called it gasoline, and 50% called it petrol, one or the other has to be chosen. Gasoline won. There's no compelling reason to use either word here over the other, but the title is already gasoline, and it's utter nonsense to be offended by that fact. Changing the title serves no purpose except to declare that "petrol" is superior to "gasoline"--and it's not. -69.47.186.226 06:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree with what Nil Einne said in that the arguments supporting Gasoline don't seem to be much more than "we like the word". - This is so true.
2. Also, "it started out as gasoline" is not a reason to keep it that way, it's simply because an American started the article.
3. Also, "there are more speakers of AmE" is not a reason for preference - It shouldn't be in terms of population, the USA is but one country, look how many other countries use English, and all of them (referring to the people) are speakers of Commonwealth English or their own countries dialect. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 17:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1) At least two countries use the term gasoline (U.S. and Canada). 2) The Spanish language uses the term gasolina, so gasoline is familiar to non-English-speaking people too, while petrol could be dangerously ambiguous. 3) Comonwealth English does not exist, not outside of wikipedia at least. 4) "It started out as gasoline" is a pretty good reason, why don't you read the MoS. 5) If "There are more speakers of AmE" is not a reason then neither is "it shouldn't be in terms of population". They would be equally valid 6) except that countries don't speak, people do. 7) Stop this nonsense. —^Jack_Lumber ^/tɔk/ 21:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. If Commonwealth English didn't exist outside of Wikipedia, it wouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place - The explanation of Commonwealth English is on it's namesake article.
2. As I said below; The only reason why Canadians use "gas/gasoline" is because of the heavy influence from the south. The same applies to many words that you only see in CaE and AmE.
3. Spanish is but one language.
4. I have read the Manual of Style, but that's beside the point - "It started out as gasoline" is not a good reason, as I have explained above. If it was a good reason, then the MOVE PAGE tool would not exist, and spelling mistakes in titles would be rife.
5. "except that countries don't speak, people do" Don't be pedantic - I was typing fast.
6. "Stop this nonsense". I believe that sentence is now obsolete. Bennelliott • Talk • Contributions 17:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hits on Google for "Gasoline": 29,800,000 hits on Google for "petrol": 34,300,000 Petrol is in my opinion therefore the more commonly used term. Why am I getting involved in this!! Himynameishelen (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the flaw in your thinking: Yahoo! hits for "gasoline" = 115,000,000 > Yahoo! hits for "petrol" = 88,400,000. Search engines are a pretty unreliable way to solve this problem, when you get right down to it. For all intents and purposes, this argument really is pointless. JackLumber is completely correct in that many foreign words are based on the term gasoline, while virtually none are based on petrol. Therefore, petrol really would be the more ambiguous of the two terms, at least as far as non-English speakers are concerned "'¿Pétrol? ¿Qué es eso?'". But aside from that, the main factor here is that whoever created the article used gasoline first, and therefore, to fight so adamantly about changing it just because it is known to some people as something else would be just about as anal as searching through Wikipedia articles for the sole purpose of changing all instances of the word "color" to "colour", "maneuver" to "manoeuvre", etc., etc. Let's just lay this argument to rest and say that the redirection of petrol to the gasoline article is really our only rational option. Either that, or we can segregate Wikipedia's English language articles into BrE and AmE... an idea that's pretty unattractive to me, wouldn't you agree? Mikhajlovich 4:19, April 11, 2008 (PST)

[edit] Rework table of energy content of fuels

I was adding the figures from the Diesel article to the table when I realized that:

1. the figure for diesel looks wrong

2. the figure for gasoline looks wrong

3. there is no single source of data for this table.

I'd like to get a table published by some verifiable source, something like the Society of Automotive Engineers, but have not turned up any easily verifiable tables to use as references. RPellessier | Talk 18:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It would also be better to include energy content of yellow diesel and those that are LSD and ULSD. tentc

[edit] Inflation adjusted gas price graph should include the record prices of the 70s

Without the record prices of the 70s included, the graph does not tell the whole story. Cshay 19:23, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree on that point, but I'm not sure they should be here at all. This is an article on the substance gasoline/petrol, not specifically on its use in the United States retail market. Why have a graph of U.S. retail prices, rather than say the much differently-shaped graph of German retail prices? Some sort of international market wholesale prices indicating what gasoline itself costs at various times might be useful, but retail prices include all sorts of stuff such as local tax policy that should be dealt with in more specific articles on each country's domestic oil market. --Delirium 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a graph of gasoline prices for the last 100 years adjusted for inflation.Trojancowboy (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clear gasoline

I think what "clear gasoline" is should be mentioned in the article. From my research, it appears to be gasoline that hasn't had dye added to it. Tax exempt gasoline can only be used for certain applications, so it is dyed to catch violaters. Does anyone have conflicting information? -- Kjkolb 09:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It has been redirected to a relevant article. -- Kjkolb 02:04, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super

From Super:

In Australia and New Zealand, as well as in continental Europe, Super was the name for a number of years commonly given to leaded high octane petrol (gasoline). Originally the name denoted premium leaded petrol, as opposed to Standard, which was non-premium leaded petrol. However, with the introduction of unleaded petrol in the early 1980s, Standard petrol was discontinued, leaving only Super, which then became a synonym for leaded petrol in general. This continued until the late 1990s, when leaded petrol began to be eliminated in favour of various different blends of unleaded petrol contain special additives for use with leaded vehicles. The name of these blends varies from oil company to oil company.

[edit] Contradictory data

These two things contradict:

Note that the main reason for the lower energy content (per litre) of LPG in comparison to gasoline is that it has a lower density. Energy content per kilogram is higher than for gasoline (higher hydrogen to carbon ratio). In simple terms, we burn mass, not volume!

Fuel type	MJ/L	MJ/kg	BTU/imp gal	BTU/US gal	Research octane number (RON)
Gasoline	29.0	45	150,000	125,000	91–98
LPG	22.16	34.39	114,660	95,475	115

If the energey content per kilogram, for LPG, is higher than that for gasoline, why does the table say gasoline = 45MJ/kg, LPG = 34.39MJ/kg?

Because the data was wrong. The problem as I see it is that several different articles have what should be the same data tables but with the information sourced from different places. Some of the data is seriously flawed. I'd really like to see some form of central database of physical constants such that all articles could access the same data set. This would probably need to be implemented in the wiki software. In the meantime, the table here has been upgraded to match that at Fuel economy in automobiles, including adding the reference from which the data has been derived. The reference provided octane numbers for gasoline but not the other fuels, so all other octane ratings remain effectively unreferenced. Needless to say, I'd need to see some pretty compelling evidence before accepting changes to any of the other data in this table. --Athol Mullen 22:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Content...Ideal?

So, due to heat loss, friction, etc, real engines can only extract maybe 10%-40% of the total energy contained in gasoline. So my question is: Are the numbers listed in the table the "ideal" values of energy density? Or are they the average amount of energy a real engine could extract?JabberWok 20:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oxegenate Blending

The current text is misleading, RFG formerly had a federal requirement to contain oxygen, but there is separate gasoline called 'oxegenated'. I will clean that up, sometime soon.--CorvetteZ51 23:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petrol Diesel Mixes

I'm interest in learning about Petrol Diesel Mixes, i've heard that its something like when they mix petrol and diesel badly, and it produces incorrect fuel is this true? and does it cost anything, i'm asuming it is a waste material and that it is free, i'm probably wrong, but i'm hoping someone else can clean this up. as i hav been told my truck will run on even the crudest of mixes

When fuels are contaminated with each other, they are often sold to companies with boilers that can run on a wide variety of fuels. It is cheaper per gallon, but not free. Also, obtaining it would be difficult. It isn't something they generally offer at a gas station. You'd have to get a tanker truck to pick it up with or arrange for them to deliver to a large tank that you bought, as they won't bother dealing in small volume. -- Kjkolb 00:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use as a cleaning product

I believe gasoline was first marketed as a cleaning product - does anyone have further information on this?

No. that was Benzene. Both are extremely flammable, even explosive, far too dangerous for use as a cleaning product. Also, please sign your statements. Martial Law 08:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Cleaning product eh? Fire does clean well... Hbdragon88 06:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, gasoline was a waste product until gasolines engines came along. trentc

[edit] Gasoline and Petrol

It is called gasoline in the US, petrol in the UK and the British Commonwealth, other nations. Martial Law 08:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Er, yes. Point? -86.134.68.117 10:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. In Canada (a Commonwealth country) it's called "gasoline." FYI, Spanish-speaking people call it "gasolina." (Commonwealth nations are not even required to speak English as an official language.)

The only reason why Canadians use "gas" is because of the heavy influence from the south. The same applies to many words that you only see in CaE and AmE. Bennelliott 17:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

And? The fact remains that Canada is a Commonwealth country that uses the word gasoline, which means that not all Commonwealth countries use petrol. That's the point. --Tkynerd 21:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hits on Google for "Gasoline": 29,800,000 hits on Google for "petrol": 34,300,000 Petrol is in my opinion therefore the more commonly used term.Himynameishelen (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News

Currently, the price of gasoline in the US is nearly $3.00 for a gallon of gasoline. Seen this on FOX News. Martial Law 08:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC) :)

Well, that settles it. We pay USD 6.73, so we've earned the right to name it! I can't believe Americans complain about the price of petrol, and we've been told there will be substantial rises this summer.

Fair comparsion? You pay USD 6.73 a gallon of gas? Or is that 6.73 a liter/litre of petrol? Just curious. I remember thinking, "Oh, wow, $0.60!" - and then finding out that it was just $0.60 a litre, which pretty much came up to around $2 USD a gallon of gas. Hbdragon88 04:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fuel is sold per litre in the UK, much to my disgust, because of EU law. I still think in gallons. Our gallons are slightly different to yours. I used 6.73 USD as a direct comparison ie. I got the average UK price (in Pounds) for a litre of unleaded from the newspaper (its slightly more expensive where I live) then converted it into US Gallons, and then turned the pounds into dollars. You would pay that much for a US gallon at our prices. The price has gone up since I last posted, In US terms we are going to hit $7 USD per US gallon before the year is out. Although people complain about fuel prices in the USA, its actually low compared to other 'western' countries. I've been told that we pay more than anyone else in the world, does anyone know if that is true?

I don't think it's useful to compare prices for gas without taking into consideration the widely varying taxation rates. They vary greatly within the US, and I would imagine our rates are different than yours, as both of ours are different from other countries'. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 23:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History

As petrol is a highly political issue, one would expect to see under this heading a list of historical discoveries of oilfields, especially in the Middle-East, where the World's largest and second largest reserves are located respectively in Saudi-Arabia and Iraq.

The Wikipedia reader is indeed entitled to know when the Saudi fields were discovered. Fortunately, I know that the Iraqi fields were discovered in 1903 by a team of German engineers during the construction of the Berlin-Baghdad railway.

Now look at the fierce political poker this had triggered among occidental nations, as for instance the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement in 1916 between the French and British governments to share the region at their will, until Menachem Begin was secretly sponsored by American Zionists to chase the British from Palestine.

I have the awkward feeling that the historical political issues related to petrol are being censored on Wikipedia by the same lobby who used Israel as an advanced military fortress, i.e. a strategic stronghold in the region with the aim of taking the petrol by force one day. Remember Henry Kissinger's famous statement: "The petrol is far too important to be left to the Arabs".

On the French Wikipedia a few political key dates can be found, but with a suspicious blackout between 1863 and 1942. Eighty years during which the two largest oilfields ever were discovered in the Middle-East, jeopardising the destiny of a whole century.

62.202.5.149 21:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You're on the wrong article. If any of your points are valid, they should be discussed in the petroleum article, not on the petrol article... Nil Einne 06:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gasoline's freezing point

Does anyone know what the freezing point for gasoline is? I didn't see it in the article. --Shultz IV 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Gasoline flash point is -40°C, see [[1]], kerosene has -60° freezing point [[2]] and gasoline freezes at a lower temperature. A gasoline engine cannot be started below -40°C without headbolt heaters. Trojancowboy (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cost statistics

Something like 60% of Americans' fuel money used to go to the oil producers, that is now more like 75%. In the United Kingdom, the producer portion used to be 25% but is now closer to 50%, and in Europe the producers' share has gone from 40% up to 60%.

Er...this is very vague. I found a reference to nail down the current breakdown for the US. Can anyone else find less shaky-sounding numbers for other countries? -- Beland 02:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name again

Did anyone ever think of calling the article "Gasoline (petrol)" or conversely, "Petrol (gasoline)"? Wouldn't that be a compromise? Stevage 13:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Article naming isn't really about compromise. Rather it is about having the article at the most appropriate, concise name so that other editors can guess the name correctly when linking from other articles (without checking) - and ideally without using disambiguation links. Use the 'What links here' link from the toolbox on the left of the artilce page to find incoming links and see how often editors are currently linking from the word petrol or gasoline - I checked half a dozen and they were all linking the word gasoline.

Unfortunately both of your suggestions would be the worst of all possible worlds as no one would guess either of those article names. -- Solipsist 15:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're mistaken there - redirects totally solve the problem of how other *editors* will find the article. You can link to gasoline or petrol, and both will get here. Probably some day a bot will bypass the redirect link for you too. The only thing it really affects is what name is displayed up the top of the page - so it's basically cosmetic, and has more to do with how Wikipedia wants to present itself to the outside world. Perhaps a compromise solution would demonstrate that Wikipedia is sensitive to cultural differences?

Lastly, for what it's worth, your test is slightly flawed. There are roughly 700 pages linking to gasoline (some, probably low, number piping it as petrol), but there are 300 or so linking to petrol. I don't know what conclusion I'd draw from that, if any. Anyway, this wasn't to enter the gasoline vs petrol debate, but to see whether anyone had actually considered that alternative. Stevage 16:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll compromise with this as soon as Orange (colour) gets changed to Orange (hue or color or colour since Wikipedia can't come to a consesnus on spelling) Hbdragon88 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How about gasouline? ;-) Doovinator 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The brand new Google trends system shows that more people search for petrol, but more news articles use gasoline [3]. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 21:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The orange one isn't a good example. Spelling is just spelling, but "gasoline" and "petrol" are virtually mutually incomprehensible for many people. Stevage 22:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

To put things in perspective, petrol is not only used while speaking English. In Hindi(and all other Indian languages) there is no word for petrol/gasoline. There are more than a billion Indians who understand the energy source as simply 'petrol'. Is this really a term that is restricted to the English language??? Manasl 06:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet about names, it may be usefull to point in the article that many translated articles, or articles written by non-notive english speakers, mistakenly say Benzene, creating confusion with C6H6 (thanks god the cars don't run on pure benzene!). The reason is that gasoline is called "Benzin" in German, dutch and scandinavian languages, "Benzina" in italian, etc.

[edit] Litre spelling

Why is the price of petrol in Australia, under the "local measure" section written as $1.40 /liter. Shouldn't it be $1.40 / litre, since Liter is the American spelling and Australians use the local spelling of litre, wouldn't the same be true of the United Kingdom. I will change this for Australia at least. Kyle sb 14:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I changed it for Japan too. --Guinnog 08:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the article as a whole should be consistant and if it's in American English, it should be all American English. JЇѦρ 19:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diesel

Sometimes the term gas is used to refer to fuel or energy in general. Comonwealthers: Can the term petrol refer to diesel fuel? --Gbleem 22:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to this Commonwealther --Angry mob mulls options 07:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In British English, only when one is being very lazy. Matthew 20:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

And, no offence, gas is a really silly name for it, for obvious reasons. --Guinnog 08:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

This article could use a picture, don't you think? Gasoline is rarely seen out in the open, for obvious safety reasons, and as such the article could benefit from showing exactly what the product looks like. 64.178.101.32 22:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If I remember, next time I get some for my lawn mower I'll siphon off a little into a beaker and take a photo. The only problem is, I've seen the stuff come in a large number of different colors.... a photo might be totally irrelevant. Might try to get a couple different ones in a row. If anyone else thinks this is a good idea, put a note on my talk page, and I'll see what I can do. --Storkk 21:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I think gasoline is supposed to be a clear fluid. Color dye is added to identify the grade of gasoline being sold, and this can vary from producer to producer... colors in Taiwan are (92/95/98: blue/yellow/red). 220.133.92.72 22:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pricing Table

Shouldn't the Price comparison table in the Usage and pricing section be sorted descendingly by price, rather than whatever random order it is currently in. --Martin 13:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a bit of a jumble right now. However, I'm not sure sorting by price is the best choice, given how frequently prices change. It might be more practical to sort the list alphabetically. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If yoou find 95 cent gas anywhere in Canada, let me know, I was filling up at 1.10-1.15 all summer long in and around Vancouver —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.230.106.144 (talk • contribs)

It's currently between $0.97 and $1.01 per litre in the Vancouver area, and has been for at least a week or so. It has come down quite a bit from the summer peak (thank goodness!) --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I left for Ottawa, at the end of summer.

95 cents? That's expensive. I paid about 87 cents in Calgary last week and there were a few stations offering that price. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Price Calculating/Converting

I have noticed the Australian fuel price is out of date seeing as Petrol has dropped in price significantly over the last few weeks ($1.40/litre listed here, its now down around $1.10/litre). I am hopeless at maths but have used the Google Calculator to convert it to $US/gallon (it says $AUD1.11/litre = $US3.13/gallon) but I am not sure how accurate it is. Could someone with the skills to do so calculate this correctly? or... could someone list the equation for this type of conversion? Nickuss - 4 October 2006.

[edit] Quality measures other than octane

There is already an article on Bromine number, but nothing on Reid vapour pressure. William Avery 19:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection from "Petroleum Spirit"

Since petroleum spirit has the same meaning as petrol or gasoline, shouldn't it redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.186.127 (talk)

That makes sense. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Wikipedia too well but how can we do that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.186.127 (talk)

You put in #REDIRECT [[Gasoline]] in a completely blank page. I went ahead and did it for you, at Petroleum spirit. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The second paragraph

The second paragraph (about names etc.) was moved way down near the bottom of the article. I have undone that move, as I think burying the discussion of the name so far down in the article greatly increases the odds of another round of the "gas-petrol" dispute. A move of that nature should be discussed before it is implemented, so... thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible math error on energy content table

I'm not an expert, but the energy content of gasoline is listed as approximately 32 MJ/l or 131 MJ/USgal. I think perhaps that should be 121 MJ/USgal, assuming about 3.79 l/USgal. Could someone in charge of this article please check that? Thanks for maintaining this great information resource! SteveVTS 16 Nov 2006.

[edit] First word of the article?

OK, can of worms, I know, but. I came to this article from List of words having different meanings in British and American English. The first thing that struck me about it is that the first paragraph looks stupid, because it leads off with a word other than the article title. Lest anyone think this is simply pro-U.S. bias, I would think it equally stupid if the hypothetical article Bonnet (car) started off thus: "The hood of a car, also called the bonnet,..." An encyclopedia article should begin by mentioning its own title, IMO. Otherwise it looks as if the article's author didn't quite know what he or she was doing. Certainly the article should not begin by appearing (N.B.) to relegate its own title to some kind of secondary status. I realize this whole article is the product of considerable wrangling and hard-won compromise, but when the resulting article starts out looking as stupid as this one does, I feel compelled to say something. --Tkynerd 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That wasn't intentional - the lead was vandalized by an anon. editor a few hours before you came across it. Thanks for catching that one, though - it has been repaired. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Being a chemist, and British, I feel compelled to add something. The correct term is gasoline, because that is, and always has been, the name of the distillation fraction that is predominantly used to make what I call petrol. I've always thought that petrol was an abbreviation of petroleum spirit, but I bow to the superior knowledge here. But I do know some chemistry, and gasoline is technically correct. Love, Jasper

[edit] Ordering

I think the ordering of this article can be improved, what does everyone else thing? Hqduong 08:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I changed the ordering of information about octane levels in WWII. Everyguy 15:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War II and octane ratings section

This section lacks citations, seems to be an argument between two POVs (perhaps belonging on the discussion page), and does not seem to be located in an appropriate place in the article. I moved it to below the section on octane ratings, where it seems more appropriate, but did not edit it. I feel it probably doesn't belong in this article at all, since it appears to be mainly a historical issue subject to dispute, and would perhaps be better placed in an article about WWII aviation: something like "...historians disagree about the importance of gasoline octane ratings in the performance of fighter planes in the European Theater in World War II. While some believe..." With appropriate citations, of course. Everyguy 15:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My recent revert

I have just reverted edits to this article on the following basis: (1) they were unsourced; (2) they were out of place; (3) they used the term "petrol" instead of "gasoline." Since the article is entitled "Gasoline," that term should be used consistently throughout the article to avoid confusion (unless, for example, the terminology itself is being discussed). Posting here to let everyone know why I did this and to give an opportunity for discussion if needed. --Tkynerd 13:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Combustion of diesel and petrol.

What quantity of gases in grams/litre results from the combustion of one litre of petrol and diesel respectively. The gases that interest me are: carbon dioxide; water vapour; nitrous oxides —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.238.166.32 (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Petrol/ Gasoline naming idea

Now this may be nothing new (I dont know?!) but how about we have a system that determines your location and therefore likely dialect based on your IP address and then that appropriately names the word Petrol if you are from the UK or Gasoline if you are from the USA etc. This can of course be applied to other words. And, if you are for example an American living in the UK then you can use your username settings to set to to the American dialect. What does anyone have to say about that idea? --TheEditor20 16:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the right place for feature requests. And this would probably not be implemented any day soon. -- Sy / ^(talk) 05:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] psychoactive inhalant

It is also used as a psychoactive inhalant.

I removed this phrase from "early uses". First, I'd like to see some documentation about its psychoactive properties. Second, if this is in the early uses section then it should be past-tense. Third, it displaces oxygen which is what gives the "value" for sniffers. -- Sy / ^(talk) 05:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe it is still used this way. JЇѦρ 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shelf life of gasoline/petrol

Does anyone know the average shelf life of gasoline? Thanks Publicus 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure, but I beleive that if it is in a cool, dry area and in a properly sealed container it can store for some time. I'll ask about... Jb17kx 01:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The key words here are "Tightly sealed container". I have a trike that I only run in the summer months, and if I leave petrol in the tank over winter, it's completely useless by spring. The more volatile fractions evaporate off - so unless it's tightly sealed, they'll escape. You can get stabilisers that prevent this, commonly found here in the UK in garden supplies shops for pouring into the tank of your lawnmower in autumn! Slothie 23:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on article name - "will be removed"

Consensus changes, you cannot stop people from discussing the title of this page however infuriating you find their arguments. Discussions on a title are never going to be off topic. I suggest creation of a talk subpage with either copies of the relevant discussion or links to them. Given the page is protected, and people can read your past arguments, I see no need why this should cause anyone undue grief. I will remove the comment regarding removal of discussions, although it is a useful message in reducing recurring discussions. |→ Spaully^₪† 10:26, 24 May 2007 (GMT)

Taking a look at the page itself, it doesn't appear to be move protected. Is it?

These things shouldn't be bluffed, if it is not protected the comment should not say it is. Perhaps you could request page move protection? |→ Spaully^₪† 10:38, 24 May 2007 (GMT)

[edit] Early uses

This is perhaps a minor point, but the early uses talk about gasoline being used for various purposes in the early 19th century, but the next section reveals that the name gasoline was coined in 1865. I think that makes it slightly misleading to claim that gasoline was used earlier. A fairly small adjustment to the wording could make it clearer that what is now known as gasoline (or petrol :-) ) was sold under other names. What was it sold as? Mooncow 21:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detonation vs. Autoignition

The article repeatedly uses the phrase "detonation" to describe autoignition (or pinging or knock or what-have-you). Detonation is not the correct term. A detonation is a premixed flame wave structure which is self-sustaining through the coupling of a shock front and subsequent heat release. There is no wave structure in knock. The correct term is probably autoignition, referring to the phenomenon of a fuel/air premixture which self-ignites due to high ambient temperatures and pressures. Unless someone else wants to argue that point, I'll make the change in a week or so. Thermodude 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you further define the "detonation". I don't understand the "premixed flame wave structure..." How does a flame have a wave structure? F.O.A.R (talk) 06:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

From "Engine Knocking" discussion page...

Time to quote one of the experts in the field..

"Knock is the name given to the noise which is transmitted through the engine structure when essentially spontaneous ignition of a portion of the end-gas-the fuel, air, residual gas, mixture ahead of the propagating flame occurs. When this abnormal combustion process takes place, there is an extremely rapid release of much of the chemical energy in the end-gas, causing very high local pressures and the propagation of pressure waves of substantial amplitude across the combustion chamber. Surface ignition is ignition of the fuelair mixture by a hot spot on the combustion chamber walls such as an overheated valve or spark plug, or glowing combustion chamber deposit: i.e., by any means other than the normal spark discharge. It can occur before the occurrence of the spark (preignition) or after (postignition). Following surface ignition, a turbulent flame develops at each surface-ignition location and starts to propagate across the chamber in an analogous manner to what occurs with normal spark ignition. Because the spontaneous ignition phenomenon that causes knock is governed by the temperature and pressure history of the end gas, and therefore by the phasing and rate of development of the flame, various combinations of these two phenomena-surface ignition and knock- can occur."

and...

"With the chamber geometry'typical' of most engines where the flame propagates toward the cylinder wall, the damage is confined to the thin crescent-shaped regIon on the opposite side of the chamber to the spark plug, where one expects the end-gas to be located. A shock wave propagates from the outer edge of this high-pressure end-gas region across the chamber at supersonic velocity, and an expansion wave propagates into the highpressure region toward the near wall. The presence of such a shock wave has been observed photographicallyItalic text. The shock wave and expansion wave reflect off the walls of the chamber, eventually producing standing waves. Usually these standing waves are due to transverse gas vibration and are of substantial amplitude." -J. Heywood-Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals-

For a more complete explination with photographs read the Heywood book and also read "The internal combustion engine"-C.F.Taylor Pioneer in this area and "The high speed internal combustion engine-Ricardo.

--all this has been argued out on the engine knocking page and on the detonation page and many others.--=Motorhead (talk) 21:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Energy Content/Compression Ratio

I disagree with the claim that higher compression ratios will result in lower UHC emissions and am curious if anyone has data to back it up. Most UHC emissions are from crevice quenching and higher compression ratio would just exacerbate that. Thermodude 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead substitution by aromatics

I have just removed conjecture in the article about problems with substituting lead with aromatics. At the very least, an online discussion forum is not a valid reference. Second, missing from the article anyway is the reason TEL was removed from gasoline to start with - lead poisons catalytic converters. Claims of removing lead for lead-pollutant issues are revisionist history. Second, while aromatics are nasty compounds, most aromatic content is (surprise!) burned out during the combustion event. The exception there is benzene, whose ring is a particularly tough nut to crack. For this reason, in the US, the amount of benzene you can add to gasoline is controlled. There is no controversy in the research community over this, no matter what a discussion board says. Thermodude 20:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gasoline Composition

I love me some posting on the discussion page. Kiphinton stated that gasoline is ideally octane, and then quoted the formula for n-octane. At the least, the "ideal" would be iso-octane (2,2,4-Trimethylpentane), which is not ideal for a host of other reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thermodude (talk • contribs) 03:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead data?

The information about lead in gasoline is interesting but adds up to a hodge-podge. It would be interesting to see a graph of global annual total lead (tons, mass) in gasoline for the last few decades. Does anyone have this data?-69.87.200.233 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MTBEs

This article states that gasoline is up to 18% MTBEs. I don't believe MTBEs are used as gasoline additives at all in the United States. Wpjonathan 02:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I do hope that ethanol has replaced MTBE in all US gasoline, and I would hope that the rest of the world was never crazy enough to use it in the first place. Gam3 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usage

The section on Usage says that the US consumes 0.1 billion gallons per year. This is waaaaay off. According to the reference cited in that section, the US consumes about 0.376 billion gallons per DAY. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.178.67 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Stability

The discussion of gasoline stability is very weak. Sounds like the consumer label off of a bottle of fuel stabilizer. I'd like to know what the stuff is, and what it does ... not what it is supposed to prevent. Someone above suggested that fuel goes stale when the more volatile components are lost due to evaporation, and that keeping a gasoline container tight prevents that loss. Is that all that's needed to keep fuel from going "stale"? If so, then what does a stabilizer do - it does not appear to be made of volatile components as if to replenish them in the fuel, and it is altogether implausible that such an additive would prevent the loss of volatile components. So, I would appreciate a thorough re-write of this section by someone who actually knows something.Axewiki (talk) 05:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictory numbers in Energy Content table

This isn't my field of expertise, but I noticed what seem to be some contradictory numbers or bad conversions in the Energy Content table. For example, Aviation Gasoline is shown as having a lower number of MJ/liter and BTU/gallon than Regular Gasoline, which doesn't sound right. But when converted to MJ/kg, the number is higher than gasoline.

[edit] New name

I have thinked a lot about this and have decided that gasoline/petrol should actually be called gasopetrol.I have reliable sourced that dictate that this is the case.

So you're saying that should go in the article? 71.10.88.69 (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Of course.BTW,I can't seem to be able to sign my IP.85.130.46.4 (talk) 09:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.130.46.4 (talk) 09:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] On Kerosene ??!!

somebody told me, it was used to denote "On Kerosene" vehicles. is it right? --V4vijayakumar (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)