95 ron

DOLBY

Active Member
Jun 24, 2006
2,934
98
North of London
www.facebook.com
Cheers seal. Thanks for the cool findings. Everyone knows 99 is better in EVERY way but it needs proving, it seems. :(

I couldn't find those threads I was looking for, probably cos SCN has logged so many, the main motherboard/server (i have no idea about computers, so shoot me down)......over heated due to the stress of it all!!!!

Oh how I love sarcasm. But tbh seal I preferred the biscuit theory, or if you really talking biscuits choccy digestive are better than bourbons. Uh hmm moving swiftly on.........


Sent from my iPhone when I should be working....
 
Last edited:

Seal_LCR

Active Member
Jun 4, 2012
2,600
5
Redditch
Sorry but my thump card is chocolate hobnobs!!!

I was bored watching the rain at work and have read this thread and decided to work it out for my car and post my results. And I now also have a good argument to make the wife stop using cheap 95!!
 
Last edited:

DOLBY

Active Member
Jun 24, 2006
2,934
98
North of London
www.facebook.com
Chocolate malted milks are superior to all other biscuits, I pity the fool who thinks otherwise.

Lol I'm loving the mr T isms, "I pity the fool, I pity the fool that laughs at my jewellery!!!" "ain't getting on no plane fool!!"

Er....okaaaay you are all wrong as chocolate fingers in warm tea isTHE most addictive biscuit ever....like ever! :)


Sent from my iPhone when I should be working....
 

car.crash

Active Member
Jun 22, 2012
302
0
slough
All 3 of your cars have been remapped on high octane correct?

If so your findings would be true but in no relation to my unmapped car.
 

Wolvo-Oleg

Active Member
Mar 4, 2012
304
0
Wolves
Get with the program man its biscuit time now :lol:

Bret, mate I retract my previous statement... Cadbury fingers for the win! Although these days you have to combine two packs to get one full pack. Sneaky *******s thinking we haven't noticed
 

car.crash

Active Member
Jun 22, 2012
302
0
slough
Get with the program man its biscuit time now :lol:

Bret, mate I retract my previous statement... Cadbury fingers for the win! Although these days you have to combine two packs to get one full pack. Sneaky *******s thinking we haven't noticed

Your help is awesome thanks.
 

Wolvo-Oleg

Active Member
Mar 4, 2012
304
0
Wolves
Ooooher, big man on campus!!

Pmsl chill dude, yeah that's the basic jist, all remapped on vpower so disregard every statistic we've given lol.

Personally I would still run V Power either way :)
 

DOLBY

Active Member
Jun 24, 2006
2,934
98
North of London
www.facebook.com
Get with the program man its biscuit time now :lol:

Bret, mate I retract my previous statement... Cadbury fingers for the win! Although these days you have to combine two packs to get one full pack. Sneaky *******s thinking we haven't noticed

lol i know mate. You have 1 then 2 then **** thats 2 packs gone, the gut starts to twinge but still you open that 3rd pack!!! :rofl:

Hmm biscuits or V power? BISCUITS!! :think: no, V POWER! :cry::cry: I dunno
 

car.crash

Active Member
Jun 22, 2012
302
0
slough
Nope mine isn't mapped.

Ahhhh ok. Well that's good to know as you've done a thorough test as well. So maybe the high octane does what it says on the tin.
Still very mixed and conflicting results with regards to the standard maps though. If I get caught short I may run a tank of premium to see how it works for me.
 

mty12345

Active Member
Jun 17, 2011
4,124
683
bristol
I run v-power and nothing else in my stage 1 LC as the LC/LCR are obviously designed to run on 98+ as standard. However I found it very interesting how everyone was saying that vpower definatly gives better mpg than the 95 octane in a LC/LCR and wondered why as i always imagined that MPG was purely down to fuel density and not octane rating. Did a bit of research on wikipedia and found this for anyone else who is also interested in why this is the case............

....."Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high maximum compression, and thus demand fuels of higher octane. A common misconception is that power output or fuel efficiency can be improved by burning fuel of higher octane than that specified by the engine manufacturer. The power output of an engine depends in part on the energy density of the fuel being burnt. Fuels of different octane ratings may have similar densities, but because switching to a higher octane fuel does not add more hydrocarbon content or oxygen, the engine cannot develop more power.
However, burning fuel with a lower octane rating than that for which the engine is designed often results in a reduction of power output and efficiency. Many modern engines are equipped with a knock sensor (a small piezoelectric microphone), which sends a signal to the engine control unit, which in turn retards the ignition timing when detonation is detected. Retarding the ignition timing reduces the tendency of the fuel-air mixture to detonate, but also reduces power output and fuel efficiency. Because of this, under conditions of high load and high temperature, a given engine may have a more consistent power output with a higher octane fuel, as such fuels are less prone to detonation".....

So to sum it up, the knock sensor constantly retarding the ignition timing is what leads to the reduced MPG on the 95 octane, not any actual difference in the density of the fuel! I found it interesting but then maybe thats just me,lol :)
 
Last edited:

Marc-H

Active Member
Jan 15, 2012
51
0
Basingstoke
Get with the program man its biscuit time now :lol:

Bret, mate I retract my previous statement... Cadbury fingers for the win! Although these days you have to combine two packs to get one full pack. Sneaky *******s thinking we haven't noticed

So I'm not the only one who noticed this :(

For the last 2 weeks I have commuted approx 60miles a day. On my first week I used vpower and had around 420 miles out of my tank, this week on normal bp unleaded Im only getting 350 :(
 
Chris Knott Insurance - Competitive quotes for forum members