ORIGINAL: gkamysz

Recycled, I know where your data came from. You must be specific about the figures you quote because nobody else seems to understand what you're getting at. http://modelenginenews.org/cornell/p7.html The data in the fuels chart is normalized to engine displacement. If we have an engine design that is equally compromised from each fuel's ideal requirements we would see similar output. Because each fuel has such different characteristics, ideals can be very different, favoring one or the other. We see plenty of examples of diesel converted glow engines making more power than stock. Chances of seeing an F2A diesel are nought. One of these days I'll track down a Q500 or F3D engine and put a diesel head on it. That's an expensive experiment for now though. I'm not going any deeper than this so as not to stray from the intent of this forum. If you look at the chart at the bottom of the page, and dig deep in the data you'll find glow engines that consume less fuel per unit power than some diesels!

As far as kerosene lubricating anything, forget it. It only works as a lubricant for extremely lightly loaded parts, or where the bearings are flooded of pressure fed with relatively small loads. The link about the chain talks about kerosene for cleaning and oil for lubrication. The clock link talks about kerosene being a bad practice. In fact, not one of those links has anything positive to say about kerosene as a lubricant. I'll say that kerosene or a close relative is excellent for cutting aluminum, but I'm sure there are water based lubes that are just as good at the job and better for the environment.

There was a time when engines where very expensive. Extra oil while messy, kept the engine alive for a long time. Today engines are cheap. The typical argument is that if you can save enough money on oil costs, you can replace the engine and still be ahead.