digisol
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Messages
- 537
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 0
- Location
- Central QLD
- Members Ride
- Toyota Landcruiser
One thing I failed to say was that many current model engines have a fairly low compression ratio, usually around 8.5 or less and are made for std ULP others with a higher compression, say 8.7 - 9.5 will show more HP with using higher octane fuels than lower compression engines.
In most cases running high octane fuels will give only small increases on stock low comp engines, sure the spark flame is brighter and a more efficient combustion is the result giving the other benefits of smooth idle / slightly more power.
Using anything between 95 and 100 would show only a further small difference unless with a modified engine, smoother running is a common offshoot of using PULP, both the bike (900 Triumph) and boat (2 X 175 black max mercs) would show a definite power increase, smoother running + much better fuel milage and the added initial price outweighed the long term cost by quite a lot, remember it's using 1/3 less fuel.
BTW after 4 weeks the PULP RON # will drop to way below the normal ULP RON so don't store it, use it.
In realistic terms to go on an average fishing trip to the reef I may use 600lit, at $1.30 for ULP costing $780 but with $1.35-40 for PULP at only $560, a substantial saving of $220 which kinda pays for bait oil and ice, it might well be worth considering doing a comparison in any commodore.
Now with the boat that is somewhat a giant fuel guzzler even at cruising speed, it would actually use 1/3 less fuel for the exact same rpm than using std ULP, including the other benefits, and when your running at full throttle using over ""5 lit / mile"" it gets rather expensive to say the least, but at near 45 knots "near 50 mph" your covering the water at just around 80 sec / mile, so hang on !
Using PULP at cruising speeds of say 22-3 knots it would use just under 2 lit / mile for both engines, the same rpm using std ULP it would burn close to 3 lit / mile and when covering 300 + miles it adds up, BTW those that complain about bad fuel economy or filling up woes, try filling up this sucker with 800 lit onboard in two 400 lit tanks, (a giant bomb)
While I used Shel 115 more than any other fuel it could well be a better option to use the ULP avgas of whatever octane you prefer, simply made for late model injected / usully supercharged airplane engines plus the 115 was a methyl Benzine based fuel and "may" stuff your cataylitic converter, valves etc etc.
Outboard engines could handle it as they are essentially highly modified to start with, and while also a V6 the HP they pump out is way more than any same size 2500 car engine, fuel in = power out.
Just my 2c worth.
In most cases running high octane fuels will give only small increases on stock low comp engines, sure the spark flame is brighter and a more efficient combustion is the result giving the other benefits of smooth idle / slightly more power.
Using anything between 95 and 100 would show only a further small difference unless with a modified engine, smoother running is a common offshoot of using PULP, both the bike (900 Triumph) and boat (2 X 175 black max mercs) would show a definite power increase, smoother running + much better fuel milage and the added initial price outweighed the long term cost by quite a lot, remember it's using 1/3 less fuel.
BTW after 4 weeks the PULP RON # will drop to way below the normal ULP RON so don't store it, use it.
In realistic terms to go on an average fishing trip to the reef I may use 600lit, at $1.30 for ULP costing $780 but with $1.35-40 for PULP at only $560, a substantial saving of $220 which kinda pays for bait oil and ice, it might well be worth considering doing a comparison in any commodore.
Now with the boat that is somewhat a giant fuel guzzler even at cruising speed, it would actually use 1/3 less fuel for the exact same rpm than using std ULP, including the other benefits, and when your running at full throttle using over ""5 lit / mile"" it gets rather expensive to say the least, but at near 45 knots "near 50 mph" your covering the water at just around 80 sec / mile, so hang on !
Using PULP at cruising speeds of say 22-3 knots it would use just under 2 lit / mile for both engines, the same rpm using std ULP it would burn close to 3 lit / mile and when covering 300 + miles it adds up, BTW those that complain about bad fuel economy or filling up woes, try filling up this sucker with 800 lit onboard in two 400 lit tanks, (a giant bomb)
While I used Shel 115 more than any other fuel it could well be a better option to use the ULP avgas of whatever octane you prefer, simply made for late model injected / usully supercharged airplane engines plus the 115 was a methyl Benzine based fuel and "may" stuff your cataylitic converter, valves etc etc.
Outboard engines could handle it as they are essentially highly modified to start with, and while also a V6 the HP they pump out is way more than any same size 2500 car engine, fuel in = power out.
Just my 2c worth.
