|
| winman |
|
|||
|
20 bucks??? at tops it should be like 7-8
 if you work it out 98 is round 9-14c more then 91, even if your filling from 0-68L its not gonna cost more then 10 bucks extra
_________________ BA XR6 |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| SLY EL |
|
|||
Age: 33 Posts: 48 Joined: 30th Jul 2010 Ride: 1996 Ford Fairmont Ghia EL Location: Wollongong |
In the daily 323 Mazda, I run 95. The car seems pretty touchy to running either general 91 or E10. Seems to miss with either, but I have only ever put it in it once and never put either 91 or e10 back in after that happened.
In the EL I'll only ever put Shell V-Power. Never had a problem with it, so I'll stick to it!
_________________
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| -GAS-MAN- |
|
|||
|
phil545 wrote: lol i said my BF (which has full exhaust, not much i know) beat this guy in a BA Turbo but it was merely a side comment to my experience with e10. Perhaps this guy was just playing or a s**t driver but all I know was i was pretty chuffed at the result. Meh time to move on, is the general consensus that there isnt much difference between 95 and 98? Way to handle forum bs, hats off to you my friend 
_________________ it can be fast and cheap,but it wont be reliable |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| -GAS-MAN- |
|
|||
|
fairmontghiaeb wrote: quite alright! at worst the car runs ok on 91 without ethanol, when im flush i use 95 or 98, figuring that the average ron would be 96 or 97 lol stupid logic i know but it works for me! 91 ron fuels will lose ron and mon levels, wiki how ron and mon levels work. 98 ron fuels, the ron and mon figures will rise in time, you will gain 1 - 2 ron figures per fortnight. So for mowers, bikes, whippers, cars sitting around, use 98 fuel as it will not go stale and if its sitting there long enough put in half to a full bottle of metho, as this will help absorb and burn the water built up from condensation
_________________ it can be fast and cheap,but it wont be reliable |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| -GAS-MAN- |
|
|||
|
EL___Fairmont wrote: Your better of replacing your fuel filter evertime you change your oil & filter at 10000km intervals. Will make more difference in fuel economy considering the factory ECU's are tuned for low octane unleaded fuel. BTW I have never noticed any real difference on my trip meter using different grade fuels. The only time you would go premium fuel is if you have advanced your ignition timing.. 100% correct, just fit lpg and swing the dizzy all the way anti clockwise, that way your driving a little harder, all the gains are down low, as lpg requires high advance at idle and huge ignition retard at red line, draw a straight line in between those figures
_________________ it can be fast and cheap,but it wont be reliable |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| -GAS-MAN- |
|
|||
|
phil545 wrote: Wow alot of guys swear by BP ultimate, I have never really been a fan of BP in general. It would be a good to compare the BP Ultimate, Shell V Power and Caltex Vortex against each other to see if there is any difference caltex vortex is the better, read a thorough review i found through google comparing petrols, it was a while ago i cannot remember the search words, give it a go and post the link back if someone would! cheers
_________________ it can be fast and cheap,but it wont be reliable |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| dylby1 |
|
|||
|
ive been using 95 for the last couple of tanks, still getting some splutter under acceleration. it has improved but is still not perfect
could it be blocked fuel filter? or is it more likely to be something else? My dad said i may need a new air filter.
_________________ 1993 NCII Fairlane |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| -GAS-MAN- |
|
|||
|
xcabbi wrote: As to the real issue of the fuel here. Did you guys know that the greater the octane number of the fuel, the lower the energy content of the fuel. Octane is just a measure of the controlled burn of the fuel. In order to acheive smoother burn patterns. Burn rates and also energy content are reduced. In perfect world you would make more power from the lower octane fuel cause it has a greater energy content but detonation places an artificial ceiling on the performance potential. Only reason that high octane fuels appear to make mord power is because their high octane rating allows more agressive timing. But of you were to put both fuels in an open jar and light them underneath a container of water. The lower octane fuel would bring the water to the boil quicker. From my research about two years ago, petrol having either 91, 95 or 98 ron AND mon figures (ron = knock resistance, mon = energy content), i would disagree, but i dont know a whole lot on the topic, you seem to know what you are talking about, i have to read up on this once i have some free time. Cheers
_________________ it can be fast and cheap,but it wont be reliable |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| ef_falcon_95 |
|
|||
|
I used to use e10 in my old ef , it sometimes wouldn't start well then went to 95 and it fixed it,
Now in my xr6 I used 95 but I'm getting a j3 so I've started to use 98 and it feels like it goes better and today I filled up with 98 the needle was in between empty and 1/4 it only Cost $70 to fill it so not much more than 95 ,98 was $1.40/L today
_________________ El XR6 Turbo |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| dylby1 |
|
|||
|
i think ill just go 98 and see how that goes lol
_________________ 1993 NCII Fairlane |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| -GAS-MAN- |
|
|||
|
dylby1 wrote: ive been using 95 for the last couple of tanks, still getting some splutter under acceleration. it has improved but is still not perfect could it be blocked fuel filter? or is it more likely to be something else? My dad said i may need a new air filter. i'll bet its the fuel filter. air filter hardly ever needs to be replaced unless its damaged and if its blocked wont cause the sputtering you are talking about If you have time and dont need to drive, order a filter kit for the fords off ebay, fuel, oil, trans and air filter for like $24 delivered from memory. Saving like $100 all up or more, from memory, you better check it out 
_________________ it can be fast and cheap,but it wont be reliable |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| -GAS-MAN- |
|
|||
|
ef_falcon_95 wrote: I used to use e10 in my old ef , it sometimes wouldn't start well then went to 95 and it fixed it, Now in my xr6 I used 95 but I'm getting a j3 so I've started to use 98 and it feels like it goes better and today I filled up with 98 the needle was in between empty and 1/4 it only Cost $70 to fill it so not much more than 95 ,98 was $1.40/L today 68litre tank? Assuming a 14c per litre difference, thats $9.52 a tank, for a car without advanced ignition timing, whats the point? 98octane fuel running in a car tuned for 91 will run worse, im fairly certain. I agree 98 is a much better fuel then 91, lpg is better again, jus a shame lpg is not regulated as heavily as petrols, as its a much better fuel to start with! Safer too!
_________________ it can be fast and cheap,but it wont be reliable |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| ef_falcon_95 |
|
|||
|
-GAS-MAN- wrote: ef_falcon_95 wrote: I used to use e10 in my old ef , it sometimes wouldn't start well then went to 95 and it fixed it, Now in my xr6 I used 95 but I'm getting a j3 so I've started to use 98 and it feels like it goes better and today I filled up with 98 the needle was in between empty and 1/4 it only Cost $70 to fill it so not much more than 95 ,98 was $1.40/L today 68litre tank? Assuming a 14c per litre difference, thats $9.52 a tank, for a car without advanced ignition timing, whats the point? 98octane fuel running in a car tuned for 91 will run worse, im fairly certain. I agree 98 is a much better fuel then 91, lpg is better again, jus a shame lpg is not regulated as heavily as petrols, as its a much better fuel to start with! Safer too! As I said I'm getting a j3 soon ( actually already have it just needs a retune) so just using 98 beforehand, I used 98 in my old ef And had worse economy than 95 so your right about it's pointless using it In a car that doesnt require it
_________________ El XR6 Turbo |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| dylby1 |
|
|||
|
-GAS-MAN- wrote: dylby1 wrote: ive been using 95 for the last couple of tanks, still getting some splutter under acceleration. it has improved but is still not perfect could it be blocked fuel filter? or is it more likely to be something else? My dad said i may need a new air filter. i'll bet its the fuel filter. air filter hardly ever needs to be replaced unless its damaged and if its blocked wont cause the sputtering you are talking about If you have time and dont need to drive, order a filter kit for the fords off ebay, fuel, oil, trans and air filter for like $24 delivered from memory. Saving like $100 all up or more, from memory, you better check it out thanks mate, ill check that out now
_________________ 1993 NCII Fairlane |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| -GAS-MAN- |
|
|||
|
"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."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating) Approximately; just underneath the halfway mark of the entire page. Retarding the ignition timing reduces the tendency to detonate, but also reduces power output and fuel efficiency. (Same article as above) A little below the last quote. -The inverse implies that raising ignition timing improves economy, but we all know that Xcabbi "As to the real issue of the fuel here. Did you guys know that the greater the octane number of the fuel, the lower the energy content of the fuel. Octane is just a measure of the controlled burn of the fuel. In order to acheive smoother burn patterns. Burn rates and also energy content are reduced. In perfect world you would make more power from the lower octane fuel cause it has a greater energy content but detonation places an artificial ceiling on the performance potential. Only reason that high octane fuels appear to make mord power is because their high octane rating allows more agressive timing. But of you were to put both fuels in an open jar and light them underneath a container of water. The lower octane fuel would bring the water to the boil quicker." Wiki's definition has changed since i did my research on hydrogen about 3-4 years ago. It used to state that MON was the amount of energy on the fuel and RON was all about knock resistance, it has clearly changed dramatically, as they are both measures of knock resistance, the entire article makes no reference to the energy levels. My thought the other night was that whilst boiling water, was that the lower ron fuel ignites much more easily as it has less knock resistance. Its not fair to use the same heat and same ignition on both fuels when one is designed to resist that heat. I'd really like to learn more on it if you can direct me in the right direction. http://www.osbornauto.com/octane.htm is a good read on the topic.
_________________ it can be fast and cheap,but it wont be reliable |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 68 guests |
