• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech

Increase timing to offset $ of better gas (MPG)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 94-302-vert
  • Start date Start date Jun 5, 2006

94-302-vert

Active Member
Aug 16, 2004
1,947
2
36
NE CT
Jun 5, 2006
#1
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #1
With premium gas still being only $.20 more than regular, can increasing the timing and running premium gas offset the price difference between regular and premium?

I mean right now regular is ~$3 and premium is ~$3.20... That is only 6.7% increase in cost.

Now if I advance the timing to make use of running premium (haven't played with timing at all yet) can I gain at least this 7% increase in mileage plus have the added power when I want it?
 

illwood

Member
Apr 3, 2004
636
1
19
Worcester, MA
Jun 5, 2006
#2
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #2
That's a good question.

In theory it would work, but you would have to do some experimenting (i.e. actually do it for a tank or two of gas) and see how it works.

I know I got a decent increase in milage after my intake swap. I'm still mostly stock (read: shameful 2.73 rear gears) and I do alot of highway driving and I've done a best of 27 MPG without trying too hard. I didn't play with my timing, but my car seems to be happier with 89.
 

94-302-vert

Active Member
Aug 16, 2004
1,947
2
36
NE CT
Jun 5, 2006
#3
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #3
So how many tanks of 93 should I run before I try it?

I am thinking at least two...

Right now I am getting gas every 2 days!!! so every little bit helps...
 
W

wytstang

Mustang Master
Mar 14, 2004
4,988
4
78
Summerville,SC missing South Fl. weather :(
Jun 5, 2006
#4
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #4
Tie a block of wood to the bottom of your gas pedal, this will not allow you to go WOT. Cheap and yet very affetive lol.
 

Joes95GT

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Jun 5, 2006
#5
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #5
You won't get better gas mileage. You'll get the same, maybe, but nothing better. Think about it....

You can run 87 octane and 10* base timing to get the "proper" burn. By running 93 you are raising the flashpoint (can't think of a better word) of the gas, thus requiring more timing to get the gas to burn as efficiently as the 87 and it's specific tune up.

I think that makes sense....

Joe
 

urban96

bubb rubb says:"woo woooooo"
Founding Member
Sep 24, 2002
3,464
1
69
Syracuse, NY
Jun 5, 2006
#6
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #6
you might see a 7% increase in power but maybe not gas mileage
 

94-302-vert

Active Member
Aug 16, 2004
1,947
2
36
NE CT
Jun 5, 2006
#7
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #7
I agree, no MPG improvements unless I improve the efficiency as well. I am hoping that with more power on tap and better octane will mean better efficiency and less pressure on the right foot.

Anyone try this yet?
 

Swarzkopf

Member
Sep 23, 2004
973
0
16
Pittsburgh
Jun 5, 2006
#8
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #8
you might see a 7% increase in power but maybe not gas mileage
Click to expand...

Are you serious? 7% from bumped timing? Is this really true? I honestly don't know and am asking, not arguing.

That's 14HP on a 200 RWHP car...seems like alot for bumped timing.
 

HISSIN50

"How long does it take to get help in here?
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
31,179
34
129
Jun 5, 2006
#9
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #9
You cant get that anal about pump gas IMHO. Along the lines of what Joe (where ya been? School probably. ) and the others said, the difference in 5 octane points (here, we have 87, 89 and 91 octane) wont yield much in the couple of degrees timing bump. What Joe said about the ignition of the fuel and timing is right - increased octane (with pump gas - not race fuel) and increased timing-advance very largely offset eachother.
Furthermore, the inconsistancy in gas is a large variable in my mind.

This comes down to one of those debates like gears - guys with gears say they dont get into the pedal as much so they dont use as much fuel. But they are winding it up a little higher.

Personally, I'd stick with the lowest grade of fuel that works for my current timing (or a timing settng near stock). In the winter is the time to bump timing up (for me anyhow - it's 105* today).

Good luck.
 

urban96

bubb rubb says:"woo woooooo"
Founding Member
Sep 24, 2002
3,464
1
69
Syracuse, NY
Jun 5, 2006
#10
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #10
Swarzkopf said:
Are you serious? 7% from bumped timing? Is this really true? I honestly don't know and am asking, not arguing.

That's 14HP on a 200 RWHP car...seems like alot for bumped timing.
Click to expand...
i honestly have no clue
 

mo_dingo

20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 26, 2003
3,031
2
58
Tucson, AZ
Jun 5, 2006
#11
  • Jun 5, 2006
  • #11
Paying for 93 and bumping the timing up is like stabbing yourself in an artery and THEN removing the knife.


93 octane #1 Costs more....#2 Takes away power. Then when you bump the timing you only get some of it back.

Definately a lose-lose-lose situation.
Scott
 

94-302-vert

Active Member
Aug 16, 2004
1,947
2
36
NE CT
Jun 6, 2006
#12
  • Jun 6, 2006
  • #12
Dingo, based on that philosophy, why is it that we even have higher octanes, or cars that require it.

Just curious...

I can say that the car seems to run better on 93 than it did on 87, filled it up yesterday. It also seems to be getting better milage without adjusting the timing, hoping ot get a couple tanks of data before i mess with the timing though... I am an engineer and I need my data...
 

Joes95GT

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Jun 6, 2006
#13
  • Jun 6, 2006
  • #13
HISSIN50 said:
Along the lines of what Joe (where ya been? School probably. )
Click to expand...
Yep. I'm so glad I'm done.

Thanks for asking!

Joe
 

HISSIN50

"How long does it take to get help in here?
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
31,179
34
129
Jun 6, 2006
#14
  • Jun 6, 2006
  • #14
94-302 Vert: Scott and some of the rest of us are talkin about the ignition of the mixture in relation to the piston's displacement. That's where bumping both can be moot.

Increased octane at the pump (rather small octane spread) is for when one needs a fuel less prone to ignition. In said situation, one does NOT bump timing up. If I ping on 87 octane and 10*, I would try 91 octane and 10*. If I had also bumped timing while going to 91, it would be moot. But only raising octane (or lowering timing works just fine too) will yield being less prone to detonation.

Joe - Good stuff mang! Done for the summer or just plain done?
 

mo_dingo

20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 26, 2003
3,031
2
58
Tucson, AZ
Jun 6, 2006
#15
  • Jun 6, 2006
  • #15
94-302-vert said:
Dingo, based on that philosophy, why is it that we even have higher octanes, or cars that require it.

Just curious...

I can say that the car seems to run better on 93 than it did on 87, filled it up yesterday. It also seems to be getting better milage without adjusting the timing, hoping ot get a couple tanks of data before i mess with the timing though... I am an engineer and I need my data...
Click to expand...

Higher octanes were created for turbo/blower cars from the factory. Because they have forced induction, dynamic compression increases which creates a better chance for pre-ignition, like a diesel, combustion w/o spark. Good for diesel, bad for us. Even if you retard the timing on the dizzy of a turbo car, it may still ping on 87 octane. Especially as it gets older, and the O2's get older. That is why Vortech still recommends running 91/93 even with the MSD BTM.

If you are truly getting better gas mileage with 93, I will walk of the plank of a ship at sea w/ my clothes on singing Ricky Martin as I trott.

The true test is to run it with 93 for 3 tanks, never taking the RPM's above 2k, highway driving only. Then remove the fuel tank, and repeat with 87 octane.

But since you commute, you have to do some city driving, which makes for uncontrollable and inconsistent data. Gas from different companies is different. Outside temperature and barometric pressure change. No realistic way to test. And your belief that the car runs better is likely psychosomatic IMHO.
Scott
 

94-302-vert

Active Member
Aug 16, 2004
1,947
2
36
NE CT
Jun 7, 2006
#16
  • Jun 7, 2006
  • #16
Well initial ersults are a small increase in milage. I track it pretty well and always go to the same station (75% of the time to the same pump). I haven't gotten more than 18.5mpg in the last 20+ tanks. I usually average about 18.1mpg on a 18-18.5 mpg range. On my first partial tank of 93 octane I got 18.75 mpg.

So better, kinda. I won't call it measurable yet. But the car is DEFINITELY running better. As such I have been driving faster.

As for the 2k rpm thing, that isn't even highway speeds with the 3.73's....

So I'll continue to complie data for teh next 3-4 tanks, then I may try playing with the timing. The only problem is that I have a hard time changing something if it works...
 

HISSIN50

"How long does it take to get help in here?
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
31,179
34
129
Jun 7, 2006
#17
  • Jun 7, 2006
  • #17
It's not uncommon to get slightly better milage and slightly better performance from higher octane in 5.0 mustangs - it's counterintuitive to what we know (though not completely surprising given the extremely basic understanding of the dynamics at hand that I and many others have).

I say it matters not - there are too many variables. If higher octane works for someone and they get slightly better milage, keep doing what you're doing or what makes sense. Just MHO.
 
S

slocomo

New Member
Mar 19, 2006
48
0
0
Jun 7, 2006
#18
  • Jun 7, 2006
  • #18
wytstang said:
Tie a block of wood to the bottom of your gas pedal, this will not allow you to go WOT. Cheap and yet very affetive lol.
Click to expand...

haha. I think that's the best advice for this topic.
 
S

slocomo

New Member
Mar 19, 2006
48
0
0
Jun 7, 2006
#19
  • Jun 7, 2006
  • #19
94-302-vert said:
Dingo, based on that philosophy, why is it that we even have higher octanes, or cars that require it.

Just curious...

I can say that the car seems to run better on 93 than it did on 87, filled it up yesterday. It also seems to be getting better milage without adjusting the timing, hoping ot get a couple tanks of data before i mess with the timing though... I am an engineer and I need my data...
Click to expand...

That's cause it burns slower.
 
S

slocomo

New Member
Mar 19, 2006
48
0
0
Jun 7, 2006
#20
  • Jun 7, 2006
  • #20
mo_dingo said:
Higher octanes were created for turbo/blower cars from the factory. Because they have forced induction, dynamic compression increases which creates a better chance for pre-ignition, like a diesel, combustion w/o spark. Good for diesel, bad for us. Even if you retard the timing on the dizzy of a turbo car, it may still ping on 87 octane. Especially as it gets older, and the O2's get older. That is why Vortech still recommends running 91/93 even with the MSD BTM.

If you are truly getting better gas mileage with 93, I will walk of the plank of a ship at sea w/ my clothes on singing Ricky Martin as I trott.

The true test is to run it with 93 for 3 tanks, never taking the RPM's above 2k, highway driving only. Then remove the fuel tank, and repeat with 87 octane.

But since you commute, you have to do some city driving, which makes for uncontrollable and inconsistent data. Gas from different companies is different. Outside temperature and barometric pressure change. No realistic way to test. And your belief that the car runs better is likely psychosomatic IMHO.
Scott
Click to expand...


high octane is made for high compression cars as well from the factory. I work with a guy that has an acura integra gsr. his owners manual calls for at least 90 octane If I'm not mistaken. I just remember he had to use premium cause it was like one point above mid grade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Forced Induction Total Timing under boost
  • Dontknowchit
  • Aug 27, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
2
Views
330
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Aug 28, 2025
Dontknowchit
Who the hell puts the wrong spark plugs in a 3.8L?
  • snowstang
  • Mar 25, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
12
Views
444
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Apr 3, 2026
LILCBRA
T
Help with a 95 5L crank no start
  • TheBubbaJoe
  • Nov 4, 2025
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
3
Views
453
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Nov 5, 2025
AeroCoupe
Hard to start when engine is cold
  • 86_Capri
  • Mar 11, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
32
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 21, 2026
CAMTWO1070
B
'03 GT Fuel Pump/Pressure/Delivery Issue
  • Brodach
  • Oct 21, 2025
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
8
Views
916
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Oct 31, 2025
gkomo
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?