[DrivingSimulators]

I had my car checked out today at the dealer for pinging. They found no problems with the TPS, MAF, ECU, etc. I told them I had to run 91 octane fuel to stop the pinging (preignition/detonation). The car actually runs smoother, quieter, etc. They called the tech hotline and were told by Ford that 87 octane must be used or else excess carbon build up will occur. I asked them to call again and double check with someone else. Same story.

I have never heard of such a thing: carbon build up from running 91 octane?

I also asked about approved fluids for the transmission, Mercon V spec was the answer.

 

[TripleDuck]

DS:
I’ve owned high performance motorcycles for years and carbon buildup when consistently using too high octane is a common problem with them - all the better known (nationally recognized) technicians acknowledge it. I guess it could be the same with our cars.

 

[ADEQ8]

I'm interested in the mercon V appellation for the tranny fluid. I drained the factory fluid and replaced it with Red Line D4 ATF. Since that was no improvement I went to GM Synchromesh. That is no improvement either. As I understand it Mercon is a generic name (yes?/no?). Is Synchromesh a mercon product? Do I need to change it again? The 1-2 grind is no better and I get a 2-3 grind sometimes. The bummer is that when the tranny gets good and warmed up it shifts like butter. Why?

 

[DrivingSimulators]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-03-14 00:07, adequate wrote:
I'm interested in the mercon V appellation for the tranny fluid. I drained the factory fluid and replaced it with Red Line D4 ATF. Since that was no improvement I went to GM Synchromesh. That is no improvement either. As I understand it Mercon is a generic name (yes?/no?). Is Synchromesh a mercon product? Do I need to change it again? The 1-2 grind is no better and I get a 2-3 grind sometimes. The bummer is that when the tranny gets good and warmed up it shifts like butter. Why?

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Mercon V is a specification (fairly new). Many oils (ATFs) will meet this spec.
Have you taken your car in to the dealer for inspection?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DrivingSimulators on 2002-03-14 00:57 ]</font>

 

[DrivingSimulators]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-03-13 22:49, TripleDuck wrote:
DS:
I’ve owned high performance motorcycles for years and carbon buildup when consistently using too high octane is a common problem with them - all the better known (nationally recognized) technicians acknowledge it. I guess it could be the same with our cars.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks for the insight. Don't know what to do since the car pings on 87 and 89.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: DrivingSimulators on 2002-03-14 00:58 ]</font>

 

[Walkman003309]

Check this thread out at the corral, they talked about a plug that was one range colder helping resolve pinping issues. This might or might not help your car. http://www.corral.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=50847&highlight=holy+grail

 

[barry bullitt]

I switched to GM syncromesh and it's a big improvement but it does not completely alleviate the problem. I still have to feather it into 2nd until it warms up. But it shifts much easier into 2nd when cold and warms up much faster so i can shift into 2nd smoothly after only a few minutes depending on the outside temperature. This is fine with me and I no longer consider it a problem. If your experience is unnacceptable you'll have to take it back to the dealership. Evidently it's a problem inherent in the transmission and I understand it's been corrected in 2002 model vehicles with the Tremac.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: barry bullitt on 2002-03-14 12:04 ]</font>

 

[Bullitt922]

DS:
We had a similar problem with our 99 GT. It would smoke and idle terrible. When we took it in, they checked it out and came up with the 87 octane story, disgusted, we left and tried their solution. It worked! I never experienced that problem again. Have always ran 87 octane in bullitt#922 with no problems.

 

[DrivingSimulators]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-03-15 19:36, Bullitt922 wrote:
DS:
We had a similar problem with our 99 GT. It would smoke and idle terrible. When we took it in, they checked it out and came up with the 87 octane story, disgusted, we left and tried their solution. It worked! I never experienced that problem again. Have always ran 87 octane in bullitt#922 with no problems.

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

I would love to run 87 octane. It's cheaper, and carries more energy. Unfortunately, the car pings with 87. It has been checked by the dealer, and there is nothing out of adjustment.

There are people on this BBS running 93 octane. Any problems so far?

I'm still curious. The manual supplied with the car is for a standard GT. The Bullitt has a different intake, throttle bodies, exhaust, pullies, etc. Is the computer program different? Perhaps it was designed for 91, and manual is wrong? But, people are running 87 octane with no problems...

 

[Bullitt#0685]

I feel your pain D.S. I have to run 91/92/93 in mine as well for no pinging. I have had my car since last july and no problems thus far. I am considering getting a timing adjuster and increase the timing so I can feel better about running the higher octane. After my dealer damaged my car, taking it to them is no longer an option for minor problems.

Hope this helps

Aaron-0685

 

[fixer]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-03-15 21:12, DrivingSimulators wrote:

There are people on this BBS running 93 octane. Any problems so far?

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm running 91 with octane booster and the ping is about 95% gone.


<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-03-15 21:12, DrivingSimulators wrote:

I'm still curious. The manual supplied with the car is for a standard GT. The Bullitt has a different intake, throttle bodies, exhaust, pullies, etc. Is the computer program different? Perhaps it was designed for 91, and manual is wrong? But, people are running 87 octane with no problems...
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

The manual "recommends" 87 octane.

I think this is an acceptable octane rating for most driving styles. If the car is gonna be run hard on a reg basis greater octane may be required.

I used to think i didn't have any ping on 87 until i drove the car in the necessary way to hear it.

The compression in the 01-02 cars is 9.4. I was under no illusions that the car would be ping free forever on 87.I personally think 87 is a tall order for a 9.4 compression ratio engine.

The Cobra cars require 91 octane or greater.

Cobras have a knock sensor, Gts and bullitts don't.

Cobras have a a dohc motor and aluminum block but it is the same compression. They have had a bout of ping that is at least as significant as the 01 Gts

So even a knock sensor won't completely prevent ping.

 

[DrivingSimulators]

Thanks for the feedback guys. Does this mean that you guys are not experiencing carbon buildup when running 91+ octane? This Bullitt sure seems to run smoother and quieter when running 91 (burn rate appears better sync'd with the timing).

 

[mcm#2250]

I use 93 octane. I have no mechanical problems. I have no mods. 3400 miles. Until she blows up I will continue to use 93. I think the owners manual is great if you need to set the clock on the radio. Other than that I have no use for the d*** thing.

 

[Mid Life Crisis #388]

The additives in the gas should reduce the carbon. If it were that bad you would see the build up on your plugs.

 

[Deadhead]

Several years ago, Car and Driver ran a very good article about octane ratings and its usage. The oil companies love people to use a higher octane gas than the manufacturer recommends because they make more money. The article revealed that not only is carbon build-up a problem, but because higher octane gas has a higher flash point, engines that are supposed to burn lower octane gas will have the cylinder walls washed with unburned fuel resulting in higher oil consumption as the engine piles up more miles. There is no energy increase in higher octane gas over lower octane gas.

 

[Mid Life Crisis #388]

If there were More unburned fuel in the cylinders, would the O2 Sensors see this and change the air fuel mixture?

Found this site interesting about racing fuel and octane ratings. Course it is the most general of guidelines but they show a compression ratio of 9 to 1 up to 11 to 1 to use 100 octane. Again this is about racing fuels though. So please don't FLAME me (pun intended)
http://www.geocities.com/mg_vintage_racer/fuels.html

This one is interesting also.
http://www.baileycar.com/gasoline_html.html

_________________
Mid Life Crisis #388



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mid Life Crisis #388 on 2002-03-16 14:14 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mid Life Crisis #388 on 2002-03-16 14:20 ]</font>

 

[DrivingSimulators]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-03-16 12:57, Mid Life Crisis #388 wrote:
If there were More unburned fuel in the cylinders, would the O2 Sensors see this and change the air fuel mixture?

Found this site interesting about racing fuel and octane ratings. Course it is the most general of guidelines but they show a compression ratio of 9 to 1 up to 11 to 1 to use 100 octane. Again this is about racing fuels though. So please don't FLAME me (pun intended)
http://www.geocities.com/mg_vintage_racer/fuels.html

This one is interesting also.
http://www.baileycar.com/gasoline_html.html

_________________
Mid Life Crisis #388



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mid Life Crisis #388 on 2002-03-16 14:14 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mid Life Crisis #388 on 2002-03-16 14:20 ]</font>
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Thanks for the info. This was interesting:

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
Cheapskates burning regular in cars designed to run on premium fuel can expect to trim performance by
about the same percent they save at the pump. If the car is sufficiently new and sophisticated, it may not
suffer any ill effects, but all such skinflints should be ready to switch back to premium at the first sign of
knock or other drivability woes. And finally, if a car calibrated for regular fuel begins to knock on anything
less than premium or midgrade, owners should invest in a tuneup, emissions-control-system repair, or
detergent additives to solve, rather than bandage, the root problem. Class dismissed.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

My car checked out OK by the dealer. Perhaps a mechanical issue? Heads? Build tolerance error somewhere?

Also, the article stated that the 4.6 Ford has a knock sensor, and performed better on 91:

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
Our low-tech Ram managed to eke out a few extra dyno ponies on premium fuel, but at the track its
performance was virtually identical. The Mustang's knock sensors and EEC-V computer found 2 hp more on
the dyno and shaved a more impressive 0.3 second off its quarter-mile time at the track. The Accord took a
tiny step backward in power (minus 2.6 percent) and performance (minus 1.5 percent) on premium fuel, a
phenomenon for which none of the experts we consulted could offer an explanation except to speculate that
the results may fall within normal test-to-test variability. This, of course, may also be the case for the gains
of similar magnitude realized by the Ram and Mustang.
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

 

[fixer]

yeah higher octane does lend itself to carbon build-up. This doesn't mean 87 octane usage precludes carbon build-up; it simply means that higher octane increases the carbon build-up relative to lower octane gas.

When i run 91 i also try to add a bottle of induction cleaner every once in a while. It works great; if you pull a plug and get a flashlight to look down in the whole the piston is almost perfectly clean--you can see shiny new metal.

Yes there are some draw backs to higher octane gas but what is your choice in this case?

 

[DrivingSimulators]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-03-16 19:42, fixer wrote:
yeah higher octane does lend itself to carbon build-up. This doesn't mean 87 octane usage precludes carbon build-up; it simply means that higher octane increases the carbon build-up relative to lower octane gas.

When i run 91 i also try to add a bottle of induction cleaner every once in a while. It works great; if you pull a plug and get a flashlight to look down in the whole the piston is almost perfectly clean--you can see shiny new metal.

Yes there are some draw backs to higher octane gas but what is your choice in this case?


</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

fixer,

Have you tried not using induction cleaner and checking the plugs to see if there is any difference?

Are induction cleaners one of the few additives that work as claimed? Which brand(s)?

 

[fixer]

<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2002-03-17 12:43, DrivingSimulators wrote:


fixer,

Have you tried not using induction cleaner and checking the plugs to see if there is any difference?

Are induction cleaners one of the few additives that work as claimed? Which brand(s)?
</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>

Well the induction cleaner is also a de facto octane booster; The solution is mostly Xylenes and toluene.


The brand i've been using is (i think) Berryman. This seemed to have the most Toluene and Xylene in it.

I haven't tried not using the cleaner to check if carbon buildup is drastically worse because i don't think that is the rate at which we're operating: i don't think that within a months time of using 91 or so octane i'd have a full blown carbon build-up problem. Its a slower effect where at say 60k miles i'd probalby be having some buil-up problems.