Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / October 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Proper octane fuel for 4.9L L6?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Ford Warrior - 21 Oct 2005 03:44 GMT
1995 E250 cargo van 4.9L inline 6 with 176k miles here.  Was just wondering
if there would be any advantage or performance gain to be had using premium
(93) vs plus (89) with this engine.  I had always thought to use plus in a
six cylinder and premium in a v8 but have been curious about this.  Any
thoughts?

thanks
Jay
ds549@webtv.net - 21 Oct 2005 04:31 GMT
       those engines were made low compression ,so 89 will work
fine.the higher the compression ,the higher the octane needed. dont
think youll notice much difference using premium.

http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm
Ford Warrior - 22 Oct 2005 05:08 GMT
So the general concensus would be just to go with the Regular 87 fuel?

Thanks
David M - 21 Oct 2005 09:44 GMT
> 1995 E250 cargo van 4.9L inline 6 with 176k miles here.  Was just wondering
> if there would be any advantage or performance gain to be had using premium
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> thanks
> Jay

No need to spend the money.  It is designed to run on 87.

Signature

David M  (dmacchiarolo)
http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled
T/S 53
sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14  has been up 10:47 1 user

Advocate - 21 Oct 2005 13:40 GMT
> 1995 E250 cargo van 4.9L inline 6 with 176k miles here.  Was just
> wondering
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> six cylinder and premium in a v8 but have been curious about this.  Any
> thoughts?

You are wasting your money burning plus.
The OTHER Kevin in San Diego - 21 Oct 2005 14:39 GMT
>1995 E250 cargo van 4.9L inline 6 with 176k miles here.  Was just wondering
>if there would be any advantage or performance gain to be had using premium
>(93) vs plus (89) with this engine.  I had always thought to use plus in a
>six cylinder and premium in a v8 but have been curious about this.  Any
>thoughts?

Running high octane fuel will not net you anything but a lighter
wallet.  High octane does not equal more power.  In fact, the higher
the octane number, the slower the fuel will burn...  Stick with the
87.
TheSnoMan - 22 Oct 2005 11:50 GMT
>>1995 E250 cargo van 4.9L inline 6 with 176k miles here.  Was just wondering
>>if there would be any advantage or performance gain to be had using premium
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> the octane number, the slower the fuel will burn...  Stick with the
> 87.

Not true, 9 to 1 and better compression is no place for 87 octane. It is
in owner manual for sales reasons and the only reason some engine have
knoc senxors it for 87 octane compatibilty, not for emissions ans every
time ECM retards the spark to control knock, it is reducing power and
MPG plain and simple. I use plus or better in all my cars and have for
years. Even my wife 2000 4cyl Cherokee gains about 2 mpg in city/urban
driving with 89 or better gas run better and smoother too. I have a 89
4x4 burb that I have had since new and now has 176K miles on it and it
will get 19mpg or better on highway with A/C and 93 in tank and runs
great and never pings no matter what. Long ago the best it every did on
87 was about 16 once without A/C and usually 14mpg with A/C on on
highway and tended to knock and have a lot less power on hills too. It
has not had a tank of 87 for many years now. Personally I think 87
should be taken off the market because it is a through back to the days
on 8 to 1 compression in the 70's. Rhet should just have 89 and 93 or so
and just two stocks instead of three would reduce the price on 89 too
and allow detriot to biuld cars with higher compression for better
thermodynamic effieceny and better MPG.

Signature

-----------------
www.thesnoman.com

 
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.