The Mustang Source - Ford Mustang Forums

The Mustang Source - Ford Mustang Forums (https://themustangsource.com/forums/)
-   2012-2013 BOSS 302 (https://themustangsource.com/forums/f813/)
-   -   sunoco 260GT fuel worth it? (https://themustangsource.com/forums/f813/sunoco-260gt-fuel-worth-496687/)

rmaginnis 6/20/11 10:37 PM

sunoco 260GT fuel worth it?
 
Any appreciable advantange to running Sunoco unleaded 100 octane gas in the Coyote engine? Will more HP result or possible engine damage?
Thanks,
Rick

Big Vito 6/21/11 12:07 AM

I doubt it will be beneficial without the trackey

CaptDistraction 6/21/11 12:18 AM

even with the track key I'm not sure its much worth it over 91/93 especially with the costs.

Big Vito 6/21/11 12:29 AM


Originally Posted by CaptDistraction
even with the track key I'm not sure its much worth it over 91/93 especially with the costs.

When you get the trackey I'll let you try it and let me know if it was :D

CaptDistraction 6/21/11 01:52 AM

lol, point taken, however I hadn't heard anything suggesting the track key was tuned to run higher octane fuel.

I know a bunch of Audi B6/B7 S4 guys who swear by 100-110 octane fuel in their 93 tunes, and while they may feel the 2-3x per gallon cost is better performing, I don't see the value. My point wasn't in the calibration, but overall is that kind of fuel worth any viable difference in a naturally aspirated V8 built for the usual suspects in unleaded fuels.

Even the 302R cars are run with 98 Sunoco, though I wonder how far Ford can go with the street car's calibration. I guess until the key is in hands, or hands that can analyze the calibration just won't know.

Big Vito 6/21/11 02:00 AM

I'm sure in the future the trackey will be available to the GT crowd too. :)

P0 Corsa 6/21/11 06:19 AM


Originally Posted by CaptDistraction (Post 6093825)
even with the track key I'm not sure its much worth it over 91/93 especially with the costs.

Well, in fact it does. See my post #41
https://themustangsource.com/f813/so...495813/index3/

engineguy 6/21/11 06:38 AM

As a performance engine builder there may be a slight gain by using the 260 but I feel the gains would be limited. When building an engine a rule of thumb is if you have been running cast heads and go to aluminum the compression can be raised 1 point (ie 10:1 to 11:1) and use the same fuel. This is due to the heat dissapation the aluminum has versus cast iron. I am not sure what the rule of thumb is when you go to an aluminum block but I assume that there has to be a gain as well. If you run a fuel that does not have enough octane the knock sensors will retard the timing but if you run a fuel that has too much octane it should not hurt anything but your pocketbook. There may be a small gain by using 260 but I am not sure it would be worth the cost in most situations.
Bob

vmilax2007 6/21/11 06:57 AM

Very interesting thread...I was wondering the same thing the other day.

CaptDistraction 6/21/11 10:12 AM


Originally Posted by P0 Corsa (Post 6093875)
Well, in fact it does. See my post #41
https://themustangsource.com/f813/so...495813/index3/


Interesting indeed

BlueBossS197 6/21/11 10:40 AM

I believe Jon Lund had tuned regular coyotes on 100 and said that he saw no benefits going past 96/98

06GT 6/21/11 11:12 AM

100 octane provides some nice peace of mind when running hard on the track, and it's pretty much necessary on a supercharged car. But at 6-7$/gallon, your wallet will be hurting after the weekend.

"Economical" suggestion for guys that track the cars and want some added octane protection: 4-5 gallons of 100 and the rest 91 or 93. One tank should last you a whole track day.

smbstyle 6/21/11 04:06 PM

the only reason i would ever run anything over 93 is if I was driving the piss out of the car at the track all day, and wanted it for protection.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:33 PM.


© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands