|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
You can even get a quarter punder mealk with that. Maybe two $1 menu hamburgers, with tax. 
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106 |
Maybe that explains why my Hybrid pulled on your Hybrid with PnP'd heads?  Originally posted by RTStabler51:
Actually, no, I did and do it because I can, simple as that.
Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
Originally posted by RTStabler51:
I have not run anything less than 91/93 in my CSVT. However, on a very similar platform (SHO) I have and do run 87 in it (typically though only in cold weather and on highway trips) and have had no issues. In theory, you could then do the same on a relatively stock CSVT.
All because you wanted a quarter pounder meal at McDonalds.  Seriously, that's about all you can buy with the extra $3.00 you save yourself on a fillup.
Mark
Mark
2000 Black CSVT
3.0L Hybrid - 206fwhp & 195fwtq
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now. Save yourself the embarrassment of losing with these losers in the Mid-West, Stazi. 
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106 |
"Nobody makes me bleed my own blood"  Mark
2000 Black CSVT
3.0L Hybrid - 206fwhp & 195fwtq
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 140
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 140 |
Originally posted by guitarman19853:
and just to make a point, premium is 20 cents more than regular. say you fill up your car once a week. for me (since i fill when the gas light comes on) filling takes about 12 gallons. .20 * 12 = $2.40 $2.40 * 52 weeks = $124.80 saved a year with regular. thats not some small amount, at least not to someone like me.
First off, this isn't a stab directly at you, but moreso an attempt to knock some sense into the people who think they are saving oodles of money.
There is a flaw in your logic. In order for this to be a true comparison, you must take into account the MPG drop you'll suffer from. We'll call it .5% as a safe (possibly even low) estimate.
So let's do the math.
We'll say an SVT gets 23 MPG on premium, so 99.5% of that is just shy of 22 MPG on regular.
Now take the 14.5 gallon tank, effectively your losing usefulness of .5% of that. So your 14.5 gallons is getting your the same distance that 13.7 gallons of premium would get you.
Now for the price per distance comparison.
Regular 2.40
Premium 2.60
14.5 * 2.40 = 34.80
13.7 * 2.60 = 35.62
0.82 more to use premium based on a low .5% MPG drop.
Someone would have to be out of their mind to put their engine in possible danger only to save $42.64 a year.
1998 Contour SVT
Toreador Red/Midnight Blue
3090/6535
1999 Contour SVT
Black/Prairie Tan
18/2760
1992 Dodge Stealth R/T TT
Metallic Beige/Tan
1989 Chrysler Conquest TSi
Red/Black Leather
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 137
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 137 |
Originally posted by my csvt:
engine knock
engine knock
engine knock, by stanford with pictures
You should remove the link to the how stuff works page. The octane rating is not a rating of compression ignition it is a rating of how fast the flame front spreads. Gasoline engines do not run on the compression ignition principle because the ignition point is at too high of a temperature unlike diesel engines.
What the problem with low octane fuel is as compression ratio goes up the fuel burns more quickly. The SVT has the same compression ratio as the non-SVT, so can technically handle regular gas. But to get more out of each combustion the spark event is started sooner. With the regular gas this early spark can cause the combustion to reach higher pressures sooner causing engine problems. When the Ford manual says that the computer will account for it it means that it will adjust the spark later in the stroke.
It was nice to see that nobody (in this thread) has referred to there actually being octane in the gasoline.
1998 Contour SVT Black w/ Blue interior
Torsen LSD updated shiftforks
Lightened Flywheel, HD Drivelines
Optimized Thottle Body
2003 3.0L engine upgrade (Soon to be)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Actually, the SVT does have a higher compression ratio...
Per Greg's site
2.5L
44.5cc = 9.70 to 1
50cc = 8.91 to 1
44.5cc 98-99 SVT = 10.02 to 1
44.5cc 00 SVT = 10.31 to 1
50cc 98-99 SVT = 9.28 to 1
50cc 00 SVT = 9.49 to 1
Originally posted by Bugzuki:
What the problem with low octane fuel is as compression ratio goes up the fuel burns more quickly. The SVT has the same compression ratio as the non-SVT, so can technically handle regular gas. But to get more out of each combustion the spark event is started sooner. With the regular gas this early spark can cause the combustion to reach higher pressures sooner causing engine problems. When the Ford manual says that the computer will account for it it means that it will adjust the spark later in the stroke.
Last edited by RTStabler51; 08/23/05 08:43 PM.
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,317
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,317 |
Originally posted by Faze Away:
First off, this isn't a stab directly at you, but moreso an attempt to knock some sense into the people who think they are saving oodles of money.
There is a flaw in your logic. In order for this to be a true comparison, you must take into account the MPG drop you'll suffer from. We'll call it .5% as a safe (possibly even low) estimate.
So let's do the math.
We'll say an SVT gets 23 MPG on premium, so 99.5% of that is just shy of 22 MPG on regular.
Now take the 14.5 gallon tank, effectively your losing usefulness of .5% of that. So your 14.5 gallons is getting your the same distance that 13.7 gallons of premium would get you.
Now for the price per distance comparison.
Regular 2.40
Premium 2.60
14.5 * 2.40 = 34.80
13.7 * 2.60 = 35.62
0.82 more to use premium based on a low .5% MPG drop.
Someone would have to be out of their mind to put their engine in possible danger only to save $42.64 a year.
how do you know there will be a drop in MPG? people say that but from what i know (from a previous discussion about this on here) noone has actually tried regular in an SVT and done an exact comparison on the difference. Has anyone done this? Yes i agree that there would be a loss in performance... but that doesnt mean that it will lose fuel economy
~Ryan
1999 T-Red SVT Contour
41k Miles #1701 / 2760
B&M, Custom Y-Pipe, Alpine HU, Pioneer 6x8's & 6x9's
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,106 |
Originally posted by guitarman19853:
Originally posted by Faze Away:
First off, this isn't a stab directly at you, but moreso an attempt to knock some sense into the people who think they are saving oodles of money.
There is a flaw in your logic. In order for this to be a true comparison, you must take into account the MPG drop you'll suffer from. We'll call it .5% as a safe (possibly even low) estimate.
So let's do the math.
We'll say an SVT gets 23 MPG on premium, so 99.5% of that is just shy of 22 MPG on regular.
Now take the 14.5 gallon tank, effectively your losing usefulness of .5% of that. So your 14.5 gallons is getting your the same distance that 13.7 gallons of premium would get you.
Now for the price per distance comparison.
Regular 2.40
Premium 2.60
14.5 * 2.40 = 34.80
13.7 * 2.60 = 35.62
0.82 more to use premium based on a low .5% MPG drop.
Someone would have to be out of their mind to put their engine in possible danger only to save $42.64 a year.
how do you know there will be a drop in MPG? people say that but from what i know (from a previous discussion about this on here) noone has actually tried regular in an SVT and done an exact comparison on the difference. Has anyone done this? Yes i agree that there would be a loss in performance... but that doesnt mean that it will lose fuel economy
Because as cheap as most CEG'ers are, the SVT owners still aren't dumb enough to run less than premium fuel.
Mark
2000 Black CSVT
3.0L Hybrid - 206fwhp & 195fwtq
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,475
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,475 |
It kills me how people cannot bear the idea of 0.20 per gallon to keep their engine running their best, but will gladly spend their money on other "unecessary" things like cigarettes, food, booze, etc. Seriously, I'm SURE there are other ways to save a farking $2.40 per week, that putting cheap gas in your car which might cause engine problems in the long term.
|
|
|
|
|
