About Us

ITSBACK · 08-03-2010, 04:56 PM

Does anyone know what the gas was like in 1967 as far as octane of premium? I still cant understand why my 10.5 to 1 ran in 67 but not today. All you hear today is that you need to be 9 to 1 which is a loss of HP. Whats the deal?
Thanks,
Bill

Ollie · 08-03-2010, 05:13 PM

100 to 110 plus with real lead. Octane was measured differently too.

ITSBACK · 08-03-2010, 05:49 PM

Is that why we need to be under 10:1 to run pump gas today and what did lead do?

kate`s67gto · 08-03-2010, 07:48 PM

The lead in gas of the 60's was for anti knock(raise the octane level) and for the valves lubrication. I believe it was in 1970 auto manufacturers started hardening the valve seats and guides for unleaded fuel.

Murf'sDad · 08-03-2010, 08:03 PM

In '67 you could buy Sunoco 260 for about $0.23/gallon in my area. By todays calculations the octane rating would be about 98 {(R+M)/2}. It contained lots of TEL which was deadly and would foul plugs in about 5 minutes if your carb wasn't set up properly and if it was, they would foul in 15 minutes at idle. But it protected your valves.

That's why your '67 would run on premium back then and not now.

Stewart

PS: I used to run it about every third or fourth tank to run it hard and "to clean things out".

captain42082 · 08-03-2010, 08:54 PM

I REMEMBER SUNOCO 260-I AM SOOOO OLD

Murf'sDad · 08-03-2010, 09:00 PM

"How old are You", to resurrect Carson.

Tom Vaught · 08-03-2010, 09:49 PM

I used to run Sunoco 280 gasoline, (this was the good stuff) before it was blended with the lower octane fuel (at the pump) to get 260, 240, etc.

Course you had to know the gas station owner really well and have access to the pure 280 gasoline (creative plumbing at the station). The owner was a circle track racer.

I never saw the 260 listed in my area below $.22 cents per gallon. You could get the other stuff for $.17 cents. 21 gallons times $.17 = $3.57 for gas per week.

$5.00 would get you a full tank of the good stuff ($.22 times 22 gallons = $4.84)

$5.00 per hour wages were high tech welding type jobs.

Tom Vaught

Kitch428m21 · 08-03-2010, 10:09 PM

Gulf had a NO-NOX commercial of a ZL-1 running flat out up Pikes Peak. '69 as I recall. If anyone finds that ad, paste it here.
Remember that smell at the pump while the full service attendant filled you up with that good stuff?

ITSBACK · 08-03-2010, 10:24 PM

Thanks guys for the info. I am trying to figure out how to build my motor and could not understand what the deal was. I was born in 67, not like a few of you from what I am reading, but good thing otherwise it would be an unsolved mystery for me. Thanks guys.
Bill

Grand73Am · 08-03-2010, 11:34 PM

One misunderstanding that some people have is they think today's premium is much less octane than it was in the 60's. They remember the 100 octane premium ratings, as compared to today's 93 octane premium and think that yesterday's gas was 7 points higher octane. But it's not really as far apart as it seems, because the ratings are posted differently now than they were in the 60's.

There are 2 methods of measuring octane. One is "research" octane and the other is "motor" octane. The research octane number is always higher than the motor octane number. Back in the 60's and up to the early 70's, the octane rating that was posted on the gas pumps was the "research" octane number, which is the higher number. The gas companies wanted to advertise the highest number to make their gas seem better. I worked for HESS a few years around that time and they even bumped their Premium up to 101 octane for a while, so they could advertise HESS 101 octane at the stations. So, most Premium was around 100, but that was the "Research" octane number only.

Early in the 70's, the government made the oil companies start posting their octane ratings as an average of Research octane and Motor octane. You will see that formula on octane rating stickers on pumps still to this day. Look closely and it will say R+M/2. Averaging the Research number with the lower Motor number produces a lower number of course, which is the number you see today. So today's 93 octane Premium is a result of the R+M/2 formula. If you were to go back to the 60's and take that 100 octane premium and figure it through the R+M/2 formula, it would be much closer to today's 93 figure. So, while there may still be a point or two difference, the difference in actual octane between then and now is not as much as some people think. Certainly not even close to 7 points difference.

68gtoMN · 08-03-2010, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grand73Am

One misunderstanding that some people have is they think today's premium is much less octane than it was in the 60's. They remember the 100 octane premium ratings, as compared to today's 93 octane premium and think that yesterday's gas was 7 points higher octane. But it's not really as far apart as it seems, because the ratings are posted differently now than they were in the 60's.

There are 2 methods of measuring octane. One is "research" octane and the other is "motor" octane. The research octane number is always higher than the motor octane number. Back in the 60's and up to the early 70's, the octane rating that was posted on the gas pumps was the "research" octane number, which is the higher number. The gas companies wanted to advertise the highest number to make their gas seem better. I worked for HESS a few years around that time and they even bumped their Premium up to 101 octane for a while, so they could advertise HESS 101 octane at the stations. So, most Premium was around 100, but that was the "Research" octane number only.

Early in the 70's, the government made the oil companies start posting their octane ratings as an average of Research octane and Motor octane. You will see that formula on octane rating stickers on pumps still to this day. Look closely and it will say R+M/2. Averaging the Research number with the lower Motor number produces a lower number of course, which is the number you see today. So today's 93 octane Premium is a result of the R+M/2 formula. If you were to go back to the 60's and take that 100 octane premium and figure it through the R+M/2 formula, it would be much closer to today's 93 figure. So, while there may still be a point or two difference, the difference in actual octane between then and now is not as much as some people think. Certainly not even close to 7 points difference.

One other important point: R+M/2 is an average. One can derive the octane by manipulating either component number in the R+M portion of the equation. Higher M number is better. Not all gasoline is equal with an R+M/2 of the same number.

ERIC AULL · 09:29 AM

I remember Sunoco 260 ! Find an airport and buy some 100LL, put some in your car and save a little for Cologne! Eric

Mr. P-Body · 08-04-2010, 12:46 PM

Gulf No-Nox (I remember the ad, John "If this Camaro won't knock on Gulf No-Nox, what makes you think YOUR Camaro will?"), Super Shell were "100 octane" at the pump. Each oil company had their own version of "premium" gas, but all were "leaded" AND 100. We didn't have Sonoco stations in California, but guys were known to drive to Las Vegas and bring back many gallons...

Jim

PONTIAC DUDE · 08-04-2010, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. P-Body

Gulf No-Nox (I remember the ad, John "If this Camaro won't knock on Gulf No-Nox, what makes you think YOUR Camaro will?"), Super Shell were "100 octane" at the pump. Each oil company had their own version of "premium" gas, but all were "leaded" AND 100. We didn't have Sonoco stations in California, but guys were known to drive to Las Vegas and bring back many gallons...

Jim

X2
A lot of us back then used Hess. Was the same as Sunoco 260. And cheaper by 2 [email protected] in 1969. LOL.

milkcrateracing · 08-04-2010, 01:57 PM

We did have Chevron white pump (Custom Supreme) @ 101 octane in Ca. I don't think it had any Techron in those days. I believe we gave up TEL for that.

Tim john · 08-04-2010, 04:06 PM

Octane rating fluxuates based on temperature when tested as well. Another variable.

Tim john---

72pontiac · 08-04-2010, 04:21 PM

if 1960's 101 is the same as todays 93 then we could still have 10.5 to 1 compression then why did i bump mine down to 9.5

ITSBACK · 08-04-2010, 05:21 PM

That was my reason for starting this thread. Whats the deal? Do I really have to use dished pistons with my 670 heads. I was at a car show Friday and talked to a couple of guys with 670 heads on their 67 GTO's like mine and they said they run great. I was reading Jim Hands book last night and he said the advertised 10-3/4:1 was an advertisement and that they where more like 10:1 maybe a touch higher. Did they not run great back then and my 428 put out 376hp. Why then with a bigger cam and my un ported 670's, headers, x-pipe,aluminum intake and 750 double pumper and bored .030 wont my motor run and put out 400-450hp? Some say 10.1:1 is optimum and others say 9:1.

Murf'sDad · 08-04-2010, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 72pontiac

if 1960's 101 is the same as todays 93 then we could still have 10.5 to 1 compression then why did i bump mine down to 9.5

It isn't. The high octane, TEL containing gas of the '60's and early '70's would be about 95 - 96 octane by today's ratings. With that you could run your 10.5:1 compression iron heads.

, Stewart

Menu

About Us