Gas

wlewis_old · June 28, 2011 at 8:13 PM

I've always run 93 octane E10 and the car runs fine. I'm wondering if 89 octane, ethanol free marine gas might be better. Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Walter

zray · June 28, 2011 at 8:29 PM

I've never had any issues with 91/93 octane E-10. Using anything else seems trying to find a solution for a non existent problem.

whether using E-10 gas or not, if you not going to starting your engine for several weeks then using a gas additive such as Stabil is a wise move.

z.

wlewis_old · June 28, 2011 at 9:37 PM

I realize I don't have a problem and am not trying to create one. Since I've always heard gas with ethanol produces less energy, I merely am wondering if 100% gas rather than 90% gas/10% ethanol might offset the 4% reduction in octane and provide better performance.

dunc289_old · June 29, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Good Question, a techie might know the answer and so would I, not being one<img src=images/icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=images/icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

zray · June 29, 2011 at 11:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I realize I don't have a problem and am not trying to create one. Since I've always heard gas with ethanol produces less energy, I merely am wondering if 100% gas rather than 90% gas/10% ethanol might offset the 4% reduction in octane and provide better performance.

seems like a question that could be easily answered by a a few gallons of gas and a stopwatch. Let us know how it turns out.

Z.

rockhouse66_old · June 30, 2011 at 5:38 AM

Why not go to http://www.pure-gas.org and see if there is a station near you that sells ethanol-free 93 octane? It will eliminate any compatibility issues and your patronage might contribute to continued sale of 100% gasoline.

monty_old · July 3, 2011 at 4:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Why not go to http://www.pure-gas.org and see if there is a station near you that sells ethanol-free 93 octane? It will eliminate any compatibility issues and your patronage might contribute to continued sale of 100% gasoline.

Thanks for the link. There are a few stations right near me that sell 100% gas!

earlyk_old · July 4, 2011 at 7:24 AM

I put the cheap 87 in mine their is no difference in performance. once I put jet fuel in one and took it down the runway now that was a difference

iowa_old · July 4, 2011 at 8:27 AM

i've heard of people using

100LL aviation fuel!!

anyone tried this!!<img src=images/icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=images/icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=images/icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

iowa

ajd350_old · July 4, 2011 at 8:32 AM

True. 87 works fine. I wouldn't have thought so because of the compression ratio, but I have no problems in either the K or the GT350. When I add a few degrees of timing, the 89 or 93 goes in.

zray · July 4, 2011 at 9:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I put the cheap 87 in mine their is no difference in performance. once I put jet fuel in one and took it down the runway now that was a difference

AVGAS yes, but jet fuel ?

Jet fuel is basically kerosene and not really a horsepower boost for gas engines, and is hard to get it to burn at all w/o engine modifications.

from wikipedia:

jet fuel is a mixture of a large number of different hydrocarbons. The range of their sizes (molecular weights or carbon numbers) is restricted by the requirements for the product, for example, the freezing point or smoke point. Kerosene-type jet fuel (including Jet A and Jet A-1) has a carbon number distribution between about 8 and 16 carbon numbers;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

In the mid-20th century, kerosene or tractor vaporising oil (TVO) was used as a cheap fuel for tractors. The engine would start on gasoline, then switch over to kerosene once the engine warmed up. A heat valve on the manifold would route the exhaust gases around the intake pipe, heating the kerosene to the point where it was vaporized and could be ignited by an electric spark.

In Europe following the Second World War, automobiles were modified similarly to turn to run on kerosene from the gasoline which would have to be imported and was heavily taxed. Besides additional piping and the switch between fuels, the head gasket was replaced by a much thicker one to diminish the compression ratio (making the engine less powerful and less efficient, but able to run on kerosene). The necessary equipment was sold under the trademark "Econom".[17]

During the fuel crisis of the 1970s, Saab-Valmet developed and series-produced the Saab 99 Petro that ran on kerosene, turpentine or gasoline. The project, codenamed "Project Lapponia", was headed by Simo Vuorinen, and towards the end of the 1970s, a working prototype was produced based on the Saab 99GL. The car was designed to run on two fuels. Gasoline was used for cold starts and when extra power was needed, but normally it ran on kerosene or turpentine. The idea was that the gasoline could be made from peat using the Fischer-Tropsch process. Between 1980 and 1984, 3756 Saab 99 Petros and 2385 Talbot Horizons (a version of the Chrysler Horizon that integrated many Saab components) were made.[18]

Kerosene is used to fuel smaller-horsepower outboard motors built by Yamaha Motors, Suzuki Marine, and Tohatsu. Primarily used on small fishing craft, these are dual-fuel engines that start on gasoline and then transition to kerosene once the engine reaches optimum operating temperature. Multiple fuel Evinrude and Mercury Racing engines also burn kerosene, as well as jet fuel.[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene

Z.

6hypo5conv_old · July 4, 2011 at 9:46 AM

Why, when these engines were new they required premimum fuel (and didn't the A codes also?)do we want to run them on the crap 87 octane fuel that in most places has at least 10% Ethinol anyway, would the K motors have run properly on regular leaded gas back when they were new with the timing set to factory specs? I am puzzled by you guys introducing 87 octane gas into a $20k engine, I am also puzzled by anyone using Avgas in one, my Brother-In-Law claims he did it in the early 70s with the car/engine I have now, and he was warned about basicly cooking the engine, and as far as Jet fuel goes, its just glorified Diesel fuel thats used in small amounts in lots of fuel injector cleaners on the market today, I sure wouldn't put it in MY K code.

SixT5HiPo · July 4, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Something else to consider is that the difference in price between 87 (regular) and 93 (Super Premium) Octane fuel is around $0.20/Gallon where I live. With a full fill up on a Mustang, that's around $3.00/ tank difference. At this point, K kars are occasional drivers, and if you can't afford 93 Octane, you probably can't afford a K code to begin with...

6hypo5conv_old · July 4, 2011 at 12:35 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Something else to consider is that the difference in price between 87 (regular) and 93 (Super Premium) Octane fuel is around $0.20/Gallon where I live. With a full fill up on a Mustang, that's around $3.00/ tank difference. At this point, K kars are occasional drivers, and if you can't afford 93 Octane, you probably can't afford a K code to begin with...

Excellent response!!

We have an '06 PT Cruiser GT Turbo that right on the gas door and in the manual says "Premimum fuel recommended" this is my Wife's daily driver and has a 15 gallon tank-even smaller than the early Mustangs-I have tries to "cheat" and drop it down to regular when the cost kept rising, steped it down to 89 then to 87 from its usual 93 and it WILL run but not like it was designed to, and we CAN afford the extra $3.00 per tank for the premimum anyway-I know an '06 vehicle is absolutely nothing like a 1965-66 is, but any given engine is set up to burn a certain octane of fuel and weaker octanes are certain to do harm to the engine as well as stronger ones imo.

Does anyone remember what some of the octanes were back when gas still had lead in it? Sunoco,Amoco, Shell,Exxon,BP,Chevron, ect?-seems I remember it being over 100....

Guacamole Joe_old · July 4, 2011 at 5:06 PM

I always try to put non ethanol gas in my cars. Since ethanol has less energy, it hurts your milage and does harm some motors. Oh, it's also a scam on the American public. This is from someone with a farm that grows corn and loves cars.

MTS_old · July 4, 2011 at 5:25 PM

In the Los Angeles area there are a number of locations that still sell 100 octane race fuel, a number of Unical 76 stations here and there and many independent speed shops. Most if not all will only pump into self supplied fuel storage containers though, not in your car. Expensive though, over $8.00/gal.

6hypo5conv_old · July 4, 2011 at 6:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

In the Los Angeles area there are a number of locations that still sell 100 octane race fuel, a number of Unical 76 stations here and there and many independent speed shops. Most if not all will only pump into self supplied fuel storage containers though, not in your car. Expensive though, over $8.00/gal.

You know I completely forgot about the race fuels they have today-we even have a Sunoco station here in town that has it and its labeled "LEADED fuel, for off road use only" I'll have to check the octane rating on it next time I'm by there.

How can they still produce LEADED gasoline? I wonder if there is any Ethinol in IT? I have put about 5 gallons of it in our '57 Chevy Belair's 283 power pak engine and saw no difference between the 93 octane pump 10% Ethinol fuel that we normally buy......

tater_51_old · July 4, 2011 at 6:37 PM

but it sure smells good...............

ajd350_old · July 4, 2011 at 6:44 PM

Excellent response!!

We have an '06 PT Cruiser GT Turbo that right on the gas door and in the manual says "Premimum fuel recommended" this is my Wife's daily driver and has a 15 gallon tank-even smaller than the early Mustangs-I have tries to "cheat" and drop it down to regular when the cost kept rising, steped it down to 89 then to 87 from its usual 93 and it WILL run but not like it was designed to, and we CAN afford the extra $3.00 per tank for the premimum anyway-I know an '06 vehicle is absolutely nothing like a 1965-66 is, but any given engine is set up to burn a certain octane of fuel and weaker octanes are certain to do harm to the engine as well as stronger ones imo.

Does anyone remember what some of the octanes were back when gas still had lead in it? Sunoco,Amoco, Shell,Exxon,BP,Chevron, ect?-seems I remember it being over 100....

[/quote]

The PT Cruiser comparison is apples and oranges. It has a knock sensor and electronics that adjust for the efects of octane by adjusting the timing by the computer sensing spark knock that is below an audible level.

Now, as in the sixties, the main difference in the fuel grades from the same source is the octane additive. They generally have the same basic fuel, detergents and emissions improving packages. 87 is not the 'crap fuel'. Run 93 in your vintage car if it makes you feel better, but if the engine does not detonate or spark knock, you're not getting anything for it. If, however, you want to bump up the timing, you may need that 93 to keep it quiet and happy.

Back in the sixties things were less precise and it was not uncommon to have a noticeable variation from one engine to another due to 'tolerance stack-up'. Let's say your engine has been machined with a tight spec on the head and block surfaces. Still in spec, but the compression ratio on that engine could be .5 or more that of an engine on the tall end of spec. Add in all variables such as rod length, pistons, timing advance curves, and the amount of oil blowby in the mix. That's why you'd see an occasional untouched engine that would just run better and faster. To be on the safe side, FoMoCo specifies something to leave a margin just in case. Ever notice that on the late 5.0s you can bump up the timing several degrees safely?

34 years and 25K miles since I rebuilt it My 65 K is still humming along to prove it. Ditto the Shelby's K after 21 years.

zray · July 4, 2011 at 6:50 PM

running stock Hi-Po engines, with stock timing, on less than premium fuel is asking for trouble.

I have enough trouble without asking for it. Over the last 45 years I have never had a A code or K code 289 engine that ran decently on anything other than premium fuel.

Z.

Participate now!