Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-08-2008, 02:36 PM   #21 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 13

Blur - '10 Kia Forte SX
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
For me I don't ping on either octane, and I do feel the increase in power right away. But most importatnly it looks like I get better millage without any adjustments, and thats what I'm going for. I'll try it and see.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 07-29-2009, 01:02 AM   #22 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATaylorRacing View Post
Here is my take...with 35 years of drag racing street driven cars:

If your car does not require premium and the timing is stock you can actually get worse mpg with higher octane, The higher the octane, the slower it burns....a lot of cars drag raced with premium fuel will actually run slower and have less power. Just run reg if your car calls for it.

As far as running 87 in a car that requires 92.....on my 05 SRT4 Neon (230 hp 2.4 turbo bone stock) I WAS running 87 when I first got it. On my 80 mile loop that I use for mpg comparisons I got only 27 at 55-60mph while it was rated at 31. I even fill up at the same pump and put it on slow speed till it clicks off...not a penny more...then with 92 oct I then got the 31. That car now gets 32.8 with a stage 3 set up that developes 285 hp!

As far as 10% ethenol is concerned.....you might get as bad as 20% WORSE mpg since more fuel is needed to obtain the same driving parimeters. I read in a magazine last year that E85 can be as bad as 27% worse than straight gas and on my flex fuel 01 Caravan it did get @ 25% worse on E85 compared back to back with reg 87 oct gas.

Guys that convert their drag race cars to alcohol must increase the jetting in their carbs by about double for the same power levels, but then they benefit from a cooler running motor and can mofify them to run more compression and or boost.
I agree. I have a 95 volvo 850 wagon. If I run 87 in it in a matter of minutes I will stall at every stoplight or stop sign. If it calls for 87 run 87. If it calls for 89 run 89. I work in a small engine shop and we have seen a lot of engines vapor locking on hot days due to the lower boiling point of ethanol.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 10:35 AM   #23 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: california
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 24
Thanked 160 Times in 106 Posts
I have a 96 volvo 850 wagon with 195k miles on the odometer. The owner's manual calls for at least 91 octane. I run it on 87 octane almost exclusively after testing every octane I could find repeatedly over multiple fill ups. There is no difference in power and a slight improvement in fuel economy with 87 octane. If you 95 volvo stalls on 87 octane, there is something else wrong with your car. Probably the thermostatic intake mechanism.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 10:52 AM   #24 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: stl
Posts: 139

rusty - '00 ford mustang coupe
90 day: 24.31 mpg (US)

cbr929 - '00 honda cbr929 fast
90 day: 39.54 mpg (US)

Porshe - '06 Kawasaki zx10r
90 day: 47.21 mpg (US)

truck - '96 ford ranger
90 day: 26.51 mpg (US)
Thanks: 5
Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVOboy View Post
I don't think it would have adverse effects, but most people who use a different octance will report lower FE...then again, every car is different.
Lets see, adverse effects would be, lets think, fuel burns slower, timing is the same, so we get fuel left over, right, you following me so far, and unburned fuel turns into what??? I know you know this, carbon. And carbon deposits do what? Make the engine run less efficient Or so they say. I say carbon deposits on pistons would raise the comp ration, which will make it run more efficient, but you would need higher octane.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2009, 10:56 AM   #25 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: stl
Posts: 139

rusty - '00 ford mustang coupe
90 day: 24.31 mpg (US)

cbr929 - '00 honda cbr929 fast
90 day: 39.54 mpg (US)

Porshe - '06 Kawasaki zx10r
90 day: 47.21 mpg (US)

truck - '96 ford ranger
90 day: 26.51 mpg (US)
Thanks: 5
Thanked 11 Times in 8 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATaylorRacing View Post
Here is my take...with 35 years of drag racing street driven cars:

If your car does not require premium and the timing is stock you can actually get worse mpg with higher octane, The higher the octane, the slower it burns....a lot of cars drag raced with premium fuel will actually run slower and have less power. Just run reg if your car calls for it.

As far as running 87 in a car that requires 92.....on my 05 SRT4 Neon (230 hp 2.4 turbo bone stock) I WAS running 87 when I first got it. On my 80 mile loop that I use for mpg comparisons I got only 27 at 55-60mph while it was rated at 31. I even fill up at the same pump and put it on slow speed till it clicks off...not a penny more...then with 92 oct I then got the 31. That car now gets 32.8 with a stage 3 set up that developes 285 hp!

As far as 10% ethenol is concerned.....you might get as bad as 20% WORSE mpg since more fuel is needed to obtain the same driving parimeters. I read in a magazine last year that E85 can be as bad as 27% worse than straight gas and on my flex fuel 01 Caravan it did get @ 25% worse on E85 compared back to back with reg 87 oct gas.

Guys that convert their drag race cars to alcohol must increase the jetting in their carbs by about double for the same power levels, but then they benefit from a cooler running motor and can mofify them to run more compression and or boost.
You do need 20% more e85 than regular gas, which why some people hate it, but man it's great for forced induction cars, e85 is like racing fuel only half the price
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 12:13 AM   #26 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: usa
Posts: 2
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjts1 View Post
I have a 96 volvo 850 wagon with 195k miles on the odometer. The owner's manual calls for at least 91 octane. I run it on 87 octane almost exclusively after testing every octane I could find repeatedly over multiple fill ups. There is no difference in power and a slight improvement in fuel economy with 87 octane. If you 95 volvo stalls on 87 octane, there is something else wrong with your car. Probably the thermostatic intake mechanism.
Is your 850 turbo or non-turbo? Mine is the non-turbo. I love the car though...300 thousand miles and still ticking.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 01:43 AM   #27 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,732

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,571
Thanked 3,505 Times in 2,194 Posts
Quote:
As far as 10% ethenol is concerned.....you might get as bad as 20% WORSE mpg since more fuel is needed to obtain the same driving parimeters. I read in a magazine last year that E85 can be as bad as 27% worse than straight gas and on my flex fuel 01 Caravan it did get @ 25% worse on E85 compared back to back with reg 87 oct gas.
Kind of a leap to conclude that if E85 (roughly 85% ethanol) drops fe "27%" that E10 (roughly 10% ethanol- 75% less than E85) yields only 7% different results??? I've never experienced anywhere near a 20% fe drop because of E10.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 06:18 PM   #28 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Silly-Con Valley
Posts: 1,417
Thanks: 173
Thanked 226 Times in 174 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis View Post
[Higher-octane] fuel burns slower ...
Not strictly true. In fact, I know several petrochemical engineering types who insist that the flame-front speed is more dependent upon cylinder pressures and mixture than upon the fuel composition. At least, in any gasoline we would see sold for street use. (Ethanol will change things; I am not sure how much.)

As a counter-example, there are known cases of aviation engines who suffered burned exhaust valves from running 110-octane Av Gas when they were designed specifically for 80-octane Av Gas. Those seem to have been caused by the mixture still burning as it exited through the exhaust port. But that's a much larger change in octane than we see in streetable motor fuels, and Av Gas is not really the same as automotive-grade gasoline.

-soD
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 06:34 PM   #29 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Madison AL
Posts: 1,123

The Geo - '93 Geo Metro
Team Metro
90 day: 45.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 30
Thanked 40 Times in 37 Posts
Sometimes older engine need higher octane because of carbon build up.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2009, 06:37 PM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Madison AL
Posts: 1,123

The Geo - '93 Geo Metro
Team Metro
90 day: 45.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 30
Thanked 40 Times in 37 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by nemesis View Post
You do need 20% more e85 than regular gas, which why some people hate it, but man it's great for forced induction cars, e85 is like racing fuel only half the price
Just get all of it out of the lines after teh race.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com