93 Octane or not

[akirby]

You're the only one who mentioned "huge" in any context.

 

Everyone agrees that the increase in mpg would not pay for the added cost of premium so it's not a cost advantage. And whether it's worth the increase in performance - whether real or imagined - is a subjective personal opinion regardless of what the raw data shows.

 

If the datalog said timing was being advanced but you didn't feel it then who cares? Or vice versa?

 

I'm sure some people could feel a 3% hp bump and some people couldn't feel a 10% bump. It all depends on the person.

[jeff711981]

You're the only one who mentioned "huge" in any context.

 

Everyone agrees that the increase in mpg would not pay for the added cost of premium so it's not a cost advantage. And whether it's worth the increase in performance - whether real or imagined - is a subjective personal opinion regardless of what the raw data shows.

 

If the datalog said timing was being advanced but you didn't feel it then who cares? Or vice versa?

 

I'm sure some people could feel a 3% hp bump and some people couldn't feel a 10% bump. It all depends on the person.

No, I'm not;

 

[akirby]

No, I'm not;

 

 

To be fair he said it makes a huge difference in the torque curve which none of us can say for sure without actually seeing the dyno runs.

 

And again - what is huge to one person may be tiny to someone else.

[jeff711981]

 

To be fair he said it makes a huge difference in the torque curve which none of us can say for sure without actually seeing the dyno runs.

 

And again - what is huge to one person may be tiny to someone else.

Well, it appears we can argue semantics all day. If 3% is huge to anyone here, I suggest they look up the definition of the word, as they've clearly misunderstood what it really means.

 

And again - if someone believes I'm way off base and 93 octane really does make a big difference in the area under the torque curve even if the increase in peak is only 3%, I'll say the same thing I said in my first reply - show me the data.

[akirby]

The only way to objectively quantify the improvement is to do dyno runs with 87 and 93 and look at the torque curve. Since nobody is likely to do that can we just agree to disagree on the relative subjective improvement?

[indyZrider]

some people just dont get it.....if all i have to do is put premium in my car to gain 10 ponies at the crank or wherever plus the added benefit of mileage gain (which premium does) its a done deal.....people spend 250 on an intake to gain around 10 ponies.....so $1.50 more for a tank of gas to net what some spend 250 bucks for is a no brainer to me....the best part is you havent posted your "data logging" to debunk the so called myth in the Ford manual.....some tards just always feel the need to be right.....especially on the internet....but hey what dos it matter to me...i have money to burn and if the extra $1.50 a tank is hurting your wallet maybe you should have bought a used focus or something more in your price range.....Ford has undoubtedly already done the "dyno runs" and thats how they post up their stats in the manual....you think they just sit around all day playing with a rubix cube and then fart numbers out for the manual.....no they put these motors and everything else through the ringer before they release them into the real world....i would know....my whole family works for Ford or Roush.....from CAD designing the vehicles to NVH testing out in Arizona to the SEMA events in Las Vegas.....but i guess youre gonna come with some stupid shit like "the people in your family that build the shit dont know wtf they are talking about either" post your data logs that disprove the what the manual states or STFU about what you think you know....cheers!

Edited December 2, 2014 by indyZrider

[drolds1]

some people just dont get it.....if all i have to do is put premium in my car to gain 10 ponies at the crank or wherever plus the added benefit of mileage gain (which premium does) its a done deal.....people spend 250 on an intake to gain around 10 ponies.....so $1.50 more for a tank of gas to net what some spend 250 bucks for is a no brainer to me....the best part is you havent posted your "data logging" to debunk the so called myth in the Ford manual.....some tards just always feel the need to be right.....especially on the internet....but hey what dos it matter to me...i have money to burn and if the extra $1.50 a tank is hurting your wallet maybe you should have bought a used focus or something more in your price range.....Ford has undoubtedly already done the "dyno runs" and thats how they post up their stats in the manual....you think they just sit around all day playing with a rubix cube and then fart numbers out for the manual.....no they put these motors and everything else through the ringer before they release them into the real world....i would know....my whole family works for Ford or Roush.....from CAD designing the vehicles to NVH testing out in Arizona to the SEMA events in Las Vegas.....but i guess youre gonna come with some stupid shit like "the people in your family that build the shit dont know wtf they are talking about either" post your data logs that disprove the what the manual states or STFU about what you think you know....cheers!

Easy there, big fella.

[jeff711981]

some people just dont get it.....if all i have to do is put premium in my car to gain 10 ponies at the crank or wherever plus the added benefit of mileage gain (which premium does) its a done deal.....people spend 250 on an intake to gain around 10 ponies.....so $1.50 more for a tank of gas to net what some spend 250 bucks for is a no brainer to me....the best part is you havent posted your "data logging" to debunk the so called myth in the Ford manual.....some tards just always feel the need to be right.....especially on the internet....but hey what dos it matter to me...i have money to burn and if the extra $1.50 a tank is hurting your wallet maybe you should have bought a used focus or something more in your price range.....Ford has undoubtedly already done the "dyno runs" and thats how they post up their stats in the manual....you think they just sit around all day playing with a rubix cube and then fart numbers out for the manual.....no they put these motors and everything else through the ringer before they release them into the real world....i would know....my whole family works for Ford or Roush.....from CAD designing the vehicles to NVH testing out in Arizona to the SEMA events in Las Vegas.....but i guess youre gonna come with some stupid shit like "the people in your family that build the shit dont know wtf they are talking about either" post your data logs that disprove the what the manual states or STFU about what you think you know....cheers!

Give me an email address. I'll send you a 5 MB zip file with the most recent datalog I've collected. Has about an hours worth of data in it and there's only one instance of timing being retarded by 1 degree for a fraction of a second.

 

You can download SCT's software here if you don't want to graph the CSV yourself...

 

I'll even collect a brand new one tonight.

 

http://sctflash.com/software/LiveLink_Gen-II.exe

 

Nevermind the email address - here ya go... for anyone to look at... http://www.filedropper.com/datalog10

Edited December 2, 2014 by jeff711981

[akirby]

Or we can just agree to disagree and move on. Continuing to argue is pointless.

[jeff711981]

Or we can just agree to disagree and move on. Continuing to argue is pointless.

Is this not a discussion forum? Can we not discuss the benefits of different octane levels here?

 

The original post was a question about whether 93 octane provided a real life performance improvement over 87. All I'm doing is attempting to answer that with actual data. If others can't keep it together and want to tell people with differing views to STFU, that's not my fault, nor my problem and I think we'd all appreciate it if a moderator dealt with them specifically and allowed actual valid discussions to proceed.

 

However, if this type of discussion is not valued here, just say the word, or lock the thread and I'll move along to a site which doesn't discourage its members from having differing opinions and providing evidence to support their opinions.

[akirby]

Discussion is fine and indyZrider was already warned.

 

The discussion was whether it works that way on the 2.0L EB engines since that is what Ford advertises. Since you don't have a 2.0LEB then your datalogs are meaningless to that discussion.

 

Unless you have data on the 2.0L EB torque curves or PCM timing settings on both 87 and 93 octane then it's pointless to continue arguing about it.

 

Ford says there is a difference. You don't necessarily believe it. Without hard data it can be neither proved or disproved.

Some people say there is a noticeable difference. You don't necessarily believe it. It's all subjective.

 

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[Waldo]

Has about an hours worth of data in it and there's only one instance of timing being retarded by 1 degree for a fraction of a second.

 

 

In the interest of helpful discussion, I'd like to understand why you think that means anything. If you're running 87, 89, 93 or 103 octane, the computer will adjust the timing to a point where it doesn't need to retard. Once it starts running fairly stable, you would never see any retarding no matter what octane, but the timing would be at a different point.

What I'm saying, is showing it's not pulling timing doesn't mean anything. The software is designed to actively search for higher octane fuel and advance timing as far as it can. That algorithm may be under an entirely different set of parameters that you're not looking at.

[jeff711981]

 

In the interest of helpful discussion, I'd like to understand why you think that means anything. If you're running 87, 89, 93 or 103 octane, the computer will adjust the timing to a point where it doesn't need to retard. Once it starts running fairly stable, you would never see any retarding no matter what octane, but the timing would be at a different point.

What I'm saying, is showing it's not pulling timing doesn't mean anything. The software is designed to actively search for higher octane fuel and advance timing as far as it can. That algorithm may be under an entirely different set of parameters that you're not looking at.

I don't think we're supposed to talk about this anymore, but I'm curious... how does the software "actively search for higher octane fuel?" Are you saying there's a sensor somewhere in the fuel system that can detect the fuel's resistance to self-ignition, other than the knock sensor, of course, but that's not "in" the fuel system.

[ajberezin]

Also how does a higher octane fule give you better mileage? Does it burn more producing a high hp?

[jeff711981]

Also how does a higher octane fule give you better mileage? Does it burn more producing a high hp?

Its resistance to detonation allows a leaner air/fuel mixture at cruising conditions as well as more optimum combustion at higher engine speeds where there is less time (due to the higher engine speed) for the fuel to burn before the piston finishes the compression stroke and begins the exhaust stroke.

[akirby]

I don't think we're supposed to talk about this anymore, but I'm curious... how does the software "actively search for higher octane fuel?" Are you saying there's a sensor somewhere in the fuel system that can detect the fuel's resistance to self-ignition, other than the knock sensor, of course, but that's not "in" the fuel system.

 

It's programmed to advance the timing as much as possible up to the design limit or until it detects knock. What Waldo is saying is that once it finds the optimal advance it's not going to continue advancing it. It will keep it advanced until the fuel changes - that's why you wouldn't see constant knocking.

[jeff711981]

 

It's programmed to advance the timing as much as possible up to the design limit or until it detects knock. What Waldo is saying is that once it finds the optimal advance it's not going to continue advancing it. It will keep it advanced until the fuel changes - that's why you wouldn't see constant knocking.

How would it know if the fuel changed if it doesn't continually advance timing until knock occurs?

 

The method you stated works fine assuming the octane of the fuel will only ever decrease. But what if I've been running 87 for months and switch to 93? If it doesn't keep advancing timing until knock occurs, how would it ever know I put 93 in it?

Edited December 3, 2014 by jeff711981

[kegobeer]

As I understand it, there are a number of sensors that send information to the ECU, like temperature, load, knock, etc, and all that data is used by the ECU and then compared to existing map data, and based on the results the timing is advanced/retarded. This computation happens many times each second, and therefore timing is constantly being adjusted.

[jeff711981]

As I understand it, there are a number of sensors that send information to the ECU, like temperature, load, knock, etc, and all that data is used by the ECU and then compared to existing map data, and based on the results the timing is advanced/retarded. This computation happens many times each second, and therefore timing is constantly being adjusted.

Correct. But if the engine NEVER knocks, that means it's NEVER pushing the limits of what the fuel can handle.

[akirby]

Correct. But if the engine NEVER knocks, that means it's NEVER pushing the limits of what the fuel can handle.

 

It's far more complicated than you're trying to make it out to be. Besides - the only datalog YOU have is from your 1.6L ecoboost which may not even employ this strategy.

 

I mean - this isn't black magic. Lots of mfrs employ this strategy especially on their luxury vehicles where premium isn't a problem. You program in maximum advance and back it off as needed based on the fuel. The only difference is how they advertise the power rating and whether they say premium is required or simply recommended. Ford chooses to recommend 87 but says you get more power from premium whereas others say premium is recommended but you can get by with regular.

 

So basically you're questioning something that several mfrs do and have been doing for years.

[kegobeer]

Correct. But if the engine NEVER knocks, that means it's NEVER pushing the limits of what the fuel can handle.

The ECU constantly increases timing until knock happens, then decreases it until it disappears, so that the best timing can be achieved based on the stored data map. Happens over and over, basically a never ending process. That's why tuning an engine is necessary to achieve the best performance, because stock tunes are very mild.

[kegobeer]

 

It's far more complicated than you're trying to make it out to be. Besides - the only datalog YOU have is from your 1.6L ecoboost which may not even employ this strategy.

 

I mean - this isn't black magic. Lots of mfrs employ this strategy especially on their luxury vehicles where premium isn't a problem. You program in maximum advance and back it off as needed based on the fuel. The only difference is how they advertise the power rating and whether they say premium is required or simply recommended. Ford chooses to recommend 87 but says you get more power from premium whereas others say premium is recommended but you can get by with regular.

 

So basically you're questioning something that several mfrs do and have been doing for years.

It's pretty complicated, actually. That's why there's a computer taking care of all the thousands of computations and measurements, and why engineers are employed to create maps that satisfy the manufacturer requirements for fuel economy, power, etc.

Edited December 3, 2014 by kegobeer

[jeff711981]

This is what it looks like when the ECU is responding to the knock sensor output.

 

Positive numbers indicate timing is being retarded by that many degrees. Negative numbers mean timing is being advanced by that many degrees.

 

A flat line means timing is not being retarded, nor advanced. What that tells me is that the computer is not testing the limits of the fuel to get the most power nor the most efficiency. And in turn, switching to a higher grade fuel likely won't result in any performance benefit, and switching to a lower grade fuel likely won't result in any performance degradation as some other factor is what's limiting the amount of timing advance that is being used and it likely won't matter if you put 86 octane bargain gas or 110 octane racing fuel in - economy and performance will not change.

 

Edited December 3, 2014 by jeff711981

[jeff711981]

 

It's far more complicated than you're trying to make it out to be. Besides - the only datalog YOU have is from your 1.6L ecoboost which may not even employ this strategy.

 

I mean - this isn't black magic. Lots of mfrs employ this strategy especially on their luxury vehicles where premium isn't a problem. You program in maximum advance and back it off as needed based on the fuel. The only difference is how they advertise the power rating and whether they say premium is required or simply recommended. Ford chooses to recommend 87 but says you get more power from premium whereas others say premium is recommended but you can get by with regular.

 

So basically you're questioning something that several mfrs do and have been doing for years.

It's really not that complicated. If timing isn't being retarded due to the knock sensor's output, the limits of the fuel's resistance to detonation are not being pushed. Period. End of story. There is absolutely no other way (that I know of) for the computer to know that the fuel can't handle more heat/pressure before self-igniting. You're welcome to explain why that statement is wrong and I'll gladly accept the correction.

 

 

The ECU constantly increases timing until knock happens, then decreases it until it disappears, so that the best timing can be achieved based on the stored data map. Happens over and over, basically a never ending process. That's why tuning an engine is necessary to achieve the best performance, because stock tunes are very mild.

Agreed. And if knock never happens, the ECU is not advancing timing to the limit of what the fuel can handle, and increasing the octane rating of the fuel will do absolutely nothing to increase performance nor fuel economy, and MAY actually hurt performance or economy because higher octane fuel burns slower than lower octane fuel. The speed of the flame front as it moves through the combustion chamber actually matters. Too slow and the piston starts moving down before all the air fuel is finished burning and compression drastically reduces and you end up with an incomplete burn. Too fast and the flame front moves across the entire combustion chamber before the piston reaches TDC and you've wasted energy working against the piston.

[kegobeer]

To get accurate numbers for knock, I believe you have to take quite a few WOT runs in order to graph the stock knock curve. Is your graph representative of a WOT run? Based on the time on the graph of 32:26, I'm guessing you did normal driving?

 

Oh, sorry. That's just a graph that represents what knock should look like, and not the knock curve from your engine. I just realized that.

Edited December 3, 2014 by kegobeer