Another thing.  There was a period that I had problems with 56 and the car sat for almost three years w/o being started.  Once I found out what the trouble was (bad ignition parts over and over again) the car restarted okay and it ran fine with some almost i year old 10 %.  Because I am paranoid, I sent the carb out for rebuild just in case - and the rebuilder said it was clean as a whistle- no deposits.


54 Victoria 312;  48 Ford Conv 302, 56 Bird 312
Forever Ford
Midland Park, NJ

This plate has a quantity of 87octane 10% alcohol on a hot and very humid day. The fuel was relatively cool from evaporation and became a good condenser.  It was interesting to watch the water combine with the alcohol and form beads on the bottom of the container. This is what destroys carburetors like the one Kultulz posted.  This fuel sample had far more exposure area than fuel in a carburetor but over time, this will happen.                                                                                                             

64F100 57FAIRLANE500

I purchased my first 1955 Thunderbird in the summer of 1969.  Long before ethanol fuel, unleaded fuel, etc.  So, with leaded, non ethanol fuel, the problem was still there, but maybe jus not quite as bad.  If you run these cars in a hot climate, you are going to boil the fuel out of the carburetor bowl.  Ford tried to solve this problem by equipping the 1955 and 1956 Thunderbirds with a thicker carburetor base gasket.  The 1955 gasket was actually 5 regular gaskets stapled together!  The 1956 model had a single thick gasket.  
There are phenolic blocks made but you need to be careful that it is not too thick as there is very little clearance between the carburetor and the hood on these vehicles.  Many owners put an electric fuel pump in line and wire it to a switch.  They turn on the pump 30 seconds before startup and then shut it off once the vehicle starts.  This is the pleasure of working with 68 year old technology.

"Long before ethanol fuel, unleaded fuel, etc.  So, with leaded, non ethanol fuel, the problem was still there, but maybe jus not quite as bad.  If you run these cars in a hot climate, you are going to boil the fuel out of the carburetor bowl. 

Ford tried to solve this problem by equipping the 1955 and 1956 Thunderbirds with a thicker carburetor base gasket.  The 1955 gasket was actually 5 regular gaskets stapled together!  The 1956 model had a single thick gasket.
 
There are phenolic blocks made but you need to be careful that it is not too thick as there is very little clearance between the carburetor and the hood on these vehicles."

All true ...

Water has always been a problem, even before ethanol laced gasoline. Rusting out of tanks and metal lines was common.

If you remember, pumps had the filter(s) in the glass fuel bowl beneath the pump body (and usually a petcock on the bottom of the fuel tank to drain collected water).

9365 was the actual filter/strainer and 9360 was a magnet (to catch rust particulate from rusted tanks) to prevent (hopefully) early fouling of the filter itself.

____________________________

DANIEL JESSUP POSTED -

"Interestingly enough, I recently posted this video https://youtu.be/W88wjkI7UJE. (Aviation gasoline in my 1955 Ford Fairlane, 292 Y Block, Summit Carburetor, mechanical fuel pump)".

Now that is an excellent write-up!

More informative than most professionally written tech articles ...

____________________________

I enjoyed the reverends video on aviation fuel.  I noticed the 2 MPG increase in fuel economy.  Is that same increase gained is you use regular unleaded non-ethanol fuel such as available in most states?  I know this fuel is available in Nevada at selected stations.  I would be curious to know if there is any advantage of traveling there and buying a 100 gallons to use in my classic cars.  I have always been told that using a higher octane fuel in a car that is not high compression is a waste of money.  So I am wondering if just the elimination of the ethanol is a factor in increased fuel economy?

____________________________

"I noticed the 2 MPG increase in fuel economy.  Is that same increase gained is you use regular unleaded non-ethanol fuel such as available in most states? 

I am wondering if just the elimination of the ethanol is a factor in increased fuel economy?

This should explain it - https://www.thecarburetorshop.com/Ethanoluse.htm

____________________________

Sorry fellas, been in the kitchen (and at the table) lately... also took a trip to Solvang, California, a quaint little Danish town that happened to be very nice.

On the fuel mileage increase - my fault for not clarifying. That was indeed an increase over running the non-ethanol gas. (89 octane) 

Your comments and own findings are much appreciated. On the ethanol fuel and my experiment a few years back with that temporary glass cylinder fuel filter... it was very evident to me what the fuel was doing. I do have another clip of running pure gas and the fuel not boiling/staying full in the filter/etc. I did have that clip in the extended version, just disregard some of the temporary setup I had under the hood there, it all did not last long. That video is here: https://vimeo.com/354777491

Daniel Jessup

Lancaster, California

aka "The Hot Rod Reverend"
check out the 1955 Ford Fairlane build at www.hotrodreverend.com

Probably a bit off the original topic here but here are the comments I made regarding the BTU content and its effect on fuel mileage posted awhile back.



Here’s the link to the post from which that came from.
http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/FindPost163552.aspx 

Performing a search on this forum using ‘BTU’ as the search criteria brings up a number of discussions regarding this topic.

Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)