Gas is outragous!
#26
A nice step up!!!
OK, you’re wrong. :D
94 octane burns slower so it can be compressed more before it is ignited with the spark plug. This gives it more power because of the higher compression even though more fuel needs to be used to get the power. It is less efficient for 2 reasons. First, since it is compressed more it is further into the cycle so it has less time to burn completely. Second, it burns slower. So you have a slower burning fuel with less time to burn. The long thin shape of the rotary combustion chamber doesn’t’ help because the burning starts by the plug(s) and the fuel air mixture in the tips is the last to ignite after the “power stroke” is complete. This is the reason that rotarys get crappy mileage even though they are a light small displacement engine which seems like it should do pretty well on gas.
Can anybody back me up on this? I’m pretty sure this is right but I’d welcome comments by the pros.
94 octane burns slower so it can be compressed more before it is ignited with the spark plug. This gives it more power because of the higher compression even though more fuel needs to be used to get the power. It is less efficient for 2 reasons. First, since it is compressed more it is further into the cycle so it has less time to burn completely. Second, it burns slower. So you have a slower burning fuel with less time to burn. The long thin shape of the rotary combustion chamber doesn’t’ help because the burning starts by the plug(s) and the fuel air mixture in the tips is the last to ignite after the “power stroke” is complete. This is the reason that rotarys get crappy mileage even though they are a light small displacement engine which seems like it should do pretty well on gas.
Can anybody back me up on this? I’m pretty sure this is right but I’d welcome comments by the pros.
#27
Mmmmm... Rotary Donut
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lake in the Hills, IL (NW Chicago Burbs)
Posts: 2,376
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by MX6_2_RX8
OK, you’re wrong. :D
94 octane burns slower so it can be compressed more before it is ignited with the spark plug. This gives it more power because of the higher compression even though more fuel needs to be used to get the power. It is less efficient for 2 reasons. First, since it is compressed more it is further into the cycle so it has less time to burn completely. Second, it burns slower. So you have a slower burning fuel with less time to burn. The long thin shape of the rotary combustion chamber doesn’t’ help because the burning starts by the plug(s) and the fuel air mixture in the tips is the last to ignite after the “power stroke” is complete. This is the reason that rotarys get crappy mileage even though they are a light small displacement engine which seems like it should do pretty well on gas.
Can anybody back me up on this? I’m pretty sure this is right but I’d welcome comments by the pros.
94 octane burns slower so it can be compressed more before it is ignited with the spark plug. This gives it more power because of the higher compression even though more fuel needs to be used to get the power. It is less efficient for 2 reasons. First, since it is compressed more it is further into the cycle so it has less time to burn completely. Second, it burns slower. So you have a slower burning fuel with less time to burn. The long thin shape of the rotary combustion chamber doesn’t’ help because the burning starts by the plug(s) and the fuel air mixture in the tips is the last to ignite after the “power stroke” is complete. This is the reason that rotarys get crappy mileage even though they are a light small displacement engine which seems like it should do pretty well on gas.
Can anybody back me up on this? I’m pretty sure this is right but I’d welcome comments by the pros.
#29
A nice step up!!!
Originally Posted by Brice-RX8
That is exactly what I said right?
#30
Ahead of its time
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: GA
Posts: 1,508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just got back from England last week...
1.10 pounds/liter X 3.79 liters/Gallon X $1/0.534 pounds = $7.81 per Gallon.
(And thats for regular, not premium)
So when I got back the states and saw the prices for regular in my area had risen to $2.18/Gallon, I was shocked. Then I remembered the prices I was paying in the UK....
God Bless America.
Just something to think about as the pump goes Ka-ching.
1.10 pounds/liter X 3.79 liters/Gallon X $1/0.534 pounds = $7.81 per Gallon.
(And thats for regular, not premium)
So when I got back the states and saw the prices for regular in my area had risen to $2.18/Gallon, I was shocked. Then I remembered the prices I was paying in the UK....
God Bless America.
Just something to think about as the pump goes Ka-ching.
#32
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South Surrey, BC Canada
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#33
Registered User
Originally Posted by MX6_2_RX8
Right. I was commenting on the one above you but it took so long to type it your post snuck in ahead of mine.
#34
I love GOOOLD
iTrader: (1)
i read somewhere in Time magazine that the avg. price for regular gas in the UK was almost $5 a gal. where as in the US, the avg. price for reg. is around $2-$2.50. it's really not that bad if you think about it. a bottle of deer park water (i believe its less than 12 oz.) is about $1.25. that's a lot for some friggin' water when you could just buy one of those pur brita filters. don't get me wrong...i liked my premium gas when it was under $1. but even though some of you have used gas with a lower octane rating and had no troubles...i will still stick with my 93 for now. the cost of gas doesn't really bother me all that much.
i also heard somewhere that since many car manufacturers are now turning to make hybrid cars, instead of raising gas prices, "big brother" will start to charge us by the mileage. anyone want to clarify? although i'm pretty sure this change won't go through since, IMO, it is an invasion of privacy.
i also heard somewhere that since many car manufacturers are now turning to make hybrid cars, instead of raising gas prices, "big brother" will start to charge us by the mileage. anyone want to clarify? although i'm pretty sure this change won't go through since, IMO, it is an invasion of privacy.
#35
Originally Posted by ÜberJumper
Okay, after reading that article, I think I want to go stick my head in an oven... assuming there's still some gas left that is.
#38
Originally Posted by valpac
Still saw a fair number of 8's in London. Apparently a great car is hard to keep down.
#39
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Burnaby, BC
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MX6_2_RX8
OK, you’re wrong. :D
94 octane burns slower so it can be compressed more before it is ignited with the spark plug. This gives it more power because of the higher compression even though more fuel needs to be used to get the power. It is less efficient for 2 reasons. First, since it is compressed more it is further into the cycle so it has less time to burn completely. Second, it burns slower. So you have a slower burning fuel with less time to burn. The long thin shape of the rotary combustion chamber doesn’t’ help because the burning starts by the plug(s) and the fuel air mixture in the tips is the last to ignite after the “power stroke” is complete. This is the reason that rotarys get crappy mileage even though they are a light small displacement engine which seems like it should do pretty well on gas.
Can anybody back me up on this? I’m pretty sure this is right but I’d welcome comments by the pros.
94 octane burns slower so it can be compressed more before it is ignited with the spark plug. This gives it more power because of the higher compression even though more fuel needs to be used to get the power. It is less efficient for 2 reasons. First, since it is compressed more it is further into the cycle so it has less time to burn completely. Second, it burns slower. So you have a slower burning fuel with less time to burn. The long thin shape of the rotary combustion chamber doesn’t’ help because the burning starts by the plug(s) and the fuel air mixture in the tips is the last to ignite after the “power stroke” is complete. This is the reason that rotarys get crappy mileage even though they are a light small displacement engine which seems like it should do pretty well on gas.
Can anybody back me up on this? I’m pretty sure this is right but I’d welcome comments by the pros.
oooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... :o
well i learnt somethinnew todayyyy...so just to get to the point..i would theoretically get worse mileage by using higher octane??
#41
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read in the last week or so, that an analyst with Goldman-Sachs, I believe, predicted the price of crude will hit $105 a barrel within 3 years. It's $55 a barrel at present.
Do the math!
Do the math!
#42
A nice step up!!!
Originally Posted by Swagman
.
Do the math!
Do the math!
Please excuse me, I’m bored, I’m headed off on vacation next week and it is Friday afternoon.
#43
As RG said, NA rotaries love low octane. With less detergents and a lower ignition resistance, low octance gas combusts more quickly, and the flame front moves through the combustion chamber faster. This helps to compensate for the rotary's bizzare and ever-changing combustion chamber shape. Old NA rotary racers used to use like 85 and 84 octane . . .
Of course, the modern 8's ECU plays with the A/F and timing as you approach the knock limit, so the end result of switching octanes will vary by car, driver, altitude, humidity . . .
Peace
policy
Of course, the modern 8's ECU plays with the A/F and timing as you approach the knock limit, so the end result of switching octanes will vary by car, driver, altitude, humidity . . .
Peace
policy
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jasonrxeight
RX-8's For Sale/Wanted
2
09-30-2015 01:53 PM