[RodMoe]

I've never seen (or never noticed) 91 at the pump. Around here we get 87, 89, 93. New England area.

Lucky i have seen 87 89 91 92 and if I hunt around a bit I can find 93.. there may even be a place around here that sells 100 race gas. But I have yet to find that unicorn.... fyi 93 with a 91 oct tune will work too

 

[D1JL]

I've never seen (or never noticed) 91 at the pump. Around here we get 87, 89, 93. New England area.

In California we only get 87, 89, & 91 and not 93.
We can get 100 as well but that's way too much money.


Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave

 

[D1JL]

ahh we get to the old debate would you rather be fast from 5k to 7k or fast from 3k to 6k rpm's ? After living with a hi rev no torque car I'll take the Phat low end torque curve and add to that but thats just me

But I am Phat mostly in the middle so it really doesn't matter.


Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave

 

[WScottCross]

But I am Phat mostly in the middle so it really doesn't matter.


Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave

:hilarious:

 

[stuntdoogie]

ahh we get to the old debate would you rather be fast from 5k to 7k or fast from 3k to 6k rpm's ? After living with a hi rev no torque car I'll take the Phat low end torque curve and add to that but thats just me

X2

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

 

[spangenb]

Torque is where it's at for the fun factor. I came from Mustangs. Drove a Civic Si a few years ago thinking I could deal with the lack of torque. Wrong! Bought an '08 Mustang GT/CS My '86 GT was hilarious. It could pull stumps up to about 4K RPM, then it just fell flat. Burnouts were anti-climactic ... unless you could grab a shift and keep the tires spinning ;-)

 

[RodMoe]

But I am Phat mostly in the middle so it really doesn't matter.


Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave

Why do I knot even question this LOL :rotfl:

 

[pelotonracer2]

I too agree the change from stock is very impressive.

I just don't think the difference between 91 and 93 is worth the difference in fuel cost.
I think I will stay with the 91.

Sent with my retro keyboard and mouse.

Dave

Yeah, there just isn't that much of a difference. Where I've seen the biggest difference in the two tunes is closed loop fuel economy, the stage 3 returns around 6-8% better.

 

[pelotonracer2]

Torque is where it's at for the fun factor. I came from Mustangs. Drove a Civic Si a few years ago thinking I could deal with the lack of torque. Wrong! Bought an '08 Mustang GT/CS My '86 GT was hilarious. It could pull stumps up to about 4K RPM, then it just fell flat. Burnouts were anti-climactic ... unless you could grab a shift and keep the tires spinning ;-)

Yeah, I had a 1986 GT convertible. Red with a white top, and white leather seats. 2.73 gears... lots of torque but not much of anything else. My FiST would blow the doors off of that car. The heads on '86 model 5.0s really sucked (not to mention the anemic plenum, lower intake manifold, throttle body and other differences). The '87 and up speed density 5.0s could breathe a lot better and ran a lot better. Then due to new emissions standards, they switched over to MAF in '89. The debate still rages on today which ran better. I know it was easier to use a B303 cam in the '89+ heh (better idle quality and drivability). Back in the day I ate, breathed and slept Mustang 5.0s (owned 7 of them: an '86, '88, two '89s, two '90s and a '91). The only "GT" model was the '86. The rest were all LX 5.0s in trunk back (notchback) or convertible.

 

[Soldjeepforst]

I'm not sure what mods you guys have but when I installed my downpipe I started getting 3-4 more psi. Max I've seen is 23.2 psi but when I get my pro tune next week it's going to adjusted to 24psi and a/f ratio brought down to 11ish.