new (2005-2007) mustangs - regular fuel?

I'm looking for reasons to trade up to a new Mustang GT Convertible but with
gas prices as they are, it's hard to justify.

Has anyone run regular (does it mean "regular unleaded" or "regular") fuel
in their 2005-2007 Mustang GT? What kind of MPG? What kind of performance?
Have you compared to same car running "Premium Unleaded (93 octane)"? I'd
love to see comparison stats if they exist!

Thanks!

--
Scotter
96 GT Vert

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:40:45 GMT, "Scotter" > wrote:

>I'm looking for reasons to trade up to a new Mustang GT Convertible but with
>gas prices as they are, it's hard to justify.
>
>Has anyone run regular (does it mean "regular unleaded" or "regular") fuel
>in their 2005-2007 Mustang GT? What kind of MPG? What kind of performance?
>Have you compared to same car running "Premium Unleaded (93 octane)"? I'd
>love to see comparison stats if they exist!
>
>Thanks!

I have a 2005 GT and burn only regular in it. I get right at 23.3 mpg in
mostly highway driving. I know the car will go 110 in 3rd gear. That's
plenty fast enough for me.
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

"Scotter" > wrote in message
...
> I'm looking for reasons to trade up to a new Mustang GT Convertible but
> with gas prices as they are, it's hard to justify.
>
> Has anyone run regular (does it mean "regular unleaded" or "regular") fuel
> in their 2005-2007 Mustang GT? What kind of MPG? What kind of performance?
> Have you compared to same car running "Premium Unleaded (93 octane)"? I'd
> love to see comparison stats if they exist!
>
> Thanks!
>
> --
> Scotter
> 96 GT Vert
>

Premium fuel doesn't improve performance, Period. You will see zero benefit
over regular fuel in all cases, except where your compression ratio is high
enough to cause pre-ignition (pinging) on regular fuel.

Engines are designed (compression ratio/timing) for a specific octane
rating - it is typically a HUGE waste of money to use a higher than
recommended octane rated fuel. Therefore, always use fuel with an octane
rating as close as possible to what the manufacturer suggests for the
engine. This mindset assumes you have not made major modifications to the
engine (compression ratio/timing).

Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C (searches
for the highest octane I can find) @
http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt

"Scotter" > wrote in message
...
> I'm looking for reasons to trade up to a new Mustang GT Convertible but
> with gas prices as they are, it's hard to justify.
>
> Has anyone run regular (does it mean "regular unleaded" or "regular") fuel
> in their 2005-2007 Mustang GT? What kind of MPG? What kind of performance?
> Have you compared to same car running "Premium Unleaded (93 octane)"? I'd
> love to see comparison stats if they exist!
>
> Thanks!

Grover C. McCoury III wrote:
> Engines are designed (compression ratio/timing) for a specific octane
> rating - it is typically a HUGE waste of money to use a higher than
> recommended octane rated fuel. Therefore, always use fuel with an octane
> rating as close as possible to what the manufacturer suggests for the
> engine. This mindset assumes you have not made major modifications to the
> engine (compression ratio/timing).
>
> Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C (searches
> for the highest octane I can find) @
> http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt

Mmm, I think the above is a true statement, or at least was, until the
2005 Mustang. I read that the Spanish Oak computer will dynamically
advance the timing as much as it can without detonation; in other
words, you switch from 87 to 93 octane and the computer does its own
"timing bump" without you even knowing about it. I think this was a
few issues back in 5.0 magazine.

John
93 GT

Owners manual for that car specifies 87 octane. Recommends *against*
using premium.

JohnV@nn wrote:
> Grover C. McCoury III wrote:
> > Engines are designed (compression ratio/timing) for a specific octane
> > rating - it is typically a HUGE waste of money to use a higher than
> > recommended octane rated fuel. Therefore, always use fuel with an octane
> > rating as close as possible to what the manufacturer suggests for the
> > engine. This mindset assumes you have not made major modifications to the
> > engine (compression ratio/timing).
> >
> > Yet another $.02 worth from a proud owner of a 1970 Mach 1 351C (searches
> > for the highest octane I can find) @
> > http://community.webshots.com/album/18644819fHAehGJAjt
>
> Mmm, I think the above is a true statement, or at least was, until the
> 2005 Mustang. I read that the Spanish Oak computer will dynamically
> advance the timing as much as it can without detonation; in other
> words, you switch from 87 to 93 octane and the computer does its own
> "timing bump" without you even knowing about it. I think this was a
> few issues back in 5.0 magazine.
>
> John
> 93 GT

Yep, I have seen the Spanish Oak in action... it will dynamically add
spark if it thinks the car is "under-sparked"... You can watch the
knock senors add and subtract timing... What I don't know is if they
can add enough spark to take advantage of higher octane... but I have
seen knock sensors add like 2 degrees... So in fact John (the other
one) is right...

I'll have to double check on what the manual says... LOL

John S. wrote:
> Yep, I have seen the Spanish Oak in action... it will dynamically add
> spark if it thinks the car is "under-sparked"... You can watch the
> knock senors add and subtract timing... What I don't know is if they
> can add enough spark to take advantage of higher octane... but I have
> seen knock sensors add like 2 degrees... So in fact John (the other
> one) is right...
>
> I'll have to double check on what the manual says... LOL

The 5.0 mag dynoed the car on 87 and again on 93; they got a few more
hp with the 93. I'm going to rifle around and see if I can find that
issue, and I'll post a quote from the article.

John

On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 16:13:04 -0400, JohnH > wrote:

>On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:40:45 GMT, "Scotter" > wrote:
>
>>I'm looking for reasons to trade up to a new Mustang GT Convertible but with
>>gas prices as they are, it's hard to justify.
>>
>>Has anyone run regular (does it mean "regular unleaded" or "regular") fuel
>>in their 2005-2007 Mustang GT? What kind of MPG? What kind of performance?
>>Have you compared to same car running "Premium Unleaded (93 octane)"? I'd
>>love to see comparison stats if they exist!
>>
>>Thanks!
>
>I have a 2005 GT and burn only regular in it. I get right at 23.3 mpg in
>mostly highway driving. I know the car will go 110 in 3rd gear. That's
>plenty fast enough for me.


ditto for the 2006 GT (even the 110 in 3rd gear) and the average city
for me ~19

no mods

I'm using 87 octane in my '06 GT and it seems "peppy" enough, lol. but
I am amused whenever I read a new article by an "expert" saying to use
the lowest grade gas that doesn't ping. all cars have had computer
controls for years and if you can make a modern car ping, you've really
got problems!

have a 2002 Chrysler 300 (that's with the V6)......the owners manual
recommends mid-grade, and tells you how much horsepower it develops with
different octances: 215 on regular, 235 with plus. the performance
isn't much different in normal driving - but is in the mountains. there
is a BIG difference in miles-per-gallon: if gets 21 mpg (highway) on
regular, 24 on mid and 28 with premium. most times it pays to use
higher octane (on this particular car).

once my Mustang in broken-in, I'll do some comparisons with it, too.