new (2005-2007) mustangs - regular fuel?

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:32:15 -0400, (Itsfrom Click)
wrote:

>
>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!

Not really. The older 4.6's GT's (pre 2005) did not have knock sensors
so there was no way for the engine management to know if there was
pinging.

>
>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.

RT:

gees, had no idea that FoMoCo was so behind-the-times. I've got 5 cars
and the only one I've ever heard ping is the '57. ('57 Packard.....only
7.8 to 1 comp, but needs high octane when the supercharger cuts in).

"RT" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:32:15 -0400, (Itsfrom Click)
> wrote:
>
>>
>>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!
>
> Not really. The older 4.6's GT's (pre 2005) did not have knock sensors
> so there was no way for the engine management to know if there was
> pinging.
>

Why did Ford stop using knock sensors?


>>
>>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.

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 09:04:00 GMT, "My Names Nobody" >
wrote:

>
>"RT" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 08:32:15 -0400, (Itsfrom Click)
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>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!
>>
>> Not really. The older 4.6's GT's (pre 2005) did not have knock sensors
>> so there was no way for the engine management to know if there was
>> pinging.
>>
>
>Why did Ford stop using knock sensors?

Stop ? The 5.0 and pre-2005 4.6 never had knock sensors (The cobra's
did I think). If nothing is wrong with the engine there was no need
for it on these engines.


>
>
>>>
>>>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.
>

On Wed, 2 Aug 2006 07:21:15 -0400, (Itsfrom Click)
wrote:

>
>RT:
>
>gees, had no idea that FoMoCo was so behind-the-times. I've got 5 cars
>and the only one I've ever heard ping is the '57. ('57 Packard.....only
>7.8 to 1 comp, but needs high octane when the supercharger cuts in).

If something is wrong the car can ping. Carbon deposits inside the
combustion chamber for instance can increase your compression and
cause pinging.
There's probably a million other reasons why it could ping.

Cobra 4.6 has had them since 1996. Actually they have two of them.
They work best at detecting heavy ping and knock. Basically the stuff
that could potentially be damaging. They don't work very well at
detecting a mild ping at higher RPMs. The 99's received a revised
sensor, that I believe was termed "dual differential". From what I
understand they are a little better at detecting low level ping/knock.

Too much information. Sorry. Trying to take my mind off work on this
late Friday.

"Itsfrom Click" > wrote in message ...

>
> RT:
>
> gees, had no idea that FoMoCo was so behind-the-times. I've got 5 cars
> and the only one I've ever heard ping is the '57. ('57 Packard.....only
> 7.8 to 1 comp, but needs high octane when the supercharger cuts in).
>

Stude 289 cu. in. V8 with Paxton blower??? :-)

yup......289 Stude......115,000 mile California car....no rust but had
to redo interior, paint, chrome, etc. blower was gone when I bought
it.....found the right bits and took to Myer Studebaker in Zanesville
OH. Didn't know if the old engine would take the boost.....but
checked-out OK......put in new valve seals, adjusted valves & turned it
and runs sweet. Too bad they used a 2 barrel to supercharge in
'57/8.....think it was a space issue. The later R2/3 engines had more
power, but the neat thing about the '57/8 setup is the wild, variable
ratio pulley that the later ones don't have.