Using 87 E0 from Casey's with redline si1. Feels smooth and the idle isn't all over the place. Once it gets to where it's 50 Fahrenheit and warmer I might occasionally top off with 91 e0.
I'm done with low octane fuel
- Thread starter das_peikko
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by kschachn
Originally Posted by litesong
The successful "ethanol in gasoline industry" propaganda campaign, that 87 octane E10 can be labeled as 87 octane is a lie.
....... are you saying the E10 sold with an R+M rating of 87 isn't actually 87?
To make your statement, you leave out my explanations. Reiterating from posts above:
the mathematically averaged 87 octanes for E0 & E10 are derived differently. The simpler E0 derivation is because 87 octane ethanol-free gasoline(E0) IS averaged around 87 octane gasoline, as prescribed for 87 octane gasoline engines by gasoline engine engineers. Now mathematically derived 87 octane ethanol blend fuel(E10) is a blend of 10% 114 octane ethanol component PLUS 90% 84 octane averaged gasoline component. Altho 87 octane E10 does mathematically average to 87 octane, none of the components are averaged as 87 octane. By leaving out the details of 87 octane derived E10, the "ethanol in gasoline industry" is lying. The entire "ethanol in gasoline industry" IS a propaganda campaign.
The above reasons are why my last five 87 octane, low-compression ratio(8:1 to 10.5:1) gasoline engined cars have averaged 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% better MPG burning 87 octane E0 compared to the use of 87 octane E10.
The emphasized "3% difference in btu content between E10 & E0, which accounts for similar MPG differences between 87 octane E10 & 87 octane E0 MPG", stated by the "ethanol in gasoline industry" is also a lie.
Originally Posted by litesong
The successful "ethanol in gasoline industry" propaganda campaign, that 87 octane E10 can be labeled as 87 octane is a lie.
....... are you saying the E10 sold with an R+M rating of 87 isn't actually 87?
To make your statement, you leave out my explanations. Reiterating from posts above:
the mathematically averaged 87 octanes for E0 & E10 are derived differently. The simpler E0 derivation is because 87 octane ethanol-free gasoline(E0) IS averaged around 87 octane gasoline, as prescribed for 87 octane gasoline engines by gasoline engine engineers. Now mathematically derived 87 octane ethanol blend fuel(E10) is a blend of 10% 114 octane ethanol component PLUS 90% 84 octane averaged gasoline component. Altho 87 octane E10 does mathematically average to 87 octane, none of the components are averaged as 87 octane. By leaving out the details of 87 octane derived E10, the "ethanol in gasoline industry" is lying. The entire "ethanol in gasoline industry" IS a propaganda campaign.
The above reasons are why my last five 87 octane, low-compression ratio(8:1 to 10.5:1) gasoline engined cars have averaged 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% better MPG burning 87 octane E0 compared to the use of 87 octane E10.
The emphasized "3% difference in btu content between E10 & E0, which accounts for similar MPG differences between 87 octane E10 & 87 octane E0 MPG", stated by the "ethanol in gasoline industry" is also a lie.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Miller88
Right now I live on a lake. All of the gas stations around sell ethanol free(E0) 90 octane.
Yes, yes, yes. Some 6-7 years ago, NY state ranked 14th among states that had E0 sources. With a great push by Stewart & other retailers, NY state strongly lifted its E0 sources to ~ 4th place among states in the country. In a grassroots (not funded) effort, pure-gas.org originally listed less than 2000 E0 sources in the U.S. & Canada. Now, pure-gas.org (still unfunded) almost lists 14,000 E0 sources.
Right now I live on a lake. All of the gas stations around sell ethanol free(E0) 90 octane.
Yes, yes, yes. Some 6-7 years ago, NY state ranked 14th among states that had E0 sources. With a great push by Stewart & other retailers, NY state strongly lifted its E0 sources to ~ 4th place among states in the country. In a grassroots (not funded) effort, pure-gas.org originally listed less than 2000 E0 sources in the U.S. & Canada. Now, pure-gas.org (still unfunded) almost lists 14,000 E0 sources.
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
My vehicles run fine on 87 octane (as per the owners manuals) with no knocking - I keep the injectors, intake valves and combustion chambers clean and only use top tier gas .
If you use (don't burn efficiently) 87 octane ethanol blend fuel(E10), the gasoline component is 84 octane. Most 87 octane designed gasoline vehicles don't knock on 84 octane gasoline, because gasoline engine engineers are good. As stated in posts above, my cars gain 8% to 5% better MPG efficiently burning 87 octane E0(with gasoline averaging 87 octane), compared to 87 octane (designated) E10.
My vehicles run fine on 87 octane (as per the owners manuals) with no knocking - I keep the injectors, intake valves and combustion chambers clean and only use top tier gas .
If you use (don't burn efficiently) 87 octane ethanol blend fuel(E10), the gasoline component is 84 octane. Most 87 octane designed gasoline vehicles don't knock on 84 octane gasoline, because gasoline engine engineers are good. As stated in posts above, my cars gain 8% to 5% better MPG efficiently burning 87 octane E0(with gasoline averaging 87 octane), compared to 87 octane (designated) E10.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by litesong
To make your statement, you leave out my explanations. Reiterating from posts above:
the mathematically averaged 87 octanes for E0 & E10 are derived differently. The simpler E0 derivation is because 87 octane ethanol-free gasoline(E0) IS averaged around 87 octane gasoline, as prescribed for 87 octane gasoline engines by gasoline engine engineers. Now mathematically derived 87 octane ethanol blend fuel(E10) is a blend of 10% 114 octane ethanol component PLUS 90% 84 octane averaged gasoline component. Altho 87 octane E10 does mathematically average to 87 octane, none of the components are averaged as 87 octane. By leaving out the details of 87 octane derived E10, the "ethanol in gasoline industry" is lying. The entire "ethanol in gasoline industry" IS a propaganda campaign.
The above reasons are why my last five 87 octane, low-compression ratio(8:1 to 10.5:1) gasoline engined cars have averaged 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% better MPG burning 87 octane E0 compared to the use of 87 octane E10.
What a word salad which I did read before. That was the basis of my comment.
So bottom line is that if I test a sample of E10 from my local gas station it will indeed be knock resistant at 87 per (R+M)/2 unless the EtOH concentration is lower than 10% (or the octane rating of the gasoline is higher). All of which has nothing to do with energy density, which will be lower due to the ethanol.
FWIW this is all true for any substance added to the gasoline to provide a higher apparent octane rating whether it is MTBE or tetraethyl lead, sans the BTU content differences.
To make your statement, you leave out my explanations. Reiterating from posts above:
the mathematically averaged 87 octanes for E0 & E10 are derived differently. The simpler E0 derivation is because 87 octane ethanol-free gasoline(E0) IS averaged around 87 octane gasoline, as prescribed for 87 octane gasoline engines by gasoline engine engineers. Now mathematically derived 87 octane ethanol blend fuel(E10) is a blend of 10% 114 octane ethanol component PLUS 90% 84 octane averaged gasoline component. Altho 87 octane E10 does mathematically average to 87 octane, none of the components are averaged as 87 octane. By leaving out the details of 87 octane derived E10, the "ethanol in gasoline industry" is lying. The entire "ethanol in gasoline industry" IS a propaganda campaign.
The above reasons are why my last five 87 octane, low-compression ratio(8:1 to 10.5:1) gasoline engined cars have averaged 8%, 8%, 7%-8%, 7% & 5% better MPG burning 87 octane E0 compared to the use of 87 octane E10.
What a word salad which I did read before. That was the basis of my comment.
So bottom line is that if I test a sample of E10 from my local gas station it will indeed be knock resistant at 87 per (R+M)/2 unless the EtOH concentration is lower than 10% (or the octane rating of the gasoline is higher). All of which has nothing to do with energy density, which will be lower due to the ethanol.
FWIW this is all true for any substance added to the gasoline to provide a higher apparent octane rating whether it is MTBE or tetraethyl lead, sans the BTU content differences.
Originally Posted by litesong
If you use (don't burn efficiently) 87 octane ethanol blend fuel(E10), the gasoline component is 84 octane. Most 87 octane designed gasoline vehicles don't knock on 84 octane gasoline, because gasoline engineers are good. As stated in posts above, my cars gain 8% to 5% better MPG efficiently burning 87 octane E0(with gasoline averaging 87 octane), compared to 87 octane (designated) E10.
Please provide plausible scenarios where this might happen.
If you use (don't burn efficiently) 87 octane ethanol blend fuel(E10), the gasoline component is 84 octane. Most 87 octane designed gasoline vehicles don't knock on 84 octane gasoline, because gasoline engineers are good. As stated in posts above, my cars gain 8% to 5% better MPG efficiently burning 87 octane E0(with gasoline averaging 87 octane), compared to 87 octane (designated) E10.
Please provide plausible scenarios where this might happen.
There are only a couple of scenarios where higher octane makes a difference.
1. High compression engine
2. Turbo engines
3. Engines carboned up. Fuel is soaked up by carbon causing detonation and pour efficiency.
4. Vehicle tuned to run higher octane
5. Towing
6. EGR valves not operating properly causing detonation.
I try all 3 grades when I first buy vehicles none benefited from higher octane. Only when miles are added up then I see a benefit. In other words it hurts your pocket but makes you feel better on new vehicles. Now if it does make a difference then maybe you need to boroscope the engine. Sometimes it is cheaper to use higher octane than repair an engine of carbon.
1. High compression engine
2. Turbo engines
3. Engines carboned up. Fuel is soaked up by carbon causing detonation and pour efficiency.
4. Vehicle tuned to run higher octane
5. Towing
6. EGR valves not operating properly causing detonation.
I try all 3 grades when I first buy vehicles none benefited from higher octane. Only when miles are added up then I see a benefit. In other words it hurts your pocket but makes you feel better on new vehicles. Now if it does make a difference then maybe you need to boroscope the engine. Sometimes it is cheaper to use higher octane than repair an engine of carbon.
The whole spiel he's giving about blending gasoline with ethanol and just the AKI of a single gasoline component is silly.
There are literally hundreds of different hydrocarbons in a typical gasoline blend. And it's going to be a blend. Maybe some really low AKI mixed with higher AKI to bring up the rating. I thought for antiknock testing it doesn't particularly matter what the components are. And then it's likely that the pipeline operators are mixing multiple equivalent blends into one tank.
There are literally hundreds of different hydrocarbons in a typical gasoline blend. And it's going to be a blend. Maybe some really low AKI mixed with higher AKI to bring up the rating. I thought for antiknock testing it doesn't particularly matter what the components are. And then it's likely that the pipeline operators are mixing multiple equivalent blends into one tank.
A lot of cars these days are tuned to use premium. Also, even those tuned for 87 AKI might have knock sensors to protect against lower AKI fuel.
A good flex fuel engine can take advantage of E85.
A good flex fuel engine can take advantage of E85.
Originally Posted by y_p_w
A good flex fuel engine can take advantage of E85.
First, MPG with E85 collapses. Second, there are only 4000 E85 sources in the U.S., even with the "ethanol in gasoline industry" lobbying gov't to put more ethanol in our nation's fuel stocks. Grassroots (unfunded) pure-gas.org started with listings of less than 2000 ethanol-free E0 sources. Presently, pure-gas.org (still unfunded) lists almost 14,000 E0 sources. Well over half of boaters on our largest waterways, often away from immediate help, chose E0 to fuel their boats. Even in Iowa, producer of 25% to 30% of ethanol crops, Iowans purchased more than 200 million gallons of E0 fuel in 2016. Of course, there are 322+ E0 sources in Iowa, more than E85 sources.
A good flex fuel engine can take advantage of E85.
First, MPG with E85 collapses. Second, there are only 4000 E85 sources in the U.S., even with the "ethanol in gasoline industry" lobbying gov't to put more ethanol in our nation's fuel stocks. Grassroots (unfunded) pure-gas.org started with listings of less than 2000 ethanol-free E0 sources. Presently, pure-gas.org (still unfunded) lists almost 14,000 E0 sources. Well over half of boaters on our largest waterways, often away from immediate help, chose E0 to fuel their boats. Even in Iowa, producer of 25% to 30% of ethanol crops, Iowans purchased more than 200 million gallons of E0 fuel in 2016. Of course, there are 322+ E0 sources in Iowa, more than E85 sources.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by litesong
Originally Posted by y_p_w
A good flex fuel engine can take advantage of E85.
First, MPG with E85 collapses. Second, there are only 4000 E85 sources in the U.S., even with the "ethanol in gasoline industry" lobbying gov't to put more ethanol in our nation's fuel stocks. Grassroots (unfunded) pure-gas.org started with listings of less than 2000 ethanol-free E0 sources. Presently, pure-gas.org (still unfunded) lists almost 14,000 E0 sources. Well over half of boaters on our largest waterways, often away from immediate help, chose E0 to fuel their boats. Even in Iowa, producer of 25% to 30% of ethanol crops, Iowans purchased more than 200 million gallons of E0 fuel in 2016. Of course, there are 322+ E0 sources in Iowa, more than E85 sources.
Not really. The big problem facing producing gasoline for the market is the high number of vehicles that require 91 AKI. In order to meet all that demand and not have fuel that can't be used (and can longer be pumped back into the ground) they need to be able to use a high octane oxygenate to do that. I know most refiners don't like the idea of E15, but for the most part E10 helps them to be able to provide enough higher octane fuel to meet market demands. And it does make sense to use that across all grades unless it's a low demand market where they might be able to produce a certain amount of E0.
Most engines with modern ECUs are capable of their full performance on E10 of the proper grade. US-spec engines simply are not "tuned for E0" as you claimed. It wouldn't make sense to do that given that the majority of fuel sold in the US has ethanol or some other oxygenate in it.
As for flex fuel vehicles - of course they're going to have lower MPG because the energy content is lower. However, many who have tried it note that performance goes up immensely because the ECU will bump up the timing. They're also capable of better MPG relative to the energy content. Depending on the prices, it might even be cheaper to run E85 than regular, and the driver might enjoy the performance boost.
Originally Posted by y_p_w
A good flex fuel engine can take advantage of E85.
First, MPG with E85 collapses. Second, there are only 4000 E85 sources in the U.S., even with the "ethanol in gasoline industry" lobbying gov't to put more ethanol in our nation's fuel stocks. Grassroots (unfunded) pure-gas.org started with listings of less than 2000 ethanol-free E0 sources. Presently, pure-gas.org (still unfunded) lists almost 14,000 E0 sources. Well over half of boaters on our largest waterways, often away from immediate help, chose E0 to fuel their boats. Even in Iowa, producer of 25% to 30% of ethanol crops, Iowans purchased more than 200 million gallons of E0 fuel in 2016. Of course, there are 322+ E0 sources in Iowa, more than E85 sources.
Not really. The big problem facing producing gasoline for the market is the high number of vehicles that require 91 AKI. In order to meet all that demand and not have fuel that can't be used (and can longer be pumped back into the ground) they need to be able to use a high octane oxygenate to do that. I know most refiners don't like the idea of E15, but for the most part E10 helps them to be able to provide enough higher octane fuel to meet market demands. And it does make sense to use that across all grades unless it's a low demand market where they might be able to produce a certain amount of E0.
Most engines with modern ECUs are capable of their full performance on E10 of the proper grade. US-spec engines simply are not "tuned for E0" as you claimed. It wouldn't make sense to do that given that the majority of fuel sold in the US has ethanol or some other oxygenate in it.
As for flex fuel vehicles - of course they're going to have lower MPG because the energy content is lower. However, many who have tried it note that performance goes up immensely because the ECU will bump up the timing. They're also capable of better MPG relative to the energy content. Depending on the prices, it might even be cheaper to run E85 than regular, and the driver might enjoy the performance boost.
Originally Posted by y_p_w
My 2004 WRX has a compression ratio of 8.0:1, but the pressures are higher because of the turbo. Still - I look at the newer engines and there might be a 10.6:1 ratio, plus a turbo.
THIS!
Mine has a 10.0:1 comp ratio, AND up to 23 PSI of boost on the, yes small factory turbo, and tune, and even though it has direct injection helping out the process, it would be imbecilic to run less than 91/93 with this engine/factory ECM tune, even though some (who don't care about the added performance, or the slightly greater chance of LSPI) do.
My 2004 WRX has a compression ratio of 8.0:1, but the pressures are higher because of the turbo. Still - I look at the newer engines and there might be a 10.6:1 ratio, plus a turbo.
THIS!
Mine has a 10.0:1 comp ratio, AND up to 23 PSI of boost on the, yes small factory turbo, and tune, and even though it has direct injection helping out the process, it would be imbecilic to run less than 91/93 with this engine/factory ECM tune, even though some (who don't care about the added performance, or the slightly greater chance of LSPI) do.
There is no E0 in my area at all nor have I ever seen E85. My '08 RAV4 V6 apparently is not "smart" enough to recognize octane above 87. As an experiment I ran 2 complete tanks of 93 octane in a row. No additional performance was noticeable but miles per gallon dropped by two. Running on empty from the 2nd tank I filled with 87 and the miles per gallon gained two. Exxon fuel, same station, same driver, same traffic, same everything.
Not scientific but spending more for fuel and getting 18 mpg in town as opposed to 20 mpg made no sense to me for this particular engine. So 87 top tier it is. I do acknowledge that some engines do respond better to 91 or above but apparently mine isn't one of them.
Not scientific but spending more for fuel and getting 18 mpg in town as opposed to 20 mpg made no sense to me for this particular engine. So 87 top tier it is. I do acknowledge that some engines do respond better to 91 or above but apparently mine isn't one of them.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by RTexasF
There is no E0 in my area at all nor have I ever seen E85. My '08 RAV4 V6 apparently is not "smart" enough to recognize octane above 87. As an experiment I ran 2 complete tanks of 93 octane in a row. No additional performance was noticeable but miles per gallon dropped by two. Running on empty from the 2nd tank I filled with 87 and the miles per gallon gained two. Exxon fuel, same station, same driver, same traffic, same everything.
I believe that it's tuned towards a typical 87 AKI octane fuel. However, The AKI ((R+M)/2) rating is somewhat of a blunt tool. In Europe and many other parts of the world fuel is sold with only the R number, which is typically higher. In reality the ECU will advance the timing as far as it will go until either it detects the onset of knock or it gets to maximum programmed timing advance. It really has no way of knowing what the octane rating is other than advancing the timing and seeing if it's close to knocking. Also - there might be some differences in different 87 AKI fuel where one might no reach the maximum timing advance programmed for your engine. It might be possible to remap the ECU to take advantage of higher octane rated fuel, but whether or not that will grenade the engine is another matter.
I saw a video of the head of operations at the Honda Swindon factory in England. The questioner was taking delivery of his new Civic Type R there and asked about why the US spec cars were rated for 306 HP while in other parts of the world were rated for 316. The answer was that it would produce that 306 with the typical premium (I think he called it 95 RON) available in the US but that a super premium (98 RON I think) common in the UK would provide the maximum output. He said that using a similar fuel in the US would allow the ECU to advance the timing and produce more power. And there are parts of the US where 93 or 94 AKI octane super premium is available. In other parts of the US (not in California) premium is usually 92 AKI.
There is no E0 in my area at all nor have I ever seen E85. My '08 RAV4 V6 apparently is not "smart" enough to recognize octane above 87. As an experiment I ran 2 complete tanks of 93 octane in a row. No additional performance was noticeable but miles per gallon dropped by two. Running on empty from the 2nd tank I filled with 87 and the miles per gallon gained two. Exxon fuel, same station, same driver, same traffic, same everything.
I believe that it's tuned towards a typical 87 AKI octane fuel. However, The AKI ((R+M)/2) rating is somewhat of a blunt tool. In Europe and many other parts of the world fuel is sold with only the R number, which is typically higher. In reality the ECU will advance the timing as far as it will go until either it detects the onset of knock or it gets to maximum programmed timing advance. It really has no way of knowing what the octane rating is other than advancing the timing and seeing if it's close to knocking. Also - there might be some differences in different 87 AKI fuel where one might no reach the maximum timing advance programmed for your engine. It might be possible to remap the ECU to take advantage of higher octane rated fuel, but whether or not that will grenade the engine is another matter.
I saw a video of the head of operations at the Honda Swindon factory in England. The questioner was taking delivery of his new Civic Type R there and asked about why the US spec cars were rated for 306 HP while in other parts of the world were rated for 316. The answer was that it would produce that 306 with the typical premium (I think he called it 95 RON) available in the US but that a super premium (98 RON I think) common in the UK would provide the maximum output. He said that using a similar fuel in the US would allow the ECU to advance the timing and produce more power. And there are parts of the US where 93 or 94 AKI octane super premium is available. In other parts of the US (not in California) premium is usually 92 AKI.
litesong wrote.......there are only 4000 E85 sources in the U.S. Presently, pure-gas.org (still unfunded) lists almost 14,000 E0 sources.....in Iowa, producer of 25% to 30% of ethanol crops...... there are 322+ E0 sources in Iowa, more than E85 sources.
///////
y-o-w wrote.......Not really. The big problem facing producing gasoline for the market is the high number of vehicles that require 91 AKI. In order to meet all that demand and not have fuel that can't be used......they need to be able to use a high octane oxygenate to do that.......a low demand market where they might be able to produce a certain amount of E0.
/////////
litesong wrote.....No. Most vehicles list 87 octane as the recommended fuel. Even if 87 octane E10(10% ethanol) & E0 are listed as the same, 87 octane E0 IS 87 octane gasoline (duh). However, not accurate, but "designated" 87 octane E10, has an 84 octane gasoline component. Yes, even listed as the same, 87 octane E0 has a 3 point bump above inaccurate, but "designated" 87 octane E10. Even worse, is the "new" pushed 88 octane E15(15% ethanol). Its gasoline component is down to 83.5 octane (leaving 87 octane E0 with a 3.5 point bump). If the "newly pushed" 88 octane E15 is successful, the "ethanol in gasoline industry" will push 87 octane E15, where the gasoline component will have an 82.4 octane. Yeah, 87 octane E0 will then have a 4.6 octane bump, over 87 octane E15.
///////
y-o-w wrote.......Not really. The big problem facing producing gasoline for the market is the high number of vehicles that require 91 AKI. In order to meet all that demand and not have fuel that can't be used......they need to be able to use a high octane oxygenate to do that.......a low demand market where they might be able to produce a certain amount of E0.
/////////
litesong wrote.....No. Most vehicles list 87 octane as the recommended fuel. Even if 87 octane E10(10% ethanol) & E0 are listed as the same, 87 octane E0 IS 87 octane gasoline (duh). However, not accurate, but "designated" 87 octane E10, has an 84 octane gasoline component. Yes, even listed as the same, 87 octane E0 has a 3 point bump above inaccurate, but "designated" 87 octane E10. Even worse, is the "new" pushed 88 octane E15(15% ethanol). Its gasoline component is down to 83.5 octane (leaving 87 octane E0 with a 3.5 point bump). If the "newly pushed" 88 octane E15 is successful, the "ethanol in gasoline industry" will push 87 octane E15, where the gasoline component will have an 82.4 octane. Yeah, 87 octane E0 will then have a 4.6 octane bump, over 87 octane E15.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by FT92
I've always run high octane in whatever I drive. Vehicle ran better ,better gas mileage overall ,never a problem running hi test gas in anything
I tried 93 in my '03 Buick Park Avenue (which was specced for 87) with the 3800 V-6. Gas mileage went down. I switched it back to 87 and all was well.
Now I also tried 93 in the NA four-cylinder Buick Regal. The mileage did increase a bit, but not enough to make up for the higher price, and the can did not seem to have any more power than on 87.
I've always run high octane in whatever I drive. Vehicle ran better ,better gas mileage overall ,never a problem running hi test gas in anything
I tried 93 in my '03 Buick Park Avenue (which was specced for 87) with the 3800 V-6. Gas mileage went down. I switched it back to 87 and all was well.
Now I also tried 93 in the NA four-cylinder Buick Regal. The mileage did increase a bit, but not enough to make up for the higher price, and the can did not seem to have any more power than on 87.
I looked online for a place to buy E0 fuel in a town I was visiting in California that I had grown up in. I could buy it from a distributor in town but I had to sign a document that it was not for road use. Glad I moved out of there. I can buy it just fine here in Idaho. Maverik station just down the road from me offers it now. I like having choices given to me and not taken from me.
Originally Posted by ChrisD46
Curious why some engines designed for 87 octane run worse gas mileage numbers on 91 or 93 octane ?
This is a good question. If as they say the burn speed of different octanes is the same and the energy content is the same than where is the difference coming from?
Curious why some engines designed for 87 octane run worse gas mileage numbers on 91 or 93 octane ?
This is a good question. If as they say the burn speed of different octanes is the same and the energy content is the same than where is the difference coming from?
- Status
Similar threads
