[KW Baraka]

So Sunoco has decided to drop Ultra 94 in this area (Dayton, Ohio) I have been running it the whole time since I've been modding the Caprice......

OK............so why do you need 94 (or 93) octane fuel???

KW

 

[KW Baraka]

OK............so why do you need 94 (or 93) octane fuel???

KW

I'm not tellin'
The car has gone 13.teens but usually in the 13.20s low .30s...

Those times indicates that you're not running much static or dynamic compression; and as such, 94 octane could be doing more harm to you engine (and wallet) than good.

I never really got the idea that race fuel 'burns slower'. Higher octane resists detonation better than lower octane.....

It does that by......ok.......ready for this.......burning slower .

KW

 

[KW Baraka]

You too KW. Explain the concept of slower burning fuel.

In a way, is the same combustion principle (hi-octane vs lo-octane) as gasoline vs diesel.

It's not about the 'explosion' as you incorrectly phrased it......it's about what it takes to ignite and burn the fuel.

Read and learn.......these explain it a lot better than I have the patience to.....

http://www.wanderings.net/notebook/Main/IsHighOctaneGasWorthTheMoney

http://www.performancecar.co.nz/art...ffect-ignition-and-what-fuel-should-i-use-137

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/fuel-consumption/question90.htm

http://www.petrolprices.com/about-fuel.html

KW

 

[KW Baraka]

I really wish we could get 94 octane at the pump in So Cal......

Why?

What makes you think that YOU need 94 octane?

KW

 

[KW Baraka]

.......Could it be possible that a given fuel can resist spontaneous combustion at a specific compression level, thus being able to be used in a high compression motor; but have the same rate of 'burn' from start to finish as a lower octane fuel......

I'm not smart enough to say that it's not possible.

But from all that I've read......I'll say that your supposition doesn't make sense.....since ignition and burn (combustion) rate is supposedly tied to octane rating.

KW

 

[KW Baraka]

.......A local station here sells leaded race fuel...........Would it hurt to run leaded fuel with my setup.........

Depends if if you consider clogged cats, ruined O2 sensors and a very rich A/F ratio as a 'hurt' or not.......because that's what leaded fuel will do to your car.

That's why car manufacturers will tell you to not run leaded fuel in cars with cats.

KW

 

[KW Baraka]

........question is, can a distinction be made between the ability to resist detonation and the rate of burn or is it one and the same. Can you have two fuels that both resist the same amount of pressure before spontaneous combustion, but one burns faster or slower than the other..........

I really don't think that's possible......at least not without extreme expense.

........btw, when did you turn 90? ...........

This Forum will never know my true age or birthdate.

Identity theft, yada ......

ex-plode (verb) 1. to expand with force and noise because of rapid chemical change or decomposition.

I guess you're aware of the expansion and force, but it's that bit about noise that really gives it away, don't you think........

Burning fuel = expansion of gases = the need to blow off (through exhaust ports). See......you don't need 'explosions' to do what you discribe.

Explosions in your engine would be an enormously bad thing; to the extent that your engine wouldn't last.......at all. The only 'explosions' I know of is the improper consumption of fuel; as in, pre-ignition.

Properly ignited fuel in an engine's combustion chamber will NOT 'explode'; it will burn. That's why it's called a "combustion chamber".

.......However, some race fuels will burn more completely, giving a power increase even without the benefit of more aggressive tuning.

Yeah........right.

KW

 

[KW Baraka]

If your definition of extreme includes the difference between pump and race fuel, sure......

No......I'm saying......a lot more difference than that......I'm thinking something with a much higher degree of 'formualtion' than race fuel.

.......You're going to argue that an event that meets the requirements of being defined as an explosion is not an explosion.........

In this case........yes. Because the proper state of fuel consumption in an engine's combustion chamber is not by way of 'explosions', it's by way of 'burn'. Which, BTW, also meets the 'requirements' of your 'explosion' definition.

......Do I detect a whiff of sarcasm here........

No......skepticism......HRM not withstanding.

KW

 

[KW Baraka]

Like what.......

Like what ain't readily available on the market.......and no, I'm still not talking about race fuel.

......Except for the noise. Get it? It goes boom. Rapid burn (aka 'combustion') plus noise makes it an explosion by definition. It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, but it's not a duck......

When you burn large quantities of fuel in a confined space (combustion chamber) and then only allow the exhuast to escape that confined space for a short period of time (opened/closed exhaust valve) and futher allow the exhaust to escape through contructing tubes (headers & pipes), then yeah......you're gonna have noise!! But I've never heard my car go BOOM. Whatever. You'd be hard pressed to find an engine builder who will concede that several thousand 'explosions' are occurring safely in a properly running engine every minute of its operation, because that's not what happens .

......No? You replied with a sarcastic remark. To convey skepticism, you'd have to say something such as, "I'm skeptical," or "I doubt that." Do you have your own personal dictionary that the rest of us don't have access to? Geez, I'm getting a headache...

OK......let me put it this way with no sarcasm.......and no mere skepticism. As I see it, that hot rod magazine article is bullsh1t. Feel better, now?

.......Rockett Brand fuels......KW would probably argue this was written by their sales department and has no basis in fact or science (or that the sun sets in the east), but I'll take their word over his.
http://www.rockettbrand.com/techsup...letins/FlameSpeedOctaneAndHpRelationships.pdf.......

Bob.....two quick points and a comment about this article;

1. You'll note that everything they wrote pertaining to fuel consumption spoke to fuel 'burn' or 'combustion'. Ask yourself why your so very trusted source speaks NOTHING to 'explosions' (I think your duck just died cwm3).

2. In stating that race fuel has a more complete 'burn' (damn that word ), they never/or superficially mentioned the primary factors involved.......increased compression and ignition timing. Put that fuel in a car tuned for 87 octane fuel and has 8.5:1 compression ratio and we'll see how 'complete' the fuel gets burned cwm2.

3. Yeah......a sales pitch is the best evidence ever conceived in bosltering an arguement.......the best evidence ever .

KW

 

[KW Baraka]

KW?...Kevin?...Hello?...Helllloooo?...

Do you concede.....

No.....I wasn't interested in opening the thread, yesterday cwm2.

As far as your wiki regarding deflagrations, every definition I’ve seen on the word pertains to burning fast or burning violently. None have stated burning uncontrollably or ‘exploding’.

First two articles support your position.....4th articles say combustions "is like an explosion'......3rd article wouldn't open. I can post as many article where the word 'exploding' or 'explosion' never appears in the course of explaining the working of an internal combustion engine. So.....what? You have a point of view and I have a point of view.

For the record, and from my point of view, I do not agree that ignition and burn = explosion......regardless as to what you or the few articles you post may state.

KW

 

[KW Baraka]

......While you certainly have a right to your opinion, I remain completely flabbergasted by your stubborn adherence to it.......Take care my friend.

Not stubborness.

I just don't buy the notion that the deflagration that occurs in a combustion chamber is an explosion.

KW