![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
AHhahahahahaha.
It had to be you that claimed it was legit
So you are basically saying you suspect the figures are accurate and that you can indeed get up to 25% more economy by using SUL?!
Drive a Zafira 1.6? Get 7 more mpg!
- Thread starter [TW]Fox
- Start date
AHhahahahahaha.
It had to be you that claimed it was legit
So you are basically saying you suspect the figures are accurate and that you can indeed get up to 25% more economy by using SUL?!
It will be completely dependant on the car based on its capacity to run further advance given a higher octane fuel.
If for example a car is "mapped" non-conservatively for say 100RON, and it retarded ignition based on knock, but backed off further than it really needed to (perhaps in the name of safety) then its entirely possible that car could see huge gains from SUL.
In my VXR I consistently managed around 6MPG more with V-Power than I did with supermarket 95. I have similar results with Texaco SUL and 4-5MPG increase on T99. Its not exactly text-book scientific test conditions, but wasn't over one tank of each either, it was a consistent difference over my entire ownership and it was there both on local town driving, and long motorway trips up to work.
In my ST I achieve around 3MPG more with any SUL.
This isn't limited to me, but it appears to be well known that cars like the NA Supra benefit hugely from SUL, but then the RX8 sees no benefit whatsoever. Its down to the engine management and how it adapts to different qualities of fuels.
Everyone seems quick to discount all and every bit of proof provided that it does offer benefits in fuel economy, but not one has been able to categorically show that it doesn't.
If for example a car is "mapped" non-conservatively for say 100RON, and it retarded ignition based on knock, but backed off further than it really needed to (perhaps in the name of safety) then its entirely possible that car could see huge gains from SUL.
In my VXR I consistently managed around 6MPG more with V-Power than I did with supermarket 95. I have similar results with Texaco SUL and 4-5MPG increase on T99. Its not exactly text-book scientific test conditions, but wasn't over one tank of each either, it was a consistent difference over my entire ownership and it was there both on local town driving, and long motorway trips up to work.
In my ST I achieve around 3MPG more with any SUL.
This isn't limited to me, but it appears to be well known that cars like the NA Supra benefit hugely from SUL, but then the RX8 sees no benefit whatsoever. Its down to the engine management and how it adapts to different qualities of fuels.
Everyone seems quick to discount all and every bit of proof provided that it does offer benefits in fuel economy, but not one has been able to categorically show that it doesn't.
Last edited:
Well you clearly don't know what you're on about. The octane rating of a fuel does not determine its energy content.
The term energy was intended to be taken loosely - put in laymans terms, if you will.
If you wish to discuss higher heating values, burn consistency, detonation and other topics surrounding both energy and octane rating of fuel, go ahead - I'm all ears.
If you wish to discuss higher heating values, burn consistency, detonation and other topics surrounding both energy and octane rating of fuel, go ahead - I'm all ears.
I don't believe its impossible, especially the one tested being supercharged I believe? 35MPG to 42MPG isn't a completely ridiculous notion, but if you insist on doubting, you're cynical and even if you assume a 3MPG error margin for inconsistencies (which is pretty generous), that still leaves a 4MPG increase.
So you think its reasonable to publish data as fact with as much as a 50% error margin in the quoted increase?
Every day I wonder how you could possibly amaze me any more with the stuff you post on here
Can you confirm - after having read through the 'report', you genuinelly think its credible?
I'm not saying there is a 50% error margin, I'm just introducing it in a hypothetical situation for a cynic.
They appear to have taken reasonable measures to ensure reasonably fair results, I think the element for inaccuracies here is whether they used the same driver in the same cars and whether Thorney can be trusted.
I can't categorically say whether their published findings are accurate or not, and I won't make uninformed guesses and state them as fact (ie. whether the published results are fact or fiction), but from my own findings their results seem completely feasible. My point is simply that there are worthwhile gains to be had from running SUL.
They appear to have taken reasonable measures to ensure reasonably fair results, I think the element for inaccuracies here is whether they used the same driver in the same cars and whether Thorney can be trusted.
I can't categorically say whether their published findings are accurate or not, and I won't make uninformed guesses and state them as fact (ie. whether the published results are fact or fiction), but from my own findings their results seem completely feasible. My point is simply that there are worthwhile gains to be had from running SUL.
Well 3 full tanks of each fuel per car, with what is entirely likely to be a similar route across similar times of day, assuming they used the same style of driving across all the tests (hence my comments on driver and trustworthiness), then provided they processed the data correctly (no reason to assume otherwise) then that is what I would call reasonable measures.
Its more in-depth and fairer than when BP did the same kind of thing wth their SUL.
Its more in-depth and fairer than when BP did the same kind of thing wth their SUL.
if your ecu advances the ignition and changes the enrichment settings(less fuel in) for the higher ron, then yes you CAN without a doubt get more mpg.
7mpg extra is possible and its about the same increase i saw with my old 1.4 vauxhall.
if any of you cant see an improvement.. do you know what your ecu is actually doing? probably not! stuck on 97/98 settings when using 95ron fuel? you have no idea.
7mpg extra is possible and its about the same increase i saw with my old 1.4 vauxhall.
if any of you cant see an improvement.. do you know what your ecu is actually doing? probably not! stuck on 97/98 settings when using 95ron fuel? you have no idea.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,195
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Why would you want less fuel as a set claim considering energy content has nothing to do with RON.
7mpg is suggesting 99RON jumps to something like 60MJ/kg. It doesn't.
Just.. wow.
You don't think that it could have been considerably more scientific if, for example, each car was driven for a set distance with a full tank and then re-brimmed rather than 'waiting for the fuel light', for example?
I am staggered you think the way you do about this. Even when 2 people far closer to the petrochemicals industry than you or I will ever be have also disputed these claims, you STILL think you are right, as is always the case, I guess.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,250
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
I must admit the best feature of the Hyundai i10 is its ability to advance its ignition timing based on the array of knock sensors and an ecu which allows the car to changing its fueling and ignition retard on the fly.
:Edit, after further reading it seems like the "Kappa engine" has some control over knock, but i can't see it having the capacity to reduce fuel consumption to fall inline with the "results" presented.
:Edit, after further reading it seems like the "Kappa engine" has some control over knock, but i can't see it having the capacity to reduce fuel consumption to fall inline with the "results" presented.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 18,195
- Location
- Shakespeare’s County
Dont confused knock control with spark ignition optimisation.
Its like having a passenger sat next to you shouting at you to slow down, its not gonna mean you will be driving any faster due to it.
Its like having a passenger sat next to you shouting at you to slow down, its not gonna mean you will be driving any faster due to it.