View Single Post
Old 09-17-2008, 01:43 AM   #5 (permalink)
cfg83
Pokémoderator
 
cfg83's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,864

1999 Saturn SW2 - '99 Saturn SW2 Wagon
Team Saturn
90 day: 40.49 mpg (US)
Thanks: 439
Thanked 530 Times in 356 Posts
vskid3 -

Quote:
Originally Posted by vskid3 View Post
Using fuel with a higher octane rating than recommended by the manufacturer will do nothing but cost you more money. Octane is just the resistance of a fuel to detonation.
The way I understand it, burning rich leaves less heat in the engine. The unburned fuel absorbs the heat and then takes that heat with it down the exhaust pipe. That means less fuel economy and probably more pollution. Running lean makes more heat, because there is nothing to absorb the heat except the engine.
One thing that I've been looking into is water injection. The water added to the combustion mix simulates running rich, but with water absorbing the extra heat instead of fuel (I've also read that the water changing to steam helps to add a bit of mechanical power, too). Then you can run leaner and not burn up the engine.
I've never heard that explanation. Interesting. I thought the unburnt fuel was burned by the catalytic converter to maintain emissions efficiency (aka the reason for the stoichiometric ratio of 14.7:1 air:fuel). Conversely, too much unburnt fuel will "poison" the cat.

CarloSW2
__________________

What's your EPA MPG? Go Here and find out!
American Solar Energy Society
  Reply With Quote