What type of Fuel do you use?
#21
11-08-2016, 12:09 PM
Veteran Member
#22
11-08-2016, 12:48 PM
Senior Member
#24
11-08-2016, 01:01 PM
I like shell, but i use it so often and the only gas i use that i decided to change it to bp and i dont know what happen but the car just flys and doesnt have the restricted performance light that often.
#25
11-08-2016, 01:01 PM
Yep -- WAWA rules the world around me. Mostly building super WAWA's ... they have gas .. and lots of it .. some are huge with .. even the small ones have 12 station/ pumps.
NJ had low gas tax and no "self serve" ... anybody going through always filled up. The tax went up .23 on 11/1 .. so it's going to make NJ gas less appealing. My local Shell station had to switch to Conoco -- Shell gas was alway a few cents more and with WAWA around he was loosing to much business
NJ had low gas tax and no "self serve" ... anybody going through always filled up. The tax went up .23 on 11/1 .. so it's going to make NJ gas less appealing. My local Shell station had to switch to Conoco -- Shell gas was alway a few cents more and with WAWA around he was loosing to much business
#26
11-08-2016, 01:58 PM
#28
11-08-2016, 04:39 PM
Senior Member
The US uses RON+MON /2 while Europe uses RON method.
As a rough rule- 91 octane here in the US is about 95-96 octane RON, while 93 is around 97-99 octane MON.
The nasty 86s over here are around 91 RON.
The cars were designed and tested to run with some level of ethanol. IN fact I distinctly remember doing a calibration for an X350 to use E22 for Brazil that has no precious metal wash coat on the catalytic convertors.
Although the energy content of ethanol is less its knock limit is higher- and the octane rating reflects the likelihood of knock anyway.
As a rough rule- 91 octane here in the US is about 95-96 octane RON, while 93 is around 97-99 octane MON.
The nasty 86s over here are around 91 RON.
The cars were designed and tested to run with some level of ethanol. IN fact I distinctly remember doing a calibration for an X350 to use E22 for Brazil that has no precious metal wash coat on the catalytic convertors.
Although the energy content of ethanol is less its knock limit is higher- and the octane rating reflects the likelihood of knock anyway.
#30
11-08-2016, 05:07 PM
The US uses RON+MON /2 while Europe uses RON method.
As a rough rule- 91 octane here in the US is about 95-96 octane RON, while 93 is around 97-99 octane MON.
The nasty 86s over here are around 91 RON.
The cars were designed and tested to run with some level of ethanol. IN fact I distinctly remember doing a calibration for an X350 to use E22 for Brazil that has no precious metal wash coat on the catalytic convertors.
Although the energy content of ethanol is less its knock limit is higher- and the octane rating reflects the likelihood of knock anyway.
As a rough rule- 91 octane here in the US is about 95-96 octane RON, while 93 is around 97-99 octane MON.
The nasty 86s over here are around 91 RON.
The cars were designed and tested to run with some level of ethanol. IN fact I distinctly remember doing a calibration for an X350 to use E22 for Brazil that has no precious metal wash coat on the catalytic convertors.
Although the energy content of ethanol is less its knock limit is higher- and the octane rating reflects the likelihood of knock anyway.
#31
11-08-2016, 05:56 PM
Senior Member
#32
11-08-2016, 05:57 PM
Senior Member
#33
11-08-2016, 05:58 PM
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,255 Likes
on
1,840 Posts
#34
11-08-2016, 06:05 PM
Senior Member
That Documentary wasn't great. Testing the power output required to attain a certain speed with different fuels doesn't tell much. If the engine is less knock limited-and has an ECU that is able to utlise the higher octane petrol- the combustion can be phased more efficiently. This will lead to lower exhaust temps.
The goon pointed to torque and expected that to change with different fuel but said power wouldn't. Power is a function of torque.
The power required to attain a certain speed wont change.
The trouble is that engines are knock limited at Wide open throttle usually, and driving at 30 mph or even 50 mph you're barely using 3-5 bar BMEP out of the 12-19 bar available at WOT and the engine is unlikely to be knock limited then.
Therefore you probably wont see a difference. However their reasoning is off.
When you tow in , say a land Rover, you WILL be using a lot of load and could conceivably burn out your exhaust valves if you run a lower octane than recommended.
I don't like documentaries that try to push pseudo science- its as bad as the Man Made Global Warming police.
The goon pointed to torque and expected that to change with different fuel but said power wouldn't. Power is a function of torque.
The power required to attain a certain speed wont change.
The trouble is that engines are knock limited at Wide open throttle usually, and driving at 30 mph or even 50 mph you're barely using 3-5 bar BMEP out of the 12-19 bar available at WOT and the engine is unlikely to be knock limited then.
Therefore you probably wont see a difference. However their reasoning is off.
When you tow in , say a land Rover, you WILL be using a lot of load and could conceivably burn out your exhaust valves if you run a lower octane than recommended.
I don't like documentaries that try to push pseudo science- its as bad as the Man Made Global Warming police.
The following users liked this post:
nilanium (11-08-2016)
#35
11-08-2016, 06:07 PM
#36
11-08-2016, 06:08 PM
That Documentary wasn't great. Testing the power output required to attain a certain speed with different fuels doesn't tell much. If the engine is less knock limited-and has an ECU that is able to utlise the higher octane petrol- the combustion can be phased more efficiently. This will lead to lower exhaust temps.
The goon pointed to torque and expected that to change with different fuel but said power wouldn't. Power is a function of torque.
The power required to attain a certain speed wont change.
The trouble is that engines are knock limited at Wide open throttle usually, and driving at 30 mph or even 50 mph you're barely using 3-5 bar BMEP out of the 12-19 bar available at WOT and the engine is unlikely to be knock limited then.
Therefore you probably wont see a difference. However their reasoning is off.
When you tow in , say a land Rover, you WILL be using a lot of load and could conceivably burn out your exhaust valves if you run a lower octane than recommended.
I don't like documentaries that try to push pseudo science- its as bad as the Man Made Global Warming police.
The goon pointed to torque and expected that to change with different fuel but said power wouldn't. Power is a function of torque.
The power required to attain a certain speed wont change.
The trouble is that engines are knock limited at Wide open throttle usually, and driving at 30 mph or even 50 mph you're barely using 3-5 bar BMEP out of the 12-19 bar available at WOT and the engine is unlikely to be knock limited then.
Therefore you probably wont see a difference. However their reasoning is off.
When you tow in , say a land Rover, you WILL be using a lot of load and could conceivably burn out your exhaust valves if you run a lower octane than recommended.
I don't like documentaries that try to push pseudo science- its as bad as the Man Made Global Warming police.
#37
11-08-2016, 06:21 PM
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,255 Likes
on
1,840 Posts
All cars built since the early 90s are fully compatible with E10. The sky-is-falling stories are either third handed conspiracy theories usually started by those trying to make a buck on snake oil.
The loss of power/mileage when using E10 vs. pure gas is 3%. Very few people would notice or be able to measure that small a change accurately.
Using lower octane fuel than the factory 91AKI is a different discussion.
#38
11-08-2016, 06:27 PM
Senior Member
The biggest benefit of not using ethanol in fuel on cars I've found since emigrating is the storage over the winter: The ethanol infused fuel degrades and seperates and the car can have serious problems running when the fuel gets old or even starting at all. In the UK, I used to have old bangers sitting around for 5 years plus and apart from the clutch being seized to the flywheel (easily cured)- the fuel wouldn't normally cause any issues. Over here I've had all sorts of issues- especially on my motor bikes with tiny carbs.
#39
11-08-2016, 06:32 PM
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Perth Ontario Canada
Posts: 11,058
Received 2,255 Likes
on
1,840 Posts
#40
11-08-2016, 06:36 PM
Ah- you should have said that in the first place.
All cars built since the early 90s are fully compatible with E10. The sky-is-falling stories are either third handed conspiracy theories usually started by those trying to make a buck on snake oil.
The loss of power/mileage when using E10 vs. pure gas is 3%. Very few people would notice or be able to measure that small a change accurately.
Using lower octane fuel than the factory 91AKI is a different discussion.
All cars built since the early 90s are fully compatible with E10. The sky-is-falling stories are either third handed conspiracy theories usually started by those trying to make a buck on snake oil.
The loss of power/mileage when using E10 vs. pure gas is 3%. Very few people would notice or be able to measure that small a change accurately.
Using lower octane fuel than the factory 91AKI is a different discussion.