Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
#1333707 07/15/05 01:42 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,399
P
Hard-core CEG\'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG\'er
P
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,399
And given that higher octane indicates higher knock resistance i.e. the gas is harder to burn, he was probably choking his engine with carbon the whole time. Not good.

It never ceases to amaze me how people won't follow their owner's manual. Like they are smarter than the teams of engineers that spend years developing these systems...oil level in the Duratec being the obvious exception


98 Silver Frost SVT 97 BMW 540I Sport, six speed "Blue is for sky, black is for soil, and white is for simplicity, purity and hope for the future" "A coveted car should never stunt your life, but should make it more rich and interesting."
#1333708 07/15/05 01:57 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
W
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
W
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Octane has nothing to do with fuel economy...directly.

Pulling timing is not done at cruising speeds; rather it is done at light load to full throttle loads and is based on knock. When the throttle is reduced back to light cruise loads the timing should be the same or comparable.

Therefore, octane in this case has nothing to do with your fuel economy.


Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760 356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas! See My Mods '05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red '06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
#1333709 07/15/05 02:02 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
W
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
W
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Originally posted by dutchie:
I did a test with this on another car of mine (accord). They are made to run with reg, but I filled up with prem every other for a month or so. I seemed to get better milage with the prem, and slightly better drivability. Perhaps this is more apparent with older cars as they start to develop carbon deposits etc in the intake and combustion chamber. In any case, the slightly better milage didn't justify the higher cost of the premium.
I always use premium in the SVT. It would be different if you could manually advance/retard timing in cases where lower grade is only available, but that is not possible with the duratec. I wouldn't put anything else besides premium in it. If anything you will have a cleaner and more efficient engine even after years of driving.





There are the same amount of detergents and cleaning additives in 87 octane as in premium. They just make more money on premium so they advertise the advantages more.

I'll say it again for emphasis: Running low octane fuel in a premium tuned vehicle for highway cruise speeds and load levels will likely do NOTHING to fuel economy. Chances are timing will only be 'pulled' on steep inclines.


Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760 356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas! See My Mods '05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red '06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
#1333710 07/15/05 02:09 AM
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100
R
Addicted CEG\'er
Offline
Addicted CEG\'er
R
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 7,100
Originally posted by warmonger:
and is based on knock.


unfortunately, you have to have HAD knock, before it can detect it.. this is my main problem with running less tham premium. Jim and I have discussed this at length, a few times now, and a WELL maintained vehicle may be able to run less than premium, but "well maintained" is like "I'm a great driver..."

99.9% of people think that, but are wrong.
AGGRESSIVE maintenance is required if you are going to run less than premium, at the least.

Ray


'99 CSVT - Silver #222/276 In a constant state of blow-off euphoria.
Originally posted by Kremitthefrog:
I like to wear dresses and use binoculars to watch grandmas across the street.


#1333711 07/15/05 02:11 PM
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 319
D
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 319
I am not saying that running a higher octane fuel in a car engineered for regular octane will give you better fuel milage. Fuel economy is determined by a number of variables, including the energy content of the fuel and the condition of your vehicle, neither one of which have anything to do with the octane level of the fuel. Two fuels of identical octane could have different energy content due to a difference in composition and therefore can give you different results.
I do know that for whatever reason in a couple of cars I have owned, in particular a 93 probe gt (which required reg fuel) 'seemed' to run better on the higher octane.
In the z, I adjust the timing with a switch (MSD) when a higher octane isn't available (it is built to run on 94). Retarded timing equals less power, and less available power equals more pedal....

Also the lower the octane number, the more explosive power it has. High-octane fuels burn slower, so a cooler burn. Cooler burning fuels mean less pinging and fewer emissions.

Using high-octane fuel in a vehicle that doesn't need it is just a waste of money....that's the bottom line.



#1333712 07/16/05 02:30 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
W
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
W
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
the burn rate of the fuel doesn't mean it has more power or in your terms energy. Higher octane fuels use different structured molecules like branched chain hydrocarbons versus a higher percentage of straight chain hydrocarbons.
Benzene ring has 6 carbons, so pentane. Relatively speaking and definitely in low efficiency car engines, the small difference in structural changes affects available energy very little.
I doubt it affects the fuel economy at all!


Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760 356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas! See My Mods '05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red '06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
#1333713 07/16/05 04:25 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 343
C
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
C
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 343
Running high octane in a car designed for 87 is pointless. It is good to run 89 in a car designed for 87, but anything over that is pointless because the computer is set for 87. My dad runs 89 octane on his fleet of about 130 trucks (mostly F150s) because its proven to be better. They have a lot less problems running 89 then when they ran 87


99 T-green svt K&N & heatshield Opt. y-pipe Borla Superchip DMD Magnecore wires Metal impeller water pump BAT / Bilstein kit 21mm BAT bar w/ boxed subframe 215/45/ZR17 Toyo Proxes FZ on Rage 5.0's jimmkreider@yahoo.com
#1333714 07/16/05 05:41 AM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
D
Hard-core CEG'er
Offline
Hard-core CEG'er
D
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Originally posted by warmonger:
the burn rate of the fuel doesn't mean it has more power or in your terms energy.
Relatively speaking and definitely in low efficiency car engines, the small difference in structural changes affects available energy very little.
I doubt it affects the fuel economy at all!



For a car programmed to run on low octane (87) fuel running high octane fuel will lower efficiency.

The slower burn rate & later point of ignition coupled with the smaller amount of ignition timing (later to initiate the flame front) will give less time to adequately burn the fuel. (in effect it's like retarding timing) Therefore the engine has lower efficiency which means less power & mileage.

I'm adding that in case you meant it both ways instead of the SVT, for example, retarding the timing curve to run lower octane fuel. Mileage will drop a hair but you are right it will be very minor at best. (once the PCM adjusts) However the torque (and subsequent HP) drop off will be notable. A good tuned chip is proof of that. Timing curve is EVERYTHING.


2000 SVT #674 13.47 @ 102 - All Motor! It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
#1333715 07/16/05 02:02 PM
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 188
9
CEG\'er
Offline
CEG\'er
9
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 188
Yeah the bottom line is to use what is recommended. I have a friend that wastes money using 93 in his motorcycle that only needs 87. (and we have tested it). Just follow the guidelines........it does suck that we have to use 93 when the gas prices are so darn high!


98 CSVT #4214/6535 Mods: N/A and modded out
#1333716 07/16/05 05:51 PM
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8
P
Newbie
Offline
Newbie
P
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8
Is there a reason nobody has mentioned compression ratio in this discussion? You run a certain octane based on your compression ratio, not based on timing. Ocatane is the ability of the fuel to resist combustion under compression. If you run cheap fuel in a high compression engine the fuel will ignite before the ignition lights it strictly from being compressed. That is detonation. You can cause detonation by advancing your timing because it ignites the fuel before the optimal time in the engine's stroke.

9.8:1 is the cuttoff for running 91 octane pump gas at sea level. Higher compression than that you need to start thinkin about race fuel. I am not sure what these contours have, I don't have one, YET, but I doubt they require 91 octane unless you are right at sea level. The higher in elevation you are the less air going into your engine wich lowers compression in the cylinder, so you can use cheaper fuel.

If you run high octane where you don't have the compression to get it to ignite, you are wasting fuel and potential energy in the wasted fuel every time the cylinder fires. Resulting in lost power and fuel mileage.

If your car gets better mileage on the cheap stuff, and the "seat-of-your-pants" feel is better, run it, that means it works better. Higher elevation and lower humidity will allow you to run cheaper fuel.

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Moderated by  GTO Pete 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5