Hi Octane Autogas

[UltraJohn]

One of the gas stations I frequent in my work vehicle carrys 110 leaded
auto gas I thought this was interesting and maybe of use for some with high
compression performance planes (racers).
John
I think it was an Exxon station but if anyones interested I could double
check.

[Capt.Doug]

>"UltraJohn" wrote in message > One of the gas stations I frequent in my
>work vehicle carrys 110 leaded
> auto gas I thought this was interesting and maybe of use for some with
high
> compression performance planes (racers).
> John
> I think it was an Exxon station but if anyones interested I could double
> check.

What country are you in?

D.

[G EddieA95]

>> I think it was an Exxon station but if anyones interested I could double
>> check.
>
>What country are you in?

If it's Exxon, he's in the US. They use the name Esso everyplace else.

[Capt.Doug]

>"G EddieA95" wrote in message > If it's Exxon, he's in the US. They use
the >name Esso everyplace else.

That's what doesn't make sense. How can a roadside gas station in the USA
sell leaded gasoline?

D.

[Dillon Pyron]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 03:02:28 GMT, "Capt.Doug" >
wrote:

>>"G EddieA95" wrote in message > If it's Exxon, he's in the US. They use
>the >name Esso everyplace else.
>
>That's what doesn't make sense. How can a roadside gas station in the USA
>sell leaded gasoline?
>
>D.
>
Just can't sell it using a filler nozzle that fits into an unleaded
only tank.

110 must be pretty expensive. I use leaded 96 in my race car and it
cost me $3.98/gal. I don't even want to know the price today,
although I'm going to find out real soon.
--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

[Morgans]

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"G EddieA95" wrote in message > If it's Exxon, he's in the US. They use
> the >name Esso everyplace else.
>
> That's what doesn't make sense. How can a roadside gas station in the USA
> sell leaded gasoline?
>
> D.

It is intended for race cars, and not for use on the road.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.651 / Virus Database: 417 - Release Date: 4/5/2004

[James R. Freeman]

Here in KY near the lakes we get it as BOAT GAS, Large nozzle from a
separate tank system.

"UltraJohn" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> One of the gas stations I frequent in my work vehicle carrys 110 leaded
> auto gas I thought this was interesting and maybe of use for some with
high
> compression performance planes (racers).
> John
> I think it was an Exxon station but if anyones interested I could double
> check.
>

[Richard Lamb]

"James R. Freeman" wrote:
>
> Here in KY near the lakes we get it as BOAT GAS, Large nozzle from a
> separate tank system.
>

Oh Man, flashback to when those skinny low lead nozzels first showed up?

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Sat, 10 Apr 2004 21:09:17 GMT, Richard Lamb >
wrote:

>"James R. Freeman" wrote:
>>
>> Here in KY near the lakes we get it as BOAT GAS, Large nozzle from a
>> separate tank system.
>>
>
>Oh Man, flashback to when those skinny low lead nozzels first showed up?

Ah, yes, and my dad taking a screwdriver and pulling out the restrictor on
the gas tank so he could put "real" gas in his Monte Carlo....

Ron Wanttaja

[UltraJohn]

I double checked and it was Exxon and it is quite pricey. . .
regular 93 octane here is about 195 and this 110 leaded was 4.25 a gallon!
but hey if your running 12.5 to 13.0 to 1 compression you have to pay the
price. .;-)
John



James R. Freeman wrote:

> Here in KY near the lakes we get it as BOAT GAS, Large nozzle from a
> separate tank system.
>
> "UltraJohn" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> One of the gas stations I frequent in my work vehicle carrys 110 leaded
>> auto gas I thought this was interesting and maybe of use for some with
> high
>> compression performance planes (racers).
>> John
>> I think it was an Exxon station but if anyones interested I could double
>> check.
>>
>
>
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article et>,
UltraJohn > wrote:

> I double checked and it was Exxon and it is quite pricey. . .
> regular 93 octane here is about 195 and this 110 leaded was 4.25 a gallon!
> but hey if your running 12.5 to 13.0 to 1 compression you have to pay the
> price. .;-)
> John
>

Actually, you can get an extra boost if you mix 1:4 ratio 100LL and
premium unleaded. Low concentrations of TEL yield large octane boosting.

[L.D.]

Orval Fairbairn wrote:

>In article et>,
> UltraJohn > wrote:
>
>
>
>>I double checked and it was Exxon and it is quite pricey. . .
>>regular 93 octane here is about 195 and this 110 leaded was 4.25 a gallon!
>>but hey if your running 12.5 to 13.0 to 1 compression you have to pay the
>>price. .;-)
>>John
>>
>>
>>
>
>Actually, you can get an extra boost if you mix 1:4 ratio 100LL and
>premium unleaded. Low concentrations of TEL yield large octane boosting.
>
>
Orval,
When you say "extra boost", what do you mean? If you mean power, you are
wrong. Higher octane is less explosive, harder to set off, less power,
that is the reason you don't get preignition. It won't ignite from high
compression, a glowing piece of carbon or early timing, etc as lower
octane will. To get the most power use the lowest octane you can with
out ignition knock.
L.D.

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:47:18 -0500, "L.D." >
wrote:

>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>
>>In article et>,
>> UltraJohn > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I double checked and it was Exxon and it is quite pricey. . .
>>>regular 93 octane here is about 195 and this 110 leaded was 4.25 a gallon!
>>>but hey if your running 12.5 to 13.0 to 1 compression you have to pay the
>>>price. .;-)
>>>John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Actually, you can get an extra boost if you mix 1:4 ratio 100LL and
>>premium unleaded. Low concentrations of TEL yield large octane boosting.
>>
>>
>Orval,
>When you say "extra boost", what do you mean? If you mean power, you are
>wrong. Higher octane is less explosive, harder to set off, less power,
>that is the reason you don't get preignition. It won't ignite from high
>compression, a glowing piece of carbon or early timing, etc as lower
>octane will. To get the most power use the lowest octane you can with
>out ignition knock.
>L.D.

No, better to tune the engine to make use of the extra octane. Higher
CR, more advance, or better intake/exhaust can allow the engine to use
the extra octane and produce significantly higher power. High octane
fuel does not necessarily burn slower, it is just less prone to
auto-ignition.
Propane burns faster than gasoline and is 150 octane, on average.

I have had several vehicles over the years that produced enough extra
power (and therefore economy) on hightest to MORE than pay the
difference in cost. Being computer controlled engines, knock was never
an issue - I could likely have run the thing on Kerosene after it was
warmed up.

[L.D.]

wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:47:18 -0500, "L.D." >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>In article et>,
>>>UltraJohn > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I double checked and it was Exxon and it is quite pricey. . .
>>>>regular 93 octane here is about 195 and this 110 leaded was 4.25 a gallon!
>>>>but hey if your running 12.5 to 13.0 to 1 compression you have to pay the
>>>>price. .;-)
>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Actually, you can get an extra boost if you mix 1:4 ratio 100LL and
>>>premium unleaded. Low concentrations of TEL yield large octane boosting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Orval,
>>When you say "extra boost", what do you mean? If you mean power, you are
>>wrong. Higher octane is less explosive, harder to set off, less power,
>>that is the reason you don't get preignition. It won't ignite from high
>>compression, a glowing piece of carbon or early timing, etc as lower
>>octane will. To get the most power use the lowest octane you can with
>>out ignition knock.
>>L.D.
>>
>>
>
>No, better to tune the engine to make use of the extra octane. Higher
>CR, more advance, or better intake/exhaust can allow the engine to use
>the extra octane and produce significantly higher power. High octane
>fuel does not necessarily burn slower, it is just less prone to
>auto-ignition.
>Propane burns faster than gasoline and is 150 octane, on average.
>
>I have had several vehicles over the years that produced enough extra
>power (and therefore economy) on hightest to MORE than pay the
>difference in cost. Being computer controlled engines, knock was never
>an issue - I could likely have run the thing on Kerosene after it was
>warmed up.
>
>
>
Oh yes, I agree to tune the engine, higher cr, more advance and so on,
but that aggravates pre ignition. Then you may have to use higher
octane. I didn't mean to use lower octane instead of good tune. When you
do tune correctly and you still don't have pre ignition, then no need to
use higher octane. In fact it is counter productive. You said propane
has about 150 octane. I new it was very high although I didn't know the
exact #. That is my point, I have run propane in trucks and tractors
and it doesn't have as much power and it uses more fuel. So again my
belief is octane rating is not a power rating. If it was, burning
propane would give more power.
L.D.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:50:59 -0500, "L.D." >
wrote:

>Oh yes, I agree to tune the engine, higher cr, more advance and so on,
>but that aggravates pre ignition. Then you may have to use higher
>octane. I didn't mean to use lower octane instead of good tune. When you
>do tune correctly and you still don't have pre ignition, then no need to
>use higher octane. In fact it is counter productive. You said propane
>has about 150 octane. I new it was very high although I didn't know the
>exact #. That is my point, I have run propane in trucks and tractors
>and it doesn't have as much power and it uses more fuel. So again my
>belief is octane rating is not a power rating. If it was, burning
>propane would give more power.
>L.D.

Are you sure you mean to say "pre-ignition"? Pre-ignition is extremly
destructive, MUCH more so than detonation.

If an engine is at a high power setting and pre-ignition occurs, the
first indication would be sudden loss of power due to the
disintegration of the piston or some other equally catastrophic
component failure.

Pre-ignition is a spontaneous ignition of the fuel/air mixture prior
to when the spark plugs normally fire. That means the piston is still
on it's way up and the peak pressure point occurs before top dead
center. Very few engines can withstand this kind of internal pressure
for long before blowing.

Detonation, on the other hand, is a more rapid burning of the F/A
mixture after it's been normally ignited by the spark plugs. It also
results in higher peak pressure than normal because the burning of the
mixture occurs before the piston is at 16 degrees after top dead
center. But at least the piston isn't stil on it's way up.

Detonation can also be damaging to the engine, but it doesn't have to
result in damage, unless ignored for too long. This presupposes that
the engine is producing close to max power when the detonation occurs.
Detonation is almost impossible to produce with low power settings.

Also, in regards using higher octane fuel, if the engine's ignition
system is the type that varies the timing according to the information
gleaned from the various sensors on the engine, including a knock
sensor, then you would in fact be able to produce more power from that
engine by using a higher octane fuel because the ignition system would
max the timing settings when it doesn't sense any knocking going on.
When the system senses knocking, it retards the timing till the
knocking goes away.

Corky Scott

[L.D.]

wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:50:59 -0500, "L.D." >
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Oh yes, I agree to tune the engine, higher cr, more advance and so on,
>>but that aggravates pre ignition. Then you may have to use higher
>>octane. I didn't mean to use lower octane instead of good tune. When you
>>do tune correctly and you still don't have pre ignition, then no need to
>>use higher octane. In fact it is counter productive. You said propane
>>has about 150 octane. I new it was very high although I didn't know the
>>exact #. That is my point, I have run propane in trucks and tractors
>>and it doesn't have as much power and it uses more fuel. So again my
>>belief is octane rating is not a power rating. If it was, burning
>>propane would give more power.
>>L.D.
>>
>>
>
>Are you sure you mean to say "pre-ignition"? Pre-ignition is extremly
>destructive, MUCH more so than detonation.
>
>If an engine is at a high power setting and pre-ignition occurs, the
>first indication would be sudden loss of power due to the
>disintegration of the piston or some other equally catastrophic
>component failure.
>
>Pre-ignition is a spontaneous ignition of the fuel/air mixture prior
>to when the spark plugs normally fire. That means the piston is still
>on it's way up and the peak pressure point occurs before top dead
>center. Very few engines can withstand this kind of internal pressure
>for long before blowing.
>
>Detonation, on the other hand, is a more rapid burning of the F/A
>mixture after it's been normally ignited by the spark plugs. It also
>results in higher peak pressure than normal because the burning of the
>mixture occurs before the piston is at 16 degrees after top dead
>center. But at least the piston isn't stil on it's way up.
>
>Detonation can also be damaging to the engine, but it doesn't have to
>result in damage, unless ignored for too long. This presupposes that
>the engine is producing close to max power when the detonation occurs.
>Detonation is almost impossible to produce with low power settings.
>
>Also, in regards using higher octane fuel, if the engine's ignition
>system is the type that varies the timing according to the information
>gleaned from the various sensors on the engine, including a knock
>sensor, then you would in fact be able to produce more power from that
>engine by using a higher octane fuel because the ignition system would
>max the timing settings when it doesn't sense any knocking going on.
>When the system senses knocking, it retards the timing till the
>knocking goes away.
>
>Corky Scott
>
>
Corkey,
With the computer it is out of my league. In the old days, the way I
did it was correct. Now with the computer I still do not believe higher
octane will give more power. Take the old tractors in the 20'S. You
could burn gasoline or kerosene. Kerosene gave much more power and it is
lower octane. Like I said in my earlier post propane gives less power
and it has more octane. This is something I've saw happen.
I know I'm right because I've only been wrong once in my life and I was
mistaken about that. He He HE just joking.
Serious now. With the computer you may be able to get more power from
high octane, but I just don't see how.
L.D.

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:50:59 -0500, "L.D." >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Apr 2004 15:47:18 -0500, "L.D." >
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Orval Fairbairn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article et>,
>>>>UltraJohn > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I double checked and it was Exxon and it is quite pricey. . .
>>>>>regular 93 octane here is about 195 and this 110 leaded was 4.25 a gallon!
>>>>>but hey if your running 12.5 to 13.0 to 1 compression you have to pay the
>>>>>price. .;-)
>>>>>John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Actually, you can get an extra boost if you mix 1:4 ratio 100LL and
>>>>premium unleaded. Low concentrations of TEL yield large octane boosting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Orval,
>>>When you say "extra boost", what do you mean? If you mean power, you are
>>>wrong. Higher octane is less explosive, harder to set off, less power,
>>>that is the reason you don't get preignition. It won't ignite from high
>>>compression, a glowing piece of carbon or early timing, etc as lower
>>>octane will. To get the most power use the lowest octane you can with
>>>out ignition knock.
>>>L.D.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>No, better to tune the engine to make use of the extra octane. Higher
>>CR, more advance, or better intake/exhaust can allow the engine to use
>>the extra octane and produce significantly higher power. High octane
>>fuel does not necessarily burn slower, it is just less prone to
>>auto-ignition.
>>Propane burns faster than gasoline and is 150 octane, on average.
>>
>>I have had several vehicles over the years that produced enough extra
>>power (and therefore economy) on hightest to MORE than pay the
>>difference in cost. Being computer controlled engines, knock was never
>>an issue - I could likely have run the thing on Kerosene after it was
>>warmed up.
>>
>>
>>
>Oh yes, I agree to tune the engine, higher cr, more advance and so on,
>but that aggravates pre ignition. Then you may have to use higher
>octane. I didn't mean to use lower octane instead of good tune. When you
>do tune correctly and you still don't have pre ignition, then no need to
>use higher octane. In fact it is counter productive. You said propane
>has about 150 octane. I new it was very high although I didn't know the
>exact #. That is my point, I have run propane in trucks and tractors
>and it doesn't have as much power and it uses more fuel. So again my
>belief is octane rating is not a power rating. If it was, burning
>propane would give more power.
>L.D.

You are missing the point.
An engine TUNED for high octane fuel will produce more power from each
gallon of that high octane gas, still below the "detonation" point,
than an engine properly tuned for low octane will on low octane.

It is also obvious you have never converted IC engines for propane in
a serious way. Propane has a lower energy content per lb than
gasoline, but if properly set up to take advantage of the octane
available in propane, the engine WILL produce significantly more power
than the original engine running on gasoline. Proper conversion of a
carbureted engine required cold manifolding, different plugs, modified
timing, among other things.

You WILL use more fuel.
Octane is NOT a power rating, but high octain fuel, while not CAUSING
an engine to produce more power, definitely ALLOWS it to.

[Dillon Pyron]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 20:37:12 -0400, Bryan Martin
> wrote:

>in article ,
at wrote on
>4/14/04 12:24 PM:
>
>>
>> Also, in regards using higher octane fuel, if the engine's ignition
>> system is the type that varies the timing according to the information
>> gleaned from the various sensors on the engine, including a knock
>> sensor, then you would in fact be able to produce more power from that
>> engine by using a higher octane fuel because the ignition system would
>> max the timing settings when it doesn't sense any knocking going on.
>> When the system senses knocking, it retards the timing till the
>> knocking goes away.
>>
>> Corky Scott
>
>
>This is true if the engine is designed for the higher octane fuel (higher
>compression ratio). If the engine is optimized for lower octane fuel, using
>higher octane fuel will give no benefit and will probably result in slightly
>lower power and economy. I seem to recall an oil company being sued for
>false advertising for implying that their high octane fuel would give
>improved performance in any vehicle.
>

That would be Sunoco. I remember putting Sunoco 120 in my Galaxie 500
that I'd shoehorned a 429 into.
--
dillon

Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet

[AL]

L.D. wrote:

> Higher octane is less explosive, harder to set off, less power,

I beg to differ. The statement that higher octane is "less explosive,
harder to set off" can be misleading. Less power is the obvious but
wrong conclusion.

Higher octane fuel burns relatively more slowly than a lower octane
fuel. Therefore it burns relatively cooler, the "controlled explosion"
is more evenly distributed throughout the combustion chamber. This
results in a relative power gain by using more and wasting less (power)
as well as preventing pre-ignition and detonation problems.

just my 2 cents worth.

AL

[Dino Shore]

On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:51:16 GMT, wrote:

>I have had several vehicles over the years that produced enough extra
>power (and therefore economy) on hightest to MORE than pay the
>difference in cost.


This story has been told many times before by would be experts.
It is the stuff of which Urban Legends are made.

There are many variables, but if one accepts that there is
a realistic 10% increase in horsepower from the use of
high compression pistons, the MAX SAVINGS is 10%....
IF regular and hi-test cost the same - and they don't.

Highly refined"HI-TEST" will never replace LOW GRADE
diesel when it comes to real power and economy.

There are more BTU's in a gallon of "regular" than HI-TEST.
There are even more BTU's per gallon available in DIESEL.

BTU's per gallon is the key to miles per gallon.


YMMV - pun intended

[Jay]

wrote in message
> No, better to tune the engine to make use of the extra octane. Higher
> CR, more advance, or better intake/exhaust can allow the engine to use
> the extra octane and produce significantly higher power. High octane
> fuel does not necessarily burn slower, it is just less prone to
> auto-ignition.
> Propane burns faster than gasoline and is 150 octane, on average.
>
> I have had several vehicles over the years that produced enough extra
> power (and therefore economy) on hightest to MORE than pay the
> difference in cost. Being computer controlled engines, knock was never
> an issue - I could likely have run the thing on Kerosene after it was
> warmed up.

So why do we even sell low octane gas and the low efficiency engines
that can burn it? The cost of manufacture is within 1 cent from why
my guys tell me. A high compression motor is just a better motor in
every way. Corky?

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 09:15:31 -0500, Dino Shore >
wrote:

>On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 03:51:16 GMT, wrote:
>
>>I have had several vehicles over the years that produced enough extra
>>power (and therefore economy) on hightest to MORE than pay the
>>difference in cost.
>
>
>This story has been told many times before by would be experts.
>It is the stuff of which Urban Legends are made.

No story. Hauling my 17 foot trailer across the prairies behind the
3.0 Aerostar, on regular unleaded, about 17L/100km, with hightest
about 14l/100km

Thats a difference of from 423 to 514 km on a tank.
That is almost 21%
Around here, with hills and all, the mileage drops off significantly -
a bad day can give 21-24 liters/100km on regular, and 17-20 on
hightest. Thats 340-423 at best, to 300-360 at worst, more or less.
That's 20--24%. Might not make quite that difference, depending on
terrain and how hard I push up the hills.



Running without the trailer, averaged 12.4 l/100km on regular, and
11.25 on hightest.

Thats a difference of 580 to 640 km on a tank of gas.
That is roughly 10%

If regular gas costs $0.60, and hightest $0.70 per liter, the
difference in cost is 16%

Pulling the trailer I made money by using hightest.
Running easy, I lost.

On the 88 Chrysler 3.0, I can average 7,8 l/100km on regular
(according to the trip computer) and about 6.8-7.1 on hightest.
Take the conservative 7.1, and we are looking at 9%. Take the better
mileage, and we are looking at close to 15%.
The heavier loaded the vehicle, the larger gain in economy gained by
using hightest.

This ONLY works with computerized engine controls with knock sensing.
>
>There are many variables, but if one accepts that there is
>a realistic 10% increase in horsepower from the use of
>high compression pistons, the MAX SAVINGS is 10%....
>IF regular and hi-test cost the same - and they don't.

That is 10% improvement over the optimized setting for the standard
compression ratio. Then add the extra power available from being able
to fully optimize ignition timing. Or to look at it another way, look
at the power LOSS incurred by retarding ignition timing from otimum
under load, to prevent ping.
I believe this is where the economy savings come in on my vehicles.
The engines are loafing at normal highway speeds, and are either on
the edge of, or well into the "lugging" range under load.
We are NOT talking running at max HP output here. We are talking
pretty close to max torque, where internal cyl pressures are at their
highest. In the hills, the Aerostar with the trailer is running much
closer to max HP, and the savings drop off

I have sold the Aerostar - traded for a 3.8 Pontiac TransSport.
It runs at even lower engine speeds at cruise - under 2000RPM at legal
highway speeds. I have not done any mileage tests with the trailer yet
- had MAF troubles last summer and it ran poorly under load, and drank
gasoline like it was going out of style. It was also usually in 3rd
even on the level due to loss of power. I think the problem is fixed,
but won't know untill the trailer comes out this summer.
I do know the knock count on the OBD scanner drops significantly
between regular and mid premium under normal driving conditions, so
the engine IS octane sensitive. Under normal driving, going from mid
to premium does not affect the knock count. I suspect it will under
load.
I wish I had the scanner for the Ford, it would have been interesting
to watch the knock counts.
>
>Highly refined"HI-TEST" will never replace LOW GRADE
>diesel when it comes to real power and economy.
>
>There are more BTU's in a gallon of "regular" than HI-TEST.
>There are even more BTU's per gallon available in DIESEL.
>
>BTU's per gallon is the key to miles per gallon.
>
>
>YMMV - pun intended
>

[[email protected]]

On 15 Apr 2004 12:42:28 -0700, (Jay) wrote:

>So why do we even sell low octane gas and the low efficiency engines
>that can burn it? The cost of manufacture is within 1 cent from why
>my guys tell me. A high compression motor is just a better motor in
>every way. Corky?

What do you consider to be a low compression engine? My understanding
is that many current engines sport 9-1 compression ratios these days.
Don't think anyone offers a 7.5-1 anymore, but I stopped being an auto
mechanic in 1983, and don't follow the auto industry like I used to
anymore.

Corky Scott

[Jay]

I'd call any engine that provides less performance that it technically
could, using available technology, (using 91 octane gas) due to its
swept to total volume ratio, a "low compression" engine.

Why do this? So you can buy gas that isn't marked up much and burn
more fossil fuel and make more polution?






wrote in message >...
> On 15 Apr 2004 12:42:28 -0700, (Jay) wrote:
>
> >So why do we even sell low octane gas and the low efficiency engines
> >that can burn it? The cost of manufacture is within 1 cent from why
> >my guys tell me. A high compression motor is just a better motor in
> >every way. Corky?
>
> What do you consider to be a low compression engine? My understanding
> is that many current engines sport 9-1 compression ratios these days.
> Don't think anyone offers a 7.5-1 anymore, but I stopped being an auto
> mechanic in 1983, and don't follow the auto industry like I used to
> anymore.
>
> Corky Scott

[Big John]

Let me throw a monkey wrench in this discussion.

WWII we used 145 octane in the Merlin and could pull 61 In. Hg.

P-51's flying today only pull 55 In Hg due to only lower octane fuel
available.

We got more HP/torque (what ever) with the 145 vs the lower octane
used today. (I know the answer do you?)

Now a War story. Some of our 145 octane fuel went bad for aircraft use
and they mixed some oil in it and sold it in the PX for auto use. I
drove from Kyushu to Tokyo on that fuel and going up and around Mt
Fuji I had full throttle and the old straight 6 cyl Chevrolet engine
was smooth as silk at 3 mph in high gear. Octane will really do
wonders for you :o)


Big John


On Fri, 09 Apr 2004 01:17:22 GMT, UltraJohn
> wrote:

>One of the gas stations I frequent in my work vehicle carrys 110 leaded
>auto gas I thought this was interesting and maybe of use for some with high
>compression performance planes (racers).
>John
>I think it was an Exxon station but if anyones interested I could double
>check.