Wanted to give permium gas a try

[James K]

Well I have owned a 52 year old classic muscle car for 32 years,and also have two 15 year old dodges. Have run 87 in them.no problems. You'd think there would be a problem in over 32 years!

Are they high compression? Our Mavericks are optimal with high test but will retard timing when knock is sensed. Your examples are not germane to the conversation. Kind of like saying my diesel runs good with diesel so my Maverick should too. Under full boost I think we're at 14:1 or more. Doubt the vehicles you mention are even close. Also, we're saying run better, which you can argue with Ford engineers, I don't have time to waste.

Sponsored

 

[svogt302]

OK but never heard Ethonal Free gas called 'RV'

 

[Tim d]

Are they high compression? Our Mavericks are optimal with high test but will retard timing when knock is sensed. Your examples are not germane to the conversation. Kind of like saying my diesel runs good with diesel so my Maverick should too. Under full boost I think we're at 14:1 or more. Doubt the vehicles you mention are even close. Also, we're saying run better, which you can argue with Ford engineers, I don't have time to waste.

My 52 year old cuda has a built engine,10:1 compression.ive tried 93 octane in it,no difference. I don't know the ratio on my ram and caravan.

 

[James K]

My 52 year old cuda has a built engine,10:1 compression.ive tried 93 octane in it,no difference. I don't know the ratio on my ram and caravan.

If you simply put 93 octane in without changing the timing, manually on an old cuda, it's not going to matter. PLEASE READ: a Maverick has a knock sensor that retards timing when low octane causes knock. Now go back and put 93 in your cuda and advance your timing to maximize it and see there's no gain. I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand what they're arguing about.

 

[James K]

If you simply put 93 octane in without changing the timing, manually on an old cuda, it's not going to matter. PLEASE READ: a Maverick has a knock sensor that retards timing when low octane causes knock. Now go back and put 93 in your cuda and advance your timing to maximize it and see there's no gain. I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand what they're arguing about.

Oh, 10:1 is nothing compared to the EB at full boost. The effect on combustion is exponential. I will say if you set your cruise at 30 MPH on a flat road with no stopping, the gains are minimal but that's not the real world.

 

[Tim d]

If you simply put 93 octane in without changing the timing, manually on an old cuda, it's not going to matter. PLEASE READ: a Maverick has a knock sensor that retards timing when low octane causes knock. Now go back and put 93 in your cuda and advance your timing to maximize it and see there's no gain. I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand what they're arguing about.

We're arguing? I'd call it a friendly discourse. I did change the advance weights in my distributor so the timing is all in quicker. Maybe if I was a professional racer I might notice a tenth or so difference .but in real world driving 87 octane has suited me fine for the nearly 50 years I have been driving .that being said,I do notice a difference in my dirt bike, which calls for 92 octane.i tried 87 in it and ran fine for awhile but then started backfiring. So I do use 92 in that.

 

[Blueox76]

You will notice better mileage with non-alcohol fuel. I tested 87 E10 vs straight 87, in my 2001 Ranger several years ago. I tested 5 consecutive fills to ensure all E10, was purged from the tank. My last tank I averaged 20.2 versus 19.4 all highway miles. No real benefit since it was $0.40 more.

The better mileage is understandable when you realize if you run straight alcohol, it would take 28% more alcohol to get the same energy you would with non E10 87 gas.

Just my $0.02.

 

[mluckey]

We're arguing? I'd call it a friendly discourse. I did change the advance weights in my distributor so the timing is all in quicker. Maybe if I was a professional racer I might notice a tenth or so difference .but in real world driving 87 octane has suited me fine for the nearly 50 years I have been driving .that being said,I do notice a difference in my dirt bike, which calls for 92 octane.i tried 87 in it and ran fine for awhile but then started backfiring. So I do use 92 in that.

Sounds line my family! We're loud and argumentative. It means that you care enough about the topic at hand to have an opinion! At the end of the day/night, We (sometimes myself) may have a different opinion than when we (or I) started the "ruckus (or not!!!)", but it's ALWAYS a good thing!

Mark

 

[zorki1c]

You will notice better mileage with non-alcohol fuel. I tested 87 E10 vs straight 87, in my 2001 Ranger several years ago. I tested 5 consecutive fills to ensure all E10, was purged from the tank. My last tank I averaged 20.2 versus 19.4 all highway miles. No real benefit since it was $0.40 more.

The better mileage is understandable when you realize if you run straight alcohol, it would take 28% more alcohol to get the same energy you would with non E10 87 gas.

Just my $0.02.

Had a 2008 F150 V8. On a 300 mile trip it would average 16 mpg. With ethanol free gas it would get 18 to 20 mpg on the same trip. Don’t know if it would make that much difference on my 2.0 Ecoboost.

Sponsored