Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Autos - Cars > Nissan - Maxima > Re: Terrible mi...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 12 of 28 Topic 4441 of 4528
Post > Topic >>

Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE

by Ralph Hertle <ralph.hertle@[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Mar 17, 2008 at 05:29 PM

Dave:

David Geesaman wrote:
[...]
> I've done two years of serious research tracking my fuel economy.  I 
> used only 93 octane for several years before switching to 89.  My fuel 
> economy did not change at all.
> 
> I imagine under very heavy load there is a difference, but for routine 
> driving you will not see anything.
> 
> Dave


The higher octane rated, or equivalent to chemically pure octane, has no 
benefit to power at all. Nor is there a difference in the quality of the 
product. The octane rating numbers have nothing to do with quality or 
power produced.

Higher octane rated gasoline has one primary purpose in the internal 
combustion piston engine. The higher rated fuel burns slower.

If you have a higher compression engine, or that achieves higher mass 
charge and cylinder pressures due to super/turbo charging, the lower 
rated gasolines burn far too fast.  In fact the sudden burning can 
seriously damage the pistons by melting and predetonation. The piston 
tops can be hammered into dents by pre-ignition. The higher octane rated 
fuels burn more slowly and evenly, and the ignition timing may be set to 
ignite in advance of TDC producing a longer burn in faster revving
engines.

If you burned septane or heptane in a modern engine with more than a 9:1 
compression ratio there would be a lot of pre-ignition detonation, and 
that would be quite audible as pinging or knocking. The method of 
slowing combustion with those fuels is to retard the ignition. Later 
ignition sparks reduces pre-ignition, however, the fuel is not burned so 
efficiently.

The computer makes the ignition delays, and other changes to induction 
timing and fuel metering, etc., and you may not be aware of the changes 
made to the engine functions to avoid the knocking.

Using low octane fuel in a high compression engine without a computer 
will result in knocking. The engine will not be using the fuel as 
efficiently and producing as much power with the low octane rated fuel.

The manual states the minimum octane for that engine. Its not a matter 
of quality or fuel economy; its a matter of the durability of the soft 
aluminum engine pistons over time. The advantage is with the high 
compression ratio. That creates higher cylinder pressures, greater 
charge and more power.  If the engine runs with the ignition retarded 
pressure are lower and the power produced is less.

Its a matter of safety. A melted, holed or dented piston top can wreck 
the engine. You may not be able to hear the sounds of pre-ignition that 
the computer knock sensor detects. Stay with the recommended anti-knock 
fuels. Formerly, the chemical called tetraethyl lead was used to raise 
the octane rating, however, that shouldn't be used in engines that have 
catalytic converters. Fortunately, the engine designers built in the 
computers, and that makes it possible to use lower rated fuels. If so, 
stay off the throttle and minimize the charge in the cylinders to avoid 
knocking. Mixing rated fuels of the same type is Ok, until you run the 
proper rated fuel.

A higher rated fuel than what the manual recommends has no effect on 
power or fuel economy. Nor does it have any additional quality. Higher 
rated fuels than necessary are simply money wasted.

Ralph Hertle
 




 28 Posts in Topic:
Terrible mileage 99 GLE
aspasia   2008-03-11 01:41:21 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
codifus <codifus@[EMAI  2008-03-11 14:32:41 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
aspasia   2008-03-11 17:17:10 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
codifus <codifus@[EMAI  2008-03-12 07:06:14 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
codifus <codifus@[EMAI  2008-03-12 07:08:55 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
codifus <codifus@[EMAI  2008-03-12 07:58:02 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
skanesh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]  2008-05-07 17:54:05 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
codifus <codifus@[EMAI  2008-05-09 09:12:35 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
aspasia   2008-03-13 17:54:52 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
Codifus <codifus@[EMAI  2008-03-13 21:55:07 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
David Geesaman <dgeesa  2008-03-13 22:09:36 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
Ralph Hertle <ralph.he  2008-03-17 17:29:09 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
David Geesaman <dgeesa  2008-03-17 17:58:44 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
Codifus <codifus@[EMAI  2008-03-17 18:58:00 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
Ralph Hertle <ralph.he  2008-03-18 12:28:36 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
David Geesaman <dgeesa  2008-03-18 17:36:59 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
Codifus <codifus@[EMAI  2008-03-18 20:03:13 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
David Geesaman <dgeesa  2008-03-18 20:45:07 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
Ralph Hertle <ralph.he  2008-03-21 17:01:09 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
Codifus <codifus@[EMAI  2008-03-22 23:29:24 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
Ralph Hertle <ralph.he  2008-03-23 05:42:29 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
Ralph Hertle <ralph.he  2008-03-23 05:46:45 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
George <not.real@[EMAI  2008-05-02 22:56:12 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
aspasia   2008-05-08 19:57:05 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
aspasia   2008-05-08 15:49:24 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
codifus <codifus@[EMAI  2008-05-09 09:11:22 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
aspasia   2008-05-09 12:36:41 
Re: Terrible mileage 99 GLE
aspasia   2008-05-09 12:33:13 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Sat Sep 6 11:59:59 CDT 2008.