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

[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

[bart]

[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/Gasoli...lon_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

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

+1

[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

[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

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/68154...dien-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.

[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.