CLASS RACER FORUM

CLASS RACER FORUM (https://classracer.com/classforum/index.php)
-   Stock and Super Stock Tech (https://classracer.com/classforum/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Speaking of Fuels (https://classracer.com/classforum/showthread.php?t=46050)

njk53 03-01-2013 04:46 PM

Speaking of Fuels
 
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 03-01-2013 05:14 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
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 03-01-2013 06:05 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
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 03-01-2013 06:46 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
....not to mention the "up to 10% ethanol"!

7423 03-01-2013 10:44 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ALMACK (Post 371324)
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 03-02-2013 02:56 AM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 7423 (Post 371356)
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 03-02-2013 03:15 AM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rory McNeil (Post 371388)
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 03-03-2013 07:03 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
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 03-03-2013 08:17 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jmantle (Post 371389)
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 03-03-2013 09:44 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
Sunoco 110 (Purple) is by far cheaper than similar VP fuels. It is on the approved list.

Sean

Michael Colaluca 03-04-2013 04:46 AM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
I know the brand Rocket Fuel was lots cheaper than VP and Sonoco a few years back. Not sure if they are around anymore

njk53 03-04-2013 10:40 AM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
We have used both the Sunoco and VP fuels. VP may be marginally better but not significant enough to justfy the higher cost of VP.

Either fuel at a 105 octane rating is overkill for our 9:1 motor. It would be nice if the NHRA would allow VP, Sunoco, Rocket, et al to provide a fuel that is 100 octane and 95 octane that is easily checked by the NHRA.
All I am looking for is to use a fuel that will help our car run better.

Does anyone know what the fuel inspector is looking for at fuel check? Specific Gravity? Purity of the Fuel? Other elements?

kdanner 03-04-2013 01:26 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by njk53 (Post 371768)
We have used both the Sunoco and VP fuels. VP may be marginally better but not significant enough to justfy the higher cost of VP.

Either fuel at a 105 octane rating is overkill for our 9:1 motor. It would be nice if the NHRA would allow VP, Sunoco, Rocket, et al to provide a fuel that is 100 octane and 95 octane that is easily checked by the NHRA.
All I am looking for is to use a fuel that will help our car run better.

Does anyone know what the fuel inspector is looking for at fuel check? Specific Gravity? Purity of the Fuel? Other elements?

C9 is 92 MON, C10 is 96. Any reason those won't work for you?

Dennis P Chapman 03-04-2013 04:54 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kdanner (Post 371806)
C9 is 92 MON, C10 is 96. Any reason those won't work for you?

C10 is unleaded but works good.

west coast 03-04-2013 07:53 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
I run C10 in my foxbody stocker, got 5 gallons of C9 at the end of the season have not open it yet to try. but will at the first time I head to the track. I dont have a price on it yet dont know if it is any cheaper than C10. the lower octane should help. Both of these fuels are unleaded.

Ed Carpenter 03-05-2013 09:30 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Marconette (Post 371697)
Sunoco 110 (Purple) is by far cheaper than similar VP fuels. It is on the approved list.

Sean

This past weekend I paid 42.50 for 5 gallons of Sunoco purple and 67.00 for 5 gallons of VP C11. Total ripoff.

Michael Colaluca 03-05-2013 10:01 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
I remember the old man Heffler pushing rocket fuel at me a couple of years ago. Said he got the same performance as when he ran VP C11. Figure I will find some and give it a go. Just got to find someone who sells it in the Dallas area

Bob Bender 03-05-2013 10:14 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
Y
Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Colaluca (Post 372049)
I remember the old man Heffler pushing rocket fuel at me a couple of years ago. Said he got the same performance as when he ran VP C11. Figure I will find some and give it a go. Just got to find someone who sells it in the Dallas area

The rocket 111 was great in my wagon. Cant buy it in Maryland anymore.

7423 03-05-2013 10:30 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
I am going to try Rockett 111 at our upcoming Vegas points meet. I am very tired of paying waaaaaaaaaay too much for VP.

Darrin Christen 03-05-2013 11:11 PM

Re: Speaking of Fuels
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by deuces wild (Post 372043)
This past weekend I paid 42.50 for 5 gallons of Sunoco purple and 67.00 for 5 gallons of VP C11. Total ripoff.

Hey Ed, which made more power?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Class Racer.com. All Rights Reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.