Originally Posted by 90R
(Post 667313)
this is something we found in the early days of SSC. Lower octane made more power on a stock engine. The higher octane we were guessing took too long to burn. Leaving unused BTU's out the tail pipe.
|
I can believe the 'long burn', but if that were the case, couldn't you counter that by advancing the timing to put the cylinder pressure curve back where it belongs (peak pressure at 14deg ATDC IIRC)?
|
Originally Posted by DammitBeavis
(Post 667359)
I can believe the 'long burn', but if that were the case, couldn't you counter that by advancing the timing to put the cylinder pressure curve back where it belongs (peak pressure at 14deg ATDC IIRC)?
|
Originally Posted by DammitBeavis
(Post 667359)
I can believe the 'long burn', but if that were the case, couldn't you counter that by advancing the timing to put the cylinder pressure curve back where it belongs (peak pressure at 14deg ATDC IIRC)?
|
20 years ago, advancing the timing was possible on a stock engine.
|
Originally Posted by DammitBeavis
(Post 667359)
I can believe the 'long burn', but if that were the case, couldn't you counter that by advancing the timing to put the cylinder pressure curve back where it belongs (peak pressure at 14deg ATDC IIRC)?
|
Originally Posted by 90R
(Post 667387)
you can, but why stop at just one gain?
|
advance the timing and run 87
|
I was assuming that it was already optimized for 87 and was simply pointing out how power loss could be minimized if the lower output from a higher octane fuel was related only to the burn speed and not the energy per unit volume of the fuel.
Edit: In addition it wouldn't matter on a stock engine anyway since you would need to massage the entire curve considering piston speed, and not just an overall change from moving triggers. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands