Whoa, A tough crowd tonight, not too well versed in humor or math.

Here's another:

I stopped by the Chevrolet Dealership yesterday, for a look at the new Silverado 2011, 1500 pickup.

Just for fun, I took it out for a test drive.
I wanted to sense that new "feel" before they become extinct...

The salesman sat in the passenger seat describing the truck and all its "wonderful" options..
The seats were of particular interest.
He explained that the seats directed warm air to your butt in the winter and directed cool air to your butt in the summer heat.

I mentioned that this must be a Republican truck.
He asked why I thought it was a Republican truck.

I explained that if it were a Democrat truck, the seats would blow smoke up your ass year-round.

I had to walk back to the dealership...


Damn guy had no sense of humor.

 

Both of those cracked me up pretty good.

 

I drove a 1985 trans am did a mileage test and i also owned a 1988 olds regency with 3.8 multi point injection 87 or 93 and got the same mileage out of em both i use 87 in my fit. if you have a beemer where you have really high compression yes you need a higher octane with the fit compression ratio 87 is all you need I gauged my driving habits and i'm not driving as crazy as i used to and i noticed mileage got better

 

The Fit engine is 10.4:1 compression ratio, as high as some BMW's. I'm not saying you should switch, but I switched, and I noticed a difference. You might be surprised.

I'm averaging 48 MPG, by the way.

 

With octane higher than 87 the ECU advances ignition timing so your car will benefit from the 10.4:1 compression ratio.. When using 87 octane the ECU retards ignition timing to prevent your engine from being damaged by matching the lower octane fuel with the 10.4:1 compression ratio.....There are factors other than compression that can create a need for higher octane fuel such as engine operating temperature, heavy load, altitude, camshaft duration, carbon build up or sharp edges in the combustion chamber... When I first started driving the octane of regular grade gasoline was 94 RON....... octane and compression ....... There is a lot of stuff on line that explains how to tune an engine to use today's fuel and still run relatively well on the street... It is amazing to me that with the stock 10.4:1 compression ratio my Fit has the Hondata reflashed ECU, larger injectors and a few other tweaks have allowed me to run 10PSI boost on 93 octane with no problems... I wonder how far below 87 octane would be needed before a stock Fit engine would be running in the limp home mode.

 

One of my boosted motors is a 10.1:1CR (That's including the thicker HG, a decked head and milled block in the equation in addition to the pistons themselves) and on the parts of my maps that are out of boost I have to pull as much as 3-5* in the high load 2-3k rpm range if I wanted to put around town on 87.

That is with polished combustion chamber, ports, bowl blending, non projected plugs swirl polished back cut valves etc..

Under boost on this same motor I was able to get away with 4* more timing up top at the same boost level (28psi) last year just switching to an E0 93 that had more toluene vs E10 93. This is without the meth system active and on a relatively conservative tune.. Still running real fat (11.0:1AFR)

This is what ~5* of knock retard (See "KnockRet" on the key below that graph, to the upper right is the MaxOct fuel table, below is the MaxOct Timing table) looks like from switching back to a inferior fuel for the sake of demonstration. The highlighted cells are the ones being used for that split second of operation.


In this case Shell's summer gas is less forgiving than BP's so I switched back.

This was done out of curiousity and not for anyones particular benefit because I no longer care to share technical stuff in public forums because most of the Fit community is pants on head retarded yet they still try to comment on exceedingly complex matters like fuel grade based on their own ill informed anecdotes.

(Not referring to you Tex )

 

For you rocket surgeons out there thinking about chiming in on how I didn't show a screen shot of the knock on 87 blah blah blah, what I am trying to demonstrate here for the folks who have more than two brain cells to rub together is that engines at this compression (>10:1CR), even out side of boost, are extremely sensitive to changes in fuel grade.

I would never boost on 87, for the same reason you will never see a non-boosted OEM 10:1 running leaner than 12.5:1 with more than 20* spark advance @ WOT on 87.

Because it is f*cking foolish and you don't need full on detonation to cause the ECU to pull timing and dump in fuel to save its self. This is inefficient at best and will cause damage at worst.

If it was BS to suggest premium is quantifiably better why do I routinely best 40mpg combined while so many of you struggle to break 35? Difficulty: I don't hypermile.

 

I do hyper-mile a little but most of the time its just common sense. They are finding out that higher octane from ethanol is getting better mpg so they are investigating it further(higher octane). E15 comes out in January but has to sold at a separate pump and wont be every where and will take time to get it on line. There is so much more but I have some of it at other threads I have written.

 

When the weather is warmer my gas mileage gets better. I put in synthetic oil I think that helped too.

 

The 91oct E0 I used in door county a week ago gave me comparable performance to the 93 E10 I get around here at Shell/Citgo Stations

This is because of the other constituents in the mix that help make up for the 2 point AKI drop.


I do wish we had more of this stuff around here though:

 

Sunoco got rid of the ultra 94, because of methane. They now use ethane with lower octane numbers and easier to make. They also use ethyl benzene which octane is 107 compared to toluene which is 118.

 

Do you mean methanol and ethanol? Methane and ethane are gases, not liquids, at standard temperature and pressure.

 

Yes, they use more ethyl benzene than toluene in the reformate and using ethanol instead of MTBE.

 

I remember ultra 94 being discontinued due to new emissions, because of methane. They were trying to get people to use Ultra 94 instead of 100 octane racing fuel but the people wanted their racing fuel for the big blocks. Most of fuel changes is due to emissions and availability of components. Sunoco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Oil refinery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Maybe it was just the cost to make.

http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~jren/PUBLISH/cst-nox.pdf

 

I'll see if I have any of my hardware store hooch available for saturday lol

The meth kit is out and pending sale, and 93 is just not good enough.

Tomorrow I plan to put one of my bigger pumps in so we can turn up the wick either way. I have been putting around at 15psi and its just not doing it for me. Not too mention that the stock 1G o2 housing has been making boost creep like a mofo so it's probably just a good idea anyways.

I neutered the car to put up for sale but I may just leave the pump in this time.

On better tires and fuel the car will run high 11s without much effort.

 

We can just tune the Fit, no big deal you have the program to play back already made tunes and that's good enough to explain it. I seen a lot of cars going to the track tonight,with the cooler temps people really want to see what their cars will do.

 

The FIC is also out at the moment because I am trying to sell it lol

It takes just as long to install the ECMLink ECU in the Laser as it does to put the FIC-6 back in the Fit.

The Laser is more fun anyways.

 

I was kidding about the Fit, Your doing something else with that. My sons eye is better but lost a little site but should get it back the doctor said. Hes looking through a scratch that is healing and not infected.

 

my dad had a bmw 330 ci used to drive it on occasion on long trips and he only used 87 octwhich bmw recommended he even called the warranty company to check cause me as wellas him were very suprised so like i always say learned through my experiences just putting more money in the oil companys pockets

 

Are you really making a recommendation for a 21st century Japanese 4-cylinder engine based on what someone else used to use for a 20th century German 6-cylinder?