|
What hot hatch do you own? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Golf GTI / R / R32 |
|
196 | 0.02% |
| Impreza WRX / STi |
|
133 | 0.01% |
| Mazdaspeed 3 |
|
92 | 0.01% |
| Veloster Turbo |
|
20 | 0.00% |
| Focus ST |
|
149 | 0.01% |
| Other Hot Hatch |
|
230 | 0.02% |
| Elantra GT |
|
1000001 | 99.92% |
| Total: | 1000821 votes | ||
|
If it really did have faster burn rates, there would be less time for the unburnt portion of the fuel to reach autoignition causing knock because the flame would reach the outer edges of the combustion chamber quicker. I think it's simply an old wives' tale.
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:41
|
|
|
So therefore the lower octane, more combustible fuel, would be more likely to "pre-ignite" or whatever, right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
I'm just gonna put 91 in my RS, because the manual says that's its favorite drink.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
Candlelight Virgil posted:So therefore the lower octane, more combustible fuel, would be more likely to "pre-ignite" or whatever, right? Correct, octane is essentially the fuel's ability to avoid pre-ignition. The quicker a fuel reaches autoignition (ignites without an ignition source such as a spark) the more likely it is to pre-ignite in the chamber and the lower the octane rating. Wouldn't really call that a difference in combustibility though. SerCypher posted:I'm just gonna put 91 in my RS, because the manual says that's its favorite drink. Yeah, that's what I would do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:54
|
|
|
Honestly the difference you spend in a year between 87 and 91 isn't that much. I still can't believe I put 91 in my '02 Saab for the whole 15 months I drove it though...
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
 This Volvo sure reminds me of something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
From the Resources thread:quote:Suppose you have to pump 20 gallons to fill back up. If regular unleaded is $4.50 a gallon, and premium unleaded is $4.75 a gallon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
To be fair they've had that Polestar color for awhile.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
jfreder posted:This is not true. Faster burn rates would increase effective octane rating. It is true and pretty common knowledge that higher octane fuel burns slower. It's a simple search away But yes use what the manual recommends.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
Auron posted:It is true and pretty common knowledge that higher octane fuel burns slower. It's a simple search away I'd be very interested in any resources you have that could help me understand.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:21
|
|
|
Just from overjfreder posted:I'd be very interested in any resources you have that could help me understand. Just from experience and sources over the years but here's a couple from a quick search https://www.hemmings.com/blog/2014/04/11/tech-101-octane-the-facts-and-the-fiction-behind-those-higher-priced-fuels/ https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/high-octane-fuel-vs-low-octane-fuel-facts-and-myths.160442/ http://www.meineke.com/blog/using-premium-gasoline-really-save-money/
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
PaintVagrant posted:Someone in the car blogosphere (Matt Farah maybe?) seems to think the RS has built in break in period, with reduced power for the first 1k miles or so. No idea if true. I haven't quite figured this out. Doing research on Cobb's website and other car forums tells me some negative corrections that occasionally happen due to load conditions aren't anything to worry about. However, I have also got gas I suspect was less than 93, as it consistently pulled timing. It also seems like if I buy the premium gas from the same station all the time, the car 'learns' it and I will only see positive gains. Also , something I learned from the ST forums, look at the monitor for 'oct adj ratio' and make sure it is always on -1.00. Once it gets there, it seems to stay even after you start and stop the car. But if it's at 0 or anything else, you need to do a pull away in too high a gear. For instance start rolling in 1st, then jump to 3rd so that the car has a high load. This tip comes from directly from the guy over at Cobb. They did a YT video on it even. Back to gas, if you have access to 93 octane from a trusted station, I would run that and just fill up at the same station every time and see if that fixes it for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
jfreder posted:I'd be very interested in any resources you have that could help me understand. From what I remember, lower octane fuels burn unevenly. So when they combust, you'll get hot spots in the cylinder that burn really quick and effectively snuff out any oxygen in the cylinder. That leaves some of the fuel to not combust completely and you're left with carbon in the chamber.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
I stick 93 in my RS because 91 is hard to find where I live. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
IIRC increased resistance to detonation (higher octane) does result in a slightly slower flame. It's why you'll get slightly reduced fuel economy when running a higher octane fuel than your engine will take advantage of. It's not really significant though. That said those last few words are important, "will take advantage of". Before knock sensors and now fuel sensors a given configuration of hardware and timing would require a specific octane level and that's it. Modern cars, especially those with turbochargers, can vary a lot of parameters and adapt to a variety of fuels. Most modern mainstream turbocharged cars will officially run without damage on 87 octane, with performance models often officially requiring 91 though they can still typically handle 87 in a pinch. Most of them will also gauge fuel quality and adjust to perform better on 93/94, with some even seeing benefits from going further though the cost of higher octane fuels means there's a very limited sample size. I'm with what mariooncrack posted, the cost per tank difference is a cheap lunch or a good beer. There's no good reason to cheap out on fuel. I put 93 in anything forced induction and follow the manufacturer's recommendations on anything naturally aspirated. wolrah fucked around with this message at 03:00 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Auron posted:Just from over These seem to mostly be wrong and the forums post links to some government sites that don't exist or have moved. I suspect when people are saying premium fuel "burns more slowly," they are actually referring to the longer ignition delay of the premium fuel. This refers to how long it takes for a fuel to autoignite under certain conditions (pressure, temperature, and air:fuel ratio). The laminar flame speed of premium vs. regular fuel is essentially the same, neither burns significantly faster than the other. I can't speak to your experience obviously, but I am not aware of any literature that says premium fuel burns slower than regular. HolyDukeNukem posted:From what I remember, lower octane fuels burn unevenly. So when they combust, you'll get hot spots in the cylinder that burn really quick and effectively snuff out any oxygen in the cylinder. That leaves some of the fuel to not combust completely and you're left with carbon in the chamber. Lower octane fuels don't really burn any differently, they just have shorter ignition delays and hence are more likely to knock. Hot spots can certainly be created in the cylinder from things like carbon deposits which would tend to cause more knock or pre-ignition, but unless you have junk fuel, deposits in the cylinder will come from poor fuel vaporization or running excessively rich. This would typically not be attributable to the octane rating of the fuel. Don't want to hijack the thread, just find the discussion on knock and deposits interesting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
I'm still confused when people don't follow the owner's manual instructions for break in periods or fuel requirements and instead spin up the backlog of old wives tales about hard break ins or the legends of fuel burns. What benefit does a manufacturer have to give you bad information about the product that they designed, built and tested?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
jfreder posted:These seem to mostly be wrong and the forums post links to some government sites that don't exist or have moved. I suspect when people are saying premium fuel "burns more slowly," they are actually referring to the longer ignition delay of the premium fuel. This refers to how long it takes for a fuel to autoignite under certain conditions (pressure, temperature, and air:fuel ratio). The laminar flame speed of premium vs. regular fuel is essentially the same, neither burns significantly faster than the other. I can't speak to your experience obviously, but I am not aware of any literature that says premium fuel burns slower than regular. I think something like this is what you are looking for: https://www.bellperformance.com/blog/bid/101182/What-Does-Octane-Do-In-Gasoline-Octane-Ratings
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:02
|
|
|
Buy expensive performance car, cheap out on gas for whatever reason. The Veloster Turbo is rated for 87 but dynos at 170's whp then with 93 it does in the 190's without a tune.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
I hate D.C. with a passion and I cannot wait to move away from this hell hole. 25 hours after I picked up my GTI from the dealership someone rear ends me because their "brakes didn't work" and their "car has issues". No one got hurt which is good, but FFS. I don't think I have to get anything replaced, but definitely scraped through the clear coat. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:I'm still confused when people don't follow the owner's manual instructions for break in periods or fuel requirements and instead spin up the backlog of old wives tales about hard break ins or the legends of fuel burns. What benefit does a manufacturer have to give you bad information about the product that they designed, built and tested? This! RTFM and do what it says. Don't listen to your salesperson because they will say what they think is best for their sale. I asked my guy and he said "well, since you're leasing, just use 87 so you can save a few bucks."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:27
|
|
|
Etrips posted:I hate D.C. with a passion and I cannot wait to move away from this hell hole. 25 hours after I picked up my GTI from the dealership someone rear ends me because their "brakes didn't work" and their "car has issues". No one got hurt which is good, but FFS. I don't think I have to get anything replaced, but definitely scraped through the clear coat. That is some horse poo poo and I feel for you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 03:26
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I haven't quite figured this out. Doing research on Cobb's website and other car forums tells me some negative corrections that occasionally happen due to load conditions aren't anything to worry about. However, I have also got gas I suspect was less than 93, as it consistently pulled timing. It also seems like if I buy the premium gas from the same station all the time, the car 'learns' it and I will only see positive gains. I'll try that, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:02
|
|
|
Dr.Caligari posted:I haven't quite figured this out. Doing research on Cobb's website and other car forums tells me some negative corrections that occasionally happen due to load conditions aren't anything to worry about. However, I have also got gas I suspect was less than 93, as it consistently pulled timing. It also seems like if I buy the premium gas from the same station all the time, the car 'learns' it and I will only see positive gains. Stratified has a really good blog post about how the ecoboost handles knock, normal and abnormal ignition correction and the OAR parameter. Definitely worth a read if you have a ST and tune. I run 94 octane and my OAR hovers around 0.75 for the most part. But I think that's because I don't stand on it that often. When I do it trends towards -1 most of the time. edit: I'm also running a 94 tune.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
jfreder posted:These seem to mostly be wrong and the forums post links to some government sites that don't exist or have moved. I suspect when people are saying premium fuel "burns more slowly," they are actually referring to the longer ignition delay of the premium fuel. This refers to how long it takes for a fuel to autoignite under certain conditions (pressure, temperature, and air:fuel ratio). The laminar flame speed of premium vs. regular fuel is essentially the same, neither burns significantly faster than the other. I can't speak to your experience obviously, but I am not aware of any literature that says premium fuel burns slower than regular. Hmm well I guess I really don't know then. The technicians that I've spoke to may be wrong then. Anyways, I always ran 93 in my EcoBoost F150 even before the tune based off recommendations and stories of stock trucks throwing rods under low RPM loads
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
KakerMix posted:I'm still confused when people don't follow the owner's manual instructions for break in periods or fuel requirements and instead spin up the backlog of old wives tales about hard break ins or the legends of fuel burns. What benefit does a manufacturer have to give you bad information about the product that they designed, built and tested? I'm talking out of my rear end and everything but my sense is generally when people are all recommending the exact opposite of each other the takeaway should be "it doesn't really matter that much what you do."
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:44
|
|
|
I got my AP today, but not a map from Adam yet, so I put the Cobb OTS stage 1 93 tune on, and I honestly could not notice a difference with butt dyno. Can't wait to get Adam's in there and boogie.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 04:53
|
|
|
Any opinions on the new Minis? I'm looking to ditch my seriously boring Jetta lease and get something smaller for the city that's going to actually be fun to drive. My wife went absolutely bonkers over Mini's when we were just at the the NY auto show. Looking at a new 2 door Cooper S hard top 6 speed - are they worth it at all? Reasonably quick? I want to go test drive a few first but maybe someone here has one? I used to have a Fiesta ST, so I want something different than that - I don't want a Fiat Abarth, and not sure about a GTI since it may be just as boring/too similar to the jetta and you can't really turn off traction control and that has been an absolute nightmare for snow driving in my Jetta, I mean cmon, no e-brake drifting??? Really can't think of much else - The new Civic SI is not coming in a hatch, the type R is probably going to be too expensive and has the world's thinnest tires that will shatter at the thought of NYC potholes, and the Focus ST/RS are too similar to the Fiesta. It really sucks that there aren't many hot hatches in the US - I was just in Europe were literally everything is a tiny hatchback 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:20
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the new civic si is going to come out with a hatchback version.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
mariooncrack posted:I'm pretty sure the new civic si is going to come out with a hatchback version. It will, but it'll also look like a futuristic video game spaceship. Voltage posted:Hatchback Have you considered the MK7 GTi? I know you're trying to get out of a VW, but they're night and day compared to Jettas. DevCore fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Apr 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:45
|
|
|
Voltage posted:Any opinions on the new Minis? As far as I know the Civic Si will be a hatch as well, it's just a question if you can get over the appearance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
Get a Golf R or a Focus RS imho.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
Finally have clearance to get my car re-fixed. Going to the shop next week. Can't wait to have a rental for a few weeks again!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Candlelight Virgil posted:Get a Golf R or a Focus RS imho. Yeah I'm not spending loving 40 grand on a VW or Ford hatchback, or any 4 banger for that matter. If I'm spending 40k, it's going to be a new Camaro SS 1LE. I would never spend more than 25k (or like 250-300 mo/lease) on a hatch/economyish car.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Voltage posted:Yeah I'm not spending loving 40 grand on a VW or Ford hatchback, or any 4 banger for that matter. If I'm spending 40k, it's going to be a new Camaro SS 1LE. A golf R or focus RS aren't economyish cars...
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
GutBomb posted:A golf R or focus RS aren't economyish cars... I was going to say, my RS is faster and gets worse gas mileage than my friend's challenger R/T. There isn't much economy about it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
Voltage posted:Yeah I'm not spending loving 40 grand on a VW or Ford hatchback, or any 4 banger for that matter. If I'm spending 40k, it's going to be a new Camaro SS 1LE. I mean you are in the hot hatch thread so naturally hot hatches are going to be the recommendation. If you've got some hang-up on your principles about 'economyish' cars and what they are worth and are cross shopping minis and Camaros to then I am afraid I am going to have to recommend a Miata.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
Both are based on a cheap economy cars through and through, and still have I4's. For LESS money (seriously check autotrader prices on a 2017 SS) I can get a 6L V8 muscle car, and for about the same money as a loaded R/RS I could get the insane 1LE pack that has 6 piston brembos, exhaust and mag ride. So if they aren't "economy" cars, what the hell is the point of getting then over a crazy 455HP track ready monster machine??
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 07:48 |
|
|
KakerMix posted:I mean you are in the hot hatch thread so naturally hot hatches are going to be the recommendation. If you've got some hang-up on your principles about 'economyish' cars and what they are worth and are cross shopping minis and Camaros to then I am afraid I am going to have to recommend a Miata. I just got a Miata  But seriously why recommend a car that's nearly double (R/RS) what I said I was looking at (Cooper/S). It wouldn't be any different than if I came in asking for a base V6 mustang and someone recommends a 1LE Camaro.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2017 16:59
|
|