Speaking of Fuels

[njk53]

Why doesn't the NHRA allow a lower octane fuel as an accepted fuel for stock and superstock? We have to run 105 octane and it is just overkill for our application. There are probably plenty of guys out there that could easily go to a lower octane gas. I'll bet our car could easily use a 95 octane gasoline and run as good or better than the high dollar 105 octane stuff.

I know it is a way of the NHRA leveling the playing field for everyone but, I wouldn't think the addition of say a 100 and 95 octane fuel wouldn't be that big of a deal.

The fuels are checked by specific gravity correct?

[ALMACK]

My understanding is that the pump gas is too inconsistent to check. ( or the NHRA has no way of checking it ) That's all I know.

However, I do agree certain lower compression engines will make more power on pump gas.

[Jeff Lee]

In Arizona, and many other states, we have "oxygenated" fuels as standard at the pump. The levels change per EPA mandate during different seasons. These chemicals wreck havoc with the NHRA test equipment.

[Myron Piatek]

....not to mention the "up to 10% ethanol"!

[7423]

Originally Posted by ALMACK

My understanding is that the pump gas is too inconsistent to check. ( or the NHRA has no way of checking it ) That's all I know.

However, I do agree certain lower compression engines will make more power on pump gas.

It is true that they have no way to check pump gas but.............the real reason is they have no way to make $ on pump gas. Race gas is a total rip off, stupid expensive!! BTW, my car is .05-.08 faster on Arco 91 octane pump gas.

[Rory McNeil]

Originally Posted by 7423

It is true that they have no way to check pump gas but.............the real reason is they have no way to make $ on pump gas. Race gas is a total rip off, stupid expensive!! BTW, my car is .05-.08 faster on Arco 91 octane pump gas.

I agree Charlie, my 85 Mustang Stocker runs a couple hundreds quicker on Chevron 89 midgrade than VP C12.And putting C12 in my 8.4-1 compression 302 is like feeding my dog steak and lobster.

[jmantle]

Originally Posted by Rory McNeil

I agree Charlie, my 85 Mustang Stocker runs a couple hundreds quicker on Chevron 89 midgrade than VP C12.And putting C12 in my 8.4-1 compression 302 is like feeding my dog steak and lobster.

Rory, have you tried C11 in the Mustang? I found it is worth a few hundreds over C12 in my low compression combo. I going to try C9 next, supposed to cost less and possibly quicker according to VP.

Jim Mantle V/SA 6632

[njk53]

I wasn't talking about pump gas, I was talking about the major fuel suppliers providing a lower octane fuel that can be checked by the NHRA.
The lower cost would be welcomed by a lot of us.

[Rory McNeil]

Originally Posted by jmantle

Rory, have you tried C11 in the Mustang? I found it is worth a few hundreds over C12 in my low compression combo. I going to try C9 next, supposed to cost less and possibly quicker according to VP.

Jim Mantle V/SA 6632

Jim, I did try some C11 several years ago, didn`t pick up any, but all I did was pour it in the tank. Maybe with tuning there may be something, but personally, I`d like it if a lower cost approved fuel was available too. About 10 years ago, when I first started running the Mustang, I tried VP Motorsport 110 or Red, I can`t remember the exact name. It was on NHRAs list of accepted fuel, but it would never pass fuel check, even from a newly opened drum. Another racer at the same meet had his same blend of VP fail as well.

[Sean Marconette]

Sunoco 110 (Purple) is by far cheaper than similar VP fuels. It is on the approved list.

Sean