When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
From: Central PA. - - My AR15 identifies as a muzzleloader
I believe in the Beer Fairy
Originally Posted by Corvette_Ed
If my math is correct, at $3.60 per tank it would take 1,250 tanks to equal the cost of a new engine. That's roughly 437,500 miles at 350 miles per tank.
I'll stick with the high octane.
Hey Ed, mind telling me where you can find an engine that cheap? Last time I was on the GMPP site, they were about 3 grand more than you're saying.
""While it's true that some car makers recommend putting premium fuel in their high-end models, what about most of us who drive regular cars""
The C5 is one of those modles and while it will run on 87 the anti-knock system is pulling Timing because the car is tuned to use 93.....so....it'll run but you will not get the same performance as you would if you used the grade it was designed to burn.
And the additive packages do help causing less deposits.
I will always run Premium...but I did see the line at the bottom of the pic...2014 LT1 has 11.5:1 Premium recomended, not required. Just saying....
Owners manual on the C5 says recommended but not required as well. That is the purpose of the knock sensor... my father put 87 octane in his 1998 Pontiac GTP (supercharged, premium recommended) until he got rid of it with near 300k miles with nothing but regular maintenance.
I use 93 octane to prevent predetonation during high throttle low rpm situations around town. Highway trips I put in 87.
I have always felt that ignorance and superstition will overcome science and technology - lol
Dont know about that....but I just gave up trying to figure it out and added a flux capacitor to my 2000. It runs on decaying garbage and can time travel..cant beat that.
I wonder if a car motor originally designed for 87 octane was properly re-tuned for 89, 91 or 93 octane would become more fuel efficient due to increased power to offset the increased cost of fuel
I wonder if a car motor originally designed for 87 octane was properly re-tuned for 89, 91 or 93 octane would become more fuel efficient due to increased power to offset the increased cost of fuel
and so any money saved with improved fuel effeciency would then be spent on lighting mods with RadioFlyer Innovations....seems like a good trade off.
I wonder if a car motor originally designed for 87 octane was properly re-tuned for 89, 91 or 93 octane would become more fuel efficient due to increased power to offset the increased cost of fuel
you would get more hp but i have no idea if you would get more mpg
what you would basically be doing is adding more timing to the fuel map. car would feel more responsive too
Best i can get around here is 91 octane. i suspect my previous owner ran lower grade gas, as the engine started sounding better at idle after a few fill ups.
My concern about gas is when car touring getting into an area with corn fuel is added to the gas and destroying flexible fittings. I hope I am wrong about this concern.
and so any money saved with improved fuel effeciency would then be spent on lighting mods with RadioFlyer Innovations....seems like a good trade off.
Can't argue with that
Originally Posted by racebum
you would get more hp but i have no idea if you would get more mpg
what you would basically be doing is adding more timing to the fuel map. car would feel more responsive too
I suppose it would depend on if the car's computer felt it needed as much fuel per combustion cycle to get the correct combustion ratio.
Although, I wonder if the engine would "feel" it had more power. Assume you had 2 otherwise identical cars on cruise control going up a gentle slope. Would the car tuned for say 91 octane require less throttle (and thus less fuel) to maintain speed versus the car factory tuned for 87?
I suppose it would depend on if the car's computer felt it needed as much fuel per combustion cycle to get the correct combustion ratio.
Although, I wonder if the engine would "feel" it had more power. Assume you had 2 otherwise identical cars on cruise control going up a gentle slope. Would the car tuned for say 91 octane require less throttle (and thus less fuel) to maintain speed versus the car factory tuned for 87?
you can run a car in closed loop / part throttle and put the air fuel ratio at 15:1 without trouble. most factory tunes are 14.7:1.
cars like the WRX for example are easy to milk 3-4mpg, sometimes more with a more appropriate tune even all stock. the factory, especially on turbo cars likes to run everything rich for safety reasons. bad gas, hard driving, 87 octane etc.
at part throttle it's very do-able which is where you care about mpg anyway
at WOT is where i'm thinking it's probably not. more timing is going to increase cylinder temps and if anything require either higher octane or a slightly richer AFR. the tune and octane are very very important at WOT. lot of cars get tuned around 12.5-1 AFR at full throttle. turbo cars often go into the 11s and full blown race engines or high boost cars may go richer still just for the cooling effect of gas, not so much the power.
i blew up a little honda type r a couple years ago like this. had a small turbo on it, tuned to 280whp, thought oh a couple more deg of timing won't hurt, i can get this to 300whp on pump gas. poof, cloud of smoke as one of the ringlands let go.
From: The line waiting to see Santa Claus stretched all the way back to Terre Haute, and I was at the end, Indiana
St. Jude Donor '08-'09-'10-'11-'12-'13-'14-'15-'16-'17-'18
12:1 compression here...
93 used to work very well, but now even the "93" rating pings...funny how the last couple of years that's happened. Could it really be that the gas companies are "fudging" their octane ratings? Say it aint so...
[QUOTE=strand rider;1582238199]Best i can get around here is 91 octane.
same here. they don't sell 93 octane here. i'm sure the car is fine with 91. what if you own a late model with an ls7? i think it say 93 octane is required but those guys can't buy it either.