Premium vs mid and regular gas - Vintage Mustang Forums
Vintage Mustang Forum
HomeForumGalleryClassifiedsAbout UsAdvertiseContact Us
» Auto Insurance
» Featured Product
Go Back   Vintage Mustang Forums > General Discussion > Vintage Mustang Forum
Vintage-Mustang.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-31-2012, 05:57 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Georgia, Gilmer County, North GA
Posts: 680
Default Premium vs mid and regular gas

I just finished walking my trusted Labrador Retriever and while walking him I was thinking about the various posts on here about people running regular gas and mid grade. I realize I may be flamed for this but I am going to say this anyway and hopefully somebody can clear this up in my mind.

The owner's manual for a '65 clearly states to run regular gas. I forget the exact octane but I think it says either 92 or 93 octane which was regular back in the 60's. Now I understand you can retard the timing and run just about anything you may want to. Why would you want to do that? Why not have the timing set where it really wants to be and run the recommended octane? What are you talking about? Two or three dollars and tankful for a car that is driven part time by a lot if not most people.

I simply don't understand why not have the timing set correctly and the proper octane.

Okay I am ready to be taught!
__________________
1965 "289" Convertible
At least trying to make it original
Yes---it is red
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-31-2012, 06:03 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
JonK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Nashville (Smyrna), TN
Posts: 2,049
Default

I'm more focused on finding REAL gas and avoiding the ethanol junk. I plan to drive my car a lot as I did before teardown, pretty much daily so the diff. between 87 and 93 can add up. With the current difference in prices I'm looking at closer to a $5 difference per tank which adds up to a tank pretty quickly. My new motor is 9.7:1, with the timing retarded I will probably be able to run 87 for DD duty for work, when I want to hit the track I can turn the timing up and fill with 93 I'm hoping, basically adapting the car for use.
Jon
__________________
"If it ain't broke, I haven't fixed it yet"
-Jon-
http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z...owered-1-1.jpghttp://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z...G_1958-2-2.jpg
1967 Coupe 333ci CandyApple Red w/red int., AOD, 9" 3.50:1, Front PDB
'09 Warriors In Pink V6 w/glass roof - wife's Stang
JonK is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-31-2012, 06:07 PM   #3 (permalink)
Supporting Member
Administrator
 
aslan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Castro Valley, California
Posts: 11,205
Default

There are some threads about this. Also don't forget that the owner's manual is about 47 years old. What was true then about gas is not necessarily true today.
Stan
__________________
From start to finish:
http://s863.photobucket.com/user/asl...?sort=6&page=1
Bay Area Mustang Association
President BAMA 2012-
'65 Fastback Mustang Monthly March 2013 http://www.mustangmonthly.com/featur...tang_fastback/
NorCal Forum

If you can read this, thank a teacher. Since it's in English, thank a soldier
aslan is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-31-2012, 06:12 PM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Georgia, Gilmer County, North GA
Posts: 680
Default

I should have said that I am not including ethanol gas as I only run non-ethanol. I wasn't really thinking about built up engines as that changes the formula altogether.

Surely the gas is not the same today as back then but octane should be the same.

The previous threads are what got me to thinking about this question.
__________________
1965 "289" Convertible
At least trying to make it original
Yes---it is red
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-31-2012, 10:31 PM   #5 (permalink)
LSG
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,003
Tongue regular, mid and premium, and ethanol

Paul, do we know which rating system is used in the manual ? Are they using a Research number ? a Motor octane number ? or the now current R+M/2 method ? As Stan mentioned, the hydrocarbon stew we refer to as gasoline is very different now from 40+ yrs ago.

And why would one wish to avoid ethanol, if thats even possible ? In my area anyways, ( SW Michigan ), ALL of our gasoline contains ethanol. It really doesn't cause a problem. LSG
LSG is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-31-2012, 10:34 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
rickgto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 528
Default

True. Ethanol in itself is an octane booster.
rickgto is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 03-31-2012, 10:50 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
TEXAS67MUSTANG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lubbock, Texas
Posts: 129
Default

I just asked a very similar question on here a few days ago and ended up learning more about gasoline than I ever thought possible!

Here's the link in case you're curious:

Great Gas Debate
__________________
Proud owner of a 7R01C
TEXAS67MUSTANG is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-01-2012, 01:27 AM   #8 (permalink)
Supporting Member
Just some guy
 
GypsyR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: SC foothills, USA
Posts: 12,205
Default

If you own a vehicle newer than about 1996, it retards the timing to compensate for less than optimum fuel by itself. It's likely you won't even notice. In extreme cases you might notice and it could even turn on the check engine light. But it's normally when within the engine computer's operating parameters to make decent use of fuel that has a lower octane rating that what it was designed to use as an ideal. When it does this you are also losing a certain amount of performance, overall operating efficiency, and even some gas mileage. Probably not enough mpg loss to offset the saved cash of cheaper fuel but it narrows the gap.
Retarding your vintage car's timing by hand is a crude version of doing the same thing, with even a narrower gap between money saved and reduced engine efficiency. You'd have to do back to back testing and calculate miles per dollar spent to see if you are actually achieving. IMHO, it just makes more sense to tune an engine for optimum performance and efficiency (for mild-engined street use these CAN go hand in hand) and feed it the fuel it requires. I've never been one to want to impress people with time slips and dyno sheets and I like to use low octane gas. Therefore I build my engines with a tad lower compression than many so they run happily on 87 octane. Other folks are more interested in the high performance and race side of the car hobby and have different goals. They should be ignoring this thread completely.
It's been hinted at in other discussions that if you just don't see the value in blowing a few extra dollars here and there to keep your classic car up to par you are likely in the wrong hobby. If you really really like your old Mustang, having to spend a few extra dollars to feed it a higher octane fuel shouldn't be an issue for you. Of course since we're all human, we are allowed to occasionally grumble about how expensive old cars can be. Also golfing, motorcycling, scuba diving, wives, etc, etc, no matter how devoted we are to them.
GypsyR is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-01-2012, 01:55 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
MrFreeze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul View Post
I should have said that I am not including ethanol gas as I only run non-ethanol. I wasn't really thinking about built up engines as that changes the formula altogether.

Surely the gas is not the same today as back then but octane should be the same.

The previous threads are what got me to thinking about this question.
Octane is NOT rated the same way today as it was in 1965. A T or C code engine will run quite happily on modern regular unleaded. Set your timing for 36 degrees total advance and run the lowest octane fuel that doesn't make you engine ping under load

MrFreeze
__________________
"When a woman is a really good driver, she is just about perfect."

- Raymond Chandler



'66 GT Fastback show car, nightmist blue, warmed up original 289 & T-5Z, 3.80 trac-loc, AC, PS, pony interior, Retrosound, rally pac

'66 Coupe driver, Bullitt green, 302HO w/ 351W heads, roller rockers, Holley 600, T-5Z, 3.55 trac-loc, collapsible column, tank armor, disk brakes, shoulder belts

'11 BMW 335i X-drive, 6 speed manual, all the bells and whistles
MrFreeze is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-01-2012, 10:54 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Georgia, Gilmer County, North GA
Posts: 680
Default

So I guess I can retard my timing and lower the octane, retard the timing and the engine will be happy.

Very interesting MrFreeze. I did not realize that octane was not rated the same as in the 60's.

Thanks all!!
__________________
1965 "289" Convertible
At least trying to make it original
Yes---it is red
Paul is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-01-2012, 01:27 PM   #11 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
bartl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: West Rutland, Vermont, USA
Posts: 14,946
Default

Yes, Motor Octane was used in the '60's and I believe it is still used for aviation gasoline. I'd leave the timing at the factory spec and run regular unleaded. If you get pinging then try another brand first before fiddling with the timing. Your other choice is to add a bottle of octane boost at every fill up.
__________________
http://forums.vintage-mustang.com/signaturepics/sigpic19079_1.gif

6F09A 63A 8 26 09D 71 1 5
bartl is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-01-2012, 02:49 PM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
wantaboss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: watertown ,wisconsin
Posts: 599
Default

i just run non formulated gas and thats premium only around here
wantaboss is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 04-02-2012, 11:47 AM   #13 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Vince in Philly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Philly suburbs
Posts: 576
Default

Can't remember offhand what octane is suggested in the owner's manual for my '68 289-2V, but I once did the math to compare 1968 octane ratings to 2012 octane ratings. Based on that exercise, I fill my tank with 91 octane gas now.
__________________
1965 fastback - 289-4V, auto, deluxe interior, power steering, power brakes, air conditioning

Vince in Philly is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Vintage Mustang Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.2

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.