Angelus Errare
Banned
holy crap, I think something died in my sisters car, it smells like ammonia and rotting asshole. Car hasn't been used in a month and its so terrible.
what do gaf?
lmao!
$80 says an animal crawled in and died somewhere.
holy crap, I think something died in my sisters car, it smells like ammonia and rotting asshole. Car hasn't been used in a month and its so terrible.
what do gaf?
The E85 tune makes 200WHP. Very cool stuff.
My test drive of the BRZ was a lot more favorable than the FR-S. The BR-Z is without a doubt better driving - the steering is tighter, the suspension is firmer, and there is far less body roll than the FR-S. On top of that, the interior is leagues prettier to look at. Still, the electric steering and those tires need to be thrown away, and the clutch pedal needs to be firmed up a tad, as well. And of course, I'm still caught up on the power delivery.
We don't have this ethanol stuff here. I use 98 octane but I'm not sure if there is a tune for that right now :-/
Edit:
This is silly. Apparently the 98 Ron stuff available here is what's recommended by Subaru anyways.
Yeah, depending on where you live, your octane rating system is likely different than the US'. Our 91 is Europe's 98, I believe. 93 in the US is generally the highest octane.
Yeah, depending on where you live, your octane rating system is likely different than the US'. Our 91 is Europe's 98, I believe. 93 in the US is generally the highest octane.
Has there ever been a car that uses "mid-grade" gasoline? Only use I can think of is if you've got an older car with a carburetor out of whack or something. I suppose it's also better to use it than regular on a car that recommends premium.
Modern day engines will see considerable increase in MPG when using premium over regular.
I've tested this myself (thanks Hurricane Sandy!) when all we had was shit gas in NYC for 2 weeks, and my A6 3.0T ran like piss and averaged 4MPG worse than on regular. Same went for my mother in-law's plane jane 2007 Camry (3MPG worse) and my father in law's 2007 Toyota Prius (2MPG worse).
The money saved in cheap fuel is negated with the poorer fuel efficiency. In the case of the Audi, I actually lost something like $10+ by filling up regular (my driving range was 60 miles worse, which equates to about $10 of gasoline).
If a car is tuned for higher octane, of course things will be worse with a lower grade. But you should always use the lowest octane your engine is tuned for, as higher octane gas is just harder to ignite, and all the extra additives don't necessarily make up for it.
ALSO in some places, regular has ethanol, where premium doesn't have it mixed in. Ethanol gas will always get you worse mileage because ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, although it has a higher octane rating.
If a car is tuned for higher octane, of course things will be worse with a lower grade. But you should always use the lowest octane your engine is tuned for, as higher octane gas is just harder to ignite, and all the extra additives don't necessarily make up for it.
In the case of the Camry and Prius, that's just not true.
So in the absence of scientific testing, butt dyno sez?
I hope you know I'm not trying to pick on you, and I don't have a beef with you, but the things you say...!
So in the absence of scientific testing, butt dyno sez?
I hope you know I'm not trying to pick on you, and I don't have a beef with you, but the things you say...!
How is a 40-60 mile range extension remotely a BUTT DYNO equation to you? Talk about things people say, Jesus. Do you even read?
That's actually beyond the scope of anecdotal, as my driving habits and roads were the same all throughout and every car consistently averaged a SIGNIFICANT improvement in range and fuel efficiency. They're rather accurate evaluations and observations, actually.
What exactly have you done to prove this wrong? Tell someone on a forum that they're wrong without any basis?
It's the definition of anecdotal.
"my driving habits and roads were the same all throughout"
oh ok. That's settled then. You could have your results published in a journal with controls that good.
So results that can be achieved repeatedly are anecdotal?
I use 87 and get 340 miles.
I use 93 and get 380 miles.
I use 93 and get 380 miles again.
I use 87 and get 340 miles.
That's anecdotal? That's pretty consistent. I'm not saying every car will react the same way, a 1980s Olds certainly won't. But every experience of mine across a wide array of cars and motors has proven to me time and time again that premium is more efficient and it does add more power.
Results that can be achieved repeatedly are anecdotal?
I use 87 and get 340 miles.
I use 93 and get 380 miles.
I use 93 and get 380 miles again.
I use 87 and get 340 miles.
That's pretty consistent. I'm not saying every car will react the same way, a 1980s Olds certainly won't. But every experience of mine across a wide array of cars and motors has proven to me time and time again that premium is more efficient and it does add more power.
Edit: Good edit. Add yet another car that benefits from premium, despite being designed to run 87.
10 seconds of googling provided this:
http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtes...ather-mpg-test---regular-vs-premium.html#more
It supports what you claim about premium giving better mileage, and the cost per mile is still actually lower
I think you are right but it is still not a very big difference and not very many trials. It's possible that you subconsciously drive differently knowing that you have 93 octane in your tank.
Premium octane burns slower, regular burns much faster. Thus premium lasts longer, and maximizes power with every spark. Increasing efficiency as a result. That much is pure science.
Anyway, I thought engines have anti knock sensors and they do correct their timings to compensate for those when using lower octane fuel.
That makes it so that it won't hurt the engine, but the engine still won't run optimally. If it did run just as well, why would they bother with requiring premium in any vehicle?
The only thing about higher octane fuel is that it detonates at higher pressures/temperatures without spark. Regular/Premium have the same energy density.
Then why do we hear claims of better/improved efficiency when using higher octane fuel? If both types of gasoline have the same energy content shouldn't the engine produce the same power after correcting the combustion time?
I really hate marketing.
Stupidity by Nissan
I can't even deal with how abjectly moronic a group of individuals has to be to come to an agreement that this is a good idea.
But if both premium and ultra gasoline have the same amount of energy and the only difference is the pressure required for combustion, shouldn't they both release the same amount of energy when ignited at the same point in a cycle?
It's been a while since I've done chemistry but shouldn't the fuel which combust at lower pressure burn faster or is it backwards? (Higher octane burns faster/cleaner at higher pressure?)
If it's the later, then higher octane fuel does produce more energy.
Then why do we hear claims of better/improved efficiency when using higher octane fuel? If both types of gasoline have the same energy content shouldn't the engine produce the same power after correcting the combustion time?
I really hate marketing.
Don't look at an engine as just burning fuel for energy, how much power is developed depends on how all the bits and pieces affect the combustion cycle. I don't know the details well enough off hand to describe it, but look up the otto cycle if you want to spend some time with it. I will say that the amount of power developed is dependent, in part, on the compression ratio, and a higher compression ratio is allowed with higher octane fuels.
What in the fucking fuck? Why?
Is this some sort of sick joke?
First of all, G is their most popular car model. You've effectively confused every single owner of the car into thinking them that the Q50 is some sort of high-end car, and because it sounds higher than G37, it must be much more expensive.
It's just stupid. I understand that at one point the Q45 was their bread and butter sedan, but holy shit, this is just an awful idea.
That said, the old nomenclature was stupid & senseless. It's letters & numbers. At least this way the models are named consistently. But I much prefer names. Using letters & numbers is lazy.
Hey guys what's the difference between the Queen of England and a BMW? With the BMW, the pricks are on the inside! Wait I uh.... how does that joke go again?
Nevermind. I'm pretty sure BMW has given up on the 1 Series, it's just plain ugly.
BMW M5 E60 vs BMW M5 F10 Drag race video. The old M5 gets slaughtered in that 2nd race. It's not even close. I get so caught up in these videos, I end up watching like 10 at a time.
Okay, so are Infiniti and Nissan both doing that Lexus spindle looking grille thing now?
I think you are right but it is still not a very big difference and not very many trials.
Latest G...er Q renderings:
The new 1 series makes that one look good
Infiniti actually beat Lexus to the punch when they facelifted the FX.
I just came back from another round of hooning about in the Volvo S60 R-Design.
What a great car. It's pretty much the ultimate sleeper. Audi and BMW need to really watch themselves, because if Volvo can nail a car like this and legitimately compete against the S4 and 335is, I absolutely cannot imagine what they'd have in store for the follow-up. The previous S60 R was quick, but nowhere near as quick as this - thanks to copious amounts of torque, 0-60 can be hit in as little as 5.1 seconds. But it's not even the straightline prowess that impressed me the most. I kept looking for more and more curves to toss this thing into.
Spectacular stuff all around. It's not perfect, obviously. But I will provide a full review in due time.