1977 Octane Rating? | Ford Thunderbird forum club group 1955-2005 models
  • We're glad you found us via a search engine! Right now, you can join our club absolutely free and unlock member only features like the site search! This notice only appears once! It only takes 30 seconds to register, and we would love to have you as part of the World's largest Thunderbird Forum/Club! Click here to continue

  • Click here to remove google ads from the site
  • Click " Like/Thanks" at the bottom of a member's post to reward and thank them for their response! Points are added to their profile.
  • Get rid of swirls and minor paint surface scratches with this Polish & Compounds kit. Click here to read more!.

1977 Octane Rating?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 77for2k
  • Start date Start date
77for2k
Reaction score
0
Thunderbird Year
1977
Just bought a 77' with the 351M/400 (400 ci/6.6L) motor in it, came with no owner's manual and am utterly confused, I understand no ethanol but I have no idea what octane I should be puttin into the the puppy. Any help is greatly appreciated.

This page contains affiliate links for which I may be compensated. As an eBay Partner, and Amazon Associate I may be compensated if you make a purchase at no cost to you.

 
In my older Ford's I just run regular grade. Ethanol will not kill anything. Some people believe it will eat the seals in the fuel system but that has not been my experience. I find some cars are sensitive to where you purchase the fuel more than the grade. (My wife's truck doesn't like Arco or Safeway fuel).
 
The Ford 400 is an emissions engine with a 2 barrel carburetor. None of them ever had enough compression from the factory to require premium fuel. Other than the vacuum hoses on some them they are not complicated and very durable. The only thing they lack is economy...
 
The Ford 400 is an emissions engine with a 2 barrel carburetor. None of them ever had enough compression from the factory to require premium fuel. Other than the vacuum hoses on some them they are not complicated and very durable. The only thing they lack is economy...
I can sure agree about that lack of economy, barely drove the thing and I'm already 1/3 a tank down on gas.
 
The engines you are talking about (351/400M) and most other Ford (and other) engines of the era have such low compression (and retarded cam timing) that they don't need high octane fuel beyond regular grade. That said, the owners manual may say "regular fuel (min. 91 octane )" which suggests that the rating systems were (and may still be) different then than they are now - to the extent that todays premium (91) was considered regular at the time your engine was produced. There are also different methods of measuring octane but that's moot here. The issue is not whether you need premium fuel or not - you don't (it will run fine on todays 87 or 89 octane fuels). The engines in question (built after c.1971/72) were also designed to run on low or no lead fuels so, valve recession is not a concern either. The problem is the addition of ethanol to current fuels in varying % amounts depending on the grade (87=10-15%; 89= 10% and 91=5% approximately). Older fuel systems were typically not designed to live with alcohol fuels so, various components from rubber fuel lines, gaskets and seals to the pot metal from which carburetors were cast will be impacted. Beyond that, fuels containing alcohol are hydrophilic (meaning that it attracts water) and that is not a desired feature in older vehicles - particularly those which were not designed to use it as fuel and which may not be driven for extended periods of time. In my neck of the woods there are gas stations which sell fuel without ethanol - these include Shell, Costco, Canadian Tire and Ultramar, along with a (very) few Esso stations. However, the only grade which is ethanol free is 91 octane (premium). Be that as it may, those are the only fuels I use in my collection of old Fords. Because of the higher octane rating, I advance the timing on all of the engines beyond spec to the point where the engines begin to knock under load, then back it off until the knock subsides and that becomes the sweet spot for my purposes. It may not result in noticeably more power power but perhaps a bit better fuel economy - and who doesn't want that?
 
The engines you are talking about (351/400M) and most other Ford (and other) engines of the era have such low compression (and retarded cam timing) that they don't need high octane fuel beyond regular grade. That said, the owners manual may say "regular fuel (min. 91 octane )" which suggests that the rating systems were (and may still be) different then than they are now - to the extent that todays premium (91) was considered regular at the time your engine was produced. There are also different methods of measuring octane but that's moot here. The issue is not whether you need premium fuel or not - you don't (it will run fine on todays 87 or 89 octane fuels). The engines in question (built after c.1971/72) were also designed to run on low or no lead fuels so, valve recession is not a concern either. The problem is the addition of ethanol to current fuels in varying % amounts depending on the grade (87=10-15%; 89= 10% and 91=5% approximately). Older fuel systems were typically not designed to live with alcohol fuels so, various components from rubber fuel lines, gaskets and seals to the pot metal from which carburetors were cast will be impacted. Beyond that, fuels containing alcohol are hydrophilic (meaning that it attracts water) and that is not a desired feature in older vehicles - particularly those which were not designed to use it as fuel and which may not be driven for extended periods of time. In my neck of the woods there are gas stations which sell fuel without ethanol - these include Shell, Costco, Canadian Tire and Ultramar, along with a (very) few Esso stations. However, the only grade which is ethanol free is 91 octane (premium). Be that as it may, those are the only fuels I use in my collection of old Fords. Because of the higher octane rating, I advance the timing on all of the engines beyond spec to the point where the engines begin to knock under load, then back it off until the knock subsides and that becomes the sweet spot for my purposes. It may not result in noticeably more power power but perhaps a bit better fuel economy - and who doesn't want that?
In my area they sell ethanol-free 87 octane,,
 
It's great that there is ethanol free 87 available somewhere - unfortunately, there is none of that in my area. Wish there was - would be nice to save a few bucks but I will spend what I have to in order to have the cars run well. Like 5W-50 synthetic oil, it's worth it.
 
It's great that there is ethanol free 87 available somewhere - unfortunately, there is none of that in my area. Wish there was - would be nice to save a few bucks but I will spend what I have to in order to have the cars run well. Like 5W-50 synthetic oil, it's worth it.
You think 5W-50 would work well for my engine?
 
You think 5W-50 would work well for my engine?
In short - yes. There are two main areas of concern when lubricating any engine, but particularly older ones: the first is getting oil to the upper areas of the engine as soon as possible after firing it because tests show that a great deal of engine wear occurs immediately upon after startup when the engine is cold, oil pressure is low, tolerances are tight and oil has drained from parts leaving metal on metal contact until adequate oil pressure can be achieved. Older engines need this protection more because they lack the roller tipped valve train of modern cars and are more susceptible to wear in those areas. Some tests suggest that every cold start with inadequate lubrication is equivalent to driving several hundred miles. So, we want oil that is as thin as possible when cold in order to get oil pressure up as fast as possible. The second area of concern occurs at higher RPM and sustained highway speeds (older cars rarely have more than three or four speed transmissions so engine RPM tends to be higher during highway driving). Again, tests have shown that 50 weight oil provides the best lubrication under those conditions (some research states that 50 weight is the only oil that provides adequate protection at higher RPM). Most racing oil is straight 50 weight but that won't work for daily drivers because that is far too thick for cold starts (it works for racers because they commonly pressurize the oiling system before firing the engine). So, for daily driving - especially older cars - ideally, we want oil which is thin when its cold and thick when its hot. Tough to do with crude based oil which breaks down if the additives used to achieve multi-viscosity are stretched too far. You will never see 5W-50 crude based oil - only synthetic can achieve that desired multi viscosity. In simple terms, the first number of an oil's "weight" indicates its viscosity (i. e. its thickness or ability to flow) when cold, and the second number indicates its viscosity when the oil is hot. The thinnest oil when cold and thickest when hot is 5W-50 and that can only be found in full synthetic oils. There are many other reasons why synthetic is better: it keeps contaminants in suspension better and drains them out with the oil change (rather than allowing dirt to percolate out of the oil as it cools, resulting in sludge); synthetic also provides a harder oil film between parts and will tolerate far higher operating temperatures before breaking down. Synthetic oil also lasts much longer between oil changes and although I personally follow the same oil change regimen as I would with crude based oil, you will note that Mercedes, BMW, Audi, etc., etc., etc. come from the factory with synthetic oil and their recommended oil change routine is 12,000 miles (20,000 kms) or once per year. I change oil once a year in all my classic cars, usually in fall, before I store them. Synthetic oil is not usually recommended for use in newly rebuilt engines until such engines have been driven/broken in for 10,000-15,000 miles because synthetic oil provides such an effective barrier to wear between metal parts that it will not allow parts in new engines to wear in or 'mate' properly, which may cause the engine to smoke. That alone should be a convincing argument for the superior protection offered by synthetics. Laboratory built oils cost more but it's still cheap insurance for an engine compared with cost of rebuilds. BTW, most experts suggest than 10 lbs of oil pressure for every 1,000 RPM is adequate for street cars so, forget high pressure oil pumps (not to be confused with high volume oil pumps which are desirable).
 
In short - yes. There are two main areas of concern when lubricating any engine, but particularly older ones: the first is getting oil to the upper areas of the engine as soon as possible after firing it because tests show that a great deal of engine wear occurs immediately upon after startup when the engine is cold, oil pressure is low, tolerances are tight and oil has drained from parts leaving metal on metal contact until adequate oil pressure can be achieved. Older engines need this protection more because they lack the roller tipped valve train of modern cars and are more susceptible to wear in those areas. Some tests suggest that every cold start with inadequate lubrication is equivalent to driving several hundred miles. So, we want oil that is as thin as possible when cold in order to get oil pressure up as fast as possible. The second area of concern occurs at higher RPM and sustained highway speeds (older cars rarely have more than three or four speed transmissions so engine RPM tends to be higher during highway driving). Again, tests have shown that 50 weight oil provides the best lubrication under those conditions (some research states that 50 weight is the only oil that provides adequate protection at higher RPM). Most racing oil is straight 50 weight but that won't work for daily drivers because that is far too thick for cold starts (it works for racers because they commonly pressurize the oiling system before firing the engine). So, for daily driving - especially older cars - ideally, we want oil which is thin when its cold and thick when its hot. Tough to do with crude based oil which breaks down if the additives used to achieve multi-viscosity are stretched too far. You will never see 5W-50 crude based oil - only synthetic can achieve that desired multi viscosity. In simple terms, the first number of an oil's "weight" indicates its viscosity (i. e. its thickness or ability to flow) when cold, and the second number indicates its viscosity when the oil is hot. The thinnest oil when cold and thickest when hot is 5W-50 and that can only be found in full synthetic oils. There are many other reasons why synthetic is better: it keeps contaminants in suspension better and drains them out with the oil change (rather than allowing dirt to percolate out of the oil as it cools, resulting in sludge); synthetic also provides a harder oil film between parts and will tolerate far higher operating temperatures before breaking down. Synthetic oil also lasts much longer between oil changes and although I personally follow the same oil change regimen as I would with crude based oil, you will note that Mercedes, BMW, Audi, etc., etc., etc. come from the factory with synthetic oil and their recommended oil change routine is 12,000 miles (20,000 kms) or once per year. I change oil once a year in all my classic cars, usually in fall, before I store them. Synthetic oil is not usually recommended for use in newly rebuilt engines until such engines have been driven/broken in for 10,000-15,000 miles because synthetic oil provides such an effective barrier to wear between metal parts that it will not allow parts in new engines to wear in or 'mate' properly, which may cause the engine to smoke. That alone should be a convincing argument for the superior protection offered by synthetics. Laboratory built oils cost more but it's still cheap insurance for an engine compared with cost of rebuilds. BTW, most experts suggest than 10 lbs of oil pressure for every 1,000 RPM is adequate for street cars so, forget high pressure oil pumps (not to be confused with high volume oil pumps which are desirable).
BTW, synthetic oils also seem to have higher levels of ZDDP than crude based oils. ZDDP is very necessary for older, flat tappet equipped engines but those additives have been greatly reduced in most modern oils (to reduce pollution). I believe that Castrol Syntec has the highest levels of ZDDP and that's what I use but I always add a container of ZDDP at every oil change as well..
 
Just a tidbit of info for everyone to enjoy- my parents bought me a new chevy van with a 350 motor in 1998 and as an experiment we decided to change the oil and filter once at about 3000 miles. (we did lube it about every 3000) At 230,000 it was still running and used a quart of oil every 1000 miles or so- my point being-These machines are engineering marvels!!!! Of course my Tbird gets the best treatment!!
Regarding your 77, when they were new they needed premium gas or you would hear (what I call) valve clatter. I dont know about now. Good Luck and Enjoy your 77- They are smokin looking rides.
 
Something to think about, your engine is not engineered for ultra light oils. It has to do with how your oil pump is designed. Modern engines are not the same internally and have different requirements.
I have quite a few older vehicles in my stable and really they require no special attention. My biggest and hardest working truck is my '76 Ford 900 B class wrecker. Running the last true Y block, a 534 cubic inch gas guzzling monster.
I run 20w-50, ethanol gas, and the truck has had no issues in the last 10 years. This coming summer I will probably remove and clean the Holley 4barrel carb. Probably replace the rubber fuel lines.( For the first time). It's about time to check valve adjustment too. I don't use any additives in the oil or fuel. It works harder than any Thunderbird ever will..
Your experience may differ, best wishes for you and your car.
 
Just bought a 77' with the 351M/400 (400 ci/6.6L) motor in it, came with no owner's manual and am utterly confused, I understand no ethanol but I have no idea what octane I should be puttin into the the puppy. Any help is greatly appreciated.
The Owners Manual for my '79 states: " . . . minimum octane rating as designated by any of the following numbers: RON: 91; Average of Research Octane Number and Motor Octane Number (Antiknock Index): 87
 
Back
Top