The OTHER Kevin in San Diego wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 21:45:15 -0500, Ford Warrior
> <fordwarrior@fordwarrior.com> wrote:
>
>
>>1995 E250 cargo van 4.9L inline 6 with 176k miles here. Was just wondering
>>if there would be any advantage or performance gain to be had using premium
>>(93) vs plus (89) with this engine. I had always thought to use plus in a
>>six cylinder and premium in a v8 but have been curious about this. Any
>>thoughts?
>
>
> Running high octane fuel will not net you anything but a lighter
> wallet. High octane does not equal more power. In fact, the higher
> the octane number, the slower the fuel will burn... Stick with the
> 87.
Not true, 9 to 1 and better compression is no place for 87 octane. It is
in owner manual for sales reasons and the only reason some engine have
knoc senxors it for 87 octane compatibilty, not for emissions ans every
time ECM retards the spark to control knock, it is reducing power and
MPG plain and simple. I use plus or better in all my cars and have for
years. Even my wife 2000 4cyl Cherokee gains about 2 mpg in city/urban
driving with 89 or better gas run better and smoother too. I have a 89
4x4 burb that I have had since new and now has 176K miles on it and it
will get 19mpg or better on highway with A/C and 93 in tank and runs
great and never pings no matter what. Long ago the best it every did on
87 was about 16 once without A/C and usually 14mpg with A/C on on
highway and tended to knock and have a lot less power on hills too. It
has not had a tank of 87 for many years now. Personally I think 87
should be taken off the market because it is a through back to the days
on 8 to 1 compression in the 70's. Rhet should just have 89 and 93 or so
and just two stocks instead of three would reduce the price on 89 too
and allow detriot to biuld cars with higher compression for better
thermodynamic effieceny and better MPG.
--
-----------------
www.thesnoman.com
Linear Mode
