 | |
Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
Saab Saab Automobiles Discussions (alt.autos.saab)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#21
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth? -
04-14-2007
, 08:52 AM
|
"gerry" <notforgenerause (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote in message news:1316l6virkhfj97 (AT) corp (DOT) supernews.com... I know this is old stuff, but I would like some input (hopefully informed) on current thinking, now that gas prices have skyrocketed and there is a real financial significance that just didn't exist "in the olden days". Here in British Columbia, Canada we are paying $1.17/litre in $Cdn or 1.17 x 3.785 (l. / U.S. gal) x .86/1=$3.80 U.S. / U.S. gallon.....and that's for regular. Let's look at about $4.10+ U.S. / U.S. gallon. The book for my car 2001 V70xc recommends a minimum octane (RON) of 91, and I see regulars at 87 and mid-range at 89. I listen to Radio Station KGO (San Francisco) at night and often hear their science Guru Bill Wattenberg (PhD etc. etc. knows all, et al) who says, "If it will run on regular, use regular. A modern sophisticated car engine may not run initially that well, but sensors will "re-tune" to the lower octane and will be fine.....no damage.....no power loss.....no effect on warranty. The theory, as I understand it is that "higher octane" doesn't mean more "power" in the gas, it means elements added to adjust combustion rate. In his opinion higher octanes are "generally speaking" a scam on automobile users perpetrated by the oil companies and encouraged by the auto manufacturers. What's the consensus? Gerry Ah.... the Truth. There is no truth, there is just perceiption. There also is no consensus on this I am afraid. And since when is truth determined by consensus? |
;-)
Quote:
 Anyway... MY EXPERIENCE is that the higher octane fuels will cause the engine to run more efficiently, somewhere around the same percentage as the price is higher. So... if the higher octane stuff is around 10% more expensive, then I get a milage that is around 10% better. This has been "More Or Less Accurate" (= True? ) since the first timeI did the calculations for my Saab 99. Since this car did not have any "intelligence" built in (you had to get in the car first yourself) it didnt adjust to the fuel by itself. So.... I got fed up with tuning to a different fuel and did the calculations. In the end I stuck with the higher octane fuel. If I was/had an oil company, I would make sure my fuel was priced so that i would sell the most, OR make my profits as high as possible. If my high octane fuel did not have enough benefits, then I would have to lower the price OR improve the performance of it. So..... I suspect this has been going on in the oil-markets for a while, and the prices will have leveled out related to the performance. That is my GUESS. That is not the truth. BTW: The best way to save on fuel cost is... ... not drive. It is easy to drive 10% less. Try it. It is the truth. Ehm.... oops! Good luck. Richard. |
#22
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 21:43:21 GMT, "Walt Kienzle" <wkienzle (AT) core (DOT) com wrote: In North America, the Top Tier initiative (http://www.toptiergas.com/) and government regulations have nearly eliminated the difference in cleaning agents among the various grades of fuel for a particular brand. Or looking at in from another direction: The gasoline you use, from any supplier, of any grade, is likely identical. The only difference is the additive package and the octane level. For example, in the Northeastern USA there are two supply lines that bring all gasoline to the region and all vendors share them. The additive package they use is the only differentiator. The Top Tier site makes no documented claims that any fuel supplier is actually using different levels of additives between grades, but only that some fuels have lower levels of "detergent" agents. I would expect that the levels are probably lower, or higher across the line for a given manufacturer. In fact, the US Govt sued (and won) the major suppliers a couple years ago to stop them from inferring that higher octane gas was in any way better for your engine - aside from the advantages of higher octane. It's an interesting list: http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html. If this was published more, we might see more suppliers on it. |
be different outside US, e.g. in UK. We pay more, so of course we get
less...
#23
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 09:52:57 -0400, "John" <john (AT) myhmg (DOT) org> wrote: And since when is truth determined by consensus? When it comes to 'science' of global warming! ;-) Oh, I dunno... when 999/1000 scientists not employed by polluters (or their protectors) who have a financial stake in delaying and/or preventing action agree, I think it's a safe bet they know what they are talking about. |
But still... there also was general consensus that the earth was flat until
1 fool sailed around it. ;-)
Probably not the place to discuss this here...
I AM still looking for investors in my Palm-Trees-In-Canada business BTW..
:P
Anyone interested?
Richard.
#24
| |||
| |||
|
#25
| |||
| |||
|
|
Octane is a measure of stable combustion. Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to increase the octane rating of the mixed fuel. |
#26
| |||
| |||
|
| darthpup wrote: Octane is a measure of stable combustion. Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to increase the octane rating of the mixed fuel. On racing tracks there's always a whiff of methanol. |
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
#27
| |||
| |||
|
|
"johannes" <johs (AT) sizefi-nospam-tter (DOT) com> wrote in message news:46222E38.E2129D0A (AT) sizefi-nospam-tter (DOT) com... darthpup wrote: Octane is a measure of stable combustion. Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to increase the octane rating of the mixed fuel. On racing tracks there's always a whiff of methanol. Oi! You leave the personal habits of the pit crew out of it! |
#28
| |||
| |||
|
|
Octane is a measure of stable combustion. Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to increase the octane rating of the mixed fuel. |
but it also contains less energy (per unit) than gasoline, so you need more
of the stuff to get where you want....
Richard.
#29
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 20:54:12 +0200, "Richard" <root@localhost> wrote: Of course I agree that the chance of them being right is quite large. But still... there also was general consensus that the earth was flat until 1 fool sailed around it. ;-) Probably not the place to discuss this here... I'll skip the modern political issue - but the dated one is that the *scientists* of the day were actually somewhat comfortable with the notion that the Earth was round. It was the religious leaders that adamantly refused to accept good science in place of religion... and mostly because it was in their own self interest to perpetuate a view not supported by science. Oh... wait... that *is* the modern political problem. :-) FWIW - Columbus might have been a follower, not a leader, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion. |
it.....
#30
| |||
| |||
|
|
And since when is truth determined by consensus? When it comes to 'science' of global warming! ;-) Oh, I dunno... when 999/1000 scientists not employed by polluters (or their protectors) who have a financial stake in delaying and/or preventing action agree, I think it's a safe bet they know what they are talking about. |
the business of proving/regulating/continued research funding....
oh, never mind, not the right forum for that.
Sorry....... please accept my apology.......
Yes, there is a difference in the different octane fuels - IMHO. and no, I
am not employed by any oil company, at least not that I know of, but since
they do own the entire word perhaps I do!
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.