bought 89 octane
07-17-2005, 10:48 AM
#82
Originally Posted by Spaniard
Octane by itself does not generate the power. But the ECU advances the timing in coordination with the knock sensor to provide the most possible power w/o knock. Higher octane gas= more advance = more power = better mileage.
07-17-2005, 12:46 PM
#83
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 150
Mr Fontaine, did you even read my post. We have high performance vehicles. I even stated the compression ratio. I am not saying anything about power or fuel efficiency. I said 91 octane creates a more efficient burn during combustion. thus making better use of the fuel. This could theoretically lead to better gas mileage. If I were really that concerned with that I would be driving a four banger or (and I cringe at the thought) a hybrid. Increased combustion efficiency does, however, lead to better power. If your ECU detects, preignition, timing is retarded, and output is reduced. Ask your cousin to research our motor and see what he says. Volvos are not Maximas. They were built for pompous *******es that can't drive but want luxury. Volvo technology is irrelevant. And if you rely solely on the belief of one person for your information, regardless of how much you think he knows...Whatever.
07-17-2005, 02:09 PM
#84
Originally Posted by Wetballoon
Mr Fontaine, did you even read my post. We have high performance vehicles. I even stated the compression ratio. I am not saying anything about power or fuel efficiency. I said 91 octane creates a more efficient burn during combustion. thus making better use of the fuel. This could theoretically lead to better gas mileage. If I were really that concerned with that I would be driving a four banger or (and I cringe at the thought) a hybrid. Increased combustion efficiency does, however, lead to better power. If your ECU detects, preignition, timing is retarded, and output is reduced. Ask your cousin to research our motor and see what he says. Volvos are not Maximas. They were built for pompous *******es that can't drive but want luxury. Volvo technology is irrelevant. And if you rely solely on the belief of one person for your information, regardless of how much you think he knows...Whatever.
word
07-17-2005, 02:41 PM
#85
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,883
Originally Posted by chillin014
if people go from 91 to 87 and their car runs like **** then where is the debate?
and honestly i think i'm getting better gas mileage too..i've been getting 250 on a full tank of 87, now im getting over 300.
and honestly i think i'm getting better gas mileage too..i've been getting 250 on a full tank of 87, now im getting over 300.
07-17-2005, 02:52 PM
#86
I won't argue with you, you obviously know my gas mileage better than I do.
Before I was getting around 250-270, depending on how I drove and all those other factors that come into play. When I first got the car I could get 350.
Now I'm getting over 300, even if its barely over.
Its always fluxuated. I've got nothing else to say, I'm not gona fight about it. Like I said, its my gas mileage, who are you to try to tell me about what is going on with my car.
get off my back bro.
Before I was getting around 250-270, depending on how I drove and all those other factors that come into play. When I first got the car I could get 350.
Now I'm getting over 300, even if its barely over.
Its always fluxuated. I've got nothing else to say, I'm not gona fight about it. Like I said, its my gas mileage, who are you to try to tell me about what is going on with my car.
get off my back bro.
07-17-2005, 03:03 PM
#87
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 122
Originally Posted by Frank Fontaine
Why our manuals say 91, who knows. Probably 91 octane is available in another country. Every station that I visit has 87, 89, 93, and sometimes 94. No 91......
07-17-2005, 04:08 PM
#88
Only 91 in California, it seems... 
The JWT ECU really likes the higher octane. (It advances the timing even more than stock, and they specifically say USE 92!!)
When I take it to the track, I dump in about 3-3.5 gallons of 110 race fuel, for approximately 94-95 octane.
The JWT ECU really likes the higher octane. (It advances the timing even more than stock, and they specifically say USE 92!!)
When I take it to the track, I dump in about 3-3.5 gallons of 110 race fuel, for approximately 94-95 octane.
07-17-2005, 08:16 PM
#89
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 21
Why oh why would you put anything but premium ocatane into your car? You're not saving money, you' accumulating issues for the near future. You save money when ure on premium since ure ECU advances timing and makes use of it. I use 94 ocatane and i'm laughing, keeps ure system clean, and ure engine takes less effort to move the car. Oh well.
07-17-2005, 08:26 PM
#90
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by KNYFE
I look at it this way... If there is $.10 diff from reg to premium you are looking at $1.80 for a full 18 gallon tank. Not a big deal to me.
or $3 when gettin premium. just imagine u had gone to mcdonalds 10 times this week instead of 9 
07-17-2005, 09:57 PM
#91
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,190
Originally Posted by Wetballoon
Actually, the owners manual says minimum 91 octane. This is determined by the ignition timing and compression ratio of the engine. Higher octane fuels burn slower allowing for more ignition advance on lower compression while allowing a higher compression to not knock. If I remember correctly, our cars have 11.5:1 compression while the average car is well below 10:1. Ratios this high were common in teh 60's but haven't been nearly as popular since. If you want peak pressure at the correct time during the ignition portion of the stroke without having the ignition retarded, you will use the appropriate octane. If you don't care about combustion efficiency, use whatever, and my car will make better use of it's fuel than yours. If you feel that I am in error, read a book. If you must tell me about it, provide your source (not your cousin that has been working on cars in his garage for 50 years).
07-17-2005, 11:30 PM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 150
Bobo,
I concede that I may be incorrect in stating that we have 11.5: compression. I cannot at this time find a trustworthy source to back up that statement and may have this engine confused with one that I had in a previous car. You have said that I do not have a clue based on that one statement. Is there anything else that I have said that you want to dispute, or does one inaccurate number make a person oblivious to reality. For the record, I feel that I was being generous in my estimation of the compression of most other cars. While trying to locate the correct compression ratio, I did find a very informative octane information Q&A. While this is on Chevron's site, it does not state that higher octane should be used, It explains when and why.
http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...i_octane.shtml
I concede that I may be incorrect in stating that we have 11.5: compression. I cannot at this time find a trustworthy source to back up that statement and may have this engine confused with one that I had in a previous car. You have said that I do not have a clue based on that one statement. Is there anything else that I have said that you want to dispute, or does one inaccurate number make a person oblivious to reality. For the record, I feel that I was being generous in my estimation of the compression of most other cars. While trying to locate the correct compression ratio, I did find a very informative octane information Q&A. While this is on Chevron's site, it does not state that higher octane should be used, It explains when and why.
http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...i_octane.shtml
07-18-2005, 06:26 AM
#94
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,190
Originally Posted by Wetballoon
Bobo,
I concede that I may be incorrect in stating that we have 11.5: compression. I cannot at this time find a trustworthy source to back up that statement and may have this engine confused with one that I had in a previous car. You have said that I do not have a clue based on that one statement. Is there anything else that I have said that you want to dispute, or does one inaccurate number make a person oblivious to reality. For the record, I feel that I was being generous in my estimation of the compression of most other cars. While trying to locate the correct compression ratio, I did find a very informative octane information Q&A. While this is on Chevron's site, it does not state that higher octane should be used, It explains when and why.
http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...i_octane.shtml
I concede that I may be incorrect in stating that we have 11.5: compression. I cannot at this time find a trustworthy source to back up that statement and may have this engine confused with one that I had in a previous car. You have said that I do not have a clue based on that one statement. Is there anything else that I have said that you want to dispute, or does one inaccurate number make a person oblivious to reality. For the record, I feel that I was being generous in my estimation of the compression of most other cars. While trying to locate the correct compression ratio, I did find a very informative octane information Q&A. While this is on Chevron's site, it does not state that higher octane should be used, It explains when and why.
http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...i_octane.shtml
By the way most of the muscle cars of the 60s were only about 10.25 or 10.5 to 1.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CAN-Toronto 97 SE BLACK w/ BLACK. PART OUT.
worldwiderecognized
4th Generation Classifieds (1995-1999)
2
09-24-2015 06:56 PM
JoshG
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
51
09-21-2015 10:41 PM
Violator
4th Generation Classifieds (1995-1999)
1
09-09-2015 10:14 AM
sdotcarter
6th Generation Maxima (2004-2008)
2
09-02-2015 09:53 PM