[mgarblik]

The little test kits with the graduated syringe or the vile that you mix the fuel sample with water are pretty accurate. The new law just signed last week allows 0-15% ethanol for road use with a sticker on the pump. When the limit was 10%, we used to sample fuel all the time. A class project was for students to bring 9 fuel samples from 3 different gas stations. Then we would test them. This would give us a couple hundred different samples in a typical test. We would use the home test, (water method) and the electronic tester sold through Kent Moore/SPX to GM. Results were all over the place. From 0% alcohol to a high of 13.5% the last time we tested which was a year ago. With the limit now raised to 15%, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see 17%-18% out there. Your lawnmower won't like that stuff.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

The little test kits with the graduated syringe or the vile that you mix the fuel sample with water are pretty accurate. The new law just signed last week allows 0-15% ethanol for road use with a sticker on the pump. When the limit was 10%, we used to sample fuel all the time. A class project was for students to bring 9 fuel samples from 3 different gas stations. Then we would test them. This would give us a couple hundred different samples in a typical test. We would use the home test, (water method) and the electronic tester sold through Kent Moore/SPX to GM. Results were all over the place. From 0% alcohol to a high of 13.5% the last time we tested which was a year ago. With the limit now raised to 15%, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see 17%-18% out there. Your lawnmower won't like that stuff.

I would expect it even a pinch higher just based off what I saw years ago, if the fudging stays the same.

[25stevem]

And just how is raising the level to 15% going to help with the big main problem, that being getting every day products to stores and in the making of many of those products from petroleum?

[tom s]

Mike,its cheaper at the Indian station just north of Independence!Also last trip the Speedy gas in Bishop was cheaper unless you had Vons points for a discount.E85 down here is 3.99 and 87 is 6.05.Tom

[w72]

You guys are nerds and I love it. I'm just curious which fuel would get into detonation or pre-ignition first. I'm about to fire up a new 467, going to try it with the Sniper running timing control as I don't have a suitable carb handy.

I'm sure the efi unit can handle the fueling for break-in, but not keen on taking chances with the built in all-or-nothing timing setup that brings all the advance in at once. I'm comfortable setting up a 2d timing table in the Holley software. Any input on a good starting place?

It's a fresh Len Williams 467 (4.25" stroke), zero-decked, Melling SPC-8, 1.65:1 rockers, RA manifolds with the larger collectors, RPM intake. I've seen people recommend wildly different timing specs for similar mills. I'm more concerned with a safe first 1000 miles than maximum power for now.

[w72]

I'm getting stupidly excited, haven't driven this bird in 3 years, it had a stock 220hp 400 when things went south for it. Dropped compression on 2 cyl, then the next week the neighbor's house burned down and toasted the paint job. I'll post about the whole build once she's running. The only moving parts that remain stock are the steering column and wipers.

[zippy]

Originally Posted by w72

You guys are nerds and I love it. I'm just curious which fuel would get into detonation or pre-ignition first. I'm about to fire up a new 467, going to try it with the Sniper running timing control as I don't have a suitable carb handy.

I'm sure the efi unit can handle the fueling for break-in, but not keen on taking chances with the built in all-or-nothing timing setup that brings all the advance in at once. I'm comfortable setting up a 2d timing table in the Holley software. Any input on a good starting place?

It's a fresh Len Williams 467 (4.25" stroke), zero-decked, Melling SPC-8, 1.65:1 rockers, RA manifolds with the larger collectors, RPM intake. I've seen people recommend wildly different timing specs for similar mills. I'm more concerned with a safe first 1000 miles than maximum power for now.

Nice build. What heads and CR? I am 470cid, 4.25" stroke, .040" overbore. Running the SPC-8 cam, 1.65 lifters on the rare #64 HO heads 87cc. Puts my CR like 10.6:1. Been thinking of Sniper. But funds are stupid tight right now and I can't seem to finish this rebuild form the crappy Comp cam going flat a few years ago.

Oh and with the XE274 cam, I used to have to have 16* initial. I think I was 32 total,, all in by 2800. With approx 12* vac advance on manifold vacuum

[Jay S]

Originally Posted by w72

You guys are nerds and I love it. I'm just curious which fuel would get into detonation or pre-ignition first. I'm about to fire up a new 467, going to try it with the Sniper running timing control as I don't have a suitable carb handy.

I'm sure the efi unit can handle the fueling for break-in, but not keen on taking chances with the built in all-or-nothing timing setup that brings all the advance in at once. I'm comfortable setting up a 2d timing table in the Holley software. Any input on a good starting place?

It's a fresh Len Williams 467 (4.25" stroke), zero-decked, Melling SPC-8, 1.65:1 rockers, RA manifolds with the larger collectors, RPM intake. I've seen people recommend wildly different timing specs for similar mills. I'm more concerned with a safe first 1000 miles than maximum power for now.

It would be nice too know what elevation range you expect to drive the car in.

If you want to be safe it isn’t a bad idea to start out around 28-30 degrees total on the timing to get a good feel of the fuel it likes. I don’t tune stuff much different jumping back and forth to and from ethanol blends, for me that small blend falls with an acceptable range for how the engine is tuned.

I have a friend running a similar mid 9s SCR 455 (467) combo in a 4x4 pickup. It gets driven 8-10K miles a year, it is pushing 40k now..He has more intake port flow than 250, but the exh side of the heads is almost stock, running Rhoads Vmax’s (set to .010”) and a 60919 Crower, which builds more compression than a SPC-8. Not a lot more, seems to be about .25 of a point. It ran the first 20K mile with the timing backed off to 30 and run 87 octane with ethanol. I gave him a hard time about it and he uses 91 now and more timing. It has a much tougher life than most peoples muscle car, pulls 17K trailers out on county rock roads. It has a hard life, secondaries get kicked in pretty frequently…shifts at 5500, sometimes 6. If he hasn’t killed that yet, don’t be too worried, they are pretty tough

[w72]

I live 350ft above sea level, hoping to have no issues anywhere east of the Rocky Mtns. If I do head out west with the car, it should be easy to reprogram the Sniper to compensate. I can usually get 93 non-ethanol at a local gas station, but sometimes they get a truck of 91. At least they re-label the pump when that happens, pretty much everyone in Memphis with a cool car fuels up there.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by w72

I live 350ft above sea level, hoping to have no issues anywhere east of the Rocky Mtns. If I do head out west with the car, it should be easy to reprogram the Sniper to compensate. I can usually get 93 non-ethanol at a local gas station, but sometimes they get a truck of 91. At least they re-label the pump when that happens, pretty much everyone in Memphis with a cool car fuels up there.

You won't have to do much at all with the Sniper. We run 2 of them, mainly because of the mountains and elevation changes, and they handle the changes quite well.

As long as you still have compensation limits up around the 10% range it will adjust the fuel as needed. If you need more compensation than that to deal with the mountains then the base fuel table probably needs more work.

I just turn the learn percentage down because I don't want it to corrupt the learn table when I'm dealing with elevation swings.

You can even have a different tune at the ready with the compensation and learn where you want and quickly load that in before you tackle the mountain, and let the Sniper adjust to those elevations and then save that tune to use when needed. Only takes a few seconds to load one. I've done that before too and then compared notes of the differences.

This kind of stuff is one of the biggest reasons to have this EFI

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by w72

I live 350ft above sea level, hoping to have no issues anywhere east of the Rocky Mtns. If I do head out west with the car, it should be easy to reprogram the Sniper to compensate. I can usually get 93 non-ethanol at a local gas station, but sometimes they get a truck of 91. At least they re-label the pump when that happens, pretty much everyone in Memphis with a cool car fuels up there.

Mikes Reply:

I was at MSU in 1976-77 on a Gymnastics scholarship, in the summer it got really humid. When I was there an earthquake tremor occurred, while I was in the dorm, I could see the water in the water pitcher moving. Later, I was told that the railroad track was built on a nice flat ground that turned out to be a fault line.

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Mikes reply:

This might help, good info!

I have never tried an octane booster, have you? I would read the label to see if they have a product without any type of Alcohol!

https://boostane.com/?fbclid=IwAR1_6...2SHXa5vnz7e2uI

[w72]

I should be able to tune for pump gas no problem. The combo I'm running has been scienced to the moon and back by people way smarter than me, and was assembled by a well-respected pro. I plan to run 93 non ethanol whenever possible. It won't need octane booster or race gas.

My question is if the good stuff is unavailable, will I be better off with 91 non-ethanol or 93 with ethanol?

I think I tripped a circuit breaker on the forum by mentioning "041 cam" and "Rhodes" in the same post. Next thing you know we'll be 18 pages in and folks will be playing winning lottery tickets using random timing advice numbers.

[TRADERMIKE 2012]

Originally Posted by w72

I should be able to tune for pump gas no problem. The combo I'm running has been scienced to the moon and back by people way smarter than me, and was assembled by a well-respected pro. I plan to run 93 non ethanol whenever possible. It won't need octane booster or race gas.

My question is if the good stuff is unavailable, will I be better off with 91 non-ethanol or 93 with ethanol?

I think I tripped a circuit breaker on the forum by mentioning "041 cam" and "Rhodes" in the same post. Next thing you know we'll be 18 pages in and folks will be playing winning lottery tickets using random timing advice numbers.

Mikes reply:

You won't know what your motor likes until you have tested and tuned it for some time and stay away from Alcohol in the gas at any cost, my 2 cents! Unleaded 91 is my choice! I wish I could get 91 unleaded here in south Florida.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by w72

I should be able to tune for pump gas no problem. The combo I'm running has been scienced to the moon and back by people way smarter than me, and was assembled by a well-respected pro. I plan to run 93 non ethanol whenever possible. It won't need octane booster or race gas.

My question is if the good stuff is unavailable, will I be better off with 91 non-ethanol or 93 with ethanol?

My take on it is that I go for the octane rating and don't worry about the ethanol content. I've never noticed any real difference between ethanol and non ethanol gas as far as drivability. And since non ethanol fuel is about non existent where I live now, I've been using 10-15% ethanol fuel in the cars for a couple decades now with no ill affects. Now if it were higher in the 30% plus range I might be looking at other options.

If you have both easily available to you, you could switch back and forth to see for yourself.

[unruhjonny]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

... I've never noticed any real difference between ethanol and non ethanol gas as far as drivability ...

I will chime in on that last post;
Not to argue, or anything of the sort, but to just offer an opposing first hand opinion.

my car:
- engine rebuilt in 1998 (un-needed - because I was a kid, and wanted to do it!?!)
- YZ 400 (0.040 over)
- stock heads, only light cleaning - no port work
- 744 cam installed (installed because what I thought was the stock cam seemed really mild, so I wanted to upgrade to the one step bigger pre-1970 RAIII-MT cam)
- 7041264 carb (it was the best I could find at the time)

When I first learned of the "higher octane" ethanol blended fuel around here, I gave it a try;
I was nearing empty, and put in 1/2 or maybe 3/4 of a tank (because that's all this broke kid could afford).
My car ran like absolute turd with it.
It barely kept an idle, and was just generally unhappy.

So please mark me down as someone who definately could tell the difference when running ethanol blended, vs conventional premium unleaded gas.

It ran so bad that my cousin felt bad for me, and shared some of his av gas;
I topped up the tank with his av gas, and you could quite literally hear when the av gas mixture made it to the carb;
The idle smoothed out unlike I had ever heard it run.

Since that time, I have stayed away from Ethanol blends - if possible.
(I will add that it is possible that the ethanol blending has gotten better since 1999.)

It is probably easy enough to adjust the carburetor to run a bit richer for the ethanol, but at that time, I could not do that, and couldn't afford to pay a professional to fiddle with carb settings (I actually looked into it).

I live at, and mostly drove my car at an elevation between 2966-3435ft.

I had people time and again tell me that there was no way I could run my engine on pump gas - which is a factor of why I have been following this discussion.

When I got my car in 1995 it was 0.030 over, had a tiny "A" cam (which I still have in a box by the way), the engine was topped off with a crappy smog era Chev carb, and was driven in an area with an elevation of 764ft.

[Formulajones]

Originally Posted by unruhjonny

I will chime in on that last post;
Not to argue, or anything of the sort, but to just offer an opposing first hand opinion.

my car:
- engine rebuilt in 1998 (un-needed - because I was a kid, and wanted to do it!?!)
- YZ 400 (0.040 over)
- stock heads, only light cleaning - no port work
- 744 cam installed (installed because what I thought was the stock cam seemed really mild, so I wanted to upgrade to the one step bigger pre-1970 RAIII-MT cam)
- 7041264 carb (it was the best I could find at the time)

When I first learned of the "higher octane" ethanol blended fuel around here, I gave it a try;
I was nearing empty, and put in 1/2 or maybe 3/4 of a tank (because that's all this broke kid could afford).
My car ran like absolute turd with it.
It barely kept an idle, and was just generally unhappy.

So please mark me down as someone who definately could tell the difference when running ethanol blended, vs conventional premium unleaded gas.

It ran so bad that my cousin felt bad for me, and shared some of his av gas;
I topped up the tank with his av gas, and you could quite literally hear when the av gas mixture made it to the carb;
The idle smoothed out unlike I had ever heard it run.

Since that time, I have stayed away from Ethanol blends - if possible.
(I will add that it is possible that the ethanol blending has gotten better since 1999.)

It is probably easy enough to adjust the carburetor to run a bit richer for the ethanol, but at that time, I could not do that, and couldn't afford to pay a professional to fiddle with carb settings (I actually looked into it).

I live at, and mostly drove my car at an elevation between 2966-3435ft.

I had people time and again tell me that there was no way I could run my engine on pump gas - which is a factor of why I have been following this discussion.

When I got my car in 1995 it was 0.030 over, had a tiny "A" cam (which I still have in a box by the way), the engine was topped off with a crappy smog era Chev carb, and was driven in an area with an elevation of 764ft.

Most likely it was running too lean to begin with and ethanol exaggerated that problem.

One thing you have to do with ethanol, even just 10% blend, is richen the idle circuit. More than just adjusting screws, usually requires going in and opening the idle restrictions.
Never a problem for me because I was never one to try and run a super duper lean idle on any of the cars anyway even when I was running real gas. I always shoot for best drivability in all conditions and that generally ends up with a mid 13's AFR for idle conditions. Especially anything with a decent camshaft in it, it's just going to require more idle fuel anyway.

People have to keep in mind stoich for real gas is 14.7 10% ethanol is 14. I've had cars come in here where people have leaned out the idle circuit to the extreme looking for gas mileage only to find out that doesn't work too well when you start throwing ethanol in the mix.

It's all in the tune up. None of it makes a difference if the car is setup properly. I use it at sea level and 6000 feet, daily drive them, and we drag race with it. Not just one car, but several. No issues to report.

[unruhjonny]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

Most likely it was running too lean to begin with and ethanol exaggerated that problem.

...

That's possible, and I did try to touch on it.

But as I also mentioned, back then I wouldn't have known what needed to be done to actually richen it up at all.

I don't think that the 1971 Quadrajet would have been what we might consider lean - and that carb was bone stock jetting ect.

I will say that it made for some fun "testing" with my cousin and his '71 TA;
Him: bone stock, all correct; TH400 w/3.08:1(?)
Me: as mentioned with a slight mismatch of an M22 in front of 3.55:1 gears
I had him out of the hole pretty good, but somewhere down the road, he reeled me in, probably on the merits of having taller gears.

My real take away from the ethanol blended gas (other than it being terrible for these older engines) is how shockingly smooth my car ran with 100+ octane leaded fuel - I had never heard it idle so smooth and quiet before, or since.

[Formulabruce]

If folks tuned their engines ( along with altitude, temp, usage at their location) by BTU, instead on Octane, a real feeling for whats going on inside would make tuning more accurate if you are going for details.
Octane, like Cetane, is a Flame Retardant. This " Can" , with dense fuel , make more power.
Alcohol has a higher Octane, but its a puke on BTU, much less power. So in modern fuel with Alcohol it can be misleading when compared to Suncoast 260 of the past.
Octane doesn't always mean better, or more power in the case of Ethanol.

[78w72]

Originally Posted by Formulabruce

If folks tuned their engines ( along with altitude, temp, usage at their location) by BTU, instead on Octane, a real feeling for whats going on inside would make tuning more accurate if you are going for details.
Octane, like Cetane, is a Flame Retardant. This " Can" , with dense fuel , make more power.
Alcohol has a higher Octane, but its a puke on BTU, much less power. So in modern fuel with Alcohol it can be misleading when compared to Suncoast 260 of the past.
Octane doesn't always mean better, or more power in the case of Ethanol.

thats very true. but what happens when you increase the volume of ethanol to compensate for the lower BTU? i have never had an engine set up for that but i know some people that do & most say ethanol has some benefits like cooler & cleaner burning etc. for high compression or turbo/forced induction engines the higher octane E85 is what lots of guys use. plus its cheaper than any comparable octane fuel.

as you mentioned, i have never really noticed a difference in 91 straight gas vs 93 with 10%E in 3 different pontiac engine cars, the higher HP one at the drag strip or driving any of them around town. i try to stick with straight 91 but will get the 89 or 93 ethanol if its cheaper.