What explains the differences seen is probably the refinery source and running condition. In the fleet and industrial rebuild environment, I've personally looked at millions of valves and have no clue what type of fuel they used other than gas or diesel. Pretty sure gas is always going to be whatever is cheap and convenient. No issues seen in my part of the country. I documented well over a million miles with personal street/performance vehicles while doing rep jobs (unrelated). The only issues with fuel had to do with particular brands and refinery sources and the running observations, but the vehicles were heavily driven and occasionally parked for the season in rotation. Crappy gas was run through with no performance expectations. I did not do any testing on ethanol content or chemical blend, it had nothing to do with my objectives. I can't say they sat with a particular fuel other than I avoided the stations that gave me issues running things hard. I'll agree that 'most' engines "shouldn't" notice a difference unless there's a mix or blend problem, and maybe sitting too long. Mine were 7.5-8+ liter engines expecting Very high mpg with their performance levels. I noticed tuning issues easier than more mild engines. I've noticed in the past... conditional issues (such as weak ignition systems) show up fuel issues more noticeably, including marine 2 stroke engines. I'm not convinced that it isn't due to the way the 2 stroke oil mixes with the various fuels.
Whenever possible I run the non ethanol in my cars, which is almost all the time. Same for my yard equipment.
I add the octane boost because the non ethanol i get does not have a high octane rating. my car has an old rebuild to stock and not one tuned for today's gas.
Store bought octane boost is a big waste of money. It raises octane by tenths of a number. Leaded race gas is the best bang for the buck.
This thread will tell you all you need to know about octane booster; http://www.v8buick.com/index.php?threads/has-anyone-tried-this-octane-booster.323258/ The thread even has info on how to make your own octane booster.
I am about 8 years now running ethanol in two different nailheads in my '50 chevy sedan delivery. Its all in the tune; carb jetting, timing, etc. Havent touched the quadrajet since I got it dialed in 4 years ago. Same spark plugs and second set of points.
Maybe there is a thread like that here, but I can tell you that you are wasting your money with the octane boosters that raise your octane from 91 to 91.3.
Here is the Torco mixing chart for their unleaded additive. They make racing fuel as well as octane booster. Our Mustang makes over 740 RWHP on the 103 octane blend.
I am having a hard time believing that chart. If I am reading it right, 32 oz in 20 gallons of 93 pump gas raises you to 98 octane for roughly 22.00 best price. It would take 5 gallons of 110 Race gas mixed with 15 gallons of 93 to do the same thing and that would cost a minimum of 40.00. The Torco mix does this with no TEL? Hard to believe. Have to do some research.
Risk wise, I can't imagine planning any project around the addition of a little booster when things 'get hot'. What you are potentially and silently damaging is thousands of dollars when a fellow can build or tune the engine to be safe on whatever is at the pump already. Going up a point in compression in this range is worth 3.5% hp, so about 15 or 20 to gain. Not worth it IMO. Suggesting a build based on boosted power implies good engineering skills able to use in many ways, including reliability for the engine on available fuels, meaning the fuel is not any obstacle to the well skilled.
There is no risk with the right protection. We use a knock retard system that pulls timing from any cylinder that knocks and adds it back to the point of knock. It works for each cylinder independently. It has never had to “step in” in six years. The additive allows us to run between 22-25 pounds of boost through our 283 at 10:1 static compression and 7.75:1 dynamic compression while using all the emissions systems it was equipped with including cats. Any leaded race fuel would burn out the cats. Similar combinations can not tolerate more then 19 pounds of boost on 93 octane at the ragged edge. It adds about $1.63 in cost per gallon at the 3.2 oz per gallon or 103 mix with 93 octane. That is purchasing 5 gallon pail at $275-$300 delivered. So for about $4.60 a gallon (assuming 93 at around $3 per gallon) you can have 103 octane without leaving your house or looking for for race gas dealers. It is also safe for all modern emissions systems. Below is our dyno on the Torco 103 octane tune using 3.2 oz of additive to one gallon of 93 octane (remember that is rear wheel horsepower): Cheryl
That's an impressive car! (Even despite the Dynojet affiliation ) Excellent explanation of how larger buying power makes things affordable. I bet if they packaged it by the tank (or months worth), it would be really spendy. Thanks for reiterating my point of using your excellent skill level and wise use of electronics to take zero chances from the front end of the project.
Even though I've never used it, I'm placing the Torco additive on a whole different level than the old scam-in-a-can. I don't doubt your car can back up it's numbers, that was a stab at Dynojet.
Herman is one of the Gurus of SC Mustang tuning and has had thousand of them on his dyno. He has never been accused of a "happy dyno" and his cars have similar dyno power numbers as other very good tuners with similar combinations on other Dynojets. Even with optimization, there is only so much they can produce on a given fuel. You start to know who has "fake dynos" pretty quickly. I know Mustang Dynos are more highly regarded. If you buy single 32 oz cans of Torco it can cost over $3 per gallon at the 3.2 oz per gallon level. That is twice the cost per gallon of buying it in five gallon bulk. It is not without drawbacks. It can't be exposed to light and the container must be kept sealed tight. We use respirators and gloves when transferring it to smaller 32oz cans that can be kept in the car. It also has a maximum shelf life of about three years. After that it becomes a smelly toxic waste that no one wants to dispose of for less then $500. Unfortunately, we know too well that this is true. Cheryl
Sounds like Herman is a stand up fellow using the tool as it's intended! The tech having the liberty of the inputs and thus the corrections has tremendous potential to do right or wrong. I would believe that many out there dial out the assumed and pre-programmed inertial corrections in order to offer a legit service to the marketplace. Besides, I think DJ has changed the old ways to more accurately reflect the types of things being tested lately.
would there be a difference in horsepower between the fuels ? would you need to add timing and a richer fuel mixture to the ethanol fuel to perform better and be equal to the non ethanol fuel ?
Joe guiding us back on track - That would depend on the octane of the fuel. A 10% ethanol blend at 93 octane would require a little more fuel by volume to keep from going lean while the non-ethanol 93 would make the same power with less fuel. The octane level would be the timing limiting factor in either case. E85 requires generally 1/3 more fuel volume then 93 octane pump gas. But, here, the octane is much higher allowing more timing and compression if you build for it.
what do you think of octane supreme 130 additive. thinking its like torco but with lead for older cars. wow that is some mustang motor.