Gas is so damn expensive!
- Thread starter dbk
- Start date
OzGT
GT Owner
tpraceman
THEE GT OWNER
Ahhhh crap you beat me to it.:willy
Here is a video of DBK talking to forum members with stock GT's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPXVGQnJm0w&feature=related
JOETWINT
FORD GT OWNER
For those who want the octane rating but don't want the leaded fuel that eats O2 sensors try Pro Racing Fuels. http://www.proracingfuels.com/[/URL]
The Mark IV is 112 motor octane and the Mark V is 114.I used the MarkIV in place of the c16 in my 800+Rwhp 996 TT Porsche (It was originally tuned on c16)and I never had to adjust the boost controller setting or change the 02 sensors again.I will be tuning the new(bigger) motor on the MarkIV and the C16 to see if any real world power difference and am shooting for 800+@the wheels .Joe
The Mark IV is 112 motor octane and the Mark V is 114.I used the MarkIV in place of the c16 in my 800+Rwhp 996 TT Porsche (It was originally tuned on c16)and I never had to adjust the boost controller setting or change the 02 sensors again.I will be tuning the new(bigger) motor on the MarkIV and the C16 to see if any real world power difference and am shooting for 800+@the wheels .Joe
BlackICE
GT Owner
Do you know what type of additives are used to bring the octane up? My understanding is the typical additives used are alcohol, MMT, MTBE, or lead. Since Mark V doesn't have lead, or alcohol, that leaves MTBE, or MMT. I have read that high levels of MMT can shorten the life of the CATs, but anyone running this stuff probably doesn't have CATs, or doesn't give a rat's ass. Note stoichiometric mixture varies with fuel type so an adjustment in the tune may be needed for optimum results.
avant
GT Owner
JOETWINT
FORD GT OWNER
BlackICE
GT Owner
Yep, strait about 114 octane, but it's low vapor pressure can cause problems in cold weather. Paint stores carry it.
AlohaGT
GT Owner
So, who uses toluene and what do you think? It appears to be fairly effective. Anyone use Nulon Pro Strength Octane Booster or NF Octane Booster Racing Formula? Both reportedly are more potent than toluene and cost effective.
BlackICE
GT Owner
I have only read about the toluene, no 1st hand experience, but from what I have read if you keep the mixture below 30% and don't operate the car in cold weather it should work fine. That will not get you from 91 or 92 to 100 though. Note the A/F ratio will be slightly off and should be adjusted. If I were using some booster I would prefer toluene over any product sold in a small bottle.
dbtgt
One lucky SOB to own a GT
AlohaGT
GT Owner
Yes, but a 20% mix will bump a tank 35 points from 93 to 96.5 and 30% nearly 50 points to almost 98. Pretty cheap go juice. :driving:
Last edited:
THamonGT
GT
These posts remind me of 1964 when we raced a 289 Street AC Cobra set up for SCCA racing in A Production. The street Cobra was set up exactly as Carroll Shelbys A-Production race cars for every race. My Father spent every day on the telephone with Carroll and his race mechanics setting the 289 up for each race. We were racing in the Southwest and his cars were racing in the Western regions and sometimes we raced against each other . On day Carroll called my Father and because we lived in an area with many Refinerys producing Gasoline they came up with the idea they should find a source for high- octane fuel and see if it would produce better results in the 289's. You can tell where that took them. Knowing every Plant Manager in this, here came the 55 gallon drums of 120 octane fuel to the dealership. Man it was beautiful and smelled wonderful and was the color of the Hawiian Islands Ocean (before snow cone days) and not colored like the Gulf of Mexico. When we went to a race we carried enough in small containers so not to be conspicuous. Carroll was shipped drums of the Texas "Go Juice", and did it go work. It made a 289 Cobra competative with the C-modified who ran in the same races and we often beat them. The only problem we had was pouting it into the tank without being discovered before each race. That was my Job, covering up the containers with a large towel and pouring liquid blue into the tank while looking innocent and legal at age 19. Carroll and my Father were on the cutting edge and were a hoot. Enough said, I can see the Blue Juice now. Wow those were th 60's. Tomy Hamon PS Thats why I hug him when I see Him.
dbtgt
One lucky SOB to own a GT
B O N Y
MODERATOR & FGT OWNER
HeritageBruce
GT Owner
Where's a good source for cheap O2 sensors? And do you have the part number? Thanks.
tmcphail
GT Owner/Vendor
Empty Pockets
ex-GT Owner
Did any of you see this?
Subject: Oil reserves
from PowerlineMay 21, 2008
"Oil Executives Try to Educate Senate Democrats, But Democrats Appear Hopeless
Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summon ed top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades show ed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn't as satisfactory as the Democrats had hop ed .
The industry lineup was formidable: Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation.
Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed , and much more public-spirit ed than the Senate Democrats.
One theme that emerg ed from the hearing was the surprisingly small role play ed by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe point ed out:
"I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restrict ed in the Unit ed States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.
We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible."
Stephen Simon amplified :
"Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-back ed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make ne ed ed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.
Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:
Last year, the average price in the Unit ed States of a gallon of regular unlead ed gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflect ed the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we.
Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States , 90 percent were purchas ed from others."
Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is f ed eral and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.
The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum.
Shell's John Hofmeister explained , eloquently:
"While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China , subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, fe ed ing the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.
Meanwhile, in the United States , access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identifi ed 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.
When many of these policies were implemented , oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the Unit ed States to produce new supplies.
As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.
The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development."
Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:
HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah , Colorado and Wyoming . It's fair to say that they're not consider ed part of America 's $22 billion of proven reserves.
HOFMEISTER: Not at all.
HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good oil, isn't it?
HOFMEISTER: That's correct.
HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?
HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dat ed now, based upon what we've seen in the inflation...
HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.
HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked . And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.
HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.
HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.
HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.
HOFMEISTER: Yes.
HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado .
HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.
The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.
Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative."
Subject: Oil reserves
from PowerlineMay 21, 2008
"Oil Executives Try to Educate Senate Democrats, But Democrats Appear Hopeless
Earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee summon ed top executives from the petroleum industry for what Chairman Pat Leahy thought would be a politically profitable inquisition. Leahy and his comrades show ed up ready to blame American oil companies for the high price of gasoline, but the event wasn't as satisfactory as the Democrats had hop ed .
The industry lineup was formidable: Robert Malone, Chairman and President of BP America, Inc.; John Hofmeister, President, Shell Oil Company; Peter Robertson, Vice Chairman of the Board, Chevron Corporation; John Lowe, Executive Vice President, Conoco Philips Company; and Stephen Simon, Senior Vice President, Exxon Mobil Corporation.
Not surprisingly, the petroleum executives stole the show, as they were far smarter, infinitely better informed , and much more public-spirit ed than the Senate Democrats.
One theme that emerg ed from the hearing was the surprisingly small role play ed by American oil companies in the global petroleum market. John Lowe point ed out:
"I cannot overemphasize the access issue. Access to resources is severely restrict ed in the Unit ed States and abroad, and the American oil industry must compete with national oil companies who are often much larger and have the support of their governments.
We can only compete directly for 7 percent of the world's available reserves while about 75 percent is completely controlled by national oil companies and is not accessible."
Stephen Simon amplified :
"Exxon Mobil is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, but we account for only 2 percent of global energy production, only 3 percent of global oil production, only 6 percent of global refining capacity, and only 1 percent of global petroleum reserves. With respect to petroleum reserves, we rank 14th. Government-owned national oil companies dominate the top spots. For an American company to succeed in this competitive landscape and go head to head with huge government-back ed national oil companies, it needs financial strength and scale to execute massive complex energy projects requiring enormous long-term investments.
To simply maintain our current operations and make ne ed ed capital investments, Exxon Mobil spends nearly $1 billion each day.
Because foreign companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world's oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else:
Last year, the average price in the Unit ed States of a gallon of regular unlead ed gasoline was around $2.80. On average in 2007, approximately 58 percent of the price reflect ed the amount paid for crude oil. Consumers pay for that crude oil, and so do we.
Of the 2 million barrels per day Exxon Mobil refined in 2007 here in the United States , 90 percent were purchas ed from others."
Another theme of the day's testimony was that, if anyone is "gouging" consumers through the high price of gasoline, it is f ed eral and state governments, not American oil companies. On the average, 15% percent of the cost of gasoline at the pump goes for taxes, while only 4% represents oil company profits. These figures were repeated several times, but, strangely, not a single Democratic Senator proposed relieving consumers' anxieties about gas prices by reducing taxes.
The last theme that was sounded repeatedly was Congress's responsibility for the fact that American companies have access to so little petroleum.
Shell's John Hofmeister explained , eloquently:
"While all oil-importing nations buy oil at global prices, some, notably India and China , subsidize the cost of oil products to their nation's consumers, fe ed ing the demand for more oil despite record prices. They do this to speed economic growth and to ensure a competitive advantage relative to other nations.
Meanwhile, in the United States , access to our own oil and gas resources has been limited for the last 30 years, prohibiting companies such as Shell from exploring and developing resources for the benefit of the American people.
Senator Sessions, I agree, it is not a free market.
According to the Department of the Interior, 62 percent of all on-shore federal lands are off limits to oil and gas developments, with restrictions applying to 92 percent of all federal lands. We have an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Atlantic Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the Pacific Ocean, an outer continental shelf moratorium on the eastern Gulf of Mexico, congressional bans on on-shore oil and gas activities in specific areas of the Rockies and Alaska, and even a congressional ban on doing an analysis of the resource potential for oil and gas in the Atlantic, Pacific and eastern Gulf of Mexico.
The Argonne National Laboratory did a report in 2004 that identifi ed 40 specific federal policy areas that halt, limit, delay or restrict natural gas projects. I urge you to review it. It is a long list. If I may, I offer it today if you would like to include it in the record.
When many of these policies were implemented , oil was selling in the single digits, not the triple digits we see now. The cumulative effect of these policies has been to discourage U.S. investment and send U.S. companies outside the Unit ed States to produce new supplies.
As a result, U.S. production has declined so much that nearly 60 percent of daily consumption comes from foreign sources.
The problem of access can be solved in this country by the same government that has prohibited it. Congress could have chosen to lift some or all of the current restrictions on exportation and production of oil and gas. Congress could provide national policy to reverse the persistent decline of domestically secure natural resource development."
Later in the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch walked Hofmeister through the Democrats' latest efforts to block energy independence:
HATCH: I want to get into that. In other words, we're talking about Utah , Colorado and Wyoming . It's fair to say that they're not consider ed part of America 's $22 billion of proven reserves.
HOFMEISTER: Not at all.
HATCH: No, but experts agree that there's between 800 billion to almost 2 trillion barrels of oil that could be recoverable there, and that's good oil, isn't it?
HOFMEISTER: That's correct.
HATCH: It could be recovered at somewhere between $30 and $40 a barrel?
HOFMEISTER: I think those costs are probably a bit dat ed now, based upon what we've seen in the inflation...
HATCH: Well, somewhere in that area.
HOFMEISTER: I don't know what the exact cost would be, but, you know, if there is more supply, I think inflation in the oil industry would be cracked . And we are facing severe inflation because of the limited amount of supply against the demand.
HATCH: I guess what I'm saying, though, is that if we started to develop the oil shale in those three states we could do it within this framework of over $100 a barrel and make a profit.
HOFMEISTER: I believe we could.
HATCH: And we could help our country alleviate its oil pressures.
HOFMEISTER: Yes.
HATCH: But they're stopping us from doing that right here, as we sit here. We just had a hearing last week where Democrats had stopped the ability to do that, in at least Colorado .
HOFMEISTER: Well, as I said in my opening statement, I think the public policy constraints on the supply side in this country are a disservice to the American consumer.
The committee's Democrats attempted no response. They know that they are largely responsible for the current high price of gasoline, and they want the price to rise even further. Consequently, they have no intention of permitting the development of domestic oil and gas reserves that would both increase this country's energy independence and give consumers a break from constantly increasing energy costs.
Every once in a while, Congressional hearings turn out to be informative."
GTJack
GT Owner
Thanks for posting that article, EP. Too bad the news is not good enough for mainstream media to pick up and insist the govt hold true hearings about the best options for a solution. America is going to be more and more of an energy hostage until the govt unshackles those with the $$ and technology to bring about a solution. The govt cant afford to do it, and any investor will want to see a reasonable return for their investments.