Recommend Running High Octane?

dz01

Member

Mar 31, 2005

285

10

19

Massachusetts

Jul 10, 2014

#1

• Jul 10, 2014

• #1

What's the recommended fuel to run in a mostly stock (at least internal) motor? Any reason I can't run 93?

 

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor

Admin Dude

Jan 4, 1985

42,910

21,087

234

Box behind Walmart

Jul 10, 2014

#2

• Jul 10, 2014

• #2

You can run it but there's no real advantage on a stocker. It'll just me more expensive to fill up is all.

 

madspeed

Colonel Mustard

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

8,914

1,332

204

a van down by the river

Jul 10, 2014

#3

• Jul 10, 2014

• #3

I've always ran at least 89, but no real reasoning why

 

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor

Admin Dude

Jan 4, 1985

42,910

21,087

234

Box behind Walmart

Jul 10, 2014

#4

• Jul 10, 2014

• #4

madspeed said:

I've always ran at least 89, but no real reasoning why

Click to expand...

I ran 89 in my original motor too. That was after doing fuel mileage calculations for 87, 89, 91, and 93.

They weren't very scientific calculations though. I was DDing the car at the time and totaled up mileage when the fuel gauge reached "E".

 

madspeed

Colonel Mustard

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

8,914

1,332

204

a van down by the river

Jul 10, 2014

#5

• Jul 10, 2014

• #5

what you burning now?

 

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor

Admin Dude

Jan 4, 1985

42,910

21,087

234

Box behind Walmart

Jul 10, 2014

#6

• Jul 10, 2014

• #6

madspeed said:

what you burning now?

Click to expand...

91 Octane and 14 lbs of boost.

 

madspeed

Colonel Mustard

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

8,914

1,332

204

a van down by the river

Jul 10, 2014

#7

• Jul 10, 2014

• #7

I prefer 93 in both my boosted cars, but again, no scientific reason

 

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor

Admin Dude

Jan 4, 1985

42,910

21,087

234

Box behind Walmart

Jul 10, 2014

#8

• Jul 10, 2014

• #8

madspeed said:

I prefer 93 in both my boosted cars, but again, no scientific reason

Click to expand...

When I initially had it tuned, I was in an area where 91 was readily available and 93 was few and far between. Never bothered retuning.

 

madspeed

Colonel Mustard

Founding Member

Nov 29, 1999

8,914

1,332

204

a van down by the river

Jul 10, 2014

#9

• Jul 10, 2014

• #9

you ARE in the sticks no?

 

Noobz347

Stangnet Facilities Maint Tech... Er... Janitor

Admin Dude

Jan 4, 1985

42,910

21,087

234

Box behind Walmart

Jul 10, 2014

#10

• Jul 10, 2014

• #10

madspeed said:

you ARE in the sticks no?

Click to expand...

I used to be.

 

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell

Mod Dude

Feb 18, 2001

43,167

17,862

224

Massachusetts

Jul 11, 2014

#11

• Jul 11, 2014

• #11

This of fuel as an oil. What type to you NEED to run, vs what do you want to run?

On a stock 5.0 engine, they should be able to run 87 octane fine. Now, with age and carbon build up on the valves and heads and reduction of combustion chamber size, you may find you get detonation with 87 and might need to run 89 to head that off a bit. Or, you bump the timing a tad and need the higher octane as a result.

Either way, think of the fuel as what the motor needs to run well and make it's power. You want to run the lowest octane you can, but things like high compression, boost, timing, age, etc can adjust that upwards

 

Reactions: deathb4dismount

mikestang63

SN Certified Technician

Aug 27, 2012

11,606

8,859

214

In the garage

Jul 11, 2014

#12

• Jul 11, 2014

• #12

Another factor to consider is most fuels today mix ethanol, which IMO leads to reduced power and mpg. Also, if you raise your timing above stock you shoud also run higher octane. A higher octane gas will provide a better combustion and a cleaner burn, but that is just me. I run the highest octane around 93, however my car is no longer a DD.

 

deathb4dismount

Crap, didn’t realize my crotch was in that picture

15 Year Member

Oct 6, 2011

1,031

502

164

THE BUCKET

Jul 11, 2014

#13

• Jul 11, 2014

• #13

I agree with Mike. Before my engine took a dump I ran 87. I ran 87 because I had base timing and no detonation. Running 93 would have been a waste of money. I never understand why people think that running higher octane is better or will gibe a performance increase if there car is not setup for it.

 

modulistic

Active Member

Nov 26, 2002

383

30

29

Jul 11, 2014

#14

• Jul 11, 2014

• #14

we can only get 90 up here. thankfully Im not knocking with my stock tune and v3si... at least not that I can hear.

 

jrichker

StangNet's favorite TOOL

In Remembrance. Thank you for your contributions

Mar 10, 2000

27,512

2,811

234

Dublin GA

Jul 11, 2014

#15

• Jul 11, 2014

• #15

modulistic said:

we can only get 90 up here. thankfully Im not knocking with my stock tune and v3si... at least not that I can hear.

Click to expand...

You may never hear it if you have a louder than stock exhaust or ears that have spent too much time listening to music with the volume turned up to earthquake level...

My ears ring constantly, the result of having spent 8 years fixing Air Force aircraft. A ramp full of jets idling and taxing takes its toll on your hearing. There is some measure of sound and frequencies that I don't hear. I have advanced the timing to the 14 degree mark to get a little more low speed kick, but I may not hear the ping and detonation if it happened. Since the extra pennies for 93 octane are cheaper than the damage caused by ping and detonation I can't hear, I use 93 octane most of the time.

 

Last edited: Jul 11, 2014