Ask those car questions you were always afraid to ask

Si tu mets du 91 dans un char qui en a pas besoin, ça donne absolument rien. Ça nettoie pas plus, ça performe pas mieux... ça donne vraiment rien.

Si tu mets du 87 dans un char qui a besoin de 91, au mieux tu perds de la puissance.... au pire tu punch des trous dans tes pistons.
 
kRANkED said:
Si tu mets du 91 dans un char qui en a pas besoin, ça donne absolument rien. Ça nettoie pas plus, ça performe pas mieux... ça donne vraiment rien.

Si tu mets du 87 dans un char qui a besoin de 91, au mieux tu perds de la puissance.... au pire tu punch des trous dans tes pistons.
Click to expand...

I have always felt a small performance increase, especially engine response. Not that I chase after it, but many times it happened to me that gas stations do not have regular and offered super at regular price.

Also I find to get +50 to 100km per tank, but that comes even if you take in account the super price vs regular.
 
What car?

If it's pulling timing because of the 87 octane fuel then yes, you'll gain something by increasing the octane rating. If not, it's all in your head lol :p

I'm not surprised with the better mileage using 91. Most 87 octane fuel contain ethanol while the 91 octane is usually pure gasoline. Fuel consumption goes up when you're burning alcohol.
 
vero_nique said:
Ya tu vraiment une différence importante quand tu mets du super au lieu du régulier...
Click to expand...


Je prends toujours du 91.

1- Fuck l'éthanol- indice énergétique plus bas que le vrai gas... et vraiment pas sur que ça va sauver la planète.
2- Se garde plus longtemps et moins tendance a gommer (entreposage ou moteurs moins utilisés)
3- Pour les véhicules plus performants c'est plus safe et permet d'avancer le timing, donc plus de puissance.
4- Chez ESSO tu accumules 3 fois les points et tu te ramasse des lave auto gratos ce qui comble un peu la différence de prix.
5- J'en oublie surement

Il y des exceptions. Un de mes bateau avec un moteur mercruiser laissait des traces noires sur le transom avec du super. Apparemment selon les commentaire de forums, l'ecu était pas capable de prendre en compte l'indice plus élevé donc il roulait un peu trop riche. Je suis allé au 87, et le problème était réglé.
 
Je gagne environ 0.5 L/100 sur mon 2GRFE dans la baleine au super.

Au final c'est quand même plus couteux au super.

Envoyé de mon Pixel 4a en utilisant Tapatalk
 
espritv8 said:
Je prends toujours du 91.

1- Fuck l'éthanol- indice énergétique plus bas que le vrai gas... et vraiment pas sur que ça va sauver la planète.
2- Se garde plus longtemps et moins tendance a gommer (entreposage ou moteurs moins utilisés)
3- Pour les véhicules plus performants c'est plus safe et permet d'avancer le timing, donc plus de puissance.
4- Chez ESSO tu accumules 3 fois les points et tu te ramasse des lave auto gratos ce qui comble un peu la différence de prix.
5- J'en oublie surement

Il y des exceptions. Un de mes bateau avec un moteur mercruiser laissait des traces noires sur le transom avec du super. Apparemment selon les commentaire de forums, l'ecu était pas capable de prendre en compte l'indice plus élevé donc il roulait un peu trop riche. Je suis allé au 87, et le problème était réglé.
Click to expand...
Esso 91 I believe may have up to 10% ethanol in it, they are always playing around with the formulation. Petro Can is hit or miss as well https://www.pure-gas.org/index.jsp?stateprov=QC

I stick to Shell or Costco for fuel only because of convenience (there is a shell around the corner from work and they always have a points deal with Amex). Shell is more expensive because their stuff is actually refined in the EU and sent in on tankers then unloaded in MTL.

Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk
 
Ce qui me gosse le plus avec l'essence cheapette 87 c'est qu'elle peut contenir jusqu'à 10% d'éthanol, et non toujours 10%.

Donc ça peut contenir 0%, comme ça peut contenir 10%...

Si le AFR de mon tune change de quelques pourcents, on se demande si c'est le carburant qui a changé, ou bien si c'est vraiment quelque chose de mal-ajusté dans le tune de l'ECU.

Au moins avec du carburant qui est stable, on a moins de doutes quant aux changements de AFR.

Il y a aussi la question de gommage et corrosion...

Je tank mon daily au 87, je m'en sacre pas mal. Moins d'énergie par litre, mais plus d'énergie par dollar.
 
Ultramar or Shell or Canadian tire have non ethanol super. The ethanol does make a big difference for carb cars, lawnmowers and the like.

Non enthanol super and ethanol super used to make a difference of 50 to 100 on a full tank of highway mileage. At least in my experience with certain types of roadtrips of similar distances/circumstances.

The winter blend always kills fuel economy.
 
Killingcivics said:
Ultramar or Shell or Canadian tire have non ethanol super. The ethanol does make a big difference for carb cars, lawnmowers and the like.

Non enthanol super and ethanol super used to make a difference of 50 to 100 on a full tank of highway mileage. At least in my experience with certain types of roadtrips of similar distances/circumstances.

The winter blend always kills fuel economy.
Click to expand...

Honestly that is one thing I always found with super, better gas mileage is always there whether the manufacturer recommends it or not. I have no gas station preference and no clue whether I was putting with or without ethanol, I did not know it makes such a big difference between super with and without ethanol.
 
NisMobile said:
Honestly that is one thing I always found with super, better gas mileage is always there whether the manufacturer recommends it or not. I have no gas station preference and no clue whether I was putting with or without ethanol, I did not know it makes such a big difference between super with and without ethanol.
Click to expand...
Once 87 goes to E15 mix 91 non ethanol might be the only option around for cars requiring 87. The higher concentration will suck for older fuel systems

As for fuel mileage. Same issue as E85. The energy density isn't there
 
That being said both cars here get 91 either from Shell or Costco with Ultramar tossed in the mix. Tank and stations that have lots of rotation and that's about it

Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk
 
Boosted cars love ethanol.

It's shitty policy and it makes basically no sense to feed corn to our cars... but I sure wish I could find some E85 around here to blend in. In many instances, changing fuel and increasing ethanol content nets bigger gains than swapping parts.

Again, disregarding the policy implications, it's no boogeyman for most newer vehicles:

This study examines the effects of ethanol content on engine performances and the knock characteristics in spark ignition gasoline engine under various compression ratio conditions by cylinder pressure analysis, visualization and numerical simulation. The results confirm that increasing the ethanol content provides for greater engine torque and thermal efficiency as a result of the improvement of knock tolerance. It was also confirmed that increasing the compression ratio together with increasing ethanol content is effective to overcome the shortcomings of poor fuel economy caused by the low calorific value of ethanol. Further, the results of one dimensional flame propagation simulation show that ethanol content increase laminar burning velocity. Moreover, the results of visualization by using a bore scope demonstrate that ethanol affects the increase of initial flame propagation speed and thus helps suppress knock.
Click to expand...
https://www.researchgate.net/public...l_on_Knock_in_Spark_Ignition_Gasoline_Engines

Newer fuel systems don't mind it as much, and unless you let it sit forever it's not a big deal. Shitty for the older cars / small engine powered tools. Especially if they sit around a lot.
 
kahos said:
Boosted cars love ethanol.
Click to expand...

I'd say that boosted cars love high octane.

Ethanol has high octane, but that doesn't mean that high-ethanol fuel at the pump will also be high-octane.

Instead, ethanol allows the refineries to mix more scrap hydrocarbons (low-octane) into the fuel and still meet the same octane requirement, i.e. knock tolerance.

********************************************************************************

If for whatever reason society determines that increasing engine compression (and therefore thermal efficiency) is worth the added cost/difficulty of producing high-octane fuel, then we should standardize fuel on 95 octane (or whatever number). New cars should then be built to burn fuel of that octane.

Once we pick an octane rating, I would leave it to the refineries to determine how much ethanol vs. hydrocarbons should be used to achieve the necessary octane rating (among other requirements).
 
pmbrunelle said:
I'd say that boosted cars love high octane.
Click to expand...
That's fair.
But ethanol blends will still get you gains well above what can be done on your run of the mill pump gas.
Otherwise stock WRXs can get 50whp and 50wtq increases from running E60 vs 93 octane.
 
kahos said:
Boosted cars love ethanol.

It's shitty policy and it makes basically no sense to feed corn to our cars... but I sure wish I could find some E85 around here to blend in. In many instances, changing fuel and increasing ethanol content nets bigger gains than swapping parts.

Again, disregarding the policy implications, it's no boogeyman for most newer vehicles:


https://www.researchgate.net/public...l_on_Knock_in_Spark_Ignition_Gasoline_Engines

Newer fuel systems don't mind it as much, and unless you let it sit forever it's not a big deal. Shitty for the older cars / small engine powered tools. Especially if they sit around a lot.
Click to expand...

That's false about the fuel systems. Unless you have a car that is properly setup for E85 don't run anything over 10-15% maximum unless the manufacture says so. The mix itself could be anywhere from 50-85% as well. My Mini can run up to 25%

I'll take my non ethanol 91 and use a water meth kit vs wrecking a fuel system in a new car. Cobb can claim what they want, they're in a marketing business because numbers sell. They don't need to deal with long term damage.

Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk
 
I read a piece on the E46 M3 CSL, which has a 3.2L L6 (S54) and it doesn't use a mass airflow sensor, which according to the article makes for a quicker throttle response. Instead, air flow is calculated "directly by the DME" (ECU - disney's magical experience).

What is the trade-off? ie, if you get better throttle response, but no one else is doing it, why? Also the E46 is 20 years old now, I'll assume tricks that worked back then can't work today because of emissions regulations. Should I assume this be the case? I find today's "mainstream car engines" have diesel-like throttle response due to combustion control and limiting the amount of fuel that gets sent in to improve lean burning. Could you run without a MAF in today's engines? Would it change absolutely nothing? (I'm gonna guess likely)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top