Talk:Gasoline/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

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)

Since when was Google representative of the world's population? A lot of Americans use the internet, and are likely to call it 'gasoline'. That does not make it 'more common' it just makes it 'more often found in websites'. 86.144.69.48 (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Petrol" is the proper term for "Gasoline" IMO, because Gas is something completely different, whilst petrol is based on Oil. And anyway, English was first spoken in Britain, therefore the UK term will always be the proper term, not the North American one. --Daondo (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 gasoline[email protected] 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.

If Nil Einne is British, he/she suffers from worse English skills than he/she is complaining about. "Who care's" should have no apostrophe; "entomology/entyomology" is irrelevant to this discussion (etymology is more relevant); "draw to much" should be "too"; "that was it's original" possessive pronouns have no apostrophe (cf ours, theirs, hers, yours, its); "more likely to recognise gasoline then a user/cultures other then theirs" make no sense (the word "than" is used in comparison while "then" is used in sequence). These glaring errors significantly undermine any merit his/her argument may have had. 58.171.144.192 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

Possessive pronouns have no apostrophe. 58.171.144.192 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1. 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.
2. Spanish is but one language.
3. 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.
4. "except that countries don't speak, people do" Don't be pedantic - I was typing fast.
5. "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)

Read Wikipedia:Search engine test#Google unique page count issues which concludes Caution must be used in judging the relative importance of websites yielding well over 1000 search results.58.171.144.192 (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I use the word "petrol" in English and Afrikaans, but I would be amazed if you could find more than five English-speaking Wikipedia users who don't know what "gasoline" means. The use of "gasoline" in the article title and text is clear and unambiguous. Any attempt to change the article is in my opinion motivated by a strong partisanship either towards the English Commonwealth dialect or against the American English dialects. I most strongly oppose messing with page contents just to satisfy dialect preference, and vehemently oppose messing with article titles for these reasons. The users above who wonder why we're wasting time on this BS have my sympathy as well. --Slashme (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply call this page 'petroleum spirt'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.64.180 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

I realize that this discussion took place quite some time ago, but I would just like to point out that while our gasoline prices may be lower than yours (although at this point, they are surely catching up) our nation is much more spread out and we travel by automobile much more than you Britons do. Illinois2011 (talk) 04:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could cite the page number or quote the exact wording so I can do a search and find it. When I searched through all instances of ethanol, I found no such requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like all editors to "bury the hatchet" pertaining to the gasoline/petrol debate and declare it was a childish arguement. The article started as gasoline and it ought to remain gasoline. If we can achive final consensus we can end the chance of any ressurection. Mabye we could even create a policy called Wikipedia:Don't contest the name of the Gasoline article. All those in favor, say {{Vote-Support}}!--Ipatrol (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The article title should be Petroleum Spirit. But it looks like we're stuck with it as gasoline for now. 94.192.81.181 (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

oppose, it was hilarious, I almost LOLed at work because of it. And it should be Gasoline ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.246.4 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could cite the page number or quote the exact wording so I can do a search and find it. When I searched through all instances of ethanol, I found no such requirement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 19:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like all editors to "bury the hatchet" pertaining to the gasoline/petrol debate and declare it was a childish arguement. The article started as gasoline and it ought to remain gasoline. If we can achive final consensus we can end the chance of any ressurection. Mabye we could even create a policy called Wikipedia:Don't contest the name of the Gasoline article. All those in favor, say {{Vote-Support}}!--Ipatrol (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. The article title should be Petroleum Spirit. But it looks like we're stuck with it as gasoline for now. 94.192.81.181 (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

oppose, it was hilarious, I almost LOLed at work because of it. And it should be Gasoline ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.246.4 (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Don`t you see, this is not picture of gasoline? Gas can, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GasCan.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.199.67.131 (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

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.--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nosecohn (talk • contribs) 25 April 2008‎

I have another remark regarding the Energy content section. Is the displayed energy content the true energy content or the energy content when used in a conventional internal combustion engine (this would change the figurs greatly as eg gasoline is burnt here with 20% efficiency; while hydrogen is burnt with 40-60% efficiency) --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.78.87 (talk • contribs) 25 September 2009‎

Does premium gas have a (consistently) higher energy density? Everything I've read suggests it doesn't. In any case, not *that* higher.

I'll remove it unless anyone can source it. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

---

a "higher energy density" can be affected by temperature, but as far as I know, it has nothing to do with the octane (regular/premium). I have heard that Canadian gas stations use a method to adjust the price of a gallon of gasoline according to the temperature at the pump, I don't have an official source for that.--Inwood5000 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The article contained this statement:

It has also been suggested that the word gasoline was coined by Edward Butler in 1887.

The statement was accompanied by this reference:

"Keeping track: All fired up about `petrol'". Daily Telegraph. 2002-02-01.

The URL originally cited in the reference was no longer working, but I found a new URL to the same article, and I've already changed that in the reference above.

Unfortunately, the article does NOT say Butler coined "gasoline". It describes a claim that Butler invented the term "petrol".

So I've removed the statement and the reference from the article. 67.164.125.7 (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The premise of this section, that gasoline of higher octane rating is of better quality, is wrong. Engines need high compression to generate high power output, this can only be achieved by using high octane fuel to prevent pinking. High octane rating means that the fuel is less explosive, a characteristic of fuel that can be obtained from less valuable types of oil without the addition of specialised chemicals. The requirement of high octane fuel is a consequence of engine development and not of wartime necessity as the section states.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Sweet jesus, you better HOPE it's not liquid hydrogen. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

"It has been suggested that octane rating be merged into (a section of) the Gasoline article."

I would say no, because the Octane rating article is large and detailed enough to form an own article. By keeping the summary + link of it in the Gasoline article we would ensure both a limited and a detailed information availability as required.

I agree with the above statement. There is a brief but detailed enough explanation of octane ratings in the gasoline article. The octane rating article should remain a separate article, especially considering its size and depth.

Any other points of view are welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.89.193.59 (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The title of the article is "gasoline"--but it's not the topic of the Etymology section at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.92.218 (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite. I've come to this too late to participate in the whole 'petrol vs gasoline' debate, unfortunately, but if the title of this petroleum-based product's article is to be Gasoline, then the etymology should address that word and not petrol. Blitterbug (talk) 10:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It should address both; the article's title doesn't make the etymology of the term "petrol" any less relevant. —David Levy 10:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Gasoline#Density says 719.7 kg/m³, Gasoline#Energy content says 740 kg/m³. Which is it? DES (talk) 19:22, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the article, gasoline's density is highly variable. Gasoline is not a pure substance but a variable blend of many components. Its left to the manufacturer on a case by case basis as to what components are present. The variability begins with the different crude oils used to make it.--=Motorhead (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This begs the question. At best, what you're saying is that both sections are wrong. However, there must be some sort of benchmark gasoline mix used to compute mileage and emission numbers, just like there is a benchmark engine used to compute RON and MON figures, and the article should include this information. Perhaps that is where the (unreferenced) 719.7 kg/m³ number comes from? DES (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a benchmark mix, meanwhile I found that there is a difference between pure and auto petrol: [4] Gasoline, natural 60 F :711.22 Gasoline, Vehicle 60 F :737.22. Density could also change between summer and winter mixes.

[5] :Density is a function of fuel composition and is already constrained by volatility, distillation properties and aromatics and olefin content. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

From [6] Petrol in the UK is sold under the BS EN 228 specification which permits the density of the fuel to lie anywhere between 0.720 and 0.775kg/litre. This flexibility is necessary because petrol is not a single substance but is made up of many different hydrocarbons, depending on crude oil source and the configuration of the refinery producing the fuel. Density may also alter during the year as a result of blending changes needed to produce fuels of different volatility for winter and summer for example. There is thus a considerable range of fuel density, but in practice most petrol will have a density lying in the range 0.735 to 0.76kg/litre. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a tag {{Merge From}} tag left by an Anonymous Editor on Edit 266304322 oat 12:50, 25 January 2009. He or She did not leave any rationale on why it should be merged. Personally I am against this merger for various reasons including Article Size (A combined size will makes this 50 KB article almost 70 KB long the Guideline say to avoid making it larger than 32 KB and that articles large than 60 KB should probably be divided which would make us go back to this point), The fact that Octane Ratings don't just cover gasoline, but other things like diesel fuel and ethanol (Full 100% Ethanol and E85 which has it's own article), and The subject appears to be notable enough to warrant it's own article. If anyone still think these articles should still be merged please go ahead and open a discussion here and follow the directions at WP:Merge. As for now I am Strongly Against the merge per my rationale above. Sawblade5 ^{(talk to me | my wiki life)} 06:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

This section doesn't adequately address recreational abuse and it doesn't address accidental internal ingestion (i.e. siphoning) at all. It would be nice to know what the immediate threats to health are (chemical burns?) and what the more long-term effects can be (lead and aromatic rings?). 74.178.245.217 (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to make petrol/gasoline biologically? Breweries use yeast to make ethanol (alcohol) - though I am, of course, aware that ethanol is a carbohydrate rather than a hydrocarbon. Would it be possible to make it by "refining" vegetable oil? Thanks for any responses! --New Thought (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My own question is partially answered in the algae fuel article, which I have just noticed. --New Thought (talk) 10:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Gasoline should redirect to petrol, not the other way around. The American usage is non-standard.124.197.15.138 (talk) 04:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see the archived discussions. —David Levy 05:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/osha/qtly-sum01.htm

Accidents involving gasoline are a major cause of burns in the United States. These result from the misuse and lack of proper knowledge for the safe handling and use of gasoline. When vaporized, one cup of gasoline has the explosive equivalence of five sticks of dynamite. One gallon of vaporized gasoline has the equivalence of twenty sticks of dynamite. The fireball created can reach temperatures as high as 15,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Also, gasoline vapors are heavier than air and can cause ignition of the liquid gasoline from as far as twelve feet away.

What are the chemical and physical aspects of gasoline which make it so dangerous? Gasoline has a flash point of -45 degrees Fahrenheit, which means that the liquid, even when chilled to 45 degrees below zero, can still produce sufficient vapor to support its combustion. Gasoline also has a vapor density of three to four times the weight of air, so that the gasoline vapors travel and sink to the ground or lowest point. The vapors can accumulate in pits or in enclosed spaces, where an accidental spark, pilot light, dropped match or cigarette could ignite the vapor and travel back to the original container or tank of gasoline. Gasoline fires can also start from static electricity. Pouring gasoline into ungrounded containers, or containers which allow the buildup of static electricity can cause a gasoline fire. Clothes that have been contaminated with gasoline and put into dryers have caused fires.--Sponsion (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The article says"...In North America, the word gasoline is the common term, where it is often shortened in colloquial usage to gas". That's just wrong. The common term is gas. I know it's the shortened form of gasoline, but it's also far more common. Nobody talks about going to the gasoline station. Let's get that terminology right. HiLo48 (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I purchase "gasoline" at the "filling station."

Sure, the substance is commonly referred to as "gas," but the above text accurately explains the widely known fact that this is an informal abbreviation. —David Levy 08:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You have actually just perfectly demonstrated my point.The article says "gasoline is the common term". You say "the substance is commonly referred to as gas." I say "yep." HiLo48 (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say or mean that the substance is commonly referred to as "gas" exclusively. "Gasoline" is common too. And when "gas" is used, it's understood to be a short form of "gasoline." Either way, "gasoline" is what's meant. —David Levy 08:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll just say again, while gasoline may be what's meant, gas IS the more common term. Term is the word used in the article. For gasoline. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't appear to quite understand my point. To try a different approach, your argument is analogous to claiming that "Josh" is a more common first name than "Joshua" is.

Regardless, I've replaced "the word gasoline is the common term" with "the substance is called gasoline." Does that address your concern? —David Levy 10:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I realise gasoline is the name used widely in the US, but the fact that the first sentence of the article states that it's called petrol outside of North America kind of suggests a world wide reference should refer to it as petrol, the widespread name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.47.178 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Gasoline/Archive 2. —David Levy 21:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In addition I disagree with the idea that the term "gasoline" is only used in North America and the Philippines. For example it is used in Japan as well, granted it is often transliterated into the Japanese writing system, but not always. In fact signage is quite often in English and uses the romanized spelling "Gasoline". I understand that this is anecdotal evidence and will need to be referenced in order to add it to the article, but the sentence "Gasoline (North America and Philippine English) or petrol (outside North America)..." needs references too. If none are supplied I feel the sentence should be worded as "Gasoline, or petrol,..." to reflect standard style guidelines. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 05:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think all the discussion of the etymology besides a mention of the other accepted name belongs down in the Etymology section and not in the lead. Of course I do not in anyway think it should be removed, just placed in the area set aside for it. Colincbn (talk) 06:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The following is copied from User talk:Ckatz

I noticed you reverted my change to the Gasoline article with no discussion whatsoever. I would like to point out that before I made any changes I brought up the the issue on the talk page in question. I waited over twenty four hours then I made the change with an explanation as to why in my edit summary. I am an established editor who has never, not even once, been involved in any kind of edit war or other shenanigans. I think using the Revert function here is uncalled for. This was a good faith edit that improves the article. Before making a change you should have added to the conversation on the talk page first.

Now I will not revert your revert because I follow the voluntary 1 Revert Rule, however my points still stand. First, the idea that the term Gasoline is only used in North America and the Philippines is in fact wrong. It is used throughout Asia. As I previously stated on the talk page. I realize this is anecdotal and will need references before adding it to the article. But the current lead has zero references as well. As the guideline says: "no information is better than unreferenced information". That sentence was the only one in which any information was removed. Unreferenced information.

The etymology bits are less of a concern for me. As you were clicking the "revert" button, which I'm sure you remember is considered inappropriate for good faith edits, I hope you took the time to read the diff. You will see that I removed none of that information and simply placed it in the etymology section, were I feel it belongs. If you and others feel this is necessary in the lead I will gladly concede the point although my opinion remains the same.

I understand you were doing what you felt was best and I assume you meant no offence. However even if you did feel undoing my change was necessary I feel you should have brought it up on the talk page first. Like I did before I made the change in question. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Colincbn: I agree with your rationale and support the change.

However, you appear to have confused the undo function (an appropriate means of reverting good-faith edits) with the rollback function (which Ckatz did not use). —David Levy 02:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... Well then an apology is in order. Colincbn (talk) 02:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(Apologized on Ckats's Talk Page) One more point: It seems that in most cases of a major spelling or wording difference of an article's title a link to American and British English differences is added after the alternate spelling. I propose this is the most acceptable way to handle this article as well. Colincbn (talk) 02:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Since no one has objected here to this change I will go ahead and reword the first sentence to point to American and British English differences instead of the unreferenced and inaccurate sentence that is currently there. Colincbn (talk) 02:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It can also be argued that the US has strong ties to this article, as their use of petrol is far in excess of the global (and European) average.--86.162.76.42 (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone expand on what dye is used in Australian unleaded petrol ? I know it looks purple, but that's all. Also, what chemical name/actual name do these dyes have?DaveDodgy (talk) 07:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not called either gasoline or petrol... it's plainly called fuel. To many Europeans, it's also called benzine! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.176.38.239 (talk) 00:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Petrol is derived from Petroleum, another name for Oil. Benzene is a solvent with many uses, one of which is a gasoline additive. Fuel can refer to Gasoline, Wood, Nuclear Rods, Jet Fuel, etc. With a bit of googling I found that "Gasolene" was used as early as 1865, and "Petrol" was first used in 1892. If someone can find a reliable source for the former, that would establish Gasoline as the term that has been in use longer. Also, I found this interesting article, and there seem to be sources quoting other portions of this article. Popular Mechanics Magazine, Vol. 76, No. 6, December, 1941. http://www.rense.com/general67/FORD.HTM http://www.hempmuseum.org/ROOMS/ARM%20PLASTICS.htm 98.127.168.159 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Fossil fuel for reciprocating piston engines equipped with spark plugs" is an active redirect to this article; use it wisely. BobisOnlyBob (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please let's not start the naming debate again. Check this out: [7] - the proper scientific name (in any version of English worldwide) and the name used throughout the oil industry (in any version of English worldwide) is gasoline. Let it rest. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 03:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Canadians NEVER use the word petrol. The implication of such should be changed to reflect reality. Canadians unanimously use gasoline or gas. 173.180.193.74 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm flexing my English minor and editing place(s) where the article demands citations for the word "gasoline" being universal in North America, because the word is. What kind of citations could prove that? I suppose a link to the Trademark or Patent Offices, where a person could see it has never been registered, or a dictionary entry, neither of which are very academically interesting. I will put in caveats that it is only in N.A., but I believe the word is in common enough usage that citations are unnecessary. It's like needing a citation that the sun is not within the atmosphere of the Earth. Echo5Joker (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2010 (CST)

IIRC 'gasoline' has always been the term in the US although I'm not sure about Canada. The Commonwealth term 'petrol' was originally a trade name, another being 'Pratt's Motor Spirit', and similar. 'Motor Spirit' was the refinery's term for car petrol whereas Avgas was called 'Aviation Spirit'. Quite why 'petrol' became the generic name I don't know.

Just as an aside, in the 1950s-70s UK 'pump' petrol was available in four octane ratings:

5 Star (*****) - 100 octane - for sports cars and high compression engines - similar to Avgas but lower quality

4 Star (****) - 96 octane

3 Star (***) - 93 octane

2 Star (**) - 87 octane

5 Star was phased out sometime in the 1980s IIRC, with the introduction of unleaded fuels. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.82.52 (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone involved in editing this page is invited to discuss a better lead image at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Gasoline. Thanks! Jujutacular ^talk 04:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Some fuels such as nitrous oxide, liquid nitrogen, liquid oxigen, ... are not mentioned. Nitrous oxide, ... are usable as monopropellants, so having their energetic values in the table would be useful. 91.182.237.234 (talk) 10:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

N2O & O2 are oxidizers, not fuels. By themselves they don't do anything and have no energy content as fuels. Nitrogen is so inert it's used to inflate airplane tires. Santamoly (talk) 05:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I revised the article pretty strongly today. The focus was to deliver to readers general information on gasoline that is relevant, but not too technical. I considered removing some of the many .com links, but they contain useful information and these links are available to everyone unlike the technical books and reviews. Feel free to contact me or leave a note here is you have questions.--Smokefoot (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: "In many countries, gasoline has a colloquial name derived from that of the chemical benzene (e.g., German Benzin, Dutch Benzine)."

I doubt that 'Benzin(e)' is derived from 'benzene'. Rather, it seems likely to me that 'benzine' and 'benzene' were derived from the same source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyphatma (talk • contribs) 05:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A collector had a sign from a new England garage which has Gasolene as a spelling. Was that ever a real spelling? Would make an intersting addition if anyone could find it 86.43.110.186 (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In the Appendix, the citation (#3) for Butanol has no reference to Butanol. The citation should be removed and [citation needed] inserted, though I don't have time now. 128.12.48.61 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

There's quite a few places where the regional clause of WP:Keep In Mind apply, wondering if we should change them? Specifically, Australian calls it petrol. EU's a little tricky, bensin for the most part, but I do believe they call it petrol when speaking English (ostensibly to an Englishman).

Will make the article appear quite fragmented though. T for thoughts?

(BTW, English is a 3rd language for me, so I've no qualms about AE / BE) 58.27.115.117 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Gasoline is good for use as a cleaning agent for metal products. The metal that is rusted has rust particles that needs to be brushed away before applying paint/oil. Some particles which cause grinding are so heavily rusted that they cannot be removed but with cleaning agents such as gas. Also the tires of your car can be cleaned with gas. Tires leave small pebbles wedged deep in the rubber esp moped tires which allow penetration usually on a hot day. Gas would remove small particles such as bits of grain, glass, and treacherous amounts of unseen sharp fragments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen 91 octane for years, it is in no way called "regular" nor is it "ordinary".

95 octane is called "regular" and 98 octane "premium" or "super" almost across the board. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.144.222 (talk) 10:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

According to "Ancient Inventions" by Peter James and Nick Thorpe (Ballantine Books, New York, 1994), p. 463: "In the third century A.D. the baths at Constantinople used gasoline to provide underfloor heating and hot water. Subterranean vaults contained vast numbers of glass or earthenware lamps filled with gasoline, which enabled the required air and water temperature to be reached more quickly than the usual wood-burning method. Massive amounts of gasoline must have been consumed, since just one of these baths, the "Kaminia," was used by more than two thousand people a day." They cite R.G. Forbes, "Studies in Ancient Technology," 2nd ed., Leiden, vol. 1., p. 83-85. This fact, if true, ought to be mentioned in the "Early Uses" section.

Gasoline/petrol is a mixture of different hydrocarbons that have been distilled or cracked from the base crude. Any ancient culture is unlikely to have used this mix. Kerosene, paraffin etc could have been what these cultures were using.

TheFarg (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

we don't have a 'History of Gasoline' section? Vranak (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done as a draft. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made the proposal to generally prefer "gasoline" over "petrol" at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles#Usually_Gasoline.2C_but_sometimes_Petrol. Please comment there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame you ignored the discussion above under "Gasoline versus Petrol". You could maybe have saved us all some time. HiLo48 (talk) 12:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't ignore it?? The proposal I made is consistent with the IP's objective, but I am made the proposal for different reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The article lists incorrect information for octane ratings in the USA. In the USA, octane ratings (RON) are usually 87-89-91 (regular-mid-premium). In high-altitude areas (generally over 4,000 feet) regular is 85.5, mid-grade is 87 and premium is 91. See http://www.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas-overview/fuels-and-refining/gasoline/what-about-octane.aspx Banjodog (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Should the Sunshine-to-Petrol project be mentioned at the see also section (see Sunshine-to-Petrol project and http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-content/gallery/uploads/S2P_SAND2009-5796P.pdf )? I'm not sure as syngas (like hydrogen) has very poor storability properties.

I mentioned biobutanol however allready at the see also section as this is without doubt a useful replacement fuel (suitable storability properties, does not require engine modification) 91.182.179.185 (talk) 08:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Glass jars are not safe containers for gasoline and there's just recently been a horrific accident in the UK where a housewife tried to fill gasoline into a jug (although this was compounded by the fact she filled it next to a lit cooker.) In any event, maybe it would be a good idea to not use this image in order to not encourage unsafe fuel handling practices. People get the stupidest ideas. Cancun771 (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Some areas, where two language-origins people connect, are some confusing situations: some South Americans countries call gasoline=>naphtha, other countrys call Diesel=>Petrol (petróleo - petrolero), And other's ones Gasoline=>Petrol. In North America call Gasoline=>Gas. Picture a Old lady pouring "Petrol in a Gasoline's car", not very funny. Why do you "petrol", "Gas", "Naphtha", "petrolero" people stop making "shorts" names, and avoid confusing other people!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.128.37 (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't add fuel to the fire! :-) --Marc Kupper|talk 19:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The article does not mention the shift from "regular" to "unleaded." Did this only happen in California? When I started driving the gas stations had "regular" and "premium" with some offering a mid-grade fuel. At some point "unleaded" fuel was introduced. People were accidentally putting "regular" in a car that expected "unleaded" which damaged the catalytic converter. The fuel opening for unleaded cars was changed to have a narrower opening and unleaded pumps were refitted with a narrower nozzle. I believe aftermarket inserts were available that you could put in an older unleaded car's fuel opening to prevent insertion of a "regular" fuel nozzle.

Today the pumps have "regular unleaded", a mid-grade unleaded fuel, and "premium unleaded."

The catalytic converter article says those first showed up in production cars in 1975. Thus I'm guessing that's when "unleaded" fuel became available. I remember there were news articles about the phase-out and removal of "regular" but can't remember when that was. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:42, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

If the title of the article is "gasoline", the term used in the article should be "gasoline". There are several places in the article where "petrol" is used instead of "gasoline". This is not to refuel the debate on "gasoline" vs. "petrol", but it doesn't make sense to interchange the terms throughout the article. —danhash (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Students wishing to compute a Carnot_efficiency#Efficiency of an engine, would want to know at what temperature gasoline burns. Also of interest, at what temperature does it ignite, and detonate as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.77.66.65 (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently says this: "Legislation requires retailers to label fuels containing ethanol on the dispenser, and limits ethanol use to 10% of gasoline in Australia. Such gasoline is commonly called E10 by major brands, and it is cheaper than regular unleaded gasoline."

Dunno how true this is. You can get E85 at the pump now and some cars (e.g.: some Holden Commodores) can take E85. It's still early days for it though - the fuel isn't common here, but it would seem that there's no legislation against it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoorayForZo1dberg (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Ethanol is added to gasoline in order to alter the vapor pressure, not as an extender or alternative fuel 2600:1005:B10A:F0F4:2216:D8FF:FE2D:AACC (talk) 17:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)