From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

The Compass manual recommends 87 octane. Is that just for power or would
it be damaged by regular?
--
Defund the Thought Police


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

The Compass manual recommends 87 octane. Is that just for power or
would it be damaged by regular?

That should read 89.
--
Defund the Thought Police


--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

The Compass manual recommends 87 octane. Is that just for power or
would it be damaged by regular?

That should read 89.

Assuming USA Octane ratings (which are the average of research octane and
motor octane values), it won't make a difference in almost all situations.

The octane rating is merely the tendency to ping (or not ping) which
happens when the compression ratio or heat or load is such that the flame
front proceeds too quickly.

The spark timing can be retarded in almost all (if not all) modern engines
to prevent any damage from occurring (due to knock sensor input &
electronic ignition system output).

The worst that will happen in most modern engines is slightly retarded
timing under maximum load (e.g., accelerating up a hill or towing a load).

What will really happen in almost all circumstances is... nothing.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

On 4/24/2024 9:58 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Tom Del Rosso wrote:

The Compass manual recommends 87 octane. Is that just for power or
would it be damaged by regular?

That should read 89.

You might see a slight decrease in gas mileage and power due to the slightly retarded spark timing . Modern electronic controls will
optimize it all .
--
Snag
"They may take our lives but
they'll never take our freedom."
William Wallace
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

Snag wrote:

You might see a slight decrease in gas mileage and power due to the slightly retarded spark timing . Modern electronic controls will
optimize it all .

Years ago I ran a test on a vehicle which stated it needed premium and I couldn't "measure" any difference whatsoever in gas mileage, even as I
agree fully with your premise that there "should" be a "slight decrease" in
gas mileage.

I think the reason I couldn't measure it was that the measurement system we typically use isn't precise enough because the decrease is too slight. We measure by the typical method of what I refer to as "gallons used" tests.
a. Fill the tank
b. Drive normally until you need to fill the tank again (note the miles)
c. Fill the tank again (note the number of gallons used & divide miles/gal)

In my experience, this "gallons used" method isn't precise enough to
measure the "slight decrease" you'd expect from lower octane rated fuel.

When they really test gas mileage, they put a known WEIGHT of fuel in a
plastic bag attached to the fuel lines, and run that and then weigh the
fuel after a set number of miles. Our gallons-used test is less precise.

Also, we don't normalize the type of driving, where in general, it's my understanding, that the only time the "wrong" gas should knock is in when
the spark is advanced which doesn't happen all that often in normal
driving.

Sure, if you race everyone out of a stoplight, you'll be advanced, but most normal driving doesn't use spark advance all that much (although all are advanced - but I'm referring to extra degrees of spark advance situations).
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: rec.autos.tech

On 4/25/2024 11:00 PM, Indira wrote:

Snag wrote:

-a-a You might see a slight decrease in gas mileage and power due to the
slightly retarded spark timing . Modern electronic controls will
optimize it all .

Years ago I ran a test on a vehicle which stated it needed premium and I couldn't "measure" any difference whatsoever in gas mileage, even as I
agree fully with your premise that there "should" be a "slight decrease" in gas mileage.

I think the reason I couldn't measure it was that the measurement system we typically use isn't precise enough because the decrease is too slight. We measure by the typical method of what I refer to as "gallons used" tests.
a. Fill the tank
b. Drive normally until you need to fill the tank again (note the miles)
c. Fill the tank again (note the number of gallons used & divide miles/gal)

In my experience, this "gallons used" method isn't precise enough to
measure the "slight decrease" you'd expect from lower octane rated fuel.

This method is accurate - if you go like 10 tanks the differences
average out . One tank at a time will give you a "close enough" mileage
number .

When they really test gas mileage, they put a known WEIGHT of fuel in a plastic bag attached to the fuel lines, and run that and then weigh the
fuel after a set number of miles. Our gallons-used test is less precise.

Also, we don't normalize the type of driving, where in general, it's my understanding, that the only time the "wrong" gas should knock is in when
the spark is advanced which doesn't happen all that often in normal
driving.

Sure, if you race everyone out of a stoplight, you'll be advanced, but most normal driving doesn't use spark advance all that much (although all are advanced - but I'm referring to extra degrees of spark advance situations).

Your understanding is outdated . Modern controls will optimize spark advance and fuel mixture for the best possible combustion . Now my '86
GMC pickup with old fashioned distributor CAN be over-advanced and made
to ping . A note about that - the original distributor did have a
mechanism to retard spark if a knock was detected . But the block ,
heads , and connecting rods are about the only stock parts left .
--
Snag
"They may take our lives but
they'll never take our freedom."
William Wallace
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2