I just filled up my car with the usual 98 octane and added one of those octane boosters to make it 101 octane. They results are very noticeable!!! The car just wants to go by its self almost and its so much more pully through the gears. 3rd is now seriously good fun!! I cant imagine what this effect would be like in a 3.2!! There is an octane booster to make it 104 octane..... should i dare it!?!?!?!?
I've always been a bit dubious of these things, but any details on the product?
As said previously, 'octane' or RON (Research Octane Number) is as rating of the fuels ability to resist ignition by compression - it is not to do with specific 'power output'.
With 100RON being the equivalent of a 100% pure iso-octane fuel. The only way to get over 100RON is with additives - It's probably tetra-ethyl lead which is the 'lead' they used to put in leaded fuel. So you're just making your own super 4-star! Cool!
However, modern ECU's will ****** ignition if 'knock' is detected, thus compensating for lower grade fuels. (82RON in the US anyone?)
We know the ECU will ****** ignition for poorer fuels but will it advance ignition beyond the 'standard' 97RON level for which it is programmed? Anyone know about this?
Down with the environmentalists!!
As said previously, 'octane' or RON (Research Octane Number) is as rating of the fuels ability to resist ignition by compression - it is not to do with specific 'power output'.
With 100RON being the equivalent of a 100% pure iso-octane fuel. The only way to get over 100RON is with additives - It's probably tetra-ethyl lead which is the 'lead' they used to put in leaded fuel. So you're just making your own super 4-star! Cool!
However, modern ECU's will ****** ignition if 'knock' is detected, thus compensating for lower grade fuels. (82RON in the US anyone?)
We know the ECU will ****** ignition for poorer fuels but will it advance ignition beyond the 'standard' 97RON level for which it is programmed? Anyone know about this?
Down with the environmentalists!!
I'm very familiar with octane boosters as a result of racing highly tuned two-strokes.
Silkolene's pro-boost was a permanent addition to my toolkit.
However,that was only required as a result of skimming the heads and increasing the compression ratio.
It avoided detonation,that's all.
In my opinion,any claims of increased performance,just because of higher octane fuel (and no other mods) should be taken with a massive pinch of salt.
A 'placebo effect' is possible I suppose,in that if you expect to feel a difference,you will.
I've also seen tests in motorbike magazines of things that you drop in your fuel and they claim more power and increased efficiency.
The tests revealed little/no difference.
I seem to remember the biggest measured difference,in engines that produce over 160bhp/litre (far higher state of tune than most cars) was under 1 bhp,which they said could have been down to a change in atmospheric pressure as much as anything else.
Silkolene's pro-boost was a permanent addition to my toolkit.
However,that was only required as a result of skimming the heads and increasing the compression ratio.
It avoided detonation,that's all.
In my opinion,any claims of increased performance,just because of higher octane fuel (and no other mods) should be taken with a massive pinch of salt.
A 'placebo effect' is possible I suppose,in that if you expect to feel a difference,you will.
I've also seen tests in motorbike magazines of things that you drop in your fuel and they claim more power and increased efficiency.
The tests revealed little/no difference.
I seem to remember the biggest measured difference,in engines that produce over 160bhp/litre (far higher state of tune than most cars) was under 1 bhp,which they said could have been down to a change in atmospheric pressure as much as anything else.
Do you read Evo bowfer? From this month on they have started to RR the cars they are testing to prove the claimed figures. The difference a tank of Optimax (they didn;t state optimax just a high oct fule at 105p per litre so I have assumed that it was optimax!) made to one car was 19bhp on the rollers. A small percentage gain but still decent none the less.
And yes I know RR figures shuold be taken with a pinch of salt!
[ QUOTE ]
Do you read Evo bowfer? From this month on they have started to RR the cars they are testing to prove the claimed figures. The difference a tank of Optimax (they didn;t state optimax just a high oct fule at 105p per litre so I have assumed that it was optimax!) made to one car was 19bhp on the rollers. A small percentage gain but still decent none the less.
And yes I know RR figures shuold be taken with a pinch of salt!
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm really not into cars that much at all,so I don't read the likes of Evo (lucky if I read any car press,bikes are my thing).
That's some improvement though and anyone would notice 19bhp,even on a 300bhp car.
It's possible that particular car had 'something about it' that meant it was able to take advantage of the better fuel.
Could have been it's compression ratio was higher than normal or it's timing was advanced a bit.
It wouldn't be the first time a press car has been 'tinkered with' to give a favourable report.
Do you read Evo bowfer? From this month on they have started to RR the cars they are testing to prove the claimed figures. The difference a tank of Optimax (they didn;t state optimax just a high oct fule at 105p per litre so I have assumed that it was optimax!) made to one car was 19bhp on the rollers. A small percentage gain but still decent none the less.
And yes I know RR figures shuold be taken with a pinch of salt!
[/ QUOTE ]
I'm really not into cars that much at all,so I don't read the likes of Evo (lucky if I read any car press,bikes are my thing).
That's some improvement though and anyone would notice 19bhp,even on a 300bhp car.
It's possible that particular car had 'something about it' that meant it was able to take advantage of the better fuel.
Could have been it's compression ratio was higher than normal or it's timing was advanced a bit.
It wouldn't be the first time a press car has been 'tinkered with' to give a favourable report.
Well it was a high perf car so yes more thna likely it was supposed to be run on a high octane fule and wasn't - it was 362 - 281bhp jump, small percentage but decent enough in numbers if you know what I mean!
Some modern cars allow the ignition a "fee hand" so to speak, to "chase" the knock curve of the engine, so maybe it is better, Optimax in my 2.0FSI is very noticeable, optimax in my bike isn't but I use it all the same as it has no "knock" protection, so better safe than sorry
Hi guys, I also know a lot about this issue as I have modified a number of performance cars in the past. What you will find with any modern ECU which has been stated is that it will advance and ****** the ignition by a number of degrees from standard depending on the octane of the fuel. So if you put in Optimax (98 ron) and your cars standard ecu is set for 95 ron then it should improve the performance but only as far as the ECU will allow which is normally about 6 degrees. The problem comes when you only add in 95 on your next fill up and the engine starts to 'knock' or detonation as it is otherwise know. The ecu will see this and start to ****** the ignition back to the 95 ron setting but you may have damaged the engine in doing so.
The next thing is people who put Optimax in their car when their ecu can't even learn the new fuel rating, they may think their car is faster put it's all in their mind.
If your car does not have a self learning ecu then the best thimg if you want more power is a remap, and stick to the fuel that the map was created from.
Marc
with a Turbo engine the ECU can allow more boost (effectively increasing the compression ratio) as well as advanced ignition for a higher RON fuel giving even better gains than an N/A engine.
REVO do advanced re-maps for turbo engines run on 98RON - giving substantial gains over the regular re-maps.
Bowfer - you're right on the bike front, I used to spanner for a friend who raced various supercup 125 & 250 series, then 600 supersport, but then compression / ignition was fixed. That was 10 yrs ago though. don't know if modern bikes have knock detectors (probably) but my 1993 sapphire cosworth did, so its been around a while....
REVO do advanced re-maps for turbo engines run on 98RON - giving substantial gains over the regular re-maps.
Bowfer - you're right on the bike front, I used to spanner for a friend who raced various supercup 125 & 250 series, then 600 supersport, but then compression / ignition was fixed. That was 10 yrs ago though. don't know if modern bikes have knock detectors (probably) but my 1993 sapphire cosworth did, so its been around a while....
Knock sensors are just emerging on some bikes now (BMW), most haven't got them yet. A couple of years back now I used to engineer a Porsche GT2 full factory race car, the bosch ECU on that used to follow the knock curve, advancing all the time untill it heard the ping then backing off slightly, never had any detonation marks in that, engine used to make 555bhp on two 34.7mm restrictors on the turbo inlets, and 640bhp running "open"
The US octane number is an average of the RON and MON values. In the UK people always talk of the RON value. The MON value is about 10 point lower than the RON value.
The injected Blackbird engine had knock detectors - the ECU advanced timing to the point of knocking. I don't know if it was "set" to a limit determined by 95 RON fuel. More likely it was to maximise engine potential across a number of markets where fuel quality varied.
My first instinct is to take the mickey out of Cruse as we all (should) know that higher fuel ratings are only needed in engines running higher compression - and FSi engines deliberately get around the need for higher compression by improving swirl in the chamber etc for better burn - but maybe there's something in this if the management system advances timing to the point of knocking (every millisecond or so - I wouldn't worry about the learning curve being so slow as to damage the engine with lower octane fuel afterwards!!)? What engine do you drive cruse?
My first instinct is to take the mickey out of Cruse as we all (should) know that higher fuel ratings are only needed in engines running higher compression - and FSi engines deliberately get around the need for higher compression by improving swirl in the chamber etc for better burn - but maybe there's something in this if the management system advances timing to the point of knocking (every millisecond or so - I wouldn't worry about the learning curve being so slow as to damage the engine with lower octane fuel afterwards!!)? What engine do you drive cruse?
I would be very surprised to achieve 101 RON with just a octain booster.
Even a whole bottle would only add approx 1 RON.
after adding it the ECU would take a little while to Live map the engine to suit and then....... you fill up with normal 98 RON thats when the trouble starts.
If you go there.. stay there, i remeber the days of my Impreza Type R , imported it had to have 99 - 100 RON to run properly ( and not deternate)
So had to put a whole bottel of octaine boost on every full tank of optimax.
I then had the car re mapped to run on just optimax, i lost a few BHP but saved alot of money /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Remeber the days of 2 star and 4 star. ??
Even a whole bottle would only add approx 1 RON.
after adding it the ECU would take a little while to Live map the engine to suit and then....... you fill up with normal 98 RON thats when the trouble starts.
If you go there.. stay there, i remeber the days of my Impreza Type R , imported it had to have 99 - 100 RON to run properly ( and not deternate)
So had to put a whole bottel of octaine boost on every full tank of optimax.
I then had the car re mapped to run on just optimax, i lost a few BHP but saved alot of money /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
Remeber the days of 2 star and 4 star. ??
