Crappy Canadien Fuel??

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Iceman-19

You guys ever stop and think that the reason the 94 you are getting is causing det is because its old and stals? With gas prices so high majority of people use whatever is cheapest. The expensive fuel sits in the holding tanks and condensates.

I don't think that would be the case. Even the slowest selling fuel would be ordered a couple of times a month. Our minimum order at our gas station is 25000 liters of any combination of gas. I could order 23000 or regular and 2000 of diesel.

[godwin]

Why do you want ethanol? If I am that nit picky about fuel grade, I would definitely don't want fuel with ethanol because of the lower energy content..

Ethanol that is good for the environment is bunk anyways, since it pushes up food stock prices and make the rest of the world starve.

Originally Posted by EvoLove

ughhh all chevrons have 94 octane.... its just has no ethnol

[IMASA]

Ethanol has lower energy content, but offers great knock resistance and cooling in direct injection engines. On the Mazdaspeed 3/6 platforms, running a 2-3 gallon mix of E85 + regular 91/93 gas gives great gains. The Cobb AP allows for increase fueling to deal with the lower energy content, however, the platform is still fuel limited when running E85 mixes as no one makes aftermarket injectors.

[godwin]

You cant really find e85 commonly in Vancouver since our fuel stock come from Calgary not from Mid West. Any ethanol we have is limited to the additive fuel pack that is added (which is minuscule). If cooling is your concern, Lexus engines uses both port side injection and DI to cool down the fuel, that is not limited to e85 fuel.

For DI you can't really make a business to make aftermarket injectors since the injectors spray patterns are often designed for a particular head design. I don't think any indy firm can best the CFD resources the OE manufacturers had spent on the combustion chamber design. Besides you don't really need to, if you really want to increase the amount fo fuel that the injectors squirt out, just modify the PWM interval.

Originally Posted by IMASA

Ethanol has lower energy content, but offers great knock resistance and cooling in direct injection engines. On the Mazdaspeed 3/6 platforms, running a 2-3 gallon mix of E85 + regular 91/93 gas gives great gains. The Cobb AP allows for increase fueling to deal with the lower energy content, however, the platform is still fuel limited when running E85 mixes as no one makes aftermarket injectors.

[ancient_510]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Tuned for 91 use 91.

94 is a waste of money.

Unless you are scared of the way ethanol reacts with rubber components.

[godwin]

As I have said before, the amount of ethanol we get from the additive fuel pack is minimal by volume even less by surface area. You have a better chance getting hit by lightning, than have ethanol molecules settle long enough to etch any plastic or causing it to crack.

Originally Posted by ancient_510

Unless you are scared of the way ethanol reacts with rubber components.

[ScizzMoney]

Originally Posted by Iceman-19

PETRO canada no longer offers 94.

We have it in Alberta. Which doesn't help most of you guys.

[bcrdukes]

I can't say for sure nor do I have any empirical evidence to back up this claim but ever since switching over to Shell 91 from Chevron 94, my motor is quieter and seems to run smoother. The audible "ping" when I used Chevron 94 isn't obvious anymore using Shell 91. Smoother throttle response for sure but having said that, it could be the warmer weather.

Again, I have no data to back up this claim. This is just what I've noticed and it was a very obvious change since switching over to Shell 91 for a month.

For reference, this is on a 1998 BMW M3 (3.2L inline 6 Dinan Stage 1 DME tune with 154,xxx miles.) Compression was measured in November of 2011 with excellent results across all 6 cylinders. (200-210 across the board.)

[alcoolaid]

I've tested canadian chevron 94 vs. usa chevron/texaco/76 92 octane on the dyno and usa 92 octane comes out on top every time.

More engine noise (vipec v88 with bosch knock sensor) running on canadian gas. Able to run almost 2 degrees more peak timing on the american gas all conditions being equal. My tuner in the states says our "94" octane gas is like water... it might be even worse than 91 octane California gas.

Have been filling up in Blaine/Point Roberts since 2009.

Edit: maybe when I have time I'll have a friend who works at a lab to test the actual octane in chevron 94...

[R. Mutt]

That would be great alcoolaid.

So I've been running the shell 91 for a few weeks now in the Evo IX and though the car still knocks a bit at redline however it's generally more stable than the Chevron 94 which would knock more often. My CEL is set to flash via Tephra v7...slow flashing for knock for counts of 3 and below and fast for counts above 5. Thus far the light has only been flashing slowly for a second at 7k where as it used to flash quickly on the 94 around 4500-5000 rpm and 7k as well. I did some logs initially but it really wasn't a true back to back comparison so I want to evaluate it again this weekend to be as objective as possible. I only have about a quarter tank left of Shell 91 so I'll do some logs tonight and run out the tank and then put some Chevron 94 this weekend to see what's going on. Every time I fill up with the shell 91 the car just feels better coming out the station...runs smoother in traffic and pulls cleaner when I'm on it.

As of a couple days ago I put just under 4L of methyl-hydrate in with a 3/4 tank of shell 91 and the car pulls great. Some of the guys used to do this back in Trinidad because of the shitty gas and have been getting away with as much 10L to a tank for years without and negative effects....I'll have to run out this tank properly if the comparison is to be truly objective. Sorry for the delay guys, but I'll get the logs up as soon as possible.

[godwin]

FYI Methyl Hydrate = methanol, which has even lower energy content than ethanol but more volatile and reactive with plastic (especially modern day gas tanks and fuel pump assemblies).

4L to a 40L tank is by percentage a lot more than what normal fuel additive would be.

Originally Posted by R. Mutt

As of a couple days ago I put just under 4L of methyl-hydrate in with a 3/4 tank of shell 91 and the car pulls great. Some of the guys used to do this back in Trinidad because of the shitty gas and have been getting away with as much 10L to a tank for years without and negative effects....I'll have to run out this tank properly if the comparison is to be truly objective. Sorry for the delay guys, but I'll get the logs up as soon as possible.

[bcrdukes]

re: R. Mutt's experience with Shell 91

So it looks like it isn't just me. I know we both have different cars but in the end, our experiences were similar in that Chevron 94 yielded more pinging / knock whereas Shell 91 offered better results overall.

[Dream_on]

I gonna start stockpiling US Chevron 92.
This whole thing about CDN chevron94 is depressing.
Any better pump gas within reach of Vancouver?

[reza]

Originally Posted by R. Mutt

Every time I fill up with the chell 91 the car just feels better coming out the station...runs smoother in traffic and pulls cleaner when I'm on it.

im assuming this is due to the lower octane fuel being easier to combust giving the sense of smoother operation. i had the same results.

if youre logging using evoscan please post up the files, i have my logs ready for chev94 just waiting for tank to empty to log shell91 then ill post up both.

As of a couple days ago I put just under 4L of methyl-hydrate in with a 3/4 tank of shell 91 and the car pulls great. Some of the guys used to do this back in Trinidad because of the shitty gas and have been getting away with as much 10L to a tank for years without and negative effects....I'll have to run out this tank properly if the comparison is to be truly objective. Sorry for the delay guys, but I'll get the logs up as soon as possible.

couple of the guys on my platform are doing this in the UK, running as much as 25%meth in tank.

and just to add to the convo regarding ethanol, a member on the dsm forums submerged his whole fuel system in ethanol for something like 4 years straight if i recall (pump, lines, orings, etc.) and they came out unharmed at the end. ill post the link if i can find it again.

[godwin]

FYI Ethanol is not Methanol. It is same class (alcohol), but they react differently both chemically and physically. e85 is 85% ethanol, not methanol.

Originally Posted by reza

and just to add to the convo regarding ethanol, a member on the dsm forums submerged his whole fuel system in ethanol for something like 4 years straight if i recall (pump, lines, orings, etc.) and they came out unharmed at the end. ill post the link if i can find it again.

[Bath Tussue]

Originally Posted by alcoolaid

I've tested canadian chevron 94 vs. usa chevron/texaco/76 92 octane on the dyno and usa 92 octane comes out on top every time.

More engine noise (vipec v88 with bosch knock sensor) running on canadian gas. Able to run almost 2 degrees more peak timing on the american gas all conditions being equal. My tuner in the states says our "94" octane gas is like water... it might be even worse than 91 octane California gas.

Have been filling up in Blaine/Point Roberts since 2009.

Edit: maybe when I have time I'll have a friend who works at a lab to test the actual octane in chevron 94...

I am glad you posted this here too.
It was because of this thread that I asked you what gas you use.

[R. Mutt]

Yes godwin...I know that methyl-hydrate aka paint thinner is 99.9% pure methanol

I've heard a few guys panic about running too much meth in tank and degrading the lining in the fuel tank, leading to corrosion over time. I've also heard high concentrations can eat away injector seals, pump seals and fuel lines. I don't have any facts to claim otherwise. However, the people that I've known for years...not random people on the internet...people who have owned JDM (RHD) GC8 STI's, CP9A and CT9A evos back home (Trinidad & Tobago) have been doing it for years in moderation at about a 10% or less mix per tank with no long term effects.

The RON we get there is in the 91-92 range....quite close to California's some say. Anyway, the point we have been experimenting for years with meth in tank prior to running full water/meth injection w/ fail safe setups.

As far as the concentration I mixed it is indeed much higher than an octane booster. Octane boosters are shit and a waste of $ imo. There is a misconception that octane boosters increase your octane rating by whole points (eg 91-->92) when in reality (the last I checked) you are gaining a few tenths of a point...maybe 91.2 or 91.3

The evo IX's tank is 14 Gallons which is almost 53L. I had a 3/4 tank so let's call that about 40L. I put in this:



(3.78/40)*100= 9.45% methanol mixed into the tank.

So, back to the topic at hand. I have nothing to hide and want to exchange as much information as possible so we can all benefit from each others experiences...that's the whole point of a forum.

For the purposes of establishing a baseline I took my evo to the RG dyno day a few weeks back. Although RG's dyno is a mustang they were providing customers with both the Mustang reading and DynoJet conversion figures - I assume because customers always like to hear the larger number :

The car made 345whp and 325 ft-lb @ 25psi on Shell 91 with boost wavering a bit to redline but more or less tapering to 24 psi. I have yet to install my wb O2 so the AFRs are untouched and still a bit messy running too rich toward redline at 10.8. This was the uncorrected figure...corrected figure was 339whp/321ft-lb:

Power Graph


AFR and Boost


The boost and timing map I had on the car was tailored around Chevron 94. I had only switched to shell 91 a couple days prior and didn't have a chance to re-map the ecu. Because I road tune my car I asked the guys if I could log the car with evoscan to compare the dyno results with VirtualDyno. They were kind enough to oblige. It's kind of difficult to be objective about these results because I was running a map meant for the chevron 94 and don't know the exact occupant weight to see how VD (Virtual Dyno) lines up. Anyway, here is a video at the RG (first pull=highest figures....the timing was a bit too aggressive and car registered more knock with each pull):

Mitsubishi Evo IX SE Dyno

log of the first pull: At 7k the car registers a knock sum of 9 and pulls timing 3* from 8 down to 5....8 is already quite low compared to some other timing maps I've seen at this boost. Nonetheless I needed to pull some timing.

At the same time...this timing map needed a lot of smoothing.You can also see around 3750rpm the timing jumps up suddenly instead of a smooth, gradual transition toward redline...car knocks...ecu pulls timing and what is supposed to be a smooth tranisiton toward redline turns into a fight between the map and the ecu. The map needed some ironing .

Here is a log of the car after I made some tweaks to the boost desired engine load and Wastegate Duty Cycle tables to smooth out the boost curve a bit more as well as pulled a little bit of timing on top but focused more on smoothing out the cells that it was map tracing. With the boost curve smoothed out the car was taking a more gradual trace of the timing map...leading to smoother cell transitions and thus a more gradual increase in timing. In the end I was able to run almost as much timing with 0-3 counts of knock on the 91. And these maps are not one offs. I do back to back to back 3rd gear pulls to make sure I have consistent results before making changes. With this mapping the car doesn't show knock counts above 3 when going WOT.


The more I look at my older 94 logs I think 1 of 2 things. Either I needed to make the timing map silky smooth (which is what I'll try again when I switch back to 94 for round 2 of testing) or it's simply inconsistent. Because I remember how frustrated I'd get pulling timing between 6.5-7k and the car would still knock...I'd get fed up and say fuck it...I'll just live with 3-5 counts of knock because you just can't tune it out.

I did some pulls tonight of the car with the 10% meth mixed in tank...I'll post those results tomorrow as it's late and I'm tired of typing. Unsurprisingly - the car loves the meth. Even the guys at RG will preach the same...meth is the way to go. From my testing VD shows some nice gains over the straight 91 pump (I use the same stretch of flat road for all my VD pulls.) I believe I can push more timing as well...I left the car on the same map and knock is non existent so we'll see what I can get away with tomorrow if I have time to log the car.

[bcrdukes]

I kind of wished there was more of an accessible way for me to log data for BMWs as opposed to going to the dyno to get a reading (and even then, it probably wouldn't be very accurate.)

[R. Mutt]

Evoscan might work. As long as your car has an obdII port you should be able to log some parameters.
Posted via RS Mobile

[RacingGreed]

Interesting results R.Mutt,

Keep up the good work!

[Dream_on]

So whats the best baseline pump fuel to use in the lower mainland??
Is US Chevron 92 worth tuning for??
My car is seasonal so not too much problem going to Pt. Roberts

[R. Mutt]

I'd go for the US 92 if it's not a problem for you.
Posted via RS Mobile

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by Dream_on

So whats the best baseline pump fuel to use in the lower mainland??
Is US Chevron 92 worth tuning for??
My car is seasonal so not too much problem going to Pt. Roberts

I would tune for 91 because you can get that anywhere.

[blakgtp]

generally newer cars will run better with fuels containing ethanol, older cars will run fine with 0% ethanol.

[GLH-T]

Some interesting points in this thread. You all know that there is little difference in the fuels you purchase in the lower drainland right? The 89, 91 and 92 regardless of station are all from the same source. A good friend works for scamp and he delivers to all the stations from the same main/holding tanks. We had a great discussion about fuel contamination and delivery and many other variables one day while watching him offload at Boundary Bay (CZBB) with 100LL. One of the few bastions left where there is NO ethanol and the octane ratings and cleanliness are maintained. Sadly you cant buy 100LL unless its going straight into the tanks in the wing of your plane!

I have noticed very little difference between 89-92 at any of the local stations as a result. The only time I see/feel anything is when comparing to the US 92 in the 135 and the GLH. The bike however HATES ethanol, as did the carbs on my previous beast.

I generally dislike the fact that they shove 10% subsidized ethanol down our throats. Now we have to burn more of it to go the same distance (3-4mpg drop on the 135). Now we all know that our fuel costs are primarily tax, and that its a percentage of the total cost right? Of course they want you to burn MORE fuel! Thats more tax revenue. It has nothing to do with the environment. Its all greed. Plain and simple. As such, I'll glad cross the 49th and fill up.