 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Mustang / August 2006new (2005-2007) mustangs - regular fuel?
I'm looking for reasons to trade up to a new Mustang GT Convertible but with gas prices as they are, it's hard to justify. Has anyone run regular (does it mean "regular unleaded" or "regular") fuel in their 2005-2007 Mustang GT? What kind of MPG? What kind of performance? Have you compared to same car running "Premium Unleaded (93 octane)"? I'd love to see comparison stats if they exist! Thanks!  SignatureScotter 96 GT Vert >I'm looking for reasons to trade up to a new Mustang GT Convertible but with >gas prices as they are, it's hard to justify. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Thanks! I have a 2005 GT and burn only regular in it. I get right at 23.3 mpg in mostly highway driving. I know the car will go 110 in 3rd gear. That's plenty fast enough for me. -- ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** John >>I'm looking for reasons to trade up to a new Mustang GT Convertible but with >>gas prices as they are, it's hard to justify. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >mostly highway driving. I know the car will go 110 in 3rd gear. That's >plenty fast enough for me. ditto for the 2006 GT (even the 110 in 3rd gear) and the average city for me ~19 no mods :) > I'm looking for reasons to trade up to a new Mustang GT Convertible but > with gas prices as they are, it's hard to justify. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks! Premium fuel doesn't improve performance, Period. You will see zero benefit over regular fuel in all cases, except where your compression ratio is high enough to cause pre-ignition (pinging) on regular fuel. Engines are designed (compression ratio/timing) for a specific octane rating - it is typically a HUGE waste of money to use a higher than recommended octane rated fuel. Therefore, always use fuel with an octane rating as close as possible to what the manufacturer suggests for the engine. This mindset assumes you have not made major modifications to the engine (compression ratio/timing). Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C (searches for the highest octane I can find) @ http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt > I'm looking for reasons to trade up to a new Mustang GT Convertible but > with gas prices as they are, it's hard to justify. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks! > Engines are designed (compression ratio/timing) for a specific octane > rating - it is typically a HUGE waste of money to use a higher than [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > for the highest octane I can find) @ > http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt Mmm, I think the above is a true statement, or at least was, until the 2005 Mustang. I read that the Spanish Oak computer will dynamically advance the timing as much as it can without detonation; in other words, you switch from 87 to 93 octane and the computer does its own "timing bump" without you even knowing about it. I think this was a few issues back in 5.0 magazine. John 93 GT > > Engines are designed (compression ratio/timing) for a specific octane > > rating - it is typically a HUGE waste of money to use a higher than [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > John > 93 GT Yep, I have seen the Spanish Oak in action... it will dynamically add spark if it thinks the car is "under-sparked"... You can watch the knock senors add and subtract timing... What I don't know is if they can add enough spark to take advantage of higher octane... but I have seen knock sensors add like 2 degrees... So in fact John (the other one) is right... I'll have to double check on what the manual says... LOL > Yep, I have seen the Spanish Oak in action... it will dynamically add > spark if it thinks the car is "under-sparked"... You can watch the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I'll have to double check on what the manual says... LOL The 5.0 mag dynoed the car on 87 and again on 93; they got a few more hp with the 93. I'm going to rifle around and see if I can find that issue, and I'll post a quote from the article. John I'm using 87 octane in my '06 GT and it seems "peppy" enough, lol. but I am amused whenever I read a new article by an "expert" saying to use the lowest grade gas that doesn't ping. all cars have had computer controls for years and if you can make a modern car ping, you've really got problems! have a 2002 Chrysler 300 (that's with the V6)......the owners manual recommends mid-grade, and tells you how much horsepower it develops with different octances: 215 on regular, 235 with plus. the performance isn't much different in normal driving - but is in the mountains. there is a BIG difference in miles-per-gallon: if gets 21 mpg (highway) on regular, 24 on mid and 28 with premium. most times it pays to use higher octane (on this particular car). once my Mustang in broken-in, I'll do some comparisons with it, too. >I'm using 87 octane in my '06 GT and it seems "peppy" enough, lol. but >I am amused whenever I read a new article by an "expert" saying to use >the lowest grade gas that doesn't ping. all cars have had computer >controls for years and if you can make a modern car ping, you've really >got problems! Not really. The older 4.6's GT's (pre 2005) did not have knock sensors so there was no way for the engine management to know if there was pinging. >have a 2002 Chrysler 300 (that's with the V6)......the owners manual >recommends mid-grade, and tells you how much horsepower it develops with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >once my Mustang in broken-in, I'll do some comparisons with it, too. RT: gees, had no idea that FoMoCo was so behind-the-times. I've got 5 cars and the only one I've ever heard ping is the '57. ('57 Packard.....only 7.8 to 1 comp, but needs high octane when the supercharger cuts in). >RT: > >gees, had no idea that FoMoCo was so behind-the-times. I've got 5 cars >and the only one I've ever heard ping is the '57. ('57 Packard.....only >7.8 to 1 comp, but needs high octane when the supercharger cuts in). If something is wrong the car can ping. Carbon deposits inside the combustion chamber for instance can increase your compression and cause pinging. There's probably a million other reasons why it could ping. > RT: > > gees, had no idea that FoMoCo was so behind-the-times. I've got 5 cars > and the only one I've ever heard ping is the '57. ('57 Packard.....only > 7.8 to 1 comp, but needs high octane when the supercharger cuts in). Stude 289 cu. in. V8 with Paxton blower??? :-) yup......289 Stude......115,000 mile California car....no rust but had to redo interior, paint, chrome, etc. blower was gone when I bought it.....found the right bits and took to Myer Studebaker in Zanesville OH. Didn't know if the old engine would take the boost.....but checked-out OK......put in new valve seals, adjusted valves & turned it and runs sweet. Too bad they used a 2 barrel to supercharge in '57/8.....think it was a space issue. The later R2/3 engines had more power, but the neat thing about the '57/8 setup is the wild, variable ratio pulley that the later ones don't have. >>I'm using 87 octane in my '06 GT and it seems "peppy" enough, lol. but >>I am amused whenever I read a new article by an "expert" saying to use [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > so there was no way for the engine management to know if there was > pinging. Why did Ford stop using knock sensors? >>have a 2002 Chrysler 300 (that's with the V6)......the owners manual >>recommends mid-grade, and tells you how much horsepower it develops with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >>once my Mustang in broken-in, I'll do some comparisons with it, too. >>>I'm using 87 octane in my '06 GT and it seems "peppy" enough, lol. but >>>I am amused whenever I read a new article by an "expert" saying to use [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Why did Ford stop using knock sensors? Stop ? The 5.0 and pre-2005 4.6 never had knock sensors (The cobra's did I think). If nothing is wrong with the engine there was no need for it on these engines. >>>have a 2002 Chrysler 300 (that's with the V6)......the owners manual >>>recommends mid-grade, and tells you how much horsepower it develops with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>> >>>once my Mustang in broken-in, I'll do some comparisons with it, too. Cobra 4.6 has had them since 1996. Actually they have two of them. They work best at detecting heavy ping and knock. Basically the stuff that could potentially be damaging. They don't work very well at detecting a mild ping at higher RPMs. The 99's received a revised sensor, that I believe was termed "dual differential". From what I understand they are a little better at detecting low level ping/knock. Too much information. Sorry. Trying to take my mind off work on this late Friday. Owners manual for that car specifies 87 octane. Recommends *against* using premium. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.