Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:06:09 GMT From: "Dexter J" <lamealameadingdongnospamlamelame.org> Subject: Re: Premium vs. regular unleaded?
Salutations: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 23:48:25 -0300, James Sweet <jamessweetnospamail.com> wrote: > > "Dexter J" <lamealameadingdongnospamlamelame.org> wrote in message >> Salutations: >> <snipped for length - not for spite> >> I experimented a bit this summer by adding a substantial amount of > legitimate test formula and found that the system couldn't improve timing > much above 42.4mpg (smaller Imperial Gal) on the highway - it did start to > run a little hotter than norm as the mix was uprated above that mileage > figure. Around town was around 25mpg - and again - the engine ran a little > warmer. >> >> I got much more heat by using some decidedly low octane (some very stale > pump regular I had in storage) for a couple of tankfuls. But saw > considerably lower highway mileage - about 36mpg hwy and 19mpg city. I > wonder now if the lower temp engine thermastat and fan controller > modification is dictated by lower overall North American octane ratings. >> > It's not really lower octane, it's just measured differently. I thought that to - but as I said, mileage and heat levels improve as I mix to what should be close to 115. Over that I get a extra heat and no extra mpg - when I went to what is probably about 70 - I get *a lot of extra heat* and significantly lower mileage After the fact, I inquired with my pro-mechanic (a European rally circuit transplant) who is also of the opinion that pump formula 94 here in Canada is a close match to Euro 94. Perhaps it's just Canada, because to be frank - what little non-partisan info I could find on this side of the border was pretty dodgy. Depending on how you look at - it could also be I getting false stats given I haven't been able to get back to installing a properly variable BPC - which should provide even greater range as regards octane if the system operates as described. However, what information I have passed along would have to be based strictly on Trionic timing and injector variables given boost is now fixed to a set curve. You can take it as read that I am first person to assume it's all snake oil to begin with and that I was more surprised than anyone that I got the results I did. But I am passing along what I recorded given I did see relative improvements. I will be repeating the tests this winter because they adjust the octane formula here in Canada as the country freezes over. As a final note, I still think that the best thing anyone can do for maximum efficiencies from their fuel is to keep the plugs fresh and properly gapped (I run to the wider end of the range), install a fresh set of high quality air, fuel and oil filters as well as replace all the fluids with a race grade Synthetics (if your seals are up to it). It usually takes a couple of passes at things like the steering rack - but I think all these maintenances together really reduce inefficiencies in the power train. Does it all end up being a 'true' cost savings? Given the price of quality supplies and fuel, it is *very* debatable that anyone is ever ahead of the game. However, I have to think that it does reduce overall stress on the engine and thus should increase the overall ROI before the rust really sets in in earnest. -- Radio Free Dexterdyne Top Tune o'be-do-da-day Messrs Presley Berry - Promised Land http://www.dexterdyne.org/888/211.RAM all tunes - no cookies no subscription no weather no ads no news no phone in no sign up required - all the Time
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
