I did a search and other than killing my O2 their is really no downside to using Aviation fuel over regular unleaded except some people have reported slower spoolup. I know that the aviation fuel is slower burning. Is this the cause of the slower spoolup or is it the chip characteristics?
Aviation fuel and Spool up
- Thread starter CopGn
- Start date
av gas is dirty and unrefined. A lot of people do run it however I wouldn't. You can make your own high octane with Xylene or Toluene and it would be a better mix. Do a search on the internet (not Tbuick.com) and you will find a lot of information as to why it is not a very good automotive mix. Just my .02.
turbotwister
FAST COMPANY PERFORMANCE
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2002
hi,
were did you get the idea that av gas is dirty and unrefined?
that is very untrue.av gas has very strict standards by the FAA.
aviation fuel has to be cleaner and more refined due to the fact that if a plane has runability problems it would be far more serious an issue to a plane then an automobile ,dont ya think?
kind of hard to pull your plane over because the fuel filter clogged.so to say such a thing is very far from the factual truth.
nick,
were did you get the idea that av gas is dirty and unrefined?
that is very untrue.av gas has very strict standards by the FAA.
aviation fuel has to be cleaner and more refined due to the fact that if a plane has runability problems it would be far more serious an issue to a plane then an automobile ,dont ya think?
kind of hard to pull your plane over because the fuel filter clogged.so to say such a thing is very far from the factual truth.
nick,
machinegun
Active Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
Actually aviation has very different characteristics than auto or race fuel. Most of this is due to how it is blended and manufactured. Because of this the fuel does not burn as hot in our applications and this is where you are seeing the slow spool. I personally would build a DIY alchy kit and run on pumpgas. I have so far raced and beaten low 13 carswith 94 sunoco and my DIY alchy with 18 pounds boost on a Red armstrong 108 chip. I drive this everyday and it has more in it. I currently have it set at19 pounds and feels like itis capable of 12's. Tjis of course is only myopinion but itworks.
I don't mean dirty as in dirt is floating around in the fuel.......I mean dirty and unrefined in the sense that it has a lot of additives and mixtures that are not what we need in an automobile. My choice of words might have been poor but the bottom line is don't run av gas in your car. Here are some links.
http://www.dragracingonline.com/technical/octane_2.html
http://www.clbryant.com/documents/RG-v- AG.pdf
WOW!!! VP and 76 Racing gas don't recommend AvGas as an alternative to their race fuels?!?!?! Shocking!
I think I'll check out the Amsoil website and see how they fell about Royal Purple and Mobil 1.
IMHO, AvGas is fine with reasonable boost levels. Just watch your knock counts.
The fuel is not oxygenated.
The "fuel" in question can be any of a number of fuels, not counting kerosene primaries of Jet A, or the JP series military grade fuels.
Most "Av-gas" is 80/87 or 100LL. (100LL being dominant around the country in terms of availability). The LL denotes "low lead" which is actually very deceiving, since it has a fairly high concentration of lead.
It is neither dirty, nor unrefined.
I can tell you that even though your 1500hp engine makes a lot more power than a 300hp TSIO-520 Lycoming aircraft engine, that aircraft engine has a *much* rougher life, seeing that it operates at a higher continuous power. This is why I think it's humorous to suggest that the fuel expected to power these engines is somehow less than adequate.
Having said that, I will also say that the fuel was not designed for high HP operations. High HP operations put you into Jet-A (for turboprop or turbofan/turbojet applications).
For the money, you're better off getting the proper race fuel instead of trying to cut corners with "cheaper" fuel. As a pilot, and a turbo enthusiast, I know in either case that fuel is cheaper than metal....
The "fuel" in question can be any of a number of fuels, not counting kerosene primaries of Jet A, or the JP series military grade fuels.
Most "Av-gas" is 80/87 or 100LL. (100LL being dominant around the country in terms of availability). The LL denotes "low lead" which is actually very deceiving, since it has a fairly high concentration of lead.
It is neither dirty, nor unrefined.
I can tell you that even though your 1500hp engine makes a lot more power than a 300hp TSIO-520 Lycoming aircraft engine, that aircraft engine has a *much* rougher life, seeing that it operates at a higher continuous power. This is why I think it's humorous to suggest that the fuel expected to power these engines is somehow less than adequate.
Having said that, I will also say that the fuel was not designed for high HP operations. High HP operations put you into Jet-A (for turboprop or turbofan/turbojet applications).
For the money, you're better off getting the proper race fuel instead of trying to cut corners with "cheaper" fuel. As a pilot, and a turbo enthusiast, I know in either case that fuel is cheaper than metal....
Your statement makes very little sense... That, or the run-on sentences are confusing to me at the least...
I meant "adequate for aviation purposes" but not necessarily right for your turbo car. Making peak power is different than operating at a higher continuous power. Different goals entirely, and I think anyone would agree. Why then would anyone want to go the "cheap" route and buy 100LL and risk higher boost levels than they should by thinking it buys them more protection from detonation than it actually does??
IF you want to go fast, don't skimp and get fuel that isn't up to the task. That's my point. This is also a one-sided comparison, since you can't run C-16 in an airplane motor (FAA would have a field day with that). There are STC's for car gas and methanol, but not for race fuels in aviation motors. On your race car though, you can pretty much run whatever you can cram into the tank/fuel cell. However, your results may vary..
C-16 is probably what they need to run... C-20 is overkill, and will actually *hurt* performance.
Is this unclear?
I meant "adequate for aviation purposes" but not necessarily right for your turbo car. Making peak power is different than operating at a higher continuous power. Different goals entirely, and I think anyone would agree. Why then would anyone want to go the "cheap" route and buy 100LL and risk higher boost levels than they should by thinking it buys them more protection from detonation than it actually does??
IF you want to go fast, don't skimp and get fuel that isn't up to the task. That's my point. This is also a one-sided comparison, since you can't run C-16 in an airplane motor (FAA would have a field day with that). There are STC's for car gas and methanol, but not for race fuels in aviation motors. On your race car though, you can pretty much run whatever you can cram into the tank/fuel cell. However, your results may vary..
C-16 is probably what they need to run... C-20 is overkill, and will actually *hurt* performance.
Is this unclear?
Pro..several things are clear...but one thing I learned a long time ago is that arguing on the internet is like winning the special olympics.
I was confused that it seemed to me that in one sentence you thought it humorous that people would say av gas was not adequate, and seeing as we were discussing the merits of gas for a Buick I assumed you were saying that you thought that this gas would be adequate for said Buick. In the next sentence you recommended that one would purchase race gas instead of av gas. It appeared to me that the two statements contradicted each other however it appears that you actually agree that an automobile is best served by running automobile gasoline in it. This was my original point.
I won't try to confuse you with my run on sentences...I know it's difficult and I am surprised you didn't confuse it with Latin and were even able to reply at all. If you go to Wal-Mart you can buy a translator that will allow you to communicate with us common folk.
I was confused that it seemed to me that in one sentence you thought it humorous that people would say av gas was not adequate, and seeing as we were discussing the merits of gas for a Buick I assumed you were saying that you thought that this gas would be adequate for said Buick. In the next sentence you recommended that one would purchase race gas instead of av gas. It appeared to me that the two statements contradicted each other however it appears that you actually agree that an automobile is best served by running automobile gasoline in it. This was my original point.
I won't try to confuse you with my run on sentences...I know it's difficult and I am surprised you didn't confuse it with Latin and were even able to reply at all. If you go to Wal-Mart you can buy a translator that will allow you to communicate with us common folk.
T- Type Tim
Vice Chairman
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2001
up to almost 6.50 a gallon now......
ive run 100LL in my banshee for at least 15 years works great
ive run 100LL in my banshee for at least 15 years works great
- Joined
- May 28, 2001
1986 Buick GX1
GX1 #001 [The One and Only]
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2015
I was considering AV gas years ago and a pilot friend mentioned aviation and automotive standards are very different.
What aviation considers “low lead” is still 3X higher than the old premium fuel of the late ‘60’s.
