|
|
Post by blazerrose on Jan 12, 2014 4:35:19 GMT
Well, this did have some science to it, despite it being an advertising vehicle for the Moonshiners show.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 13, 2014 5:04:26 GMT
Pretty much, yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 13, 2014 16:30:14 GMT
Considering that the main objection to ethanol-blended gasoline is that it damages fuel hoses and engine gaskets, it would have been nice if they'd let a mechanic check over those cars before saying that running an unmodified car on moonshine was confirmed.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 13, 2014 16:34:36 GMT
Considering that the main objection to ethanol-blended gasoline is that it damages fuel hoses and engine gaskets, it would have been nice if they'd let a mechanic check over those cars before saying that running an unmodified car on moonshine was confirmed. also check out the cars for WHY they quit - although with mandated ethanol blend, the original issue - clogged filters and orifices - shouldn't be an issue, any more. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 15, 2014 3:35:09 GMT
I fill this episode was fluff. This episode just seemed forced for the most part and not particularly interesting to watch.
For the car test, why limit it to the 73/98/13 Camaro? To be true to the story, moonshiners would have been putting liquor into the tanks of 1930's and 1940's Chevrolets & Fords. I know this would not be practical for them, but they should have stuck to carbureted vehicles and not tested fuel injected models.
Off the cuff observation: Was Grant wearing black eyeliner and/or mascara??
|
|
|
|
Post by blazerrose on Jan 15, 2014 7:10:03 GMT
Yes, he was. Kari tweeted it was the producer's idea to be more in the spirit of the 90s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 15, 2014 13:20:54 GMT
For the car test, why limit it to the 73/98/13 Camaro? To be true to the story, moonshiners would have been putting liquor into the tanks of 1930's and 1940's Chevrolets & Fords. As I recall (and without pulling the aftershow back up), it was partly because this was, after all, a tie-in with the Moonshiners show (hence modern moonshining), and partly because who in their right mind is going to loan the MBs a running-condition 1930's car? One of my friends recalls the Dukes of Hazard using moonshine in the General Lee, if that's accurate that explains the muscle cars. (Would Prohibition-era moonshiners have used their product for fuel? It would have been more cost-effective to sell the 'shine and buy gas. I can almost see this being done in the 40s to bypass fuel rationing ... but getting the mash ingredients under food rationing would have been harder.) |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 15, 2014 14:14:27 GMT
Yes, he was. Kari tweeted it was the producer's idea to be more in the spirit of the 90s. I suppose then it would have been guyliner & manscara. Either way, it was a bit on the creepy side... |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 15, 2014 14:18:21 GMT
For the car test, why limit it to the 73/98/13 Camaro? To be true to the story, moonshiners would have been putting liquor into the tanks of 1930's and 1940's Chevrolets & Fords. As I recall (and without pulling the aftershow back up), it was partly because this was, after all, a tie-in with the Moonshiners show (hence modern moonshining), and partly because who in their right mind is going to loan the MBs a running-condition 1930's car? One of my friends recalls the Dukes of Hazard using moonshine in the General Lee, if that's accurate that explains the muscle cars. (Would Prohibition-era moonshiners have used their product for fuel? It would have been more cost-effective to sell the 'shine and buy gas. I can almost see this being done in the 40s to bypass fuel rationing ... but getting the mash ingredients under food rationing would have been harder.) Yes, the 30's/40's-era vehicles were not a feasible option for the test, but there are lots of other vehicle choices. Pick something for the 60's/70's/80's (and some from the 90's) and you'd still have a carberator rather than fuel injection. Also, judging by Moonshiners, it seems like modern-day moonshiners are more likely to be driving pick-ups than passenger or muscle cars. Why not test the myth on trucks & see what happens? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2014 15:08:35 GMT
For the car test, why limit it to the 73/98/13 Camaro? To be true to the story, moonshiners would have been putting liquor into the tanks of 1930's and 1940's Chevrolets & Fords. As I recall (and without pulling the aftershow back up), it was partly because this was, after all, a tie-in with the Moonshiners show (hence modern moonshining), and partly because who in their right mind is going to loan the MBs a running-condition 1930's car? One of my friends recalls the Dukes of Hazard using moonshine in the General Lee, if that's accurate that explains the muscle cars. (Would Prohibition-era moonshiners have used their product for fuel? It would have been more cost-effective to sell the 'shine and buy gas. I can almost see this being done in the 40s to bypass fuel rationing ... but getting the mash ingredients under food rationing would have been harder.) on the Dukes, it was Uncle Jesse's car they ran the shine in - and IIRC, that was a 60s era car. as for moonshine as fuel - legend was they did it for smuggling purposes. you fill the gas tank with shine, drive to the delivery point, and siphon it back out - leaving some to get home on. |
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 16, 2014 14:54:11 GMT
All my books on Prohibition are at home, but as I recall liquor smugglers would put a second tank into their car for the booze, one not connected to the fuel system. Granted, a lot of the liquor smuggling wasn't moonshine -- considering the troubles they had starting a car with 150 proof shine, 80 proof whisky wasn't going to work at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 16, 2014 14:57:35 GMT
All my books on Prohibition are at home, but as I recall liquor smugglers would put a second tank into their car for the booze, one not connected to the fuel system. Granted, a lot of the liquor smuggling wasn't moonshine -- considering the troubles they had starting a car with 150 proof shine, 80 proof whisky wasn't going to work at all. A "dummy tank" of sorts? That would definitely change the scope of the myth. How fast would the car be able to go with a second tank full of liquor? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 16, 2014 15:36:57 GMT
All my books on Prohibition are at home, but as I recall liquor smugglers would put a second tank into their car for the booze, one not connected to the fuel system. Granted, a lot of the liquor smuggling wasn't moonshine -- considering the troubles they had starting a car with 150 proof shine, 80 proof whisky wasn't going to work at all. A "dummy tank" of sorts? That would definitely change the scope of the myth. How fast would the car be able to go with a second tank full of liquor? four pounds per gallon - more or less... |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Jan 16, 2014 15:39:03 GMT
All my books on Prohibition are at home, but as I recall liquor smugglers would put a second tank into their car for the booze, one not connected to the fuel system. Granted, a lot of the liquor smuggling wasn't moonshine -- considering the troubles they had starting a car with 150 proof shine, 80 proof whisky wasn't going to work at all. That would explain why hidden compartments on vehicles are illegal in some States. It would have allowed the police to make an arrest even if the dummy tank was empty. |
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 16, 2014 15:47:29 GMT
I suppose a more devious way of smuggling using a dummy tank would be to disconnect the vehicle's fuel tank from the fuel lines (fill this one with shine) and fill the dummy tank with the gas after connecting it to the fuel lines.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antigone68104 on Jan 27, 2014 15:09:21 GMT
I haven't found a primary source yet, but I've found secondary sources for tanks installed in cars (and one in an airplane) specifically to haul bulk alcohol. Smuggling via train seemed to have been mainly crates of bottled liquor, either hidden behind legal cargo or labeled as legal cargo.
In 1925, gasoline prices ran around 23 cents per gallon. I'm pretty sure the "alky cookers" in urban slums were paid more than that for their illegal booze.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2014 16:10:02 GMT
I haven't found a primary source yet, but I've found secondary sources for tanks installed in cars (and one in an airplane) specifically to haul bulk alcohol. Smuggling via train seemed to have been mainly crates of bottled liquor, either hidden behind legal cargo or labeled as legal cargo. In 1925, gasoline prices ran around 23 cents per gallon. I'm pretty sure the "alky cookers" in urban slums were paid more than that for their illegal booze. just as ethanol fuel manufacturers are paid more, now? |
|
