Re: unnecessary octane = carbon?
- From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 02:05:18 -0700
"Ryan Underwood" <nemesis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2uCdnQ6Qrsk8UIneRVn-rQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Is there any truth to the oft-repeated wisdom that running high octane
(91-93)
> gas in a motor that is designed for 87 octane will leave carbon on the
pistons,
> thus increasing compression and necessitating use of the higher octane
until
> the carbon is removed? I don't even know where to start in getting to the
> bottom of this.
>
Geeze we just saw this one in the chrysler newsgroup again.
The latest theory constructed around this idea is that the knock sensor
doesen't hear the engine knocking so it keeps enrichening the mixture
until it just begins to hear knocking, since it never will due to the high
octane it makes the engine run too rich.
We have one regular poster who believes high octaine gas causes fouling
fervently, most people just give up and ignore these posts.
Ted
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: unnecessary octane = carbon?
- From: Ryan Underwood
- Re: unnecessary octane = carbon?
- From: ed
- Re: unnecessary octane = carbon?
- References:
- unnecessary octane = carbon?
- From: Ryan Underwood
- unnecessary octane = carbon?
- Prev by Date: Re: unnecessary octane = carbon?
- Next by Date: Re: FRAM oil filter
- Previous by thread: Re: unnecessary octane = carbon?
- Next by thread: Re: unnecessary octane = carbon?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
