Has anyone used racing fuel?

Our engines in stock configuration do not have enough compression to make any use of fuel with a higher octane number than low grade pump fuel in the US let alone premium or race fuel. There is nothing to be gained here.

 

I've tried Union 76 Racing fuel. I didn't feel any difference. The main thing I believe about race or aviation gas is it's not oxygenated which means it doesn't get stale like normal pump gas and is friendlier to rubber gaskets, fuel liner etc.

Freeman

 

Always premium.

 

Here is where the brain fights the heart. From a purely technical perspective in most markets there is no gain to using anything better than regular in a Dino with stock compression ratio. On modern cars with electronic fuel injection, higher compression ratios, and oxygen sensors to regulate fueling and timing (all things missing on a Dino) there are differences in fuel selection. That is the brain talking. The heart however just cannot help but think that premium is that little bit 'better' for the car. If it were my dime I'd run regular.

Now here is where I will totally contradict myself and tell you that in Canada I run only Shell V Power Premium. This is because this fuel is the only one available that contains 0% ethanol which is very damaging to the rubbers found in older fuel systems. So in my case I buy it not for the octane but the lack of Ethanol.

 

Is there an easy way to find fuel without Ethanol?

 

This part of the country (northeast) seems to pride itself on bad cheap fuel so I'm using this in my car for now:
https://vpracingfuels.com/product/vp-vintage-unleaded/

At least it's ethanol free, street legal, octane not an issue and doesn't contain rust, dirt and water.

Rob, the shell V power we get here is rubbish - not the same as in Canada. I'd take your fuel any day... please export it.

 

I had looked into using this. It's pricy and as for being street legal, the can says:

THIS PRODUCT IS FOR RACING VEHICLES ONLY.
NOT FOR USE IN STREET-DRIVEN OR NON-RACING VEHICLES.

 

That disclaimer is a generalized statement that allows them to get out of certain legalization BS formalities. It is common practice for companies that make specialist products in relative small volumes to use these disclaimers. The alternative is to go through incredibly expensive tests mandated by the government to clear the product for general consumption but not necessarily claim it to be any better or worse. This is particularly prevalent in California where lots of aftermarket products are sold 'For offroad use only' merely because they chose not to have the parts CARB certified.

While the VP can of fuel may not be legal for street use as per the letter of the law the fuel itself in no way is damaging to a street vehicle nor will you NEVER EVER EVER be cited for its use. You will however attract the attention of the police when your classic car filled up with the legally sold ethanol rich fuel burns to the ground at the side of the road due to deteriorated hoses from the Ethanol.

 

My Dinos bill of sale from chinetti clearly states:
FOR RACING PURPOSES ONLY

I'm good, right?

Edit: as an aside, I had the pleasure of meeting Dick Fritz at Cavallino this year, he sold my car to it's first owner 47 years ago...

 

Ok, I admit - these are good points! My comment was perhaps nitpicky - practically speaking these fuels can and probably should be used on classic cars that weren't designed to handle ethanol, but formally they aren't street legal, which is a claim that was made. Anyways, onto a more important issue - if one goes through the trouble and expense of using VP fuels does it make sense to go all the way and use the leaded version? These engines were designed for leaded fuel so it seems appropriate ...

 

Why not try their "performance unleaded", actually this is the fuel i was thinking of when i made the statement about it being legal. Seems I put the wrong link.
The fine print says, you need to use it in a state which is legal to have mbte in the fuel.

 

Leaded fuel has the advantage in older engines of being more gentle with the valve seats that were used back then. That said the Dino and earlier Ferrari engines of the time seem to do ok with unleaded fuel. Maybe it is just the relative low mileage these cars get and the fact that few are really driven hard to create high valve train wear rates. I personally would not bother with the expense and trouble associated with leaded fuel however when re-building an engine I would change the valve seats to modern unleaded ones.

This reminds me back in the day when I raced Formula Ford with the old Pinto engines. Those things were highly prepared and driven to within a millimeter of their life. For longevity and max performance we would run leaded aviation fuel picked up at the local airport. An pricey proposition that made sense when you saw how expensive the race engines were to re-build.

 

Racing fuel distributor in South Houston...

The day I ran the Texas Mile they had racing fuel there, octane well past 100, IIRC.

I was offered a tank full, but really felt that without tuning to it, there was little to gain.

 

Check your Deed Restrictions, before stacking too many of those drums in your garage!

 

I have use 2 gallons of 114 octane ply 8 gallons of 93 octane.
The dino motors loved it.
Highly recommend.

 

Makes a huge difference in my pre cat 911. The lead acts as a lubricant for valves and the engine is so happy and peppy, good for the car and fun to drive, even with the 8:1 compression of the skinny little 2.7. I have not tried the unleaded, but the leaded 110 delivers an unmistakable performance upgrade. Sadly, it is ruinously expensive, if memory serves it is close to $8 per gallon.
Leaded fuel is only for cars with no catalytic converter. Believe the car will burn up if leaded fuel is used with catalytic equipped engine.
To get your feet wet try mixing a 10 gallon drum of 110 with the balance of tank filled with 93 from the pump.
Caution extremely addictive.

 

You can get a free app for you Android or iPhone called Pure Gas, and it will show you (usually) a 100 or so stations that sell alcohol free gas - you need to look at the details for each station though as some are marine docks only, others are through a Grange or similar location, and you need to check the octane offered. I have found several nearby that offer 93/94 octane with 0% alcohol - you pay a little more though, but not a lot more.

Here's a link for more info:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.AutoLean.puregas&hl=en

Mark

 

I ran 100 octane race gas from Sunoco a few times in the Dino. Actually went back to the same station for 3 or 4 fillups in a row, so that I'd be as close to pure 100 octane as possible. I ran the tank down to 1/4, then filled 'er up.

This stuff is expensive, and I did NOT notice any appreciable difference in how it ran over the standard 94 octane Sunoco Super Premium I normally ran on. I think 93 is as high as they go now.

Octane "boosters" did nothing appreciable to performance either. Or gas mileage, for that matter. (But if you're worried about gas mileage, time to sell the Dino )

In FL, Marathon stations often have a no ethanol option, but I don't think that it is also 93 octane. I will look, next fillup.

D

 

I agree. However, don't some companies (I think Scuderia Rampante?) make hose kits that are designed to withstand ethanol gas? Even without, my mechanic said normal NAPA hoses should last several years.

 

Just a few points to make to clarify some of the above comments and address the "why" question since this thread covers the evolution of gasoline blending stocks:

(1) Lead was the original go-to additive since the 1930s to increase gasoline octane. It was phased out in the late 1970s by pollution regulations when catalytic converters arrived on the scene. As commented on above, lead and catalytic converters are not compatible. At that time, lead was replaced by higher base quality gasoline and certain other additives.

(2) As a result of the 1990 Clean Air Act, MTBE became the preferred go-to additive to increase oxygen content in gasoline. By the late 1990s, MTBE came under attack for jeopardizing the water supply. Although there was never a national EPA ban of MTBE, a number of states did enact such bans. There is a ban/not ban map of the states on the internet which is the subject of the "fine print" comment above about VP fuels.

(3) From about 2005 to 2010, refiners stopped using MTBE as a fuel additive due to legal concerns and it effectively became unavailable all over, even in states not banning it. It was replaced by ethanol in small concentrations of about 3%.
(4) The Energy Policy Act of 2005 came along next and the Ethanol Lobby was successful in getting mandates into the law that required increasing quantities of ethanol be blended into gasoline up to 10%. When the ethanol concentration went above about 5%, this is when the fuel troubles started for older cars, small gasoline engines, and boats that is mentioned for classic cars above.

(5) For many of the non-ethanol (E-0) fuels discussed above, it is a tax technicality that prohibits their use on the street. Federal and state road taxes must be collected and paid by the fuel seller if for street use. Thus, boats, ATVs, lawn mowers, etc. don't have this issue. Most sellers will not pump these fuels into a vehicle unless the road taxes are paid and baked into the price. That is why they frequently sell these fuels by the can and let the buyer put them into the tank themselves.

(6) As for detection, a special colored dye is added to fuels that have paid road taxes. Since the fuels are in a tank, they are difficult to detect unless sampled by a law enforcement agent. This happens more frequently than one would think in the trucking industry where some operators use diesel fuel intended for construction equipment in their trucks. When caught, the fine is quite stiff.

Thus, we can thank Washington and the Ethanol Lobby for foisting costly fuel problems on car enthusiasts.