I'm gonna start putting regular into the AMG. Marketplace video

[benyl]

haha. Premium is a scam!!!!


Premium is more clean. This is 87% clean, 89% clean, 91% clean hahaha

FPPkPAbzwbU

The best part is the yogi who kisses trees. hahaha

[lilmira]

Well yeah, it's premium! You use regular stuff? That's like, so gross!

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Mibz]

Watched the intro.
Checked length.
21 minutes.
Nope.

[KRyn]

Originally posted by Mibz
Watched the intro.
Checked length.
21 minutes.
Nope.

I jumped ahead a few times but couldn't take it. The "average" person doesn't have a clue. :rofl:

[xnvy]

I just watched up until "Mark with the 'Vette" but I couldn't take his smug douchebag look and had to turn the video off.

I like how they dyno tested a Chevy Cruze though and were surprised at the lack of difference.

[lilmira]

I watched the first 10-15 seconds then decided to look for this.
ZnZ2XdqGZWU

[revelations]

Originally posted by xnvy


I like how they dyno tested a Chevy Cruze though and were surprised at the lack of difference.

At least it didnt run worse on high octane.

I'd like to see a dyno on an ethanol vs. non-ethanol of the same grade.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[jacky4566]

Fuck it lets all go back to Leaded fuels.

[carson blocks]

Still watching it, but rolling my eyes at the 'professional' dyno guy who is shocked it takes the same amount of hp to roll the wheels at the same 50km/h speed, regardless of what fuel the car is running on. Of course it takes the same amount of energy to perform the same task, look at the pulse width of the injectors while doing it on both fuels, to see if there is a difference between the amount of fuel needed to create that same amount of needed energy.

And, if he talks about the 'proficiency' of the engine one more time, I'm gonna have to turn this video in to a drinking game.

[Canmorite]

Lol'd at the guy who buys a Corvette only to put 87 in it :rofl:

[Tik-Tok]

Slightly different hp, tq, and fuel economy, "its just testing anomolies"
Slightly different emmisions, "PREMIUM IS WORSE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!!!"

Oh, and asking gas jockies who are no more educated than the consumers they are serving, and then claiming the big bad gas companies are to blame, that was priceless.

[JustinMCS]

I wouldn't put 91 into a car that requires 87. I would put 91 in a car that requires 91 per the owners manual.

Our Ford states that 87 is ok but if you want the full horsepower then put in 91. So I am assuming it's ecu can detect the difference and operate accordingly? It's a 2.0T 4 Cylinder at 240hp / 260 tq on 91.

[Hallowed_point]

There is a lot of misinformation out there with regards to octane requirements.

For example, my prior car a 95 Stang GT 5.0 L low compression, stock e7 heads. Previous owner installed a "91 octane chip." Car was basically stock. I ran 91 and it ran like shit. Poor mileage and rich. Put 87 in (factory fill) on this "91 octane chip" and it ran perfect. Plugs looked great when I pulled them. Night and day.

I don't really trust those flash tune/chip requirements unless you can see in real time on a wideband/dyno what's going on. I think it just makes people feel cool to put 91 in a 200 hp car.

[r3ccOs]

i think a huge number of vehicles nowadays have the option to run multiple grades being they have knock sensors and VVTiming with cam phasers

I think all the vehicles that recommend premium but can use regular, will operate 90-100% in normal under unloaded driving conditions (whether that is towing/hauling or for high performance driving)

the instant you want to really use that engine though, I'm sure the knock sensor and the cam phasers are keeping you from fully allowing that engine to breath and fire to protect itself from unwanted detonation

how much performance loss... is what I want to know. I would assume the bigger the engine and the higher the reves, the more the loss.

[schocker]

This is understandable as I am guessing the vast majority of people have never opened their owners manual even on such an expensive purchase.

My old volvo though, the previous owner ran it on regular for some reason and it ran shitty then was better once I started it on premium again. :rofl:

[flipstah]

I stopped watching after seeing the yoga instructor.

[killramos]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point
There is a lot of misinformation out there with regards to octane requirements.

For example, my prior car a 95 Stang GT 5.0 L low compression, stock e7 heads. Previous owner installed a "91 octane chip." Car was basically stock. I ran 91 and it ran like shit. Poor mileage and rich. Put 87 in (factory fill) on this "91 octane chip" and it ran perfect. Plugs looked great when I pulled them. Night and day.

I don't really trust those flash tune/chip requirements unless you can see in real time on a wideband/dyno what's going on. I think it just makes people feel cool to put 91 in a 200 hp car.

Horsepower has absolutely nothing to do with it. For example my old GTI was 10.5 compression turbo and definitely needed 91 octane. It only made 207 HP.

On a turbocharged car you can definitely tune for a higher octane of gas with a chip because except for the small lag period the car generally has way more air ( from the turbos) than it needs for the engine which ends up getting blown off or recirculated. The chip can allow more air ( and fuel to compensate) into the engine which increases pressures and relative compression. If you provide it with a higher octane gas the engine can handle this and thus produce more power.

Your old mustang probably didn't get anything from a tune because it was probably strangled to begin with. If there is already a shortage of air coming into the engine no chip is going to help you ( though a chip and an improved intake + exhaust can make a difference ). That's just chemistry and physics.

Higher octanes aren't a scam. They just need to be applied properly to engines.

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by killramos


Horsepower has absolutely nothing to do with it. For example my old GTI was 10.5 compression turbo and definitely needed 91 octane. It only made 207 HP.

On a turbocharged car you can definitely tune for a higher octane of gas with a chip because except for the small lag period the car generally has way more air ( from the turbos) than it needs for the engine which ends up getting blown off or recirculated. The chip can allow more air ( and fuel to compensate) into the engine which increases pressures and relative compression. If you provide it with a higher octane gas the engine can handle this and thus produce more power.

Your old mustang probably didn't get anything from a tune because it was probably strangled to begin with. If there is already a shortage of air coming into the engine no chip is going to help you ( though a chip and an improved intake + exhaust can make a difference ). That's just chemistry and physics.

Higher octanes aren't a scam. They just need to be applied properly to engines.

Oh totally agree on turbo cars. Heck my Si takes 91 and it needs it being so high strung N/A. Wouldn't dream of 87.

I suppose it's more the attitude of higher octane = better performance for all.

Bang on with why the tune was unnecessary on the 5.0 at that stage..now aluminum heads and a cam - different story!

[01RedDX]

.

[HiSpec]

I recall being Calgary is at such high elevation, it can go one octane grade lower.

[schocker]

Originally posted by HiSpec
I recall being Calgary is at such high elevation, it can go one octane grade lower.
That doesn't mean to switch from 91 to 89 though, when you go lower it switches from 87/89/91 to 89/91/93.

[blairtruck]

Originally posted by flipstah
I stopped watching after seeing the yoga instructor.
well you missed at around 13 min where she kissed a tree and ate a petal from a flower.

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by schocker

That doesn't mean to switch from 91 to 89 though, when you go lower it switches from 87/89/91 to 89/91/93.

There's lots of 87 on the coast. And yes it does mean you can switch from 91 to 89 on a non forced induction vehicle.

[g-m]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
OK but honestly, is there a quantifiable difference, in a modern NA engine, in Calgary, between 89 or higher octane? if you tune it more aggressively you could definitely make more power. Spark advance and lean it out a bit

[Maxx Mazda]

Octane makes a huge difference if you're tuned for it. I have my car dual mapped. One "street" map for 94 octane and one for 100octane leaded fuel (AvGas). On a stock vehicle, you probably won't notice any difference. However on my Ecoboost F-150, if I run 93 I get much better performance and gas mileage although it doesn't "mandate" premium the manual says "for best performance". I've used my scan tool to pull realtime data and on regular it pulls timing like crazy. This is well documented on Ford forums as well.

[revelations]

Originally posted by HiSpec
I recall being Calgary is at such high elevation, it can go one octane grade lower.

I recall this too, but thought it was applicable to NA engines only.

[codetrap]

.

[Neil4Speed]

I've tested time and time again, The cost difference between premium/regular is made up in my car with more mileage.

[Maxx Mazda]

Originally posted by codetrap
Max Mazda, enough to offset the cost with the ecoboost?

In my experience, yes. I have the 136L tank.

[schocker]

Originally posted by Tik-Tok
There's lots of 87 on the coast. And yes it does mean you can switch from 91 to 89 on a non forced induction vehicle.
Now I am more confused, I just based it on driving places I have been in the US. I know my manual says use 91 and only 87 temporarily which results in decreased performance. I can then run 89 at lower elevations?

If premium unleaded gasoline with a PON of 91 or higher is
not available, you can temporarily use the gasoline with a PON
of 87 or higher.
This will result in decreased engine performance, and can
cause occasional metallic knocking noise in the engine.

[Mibz]

If your car is fuel injected and uses coil-based ignition then you can run 87 all day everyday and it won't harm your car. All relatively modern cars will detect knock and immediately pull timing to prevent damage.

The altitude thing is based on the opposite also being true. Your car will not detect a lack of detonation and keep increasing timing until it does. This means that, at high altitudes, your NA car will likely make near full power on 89 octane instead of 91 because the air isn't dense enough to take advantage of the higher octane. This is the same reason that putting 91 in a car tuned for 87 does you precisely zero favours.

[HiSpec]

Originally posted by schocker

That doesn't mean to switch from 91 to 89 though, when you go lower it switches from 87/89/91 to 89/91/93.

Usually one octane grade lower means 89... I don't believe octane 90 is available to us. :dunno:

[Xtrema]

21 mins segment that can be said in 5 mins tops.

Do what the manual said. Paying higher grade that what manual recommended has no benefits.

[Aleks]

Originally posted by Hallowed_point


Oh totally agree on turbo cars. Heck my Si takes 91 and it needs it being so high strung N/A. Wouldn't dream of 87.

I suppose it's more the attitude of higher octane = better performance for all.

Bang on with why the tune was unnecessary on the 5.0 at that stage..now aluminum heads and a cam - different story!

Nothing would happen if you ran 87 in it, other than losing 5-10 top end hp. 91 isn't required in the Civic Si, it's only recommended. Mazda 3 has a 13.0 to 1 CR and runs regular gas. If you put Shell 91 in it with E0 gas you will probably get better mileage than if you put E10 regular gas in your Civic though.

I wish I could make up the difference in premium with mileage. I would need 2-3 extra L/100kms to offset the cost. Won't happen even with E0 gas

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Tik-Tok]

Yeah but those shady gas jockey salesmen are convincing people otherwise!

On another note though, I was already pissed off before that Shell's premium was increased again to a 20c difference, but now I see in the video, Ontario is still only 15c. Mutherfuckers!

[Hallowed_point]

Originally posted by Aleks


Nothing would happen if you ran 87 in it, other than losing 5-10 top end hp. 91 isn't required in the Civic Si, it's only recommended. Mazda 3 has a 13.0 to 1 CR and runs regular gas. If you put Shell 91 in it with E0 gas you will probably get better mileage than if you put E10 regular gas in your Civic though.

I wish I could make up the difference in premium with mileage. I would need 2-3 extra L/100kms to offset the cost. Won't happen even with E0 gas

True..but with how I drive it I like to use every one of the 197 ponies daily. It's boring to drive like a normal civic haha. Doesn't even hurt the mileage much so it's win-win. And 5-10 is a decent loss on a low hp car. I know that I could run 87 fine, but I just like having all of the hamsters available.

[bart]

the worst thing about AB pumps is the hose is shared, that is garbage, each octane should have a dedicated hose, instead i get 5 liters of the crap the person got before me

even if you don't have a tune for 93, vw and audi's detect the better fuel and will give you more power (their turbo motors)

weeeeeeee, on this gasoline i used up a full tank in 40 mins 220km later lol

http://i.imgur.com/yatna.jpg

[Tik-Tok]

Originally posted by bart
the worst thing about AB pumps is the hose is shared, that is garbage, each octane should have a dedicated hose, instead i get 5 liters of the crap the person got before me


The valve is right at the pump. You might get 1 litre. In a car, that's negligable, bike's have more to worry about.

[RickDaTuner]

Im not sure if i've become smarter, or the media is really dumbing itself down for the sake of viewers, but there was very little factual information in that whole segment.

Even the industry expert, who is called in for court witnessing was a complete joke.
I can't believe the pointlessness of the tests being performed on the dyno, let alone the
moronic and ignorant hydrocarbon test being performed on Catalytic converter efficiency!!!!!!!

AKI (Anti Knock Index) is a measure of the fuels volatility (speed of flame propagation, and resistance to ignition from heat and pressure)

The truth is that Premium grade fuel will reduce your fuel economy due to lower BTU per volume, meaning that under higher than normal loads; it will use more fuel to make the same amount of power, but this alone is false with out understanding that although the BTUs are lower, the premium fuels AKI properties, allow for more aggressive ignition, and valve timing profile that will allow the engine allow the combustion process to happen earlier resulting in higher cylinder pressures earlier in the piston stroke.

Nitrogen enrichment is there to reduce the energy wasted in the production of oxides of nitrogen, which also go forward to reduce the green house gasses, so in reality the Yoga Lady was doing well by using Premium.

I honestly could write a full page post on how this news reporter should be reporting the lotto max numbers and not these specialized consumer segments...

FFS:eek: :nut: :dunno:

[bart]

ezjknhwcQXU

[bcylau]

its like the paleo diet for cars, WTF ......... it didn't think it was possible to have fad diets for cars. premium fuel is not some organic food for your car.

with the amount of petroleum engineers in this country and this crap is what the CBC can think of.

in the "average person" terms,
the reason why higher octane fuels is less efficient because it is less energy dense. just weight a 1L of diesel(about 20ish octane) vs 1L of 91 gasoline. the diesel will weigh more and the greater proportion of longer chain hydrocarbons will contain more hydrocarbon bonds, thus more energy.

edit... rant deleted

anyways,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

87 octane = more energy per litre and CHEAPER, if you engine knocks because compressibility then you damage the engine
91 octane = less energy per litre and expensive

basically just keep going up the octane ratings until your engine doesnt knock. what you want is to burn all the fuel in the chamber. its an internal combustion engine not a stable of magic unicorns

[rage2]

Back in the day 87 vs 91 had nearly identical energy densities. This changed with the prevalent use of ethanol to boost octane, and why Shell 91 (ethanol free) makes 2-3% more power when tuned to use 91 octane vs ethanol blended 91 octane fuels. There's a ~3% difference in power with a 10% ethanol mix, and subsequently, 3% drop in mileage as well.

So the whole 91 octane is less efficient than 87 doesn't apply to Shell 91. The difference there is so minuscule it's barely measurable.

Of course with a turbo car, you gain more from running higher boost against a higher octane (ie Husky 94) than you would lose in energy density so you always choose more octane over ethanol free with tuned turbo cars. Mileage sucks ass tho with that combo...

[RickDaTuner]

For me as a technician the best part of it all was the fact that they did a straight drain and fill on that Cruze.

GMs fuel/ignition active learn strategy requires you to

1. Fill the car with 20L or more of fuel, then drive a minimum of 3kms.
2. Drive at speeds of 80km/hr for a distance of 30kms or more, or
3. Perform a hard ECU reset, IE disconnecting the battery, or by using a scan tool to reset the
learned fuel trim.

Again this test was so full of flaws its unreal. Sadly I have clearly allowed it to 'get my goat'...

[killramos]

Originally posted by bcylau

with the amount of petroleum engineers in this country and this crap is what the CBC can think of.


First off CBC asking a petroleum engineer for expert advice? Now who is thinking of magic and unicorns :rofl:

Second i bet you most petroleum engineers i have ever worked with couldn't tell you what the difference between 87 and 91 octane is or the implications of ethanol blending without going to a textbook.

[YCB]

Originally posted by bart
ezjknhwcQXU

+1

WTaBngvsPrc

[heavyD]

Originally posted by rage2
Back in the day 87 vs 91 had nearly identical energy densities. This changed with the prevalent use of ethanol to boost octane, and why Shell 91 (ethanol free) makes 2-3% more power when tuned to use 91 octane vs ethanol blended 91 octane fuels. There's a ~3% difference in power with a 10% ethanol mix, and subsequently, 3% drop in mileage as well.

So the whole 91 octane is less efficient than 87 doesn't apply to Shell 91. The difference there is so minuscule it's barely measurable.

Of course with a turbo car, you gain more from running higher boost against a higher octane (ie Husky 94) than you would lose in energy density so you always choose more octane over ethanol free with tuned turbo cars. Mileage sucks ass tho with that combo...

I've been using Husky 94 for years in my turbo cars and I decided to try Shell 91 and my mileage went from 10.8 l/100k to 10.2 after two tanks on my Focus ST. Since it's stock I can't really tell if there's much of a power difference so now I don't know if I will go back to Husky.

[killramos]

Originally posted by heavyD


I've been using Husky 94 for years in my turbo cars and I decided to try Shell 91 and my mileage went from 10.8 l/100k to 10.2 after two tanks on my Focus ST. Since it's stock I can't really tell if there's much of a power difference so now I don't know if I will go back to Husky.

Now Chevron ethanol free 94 in BC is :drool:

[rage2]

Originally posted by heavyD
I've been using Husky 94 for years in my turbo cars and I decided to try Shell 91 and my mileage went from 10.8 l/100k to 10.2 after two tanks on my Focus ST. Since it's stock I can't really tell if there's much of a power difference so now I don't know if I will go back to Husky.
Should've clarified that if the car is tuned to use 94 octane. Your stock Focus is most likely tuned to 91, where Shell 91 would give you the most power since you can't make use of the higher octane.

[heavyD]

Originally posted by rage2

Should've clarified that if the car is tuned to use 94 octane. Your stock Focus is most likely tuned to 91, where Shell 91 would give you the most power since you can't make use of the higher octane.

Yeah I know I just got used to 94 as I lost faith in our 91 octane gas. Cobb 91 OTS maps for STI's knock big time on our 91 so I had to run their California gas 91 tunes which are barely different than stock. It got to the point where I just bit the bullet and got Airboy to tune the car for Husky 94 and the car never ran better or faster.

[SkiBum5.0]

I just bought some MS109 from VP and will be on the dyno next week to do two things:

1. Baseline on current (91 Octane) tune with MS109 in tank - I am mixing 1:1 with Shell 91
2. Tune for MS109 for "Race" tune.

Reason I'm trying all this is my car is pulling timing at WOT according to my Trinity while datalogging. I'm hoping it's just "noise" as the tuning readout from my tuner do not show it during the dyno runs.

I'll post the results in my build thread

[heavyD]

Originally posted by killramos


Now Chevron ethanol free 94 in BC is :drool:

Wow that's sweet. I guess they can justify it with the higher prices they pay for gasoline. I know lots of GTR and WRX owners in the Vancouver area would drive across the border to fill up with Chevron 92 as it performs better than Canadian Chevron 94. Bottom line is that US gas is better;

http://www.revscene.net/forums/681545-crappy-canadien-fuel.html

[RickDaTuner]

Originally posted by rage2

Should've clarified that if the car is tuned to use 94 octane. Your stock Focus is most likely tuned to 91, where Shell 91 would give you the most power since you can't make use of the higher octane.

A general rule of thumb is that if the car has variable vale timing on the exhaust and the intake side, then its capable of making use of fuels rated up to 100 octane.

The new Gen Ford focus has enough valve adjustment in the stock cam adjusters that allow it to just ping the top of the cylinders at full advance or full retard.

With variable valve timing; compression ratio is the bigger determining factor of what fuels it can run, being that you can theoretically control the compression ratio, based on how much air is allowed into the engine by means of delaying or advancing intake valve timing.

In my personal experience, My STi would have a very generous gain in torque and butt dyno HP when I used MS103 untuned with a stock ECU, as compared to Husky 94.

[rage2]

I'm not a fan of Chevron 94. Husky 94 is better, at least back in my 944 Turbo days. I posted a lot about my experiences with Chevron 94 here in some old threads. Had to turn down my boost using it. A bad batch in Golden almost toasted my motor with so much ping, had to turn boost down below Shell 91 levels.

Interesting to note, that Chevron doesn't seem to have 94 anymore, at least, not outside of Vancouver. I filled up in 100 mile house, Kamloops, and Golden (or Revestoke, can't remember) and they were all just 91. The Kamloops tank gave me a CEL for 4 days in the bone stock GLA45. Filled up with Esso and the CEL went away a day later.

[killramos]

Originally posted by rage2
I'm not a fan of Chevron 94. Husky 94 is better, at least back in my 944 Turbo days. I posted a lot about my experiences with Chevron 94 here in some old threads. Had to turn down my boost using it. A bad batch in Golden almost toasted my motor with so much ping, had to turn boost down below Shell 91 levels.

Interesting to note, that Chevron doesn't seem to have 94 anymore, at least, not outside of Vancouver. I filled up in 100 mile house, Kamloops, and Golden (or Revestoke, can't remember) and they were all just 91. The Kamloops tank gave me a CEL for 4 days in the bone stock GLA45. Filled up with Esso and the CEL went away a day later.

Husky is still full of ethanol tho isn't it? I wasn't around during your 944 days so i never saw those threads.

I got my last batch of it in May in Kelowna ( chevron on the main drag by Costco). The BMW loved it, buttery. But N55's aren't really boosted that much anyways so you may be onto something.

Though i will admit my fuel usage wasn't fantastic on that tank, i blamed it on the climb back to Calgary. Usually i fill up on the way out of Calgary and i still have a quarter when i get to Kelowna. On the way back the last time i tried to make it on one tank i was at 12km range before reserve.:rofl:

[tehwegz]

Not far off from driving my JDM suby again. It needs 98 RON which if I read correctly needs minimum 93 here. Last year I bounced between Shell, Petro, and Husky.

Shell 91 VPower is said to be the purest fuel here, E0, more potent than some 92-94 w/ up to E10%, in this city at least.

Then there is Husky94 and Petro94. Until Shell gets their normal supply of gas back I'm crossing that off my list of stations to go to. Plus the 0.20 extra per liter, wtf?

Costco/Esso any good?

Basically need the closest I can get to real 93 OCT.

[relyt92]

I don't know how good their 91 is, but CO-OP 91 is ethanol free.