[MRCA] PU-181 Generator Fuel/Lube

[Mike Hanz]

Or the two cycle engine enthusiast groups.  I agree with Chris and 
Robert - the current 2 cycle oil can't be beat.  Stihl has a synthetic 
that they introduced about eight years ago after firmly resisting the 
change for years, based on extensive research into the peculiar needs of 
a 2 cycle engine, and though it's a bit pricey for 16:1 (they suggest 
50:1 in their products but then the materials have changed), I would 
think that it would reduce wear to as close to zero as it is possible to 
get.  I pulled one of my Stihl implements apart after seven years of 
hard use, and there appears to be none of the usual small air cooled 
engine wear marks at all.

     73,
  - Mike

On 4/15/2014 7:12 AM, Chris Bowne wrote:
> The antique engine guys on the smokestak  forum might have some good 
> advice on this.  I have run 16/1 mix in my GRC-9 PE-162 no problem 
> using current manufacture 2 cycle oil.  Great multi tasking 
> genny...it's a genset AND a mosquito fogger!
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Apr 14, 2014, at 15:38, Tim <timsamm at gmail.com 
> <mailto:timsamm at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> OK Wise Guys - here's a question for you regarding engine oil and 
>> concentration.
>>
>> The PU-181/PGC-1 is a 2-stroke gas generator rated at 300W, 240/120 
>> VAC.  It uses a Jacobsen GE-12F engine.  The generator is designed 
>> for the PGC-1 TTY terminal but also for general purpose use.  It has 
>> a completely shielded ignition system - it is radio friendly. This 
>> same engine is also used to power the GRC-9 DC generator adaptation.
>>
>> The placard on the fuel tank advises a _16:1 fuel-oil ratio_.  It 
>> states to use SAE 10 weight below 32 degrees F and SAE 30 for 
>> operation above 32 degrees F.
>>
>> However, the Tech Manual TM11-943 "Engine Generator PU-181/PGC-1" (US 
>> Army 1951) states to use a _32:1 fuel-oil ratio_ and it says to use 
>> SAE 10 lube oil, it says nothing about SAE 30 or temperature.
>>
>> So regarding mix ratio, which is it?  I don't know if there were any 
>> post-1951 tech advisories that addresses this apparent discrepancy.
>>
>> Comments?  Thanks
>> Tim
>> N6CC

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.qth.net/pipermail/mrca/attachments/20140415/8f547b90/attachment.html>