The RR Journals: Octane and fuel economy
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
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
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
#4
Registered User
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....
#5
Registered User
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 know I could much more drastically affect my gas milage by keeping my RPMs lower, but where's the fun in that?
#6
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.
#7
Registered User
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.
Trending Topics
#8
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.
#9
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
#10
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....