Fuel cut or boost cut???

General Car Related Discussion
LaginWagon
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:14
Location: Heaven

Postby LaginWagon » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

I`m Batman wrote:I actually have to agree with Barn on this one. Most of the place I've been to at sea-level still sell 91 or 92 octane gas as premium. We are 5000+ ft. above sea level, we can use lower octane here. (less O2 = lower AFR, less O2 = less pressure = less chance of pre-detonation = can use lower octane) I probably won't do it but I'm sure it'll be fine up here... just don't take it lower. (sea level)


Huh? 87 & 91 are the lowest octane’s back East. 93 & 94 are premium. Many Sunoco station have a Purple pump too. That's 100 octane, and runs around $8.00-$12.00/gallon. This is labeled as "Race Fuel".
Image

User avatar
I`m Batman
Senior Member
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:14
Location: Castle Rock

Postby I`m Batman » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

Maybe I went to the wrong gas stations... I just got back from RI and it was only 92 premium. I've seen higher but MOST that I've seen is 93 max.
Image Image

User avatar
RX-7 Chris
Posts: 7800
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:14
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

Postby RX-7 Chris » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

I`m Batman wrote:I actually have to agree with Barn on this one. Most of the place I've been to at sea-level still sell 91 or 92 octane gas as premium. We are 5000+ ft. above sea level, we can use lower octane here. (less O2 = lower AFR, less O2 = less pressure = less chance of pre-detonation = can use lower octane) I probably won't do it but I'm sure it'll be fine up here... just don't take it lower. (sea level)


Very true, and most cars can run the next grade lower during the winter.
1984 RX-7 GSL-SE [size=84]My restomod project[/SIZE]


1964 Ford Galaxie 500XL flat black w/ white interior, 2 dr fastback, 390 thunderbird, C6 auto, 2500 rpm high stall converter, shift kit, AC, Holley 750 cfm

[size=100]RIP 1983 RX-7[/SIZE]

My Car Blog

LaginWagon
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:14
Location: Heaven

Postby LaginWagon » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

I`m Batman wrote:Maybe I went to the wrong gas stations... I just got back from RI and it was only 92 premium. I've seen higher but MOST that I've seen is 93 max.


Many states back East *banned* 94 a few years back. RI being one of them unless the gas station in question fell into some kind of Grandfather clause it wouldn't have it. So we're both right. And wrong ;-)
Image

LaginWagon
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:14
Location: Heaven

Postby LaginWagon » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

To elaborate more;

Higher octane ratings correlate to higher activation energies. Activation energy is the amount of energy necessary to start a chemical reaction. Since higher octane fuels have higher activation energies, it is less likely that a given compression will cause autoignition.

It might seem odd that fuels with higher octane ratings are used in more powerful engines, since such fuels ignite less easily. However, an uncontrolled ignition is not desired in a spark ignition engine.

A fuel with a higher octane rating can be run at a higher compression ratio without causing detonation. Compression is directly related to power (see engine tuning), so engines that require higher octane usually deliver more motive power. Engine power is a function of the fuel, as well as the engine design, and is related to octane rating of the fuel. Power is limited by the maximum amount of fuel-air mixture that can be forced into the combustion chamber. When the throttle is partially open, only a small fraction of the total available power is produced because the manifold is operating at pressures far below atmospheric. In this case, the octane requirement is far lower than when the throttle is opened fully and the manifold pressure increases to atmospheric pressure, or higher in the case of supercharged or turbocharged engines.

Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high maximum compression, and thus demand high-octane premium gasoline. A common misconception is that power output or fuel mileage can be improved by burning higher octane fuel than a particular engine was designed for. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of its fuel, but similar fuels with different octane ratings have similar density. Since switching to a higher octane fuel does not add any more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot produce more power.

However, burning fuel with a lower octane rating than required by the engine often reduces power output and efficiency one way or another. If the engine begins to detonate (blow up), that reduces power and efficiency for the reasons stated above. Many modern car engines feature a [knock sensor] - a small piezoelectric microphone which detects knock, and then sends a signal to the engine control unit to retard the ignition timing. Retarding the ignition timing reduces the tendency to detonate, but also reduces power output and fuel efficiency.

And this is from Wikipedia.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
Image

User avatar
I`m Batman
Senior Member
Posts: 935
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:14
Location: Castle Rock

Postby I`m Batman » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

LaginWagon wrote: And this is from Wikipedia.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating



Let me go edit Wiki right now to say "Octane rating is a scam"... :lol:
Image Image

LaginWagon
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:14
Location: Heaven

Postby LaginWagon » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

I`m Batman wrote:Let me go edit Wiki right now to say "Octane rating is a scam"... :lol:


No joke.
Image

User avatar
GR-8
Posts: 5335
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:14
Location: Denver/ Lakewood
Contact:

Postby GR-8 » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

I have no input on the arguments being made but throwing in $0.02 that I have heard from many people many times since forever.

Without getting technical - The reason CO has lower Octane Fuel is because of our elevation. 91 Octane in CO is equivilant to 93 Octane at Sea-level. So our shitty 91 Octane is really 93.

Now wheter or not you use Regular, Mid Grade, or Premium is up to you. I stick to what the Manual, Fuel door, and Mazda recomened and thats 91 or higher.
Image

ImageImage

LaginWagon
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 9:14
Location: Heaven

Postby LaginWagon » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

GR-8 wrote:I have no input on the arguments being made but throwing in $0.02 that I have heard from many people many times since forever.

Without getting technical - The reason CO has lower Octane Fuel is because of our elevation. 91 Octane in CO is equivilant to 93 Octane at Sea-level. So our shitty 91 Octane is really 93.

Now wheter or not you use Regular, Mid Grade, or Premium is up to you. I stick to what the Manual, Fuel door, and Mazda recomened and thats 91 or higher.


You're spot one Jimmy.

"In the Rocky Mountain (high altitude) states, 85 AKI is the minimum octane, and 91 AKI is the maximum octane available in fuel. The reason for this is that in higher-altitude areas, a typical naturally-aspirated engine draws in less air mass per cycle due to the reduced density of the atmosphere. This directly translates to less fuel and reduced absolute compression in the cylinder, therefore deterring knock. It is safe to fill up a carbureted car that normally takes 87 AKI fuel at sea level with 85 AKI fuel in the mountains, but at sea level the fuel may cause damage to the engine. A disadvantage to this strategy is that most turbocharged vehicles are unable to produce full power, even when using the "premium" 91 AKI fuel. In some east coast states, up to 94 AKI is available [1]. In parts of the Midwest (primarily Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Missouri) ethanol based E-85 fuel with 105 AKI is available [2]. Often, filling stations near US racing tracks will offer higher octane levels such as 100 AKI. California fuel stations will offer 87, 89, and 91 AKI octane fuels, and at some stations, 100 AKI or higher octane, sold as racing fuel. Until summer 2001 before the phase-out of methyl tert-butyl ether aka MTBE as an octane enhancer additive, 92 AKI was offered in lieu of 91."
Image

User avatar
tbot
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:14
Location: North

Postby tbot » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

I'm staying out of this one now...

People will believe what the majority of those around them have to say. In this case barn w/ the motorcycle forum and us w/ the rest of the world. I just know what can be the result of lower octane in our cars ;)
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

User avatar
RX-7 Chris
Posts: 7800
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:14
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

Postby RX-7 Chris » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

this article has good info

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part3/section-1.html

"7.11 What is the effect of altitude?
The effect of increasing altitude may be nonlinear, with one study reporting a decrease of the octane requirement of 1.4 RON/300m from sea level to 1800m and 2.5 RON/300m from 1800m to 3600m [27]. Other studies report the octane number requirement decreased by 1.0 - 1.9 RON/300m without specifying altitude [38]. Modern engine management systems can accommodate this adjustment, and in some recent studies, the octane number requirement was reduced by 0.2 - 0.5 (R+M)/2 per 300m increase in altitude. The larger reduction on older engines was due to:- - reduced air density provides lower combustion temperature and pressure. - fuel is metered according to air volume, consequently as density decreases the stoichiometry moves to rich, with a lower octane number requirement. - manifold vacuum controlled spark advance, and reduced manifold vacuum results in less spark advance."
1984 RX-7 GSL-SE [size=84]My restomod project[/SIZE]


1964 Ford Galaxie 500XL flat black w/ white interior, 2 dr fastback, 390 thunderbird, C6 auto, 2500 rpm high stall converter, shift kit, AC, Holley 750 cfm

[size=100]RIP 1983 RX-7[/SIZE]

My Car Blog

User avatar
RX-7 Chris
Posts: 7800
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:14
Location: Colorado Springs
Contact:

Postby RX-7 Chris » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

1984 RX-7 GSL-SE [size=84]My restomod project[/SIZE]


1964 Ford Galaxie 500XL flat black w/ white interior, 2 dr fastback, 390 thunderbird, C6 auto, 2500 rpm high stall converter, shift kit, AC, Holley 750 cfm

[size=100]RIP 1983 RX-7[/SIZE]

My Car Blog

User avatar
~Barn~
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:14
Location: Centennial, CO

Postby ~Barn~ » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

tbot wrote:People will believe what the majority of those around them have to say. In this case barn w/ the motorcycle forum and us w/ the rest of the world. <Snip...>


Ha! Free thinking isn't a team sport Talbot. The "Us versus Them" rational is starting to become a little played. You pulled the same thing with your contribution to erod's thread about his tune at MAC.

I'd say it's time for some new material. ;)

User avatar
Eclipse
Posts: 494
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:14
Location: Colorado
Contact:

Postby Eclipse » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

Brandon, keep an eye on KR, bottom line...(which you obviously already know)

User avatar
~Barn~
Posts: 1163
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2008 9:14
Location: Centennial, CO

Postby ~Barn~ » Wed May 26, 2010 9:14

Thank Eric, will do. Image


Return to “Car Chat”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 98 guests