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



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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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!