CRG Discussion Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 02, 2014, 01:31:44 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the CRG Discussion Forum!
Forum registration problems: Make sure you enter your email correctly and you check your spam box first. *Then* email KurtS2@gmail for help.
105014 Posts in 12267 Topics by 4728 Members
Latest Member: MartySS
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  CRG Discussion Forum
|-+  Camaro Research Group Discussion
| |-+  General Discussion
| | |-+  av gas yes or no
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All Print
Author Topic: av gas yes or no  (Read 12358 times)
Pacecarjeff
Member
***
Posts: 341



View Profile WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 26, 2007, 02:30:23 PM »

Use the VP fuel whenever you can.
They make a very nice product -
 but pretty expensive  $7.95 last I looked. 
We are very lucky with all the race boats here in Florida.
110 is easy to get.
AV gas is not really good for your car.

Logged
GaryL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 538


Marilyn and me

gandmal
View Profile Email
« Reply #31 on: June 26, 2007, 04:19:40 PM »

I went and bought 5 gallons of 100LL AV gas this morning and boy did the car run better. I thought it was good on pump gas but now it is a different animal. Thanks Jerry

Did you make any tuning changes?

What is VP fuel. Why is AV gas not good?
« Last Edit: June 26, 2007, 04:28:10 PM by GaryL » Logged

Gary

Lemans Blue X33. DZ, M20, manual steering. Only BU code rear end is original.
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #32 on: June 26, 2007, 04:28:05 PM »

Jeff,

The burn rate is fine.  We have checked this for many years on the dyno monitoring the EGT temps on the exhaust headers.  There are absolutely no issues with running the Av gas, I ran it straight in the race car for many years.  No issues with the valve seat areas either.  It's cheaper, about $350 a gallon now and it does get the job done for less $$$.  I have been using this in my cars for over 30+ years.  All of the additives are NG IMO.

Jerry
Logged
Pacecarjeff
Member
***
Posts: 341



View Profile WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 26, 2007, 05:49:44 PM »

AV gas was fine as long as it is mixed.
For a long time that was all we could get here - Did not like the way the cars ran if more than 50% AV was used.
Just heard some crazy stories about guys who ran pure AV. So I mostly stayed away.  Shocked

i LOVE the 110 leaded racing fuel Grin
That alway perks everything up nicely.

FYI  --- VP is a fuel company - I think you can even mail order from them???
They sell all different grades of High test fuels - leaded and unleaded - fine product, but expensive

I used the VP 112 for a while, untill Sunoco opened up here for 2/3rds the price.
http://www.vpracingfuels.com/vp_01_fuels.html
Logged
Chris_Pisane
Member
***
Posts: 61


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: June 26, 2007, 06:09:10 PM »

Smart man you are  FireZ,

You tried it and you liked it just as I did. I have 2 302 cars and run them on av.I mix  5 gallons of av to 4 gallons of premiunm. That is just my mixture no science involved,I was going by what the fuel guy told me, it just works for me.I agree with hotrod 68,my self I could not get spark rattle out of my green z without retarding timing so much it ran like a weak 305. Im sure you can tune like others said to fix it.But I find it easier to go to the airport with my jazz jugs, fill them, and mix as needed.

It only took me  5 gallons of av gas to  sell me on it. For those who want to pay  $8.00 a gallon feel free. I pay about around $.60 more a gallon for av gas than premium and I feel good about that.

 I hoped jerry would chime in on this one.Many years ago this same subject came up. I dont remember if it was here or Team Camaro, but Jerry brought up the fact that  lead  in the fuel was intended  for carb and valve lubrication,And how unleaded fuels didnt provide for that.He reccomended av gas.I was leary about using it myself,even after local guys told me about it until Jerry said it was cool and then I tried it,and the results were excellent.I then recommended it to another friend in town with a 302 69 Z. He has told me many times how much  his car " Woke up" after using av gas. Also where I live,I have no idea where you can by the Sunoco fuel everyone talks about.

Ive had people tell me av gas is no good,silicone brake fluid is no good,sea foam is a joke. I believe in all of them because they work for me.

Also Av gas is blue,my favorite color.



Logged

Chris Pisane....Fathom green 69 z/28 ,Lemans blue 69 JL8 Z/28 http://cpisane.photosite.com/
zzmike
Member
***
Posts: 49



View Profile Email
« Reply #35 on: June 26, 2007, 06:10:12 PM »

There seems to be a lot of people hanging onto "octane" in this thread like it is the "be all, end all" in the world of power production. This is certainly not the case, or the extremely high octane (approx 130 points) of LPG and CNG would certainly create more power, but in real world application, everyone viewing this thread should be able to see that they do not.

Let's start with Aviation Fuel:
The octane of aviation fuel is not measured in exactly the same way as it is in automobile fuel.

The motor method of ASTM (which once stood for the American Society for Testing and Materials, but now is an internationally recognized standardization body) testing is used to determine the motor rating of aviation fuel. This differs from the R+M/2 methods used for traditional automotive gasoline.

Because of the different ways in which automotive and aviation gasoline octane is measured one must be very careful when comparing absolute numbers. 100 octane aviation fuel is not equal to 100 octane automotive gasoline, however, the lean number rating of aviation fuel will be close.

Now let's discuss Race Fuel:
The most talked about and most easily misunderstood characteristic of gasoline is its octane rating, which is a measure of how resistant gasoline is to detonation and preignition (knocking). It is measured relative to a mixture of iso-octane and n-heptane. So an 87-octane gasoline has the same knock resistance as a mixture of 87% iso-octane and 13% n-heptane.

So how do we get gas over 100 octane??  Because iso-octane is not the most knock-resistant substance available, and when other additives or substances to enhance octane are used in the refining and manufacturing process, it skews the standard that was developed back when Jesus was still a teenager. Everyone familiar with high performance engines is aware that racing fuels and aviation fuels typically have octane ratings of 110 or higher.

It can be said that fuels with higher octane ratings burn less easily, yet they remain extremely popular because they are thought of as being a more powerful fuel.  Manufacturers recommend using a fuel with a higher octane so that an engine can be run at a higher compression ratio without having problems with knock. Compression is directly related to power, so engines that require higher octane usually deliver more power.  This is usually where the misnomer of higher octane = more power stems from.  It cannot be stressed enough that the power output of an engine not only depends on compression (naturally) but also depends on the energy content of its fuel.  Where the confusion sets in is that no simple correlation between octane rating and actual power derivation (energy content) of the fuel exists. Some people believe that adding a higher octane fuel to their engine will increase its performance, but this is not the case.  Engines perform best when using fuel with the octane rating that allows for maximum power production without detonation or preignition.  Given today's advanced refining processes and additive packages, this is typically easily obtained without the gargantuan octane numbers of yore.

Just my $0.02



« Last Edit: June 26, 2007, 07:11:34 PM by zzmike » Logged

1968 Crossram Z/28 Camaro
GaryL
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 538


Marilyn and me

gandmal
View Profile Email
« Reply #36 on: June 26, 2007, 07:27:15 PM »

What fuel do you use zzmike? I have my 302 tuned as JohnZ does and I use enough Octane 130 (TEL) to get 93 octane because we only have 91 octane California. I agree that today's fuel is better than years ago. The quality of modern fuel has been discussed on TC before.
Logged

Gary

Lemans Blue X33. DZ, M20, manual steering. Only BU code rear end is original.
zzmike
Member
***
Posts: 49



View Profile Email
« Reply #37 on: June 26, 2007, 07:43:58 PM »

Funny you should ask.  I use VP C-12.  This is advertised as 108, I believe.  I have a mechanical compression ratio close to 13:1, as well as a Lunati custom grind that necessitates the need for higher octane, and then some, just to err on the side of caution.  The engine saw extensive dyno time at Nickens Brothers while paying close attention to BSFC, BMEP, EGTs, and effective compression which required a fuel notably less than the octane rating currently in the car (98, I believe is where the car made maximum power).  The extra octane points I run just to keep it safe, and the fact that the local speed shop always has it and the fuel has a stabilizer is a bonus, since I only drive the car about twice a year.

My daily driver is a 600 Rear Wheel Horsepower 4.6 liter, which has a screw style supercharger running 19 pounds of boost and it gets 100 octane unleaded.
Logged

1968 Crossram Z/28 Camaro
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #38 on: June 26, 2007, 09:14:18 PM »

Funny VP came up here.

I use VP C-11 in the race car now.  Very expensive $$$$.  Used to use C-12 but dyno testing showed 4-5 more horsepower with C-11.  Just about everone in Stock Eliminator uses C-11 now.  Slower burn rate.  Don't have 600 hp at the rear wheels but do have 465HP in two of my Stock eliminator 302s.  No trick parts.  Stock rocker arms, .483" lift cam and no head porting or work.  Stock carb, intake.  10.80s at 122 mph in good air.  Car weights about 3250 lbs.

Jerry
Logged
zzmike
Member
***
Posts: 49



View Profile Email
« Reply #39 on: June 26, 2007, 09:22:38 PM »

That's why you're the man, Jerry  Grin.  Mine went over 500, but we backed it off a bit.  Nice to know what it'll do, but no reason to run the original block and heads on the ragged edge without reason.

P.S.  I am still looking for a set of original standard black door and interior quarter panels for a '68, just in case you happen to stumble over some.

Cheers,

Michael Parker
Logged

1968 Crossram Z/28 Camaro
hotrod68
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 520


almost finished

rusticman48@aol
View Profile Email
« Reply #40 on: June 26, 2007, 10:25:08 PM »

I ran 104+ in the '80s and early '90s and never had a problem--maybe the formula has changed since then. But when I went to the track I filled up with 50% 92 pump gas, 50% Union 76 racing gas in an 11.75:1 400 that ran mid-12s with 3:55 gears. I drove the car every day and the 104+ was a heckuva lot cheaper than racing gas. The curse of high-octane is like zzmike alluded to; it actually burns slower to arrest the flame front and stop pre-ignition and detonation. High-octane gas doesn't make more power because it burns better--it lets you make more power because you can advance the timing with higher compression for better combustion and engine response. It's a trade-off. You can take 2 identical cars on a zero-degree day and try to start them. The car with puke 87 octane will start, while the car with 108 octane leaded racing gas will likely need help with ether or kill the battery before it fires. Most people think hi-octane means hi-volatility, but it's the exact opposite. That's the dirty little secret.
Logged

HotRod'68  1968 SS350 coupe undergoing frame-off resto/rod. 386/350/4.11s
Butternut Yellow    black standard interior
zzmike
Member
***
Posts: 49



View Profile Email
« Reply #41 on: June 26, 2007, 10:48:35 PM »

104+ uses MMT to better allow your gasoline’s ability to resist detonation and preignition through the use of manganese. A lot like lead, manganese releases vapors when subjected to the high heat and pressure during combustion that in turn stabilize the end gases in the combustion chamber (those in the quench area of the small block Chevy) and keeps them from being ignited by hot spots or spontaneously exploding due to intense heat created by the resultant pressure spikes in the combustion chamber at high engine loads. This is actually different than another members postulation that alcohol is the active ingredient, when in fact it is a relatively low quantity when compared to the other aromatics in 104+; but it is the manganese in the MMT that makes for controlled combustion.  It works, MMT is found in VP and Sunoco fuels, typically when the fuel is specified as containing metallic compounds other than lead.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2007, 10:56:17 PM by zzmike » Logged

1968 Crossram Z/28 Camaro
Jerry@CHP
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 1445



View Profile Email
« Reply #42 on: June 27, 2007, 08:38:57 AM »

Mike,

All of these original door panels are getting so hard to find.  Good luck.  You'll have to hit every flea market and hit them hard.  Can still be found but like everything else, parts are drying up.  I wish the damn interior companies woud make them right. 

Jerry
Logged
JohnZ
CRG Member
*****
Posts: 4112


View Profile Email
« Reply #43 on: June 27, 2007, 10:37:23 AM »

That's like all the popular misconceptions about nitromethane - when I ran my AA/FD in the early 60's, we normally ran about 60% nitro/40% methanol (NOT the "100% nitro" the "Sunday-Sunday-Sunday!" track announcers would have the crowd believe back then). Nitro has a LOUSY octane rating, and burns very slowly - but it carries its own oxygen, and lets you run a lot richer mixture (more fuel). We ran Joe Hunt Vertex mags and 1:1 blower drives in 392 Hemi's in those days, and push-started with the mag grounded, flipping the switch on at about 20 mph; had to run 60* advance to avoid detonation through the lights, and it wouldn't start at low rpm with the mag on with that much advance. Some guys fiddled with Hydrazine as an additive, but I never touched it - you could tell the guys that did when we ran at night, as their header flames were green; they had to flush the remaining mix in the fuel system with alcohol in the shutdown area after every run, as nitro/alcohol/hydrazine became unstable, especially on a hot day. Nitro was about $900 a drum back then, and is about $1500 today.  Shocked
Logged

'69 Z/28
Fathom Green
CRG
Pages: 1 2 [3]  All Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.077 seconds with 17 queries.