| Topic Review (Newest First) |
| 11-07-2013 01:14 PM | |
| beejjorgensen |
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain_man_rich
View Post
I just wish that there was a way to squeeze my coffee cup so it would heat up to boiling after I've let it sit around in the shop too long.
|
| 11-06-2013 08:38 PM | |
| rain_man_rich | I just wish that there was a way to squeeze my coffee cup so it would heat up to boiling after I've let it sit around in the shop too long. |
| 11-06-2013 10:32 AM | |
| CheapBassTurd | Mom's wuzza 91' Town Car. |
| 11-06-2013 09:22 AM | |
| Damocles |
My wife's Lincoln has no, "Premium fuel only," advice, AFAIK (generic "modular" FoMoCo V-8); I've assumed these engines possess "knock sensors," devices automatically adjusting spark advance (maybe air/fuel mixture also) for the fuel ingested. Regardless, the automobile's lips never touch premium fuel! 
|
| 11-06-2013 02:29 AM | |
| CheapBassTurd |
We run 87 in everything we own here at Cheap Industries. This includes the KLR of course. I was talking about this once with my mom (who taught me mega-frugality) and told her to try a tank of 87 in her Lincoln which calls for premium fuel and has the premium only sticker in the gas door. After the "What if it runs like crap?" questions and what to do with a full tank of jerking, hesitating, stumbling under load, etc., she was convinced to try it. Her cage, like our KLR's have compression in the 9's, and highly effective cooling systems. Soo, the Lincoln runs perfect a few tanks in a row and at oil change time she asked Ford_Dude if she could use regular unleaded. He him-hawed with the standard droid answers like "Ford only recommends you use the highest quality fuel in this engine", "it MAY give a false O2 sensor reading", etc. After that he told her off the record to go for it, try 89 if it pings a bit, or primo if that's all that will run it safely. That was her previous car, and she runs 87 now too. LOL Spend the extra if ya wanna, Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeap |
| 11-06-2013 01:36 AM | |
| beejjorgensen |
Quote:
Originally Posted by planalp
View Post
(R+M)/2 (Pump Octane Number) as the name implies, is determined by adding together a fuel's RON and MON ratings and dividing by two. This is the common rating found on pumps in North America.
|
| 11-05-2013 09:12 PM | |
| planalp |
Just in case you ever wondered exactly what the hell the "(R+M)/2 Method" is while absent-mindedly staring at the gas pump while filling up. I think it would be a lot more fun to be the "MON Tester."  Definition: Octane rating is a fuel's ability to resist detonation and is classified by three main rating types: All tests use blends of iso-octane and heptane as the reference fuels. RON (Research Octane Number) is determined by burning fuel in a test engine running under mild and low load conditions, and comparing the results to the reference fuels. MON (Motor Octane Number) is determined by burning fuel in a test engine running under severe and sustained high load, high speed conditions, and comparing the results to the reference fuels. (R+M)/2 (Pump Octane Number) as the name implies, is determined by adding together a fuel's RON and MON ratings and dividing by two. This is the common rating found on pumps in North America. |
| 11-05-2013 07:26 PM | |
| flash |
Damocles, you are correct in that the additives do nothing to prevent the separation. In my experience the problem at the MAP sensors was verified by a very good mechanic that it was an effect of the emulsification made by the additive. I do not like ethanol blends or the politics behind their use, but I digress. |
| 11-05-2013 07:05 PM | |
| Damocles |
CAVEAT: This post steps outside the topic of octane, and into fuel stabilization for long-term storage; apologies/regrets for the digression. Been using Star Tron for awhile as fuel stabilizer . . . Otherwise, I've experienced the gummy mess of ethanol-laced gasoline. I'd imagine Sta-bil an effective countermeasure for deterioration of modern ethanol-laced fuels as well. Men say both additives are 95 % naptha, with the remaining 5 % anti-corrosive agents (Sta-bil) and proprietary enzymes (Star Tron). Men say also, neither prevents separation. So, fresh fuel for maximum performance. My hope: No gummed-up jets from deteriorating fuel. |
| 11-05-2013 06:47 PM | |
| flash |
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyxon
View Post
This is a great video that explains it more. This guy has a lot of really good info on motorcycles in general.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?p=PLyLD4Y...&v=pLPSY0rzMZo That was hard to watch but he did make some good basic points and got me to thinking of the terminology I used earlier....”High compression ratios need a slower burning fuel so as not to detonate, that is, to combust before the spark plug fires.” That would be pre-ignition to be correct. What the guy is describing in the youtube vid is detonation. Another thing not mentioned in the vid was ethanol blended fuels and how that affects octane ratings. Seems that ethanol can be added to a lower octane gasoline to increase its octane rating which is fine in the short term but can actually lower the octane rating once the fuel has time to absorb moisture and phase separate. This happened to me on another bike that has an 11.5 :1 compression ratio and is fuel injected. The base problem was running contaminated fuel that blocked the MAP sensors. That problem solved I now run pure premium gas in that bike and easily available E-10 regular 87 in the KLR with the addition of either Sta-Bil or Sea Foam in both as a preventive measure as both can sit for long periods. |
| This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | |
| Posting Rules | |