VCCA Home Forums TECHNICAL - 1945 AND EARLIER 1937-1945 The Right Fuel Question

I have always been running Shell premium fuel because it has no ethanol and I have been told that ethanol is not good for my old 216. But after reading the following comments I wonder if I have been damaging my engine. Please read on and reply with your comments.
In an Old Autos article from April 3 2017 the author mentions “with the engine running at 1,400 rpm on regular when switched while still running to premium, it dropped to 1,200 rpm. Premium and race fuels burn slower and if you are running an engine designed for regular fuel you could be damaging it if you are running premium. Thank you.
John

Likely running a little weaker but not damaging your engine. These engines are not picky. They are likely generalizing based on a test of one engine without re-adjusting the timing to accommodate the fuel. They talk about switching live so they are not "tuning" the engine for the fuel difference. You could run your timing more advanced and it should pretty well offset the effect of slower burning premium.

Higher octane will burn slightly slower but for the sake of not having the ethanol present is a a fair tradeoff I think and the difference is likely not noticeable and certainly not damaging.

I too run the highest octane fuel here in Canada in some engines to avoid the ethanol. You need to test the gas though as sometimes they will still pump with 10% ethanol even though the pump says zero. You can find the tests on youtube.

Some stations do offer all three octane levels without ethanol but there are only a handful per province. A website called "puregas" tracks these.

Well, I don't really know about damaging the engine. Let's just consider two things:

a. Premumin has anti-knock additives to reduce knocking. Todays engines that religh on computers adjust the timing to take care of that knocking tendency up to a point. If you have a full load in the car and trunk then going up steep grade the computer may not have enough retarding to offset the timing sufficientlly to prevent detination instead of merely burning the fuel mixture. Below this point you may get away nicely with midgrade or regular.

b. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by using mid-grade or premimun in a car that is rated to burn regular. You are merely wasting money.

c. Back in my flying days we used 100-130 as the perfetted gasoline in Caribous
(Pratt & Whitney R-2000) or in the C-47 (P&W R-1820). That was because if we used anything with higher antiknodk additives the fues would still be burning as it left the cylinder and traveled by the exhaust valves. That fuel being 115-145.

The 207 and the 216, without modification, did not have enough copression to warrent high-test.

The above is the best I can remember about the topic. It may have some faulty stuff in it now owing to my brain being zapped by this here spat of unseasoned WX from You know.

Best.

Charlie

"In an Old Autos article from April 3 2017 the author mentions “with the engine running at 1,400 rpm on regular when switched while still running to premium, it dropped to 1,200 rpm. Premium and race fuels burn slower and if you are running an engine designed for regular fuel you could be damaging it if you are running premium. Thank you"

John,

One of the things that makes these forums so amusing to read is the abundance of opinions on highly technical subjects that the holders of those opinions have no training in. It has been my experience that no matter the subject being investigated there are highly qualified and very helpful people in the companies that make various product that will help you find the product that best matches your situation. Those engineers and sales representatives have gone way out of their ways to provide me not only information but samples of various products.

My suggestion is to call any of the oil companies and ask for a technical person to discuss your issue with.

Ray W

Thanks everyone for your replies. It is good to know that I will not be damaging my engine and I will check out those websites. Thanks again.
John

I for one don't know what training others have had so I can't criticize anyone's level of expertise. Sometimes the school of hands on teaches more than "book learning". I also don't know the assumed definition of "highly technical" but my experience is that using higher octane fuel than is required by the manufacturer is mostly a waste of money. I've never heard of it damaging an engine when that's the only divergence from factory recommendation.

While it will not damage the engine it will burn slower giving the effect of retarding the timing which results in lower power and fuel mileage. The 1941 engine was designed to run on 70 octane gas so even 87 pctane is much high octane than preimum was in 1941.
With all being said I doubt if the difference would be readily noticeable.

Gene put it well.

I would suggest advancing the timing a couple of degrees for each gasoline grade with higher octane rating. The 4 deg. timing increase and 0.025" to 0.040" spark plug gap is an example of increase in performance when higher than designed octane rating is used. The '31-'32 octane was in the 40-50 range so 85-87 is a substantial decrease in burn rate. The hotter spark and advanced timing helps to compensate.

They changed the octane ratings of gas. In 1941 premium gas was much better gas than any gas you can buy today antiknock and real lead. They did not use the Rm2 rating they use today. You get better fuel mileage with out ethanol know matter what the grade. We did lots of test when we had to run the E-15 we lost about 3 miles per gallon + . I also run that Shell V-Power in just about everything lawn mowers, weed eaters, 56 Panhead, 95 Electra Glide, 1968 396 Caprice. But not my daily drivers.

The present method of rating octane rating is about 5 points lower than IT WAS prior to about 1970. So todays 87 octane would have been rated at about 92 octane years back. A regular grade fuel rated at 92 octane years ago is equal in anti-knock value to todays 87 octane and no lead is used today to get the results. Besides being a poision lead did damage to engines and exhaust systems. Best thing they ever did is remove lead from gas.

"One of the things that makes these forums so amusing to read is the abundance of opinions on highly technical subjects that the holders of those opinions have no training in"

Brino,

We who offer our best knowledge to an inquiry here on Chat are merely trying to help. We certainly don't want to offer anything that will cause harm or cost money that will not help the questioner.

Not all of us are scientists, long schooled in the thread that prompts our replies. Rather than just sit by and not offer our best information is no good for any of us.

I applaud all who answer questions. I accept their posts as trying their best to be helpful.

I'm glad that our posts are so amusing to you.

Charlie

BTW: I was trained in fixed-wing flight school back in 1964 about the differences in fuels that we were to use in the U.S. Army airplanes we had at that time. Although the training was mostly superficial the truths I learned didn't need to be rocket science or on splitting atoms level. This is to say, while my knowledge about fuels is limited it is sufficient enough to speak on a user level.
I don't think one has to enlist the help of chemical scientist to get some down to earth workable and helpful answers to our questions Anyone should take our answers with a grain of salt and hope there is something in them that is helpful. I have an MA but any street-smart person can tie my minds in knots. Even a homeless person's survival skills are truly amazing. And, as to training:
After all, Granny in the Beverly Hillbillies could tell the weather by observing a fuzzy worm in a matchbox.

"I'm glad that our posts are so amusing to you."

Come on Charlie, can’t we look at ourselves and laugh at least a little at what we post and read on these forums? The example that leaps to mind is the topic of “stuck” engines that occasionally shows up on the Stovebolt forum like this:

https://www.stovebolt.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/747299/1.html

The Stovebolt guys sometimes find trucks that have been left outdoors in the elements for decades with not only body rust but serious internal engine rust. The fixes to “free” these “stuck” engines sometimes really are entertaining and include things like towing the vehicle behind a tractor or bulldozer, rolling it down a steep hill in gear with the clutch disengaged then “popping” the clutch, etc. These methods are claimed to work and it is claimed that all those rusty parts rubbing against each other will smooth everything out resulting in a smooth running engine. It just makes me grin to think of rusty parts grinding against each other and producing micropolished surfaces.

Anyway, I find that kind of stuff amusing to read in the same way that decades ago I liked watching Archie and Meathead argue in All In The Family. To each his own.

Ray W

Brino,

You"re right. I overreacted. I regret it. As they say in some places up north, I hope you'll "forgetaboutit." (That is one word, by the way.) (smile)

Best,

Charlie (at the computer)

Charlie, thanks so much for the response. I'm glad you aren't offended by me finding some of the forum posts being entertaining to read. I read the Stovebolt forum for years just for entertainment before joining. When I did join that forum it was to ask if anybody there had personal knowledge of a way to put highway friendly rear end gears in a 1936 Chevy while not altering the original appearance.

It was my good fortune that a Stovebolt forum member knew exactly how to do that job. He explained that a 1937 Chevy car rear axle has the same track (rear axle width) as the 1936 Chevy car and pickup and that rear axle will accept 3.55 gears from a 1950-54 Chevy car with a powerglide transmission. The driveshaft and torque tube would have to be shortened by about 6 1/2 inches, but that's a pretty simple task that's easily accomplished at home.

Technical department employees, salesmen and customer service representatives of various industries really do offer us a wealth of information if we only ask them. It's a mystery to me why people on these forums prefer amateur opinions to those really knowledgeable pros. Here's just one example of many I have experienced. I still have a 1971 Dodge van that I bought new for hauling my race motorcycles to off road races and for camping in. In 1980 when my first son was born I bought a little travel trailer to make camping with a baby easier. Immediately after starting to tow the trailer that van started wearing out U-joints at an alarming rate. I called Quaker State and explained the problem to a lubrication engineer there. He told me that their synthetic grease would probably solve the problem. I asked him where I could buy it and he said "No place. It costs a little more so the parts stores won't carry it. We only sell it to the military. What's your address? I'll send you a case as sample".

He did what he said he was going to do and that premium grease, that I would have never known about otherwise, solved the problem. And that's just one such experience I've had. Those guys really are knowledgeable and they really want to help if they're only asked. It's good business! The van is still going strong after 361,000+ miles and 47 years. So, if you can, please tell me why there is such resistance on these forums to getting information from professionals instead of from self proclaimed "experts".

Ray W

Brino,

As to your question as to why we perfer self-proclaimed experts (Shade Tree) as opposed to professionals, there are two reason that come to mind:

a. Shade tree knowledge trumps professionalism every time. So we think.

b. Shade tree knowledge having come about in many cases after having to figure out something without of benefit of proper shop tools and manuals ofter is quicker and tells us how to do the job with baling wire, a pair of plyers and a hammer and an anvil.

c. Getting information from a professional takes much more time and digging with the outcome not making any sense and the shade tree answer in about the same nano-second that it takes a former Marine to tell a stranger that he was one.

d. Shade Tree knowledge is supported by skinned knuckles while professional knowledge is supported by Fig Newtons.

Best,
Charlie (Still can't find those stinkin icons while posting)

Click on Use Full Editor in the text box.

Tiny,

There ain't no such animal known as "Full Editor" in no stinkin text box that I can find.

Thanks for the åttempt to help me but it didn't work.

I'm being discriminated against and I'm gonna speak to my attorney on Monday morning. This is somthing up with I will not put. (See Churchill)

In the meantime, in order not to be made a fool (again) I will keep trying to figure out this mess BB dumped on us by leaving. Now we know why.

What was wrong with the way it was before? (Smiley Face)

Thanks again,

Charlie (computer)

Charlie it is at the bottom bar of the reply box

"Shade tree knowledge having come about in many cases after having to figure out something without of benefit of proper shop tools and manuals ofter is quicker and tells us how to do the job with baling wire, a pair of plyers and a hammer and an anvil."

Charlie,

Your tool box contains different items than mine. Mine has duct tape and WD40. Duct tape for when it moves and it's not supposed to and WD40 for when it's supposed to move but it doesn't.

I hope this helps.

Ray W

Tiny,

Finally found it. Why did they hide it like that? Somebody's always trying to mess with something that is perfect and don't need no stinkin messing with. You know.

This setup is a lot more difficult to mess with.

Charlie

'They' didn't hide it. I suspect that the forum software is responsible for the location of lot of things.

In the software world, unlike the beloved old car world, things change and evolve quickly with patches and updates. For example, you could get continual updates to the forum if you really wanted to stay on top of spam issues.

If the forum was left static (no updates), it would die an agonizing death and nobody could revive it.

Change is not comfortable, but to quote Walter Cronkite, that's the way it is.

Besides, this is good exercise for your gray cells.

All my best, Dean