Bob with 3 Bs· Premium Member
Once the air/fuel mixture ignites, it explodes. Tell me more about these 'slow' explosions.Running higher octane (slower burning) gas can lead to unburned fuel fouling plugs.
Running leaded gasoline, as it was stated his race gas is, is also not recommended in a stock LT1.
I know lead is bad for catalytic converters (which he claims he is not running) and oxygen sensors, but what would it harm in his motor?...race gas...could harm your motor.
You too KW. Explain the concept of slower burning fuel.It does that by......ok.......ready for this.......burning slower . KW
ex-plode (verb) 1. to expand with force and noise because of rapid chemical change or decomposition.It's not about the 'explosion' as you incorrectly phrased it.KW
You get knock when it explodes before the spark ignites it.you get knock when it explodes what you want is "rapid flame propagation"
Yes. Non-controlled ignition before or after the spark plug fires is unwanted. Good clarification.just to clear it up for some
pre-ignition is just that, the fuel igniting BEFORE ignition ever occurs.
detonation aka ping aka knock is when the fuel does not burn nicely in a cascading fashion with the oncoming flame front, but instead it starts spontaneously combusting as the flame front moves (i.e; lets say fuel at the end of the line starts to burn before it's turn). But this all happens AFTER the spark plug shoots spark.
I'm with you on this. However, some race fuels will burn more completely, giving a power increase even without the benefit of more aggressive tuning.I think the bottom line of this thread is,
1)leaded fuel=NO GOOD FOR COMPUTER CONTROLLED CARS WITH 02 SENSORS
2)high octane WONT give you an increase in performance IF your car is tuned for a lower octane UNLESS you are seeing knock retard from an overly aggressive tune
that pretty much states it. It's pretty simple really. If you have an aggressive tune and a high compression motor, hook it up to a scanner when you run and see if you are getting any knock retard. Run the car with some high octane UNLEADED if you wish and see if knock count goes down and knock retard goes away. If so, using race gas is a benefit for you. For most of the guys on this forum I would gather, using higher octane fuel than what they are tuned for would be useless as most guys here aren't pushing the limits of pump-gasable dynamic compression or super aggressive timing curves.
If you aren't geting knock retard but you think you can get more out of your car by using race gas, put some in and have it tuned. If you can get more power before she pings with the race gas, then you've found a reason for it. But as many already know (but yet some MECHANICS I have met STILL don't get) putting high octane fuel in your bolt ons, stock motored car is going to do NOTHING.
If your definition of extreme includes the difference between pump and race fuel, sure.I really don't think that's possible......at least not without extreme expense.
You're going to argue that an event that meets the requirements of being defined as an explosion is not an explosion? Well, uh...don't let insignificant little things like facts cloud your opinion.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".
Do I detect a whiff of sarcasm here? The following was taken from this article. http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/fuel_octane_rating_comparison/index.html Yes, things in Hot Rod are often dubious, but this seemed to be legit.Yeah........right.
Like what?No......I'm saying......a lot more difference than that......I'm thinking something with a much higher degree of 'formualtion' than 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?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.
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...No......skepticism......HRM not withstanding.
I never really got the idea that race fuel 'burns slower'. Higher octane resists detonation better than lower octane, that is what octane is essentially a measure of. But how does that have any affect on burn speed? I always figured perhaps this is flatout untrue, as octane rating itself, as defined, has nothing to do with burn speed, but maybe lead vs unleaded affects the burn speed?
SSandman,No, not necessarily. 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 (when both are tested at the same compression, one that is within the lesser octanes fuels ability to resist detonation).
Being that 'octane rating' does not actually mean the amount of octane in a fuel, it only means how that fuel compares to a percent of iso-octane and heptane mixture in regards to how much pressure it can resist before spontaneous combustion, it seems that you can have a variety of different ways of making a say '105 octane' mix and because of this there could be varying characteristics in the rate of burn.
I don't really know that for sure, im just sayin. I would really like a chemists explanation. I might try to seek one out.
So...It's a SECRET!Like what ain't readily available on the market.......and no, I'm still not talking about race fuel.
You're saying the noise emitting from and engine is simply the sound of exhaust gasses passing through various chambers, orifices and tubes? I am skeptical. I doubt that. That is BS!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.
Engine builders? I'd guess the majority would concede the point. Scientist, chemists, engineers? No problem. Can you find a prominent engine builder who'll back your supposition?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 .
I found that article to be more believable than most magazine fodder because they're not hyping some product. Same engine, same dyno, different fuels, different outcomes. Can you show me something that contradicts their test results? Also, I'm feeling fine. Thanks for asking! <This is sarcasm.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?
It's not an article. It's a sales flyer, but it addressed SSandman's questions.Bob.....two quick points and a comment about this article;
Er...because it's not necessary? (What duck? I thought you said it wasn't a duck).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).
Which fuel? They're talking about race fuels in general. Are you saying race fuel won't 'burn' in a low performance engine? Nice use of smilies, by the way. <More sarcasm? Could be.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.
That flyer was intended to answer some of SSandman's questions and I'm not arguing with him. It seems I'm arguing with you, and your denial of the obvious is quite stunning.3. Yeah......a sales pitch is the best evidence ever conceived in bosltering an arguement.......the best evidence ever .
The point is deflagration, which is what takes place in a combustion chamber, is a more controllable and containable type of explosion. I also do not agree that ignition and burn = explosion and have never stated so. That is simple combustion.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.