S2000 Under The Hood S2000 Technical and Mechanical discussions.

The RR Journals: Octane and fuel economy

Old 11-20-2004, 04:18 PM
  #1  
Registered User
Thread Starter
 
Road Rage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Midlothian
Posts: 3,660
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default The RR Journals: Octane and fuel economy

Over in the TL forums, there was the usual "premium vs regular" thread, and it got to the point of absolute stupidity - such as "I used regular and mt MPG went down by 25%". That kind of thing.

Then, some Einstein "mathematically proved" that regular was unjustified, based on a 1-2 MPG cariation.

I go fed up with the whole thing, did some research, and found something you all might find interesting.

Short version? The max difference in fuel economy between regular and premium is 3%.


3%!!!!

http://tl.acurazine.com/forums/showthread....d=1#post1027351
Old 11-20-2004, 06:35 PM
  #2  
Registered User
 
JDM Baller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Memphis
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Do they not realize that regular vs premium is not about fuel economy but about avoiding pre-detonation in certain vehicles?
Old 11-20-2004, 07:28 PM
  #3  
Former Sponsor
 
Gernby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,526
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
Default

I am surprised that there would be any difference at all in fuel economy between octane ratings as long as it is high enough to prevent pre-detonation.
Old 11-20-2004, 07:29 PM
  #4  
Registered User
 
mikegarrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Covington WA, USA
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

91+ octane costs more and it is called "Premium" so it must be better. Kind of like JDM coilovers or slotted rotors or "performance street pads" or aftermarket exhaust systems or....
Old 11-20-2004, 07:36 PM
  #5  
Registered User
 
mikegarrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Covington WA, USA
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gernby,Nov 20 2004, 08:28 PM
I am surprised that there would be any difference at all in fuel economy between octane ratings as long as it is high enough to prevent pre-detonation.
I suppose on lower octane gas the car runs with less optimal timing, so maybe it doesn't quite get all the energy out of the fuel that it does with higher octane. But I'm sure the effect is minimal.

I know I could much more drastically affect my gas milage by keeping my RPMs lower, but where's the fun in that?
Old 11-20-2004, 07:44 PM
  #6  
Former Sponsor
 
Gernby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 15,526
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes on 14 Posts
Default

The way I see it, if the ECU doesn't detect any pre-detonation, then it will run "optimal" timing. I doubt the ECU would notice any difference between 93 and 100 octane fuel on a stock car.
Old 11-20-2004, 10:22 PM
  #7  
Registered User
 
mikegarrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Covington WA, USA
Posts: 22,888
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gernby,Nov 20 2004, 08:44 PM
The way I see it, if the ECU doesn't detect any pre-detonation, then it will run "optimal" timing. I doubt the ECU would notice any difference between 93 and 100 octane fuel on a stock car.
I've used 100 octane unleaded race gas (it was the only unleaded available at the track) and noticed no difference between that and regular 91 octane pump gas. Except the race gas cost $6/gallon, of course.
Old 11-21-2004, 01:08 AM
  #8  

 
Sik -S's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bonneville
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Originally Posted by gernby,Nov 20 2004, 11:44 PM
The way I see it, if the ECU doesn't detect any pre-detonation, then it will run "optimal" timing. I doubt the ECU would notice any difference between 93 and 100 octane fuel on a stock car.
Try not noticing a difference between 86 and 91...your car will mock you!
Old 11-21-2004, 06:08 AM
  #9  

 
jankemi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St Paul
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Per RR's link in the TL forum:

http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/bull...ormance/pg4.asp

It is an interesting read. I always blamed ethanol for my poor gas mileage. Maybe it is not the problem?

Interesting quotes from the above source:
The ONR of different engines varies considerably and as much as a 10-octane-number range in ONR can be obtained for vehicles with the same engine model.
In otherwords the octane required for optimal operation of your engine might be as much a 10 from the optimal for my (identical) engine.

And:
Because different grades of gasoline have essentially the same heating value, they all provide the same power in a given engine as long as their antiknock performance meets the engine?s requirement.
So you need enough octane to keep from knocking & that is all. It would be nice the the car's knock sensor would light up something on the dash when it kicks in.
Old 11-21-2004, 06:10 AM
  #10  

 
jankemi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St Paul
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by mikegarrison,Nov 20 2004, 11:29 PM
91+ octane costs more and it is called "Premium" so it must be better. Kind of like JDM coilovers or slotted rotors or "performance street pads" or aftermarket exhaust systems or....
If some is good, then more is better, and too much ought to be just right!

Quick Reply: The RR Journals: Octane and fuel economy



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:41 PM.