Turbo Buick Forums banner
1 - 20 of 77 Posts

·
nero v. 2.0
Joined
·
3,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Saw this quote:

Doc1of7 said:
Get a good alky kit, and just run 87.
I have an Alkycontrol.com unit, and have been running 87, with no lose of performance. While intially $$, it the long run with prices they way they are, it will be cost effective.
In this thread:

http://www.turbobuicks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51039

Was wondering if anyone else is doing this? I know, I won't be... but just curious if anyone else has had any success with 87 octane or is this guy's situation purely anecdotal?! :cheers: :dunno: :6:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
nero said:
Saw this quote:
In this thread:
http://www.turbobuicks.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51039
Was wondering if anyone else is doing this? I know, I won't be...
Why?
Have you seriously investigated the matter?.
Why run more octane then you need too?. The alky injection takes care of the octane requirement when in boost. With the lower octane, there's also no need to run alot of timing in cruise mode, which is much easier on the engine. Lower oil temps., same MPG, lower fuel costs, longer engine life, ya, that all sounds so bad.....
 

·
Never ending process!
Joined
·
2,288 Posts
NO KENNY NO !!! :D :D :D

Talk to Bruce(Doc1of7)..He's put a SUBSTANTIAL amount of time and effort into
his projects....He's managed some amazing things with our cars...Downright scary engineering skills too !! :cheers:
 

·
nero v. 2.0
Joined
·
3,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Doc1of7 said:
Why?
Have you seriously investigated the matter?.
Nope, and that, my friend, is why I don't do it--just a simple inquiry as I'd definitly conduct more research of I seriously desired to look into the option :cheers:

Why run more octane then you need too?. The alky injection takes care of the octane requirement when in boost. With the lower octane, there's also no need to run alot of timing in cruise mode, which is much easier on the engine. Lower oil temps., same MPG, lower fuel costs, longer engine life, ya, that all sounds so bad.....
Seems like Jim is right, you've done a ton of research and actually testing. So, you notice no knock increase when you get under boost? How much boost do you run?

:yup: :headbang:
 

·
Village Idiot
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
No loss of performance
Optomistically, I would say YMMV but those results sound illogical to me.
Our 93 octane here went away late last and now that I can only buy 91, I had to turn down the boost from 24 psi to 20 psi or else it would knock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
nero said:
Seems like Jim is right, you've done a ton of research and actually testing. So, you notice no knock increase when you get under boost? How much boost do you run?

No knock at all.
I'm currently running about 23d of advance, at 20 PSI. And I've been as high as 25, but didn't see any performance gain in doing that.
Without the alky about 19d.

I'm still building the tune, and now that I have the lower boost levels dialed in will be cranking it up. FWIW, I typically run 26 PSI of boost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
stevemon said:
Optomistically, I would say YMMV but those results sound illogical to me.
Our 93 octane here went away late last and now that I can only buy 91, I had to turn down the boost from 24 psi to 20 psi or else it would knock.
Because you can't do something, someone else can't?.
I fail to see the logic, in that.

It's not easy, but it can be done, if you want to drop by, I'll take you for a drive, and you can watch the Scanner/ Scanmaster, if you want.
 

·
nero v. 2.0
Joined
·
3,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Is there anything else in your combo that should be known or is it, in short, install the alky kit and fill up with 87?

Thanks

Steve, perhaps because Doc and I are using Razor's kit,that this idea is conceivable. Or maybe not, just trying to keep apples to apples. :6:
 

·
Village Idiot
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
Kenny, Well, for starters the brand of kit wouldn't make any difference. At full boost, the motor that's getting tha alky doesn't know who's kit the alky is coming from.
Yes, transitional knock may be evidenced more in a non-progressive kit when 87 octane is used but you can play with timing and eliminate that.
What Bruce is talking about works for Bruce. I don't doubt it but I'll wait to see some others make the same claim before I'd jump on the 87 octane bandwagon.
 

·
nero v. 2.0
Joined
·
3,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
stevemon said:
Kenny, Well, for starters the brand of kit wouldn't make any difference. At full boost, the motor that's getting tha alky doesn't know who's kit the alky is coming from.
True enough!

Yes, transitional knock may be evidenced more in a non-progressive kit when 87 octane is used but you can play with timing and eliminate that.
What Bruce is talking about works for Bruce. I don't doubt it but I'll wait to see some others make the same claim before I'd jump on the 87 octane bandwagon.
Agreed, no bandwagons here, however like you suggest, if something economical and 'worthy' works for one member of our TR commnnity it is well worth being objectively explored in order to enhance or denounce the validity of it from a broad usage standpoint. :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
Just for grins I *added* a couple degrees of timing, and ran a datalog.

21 PSI, 27d timing, ~11:1 AFR, 1,300dF EGT, **ZERO Knock Retard*

87 Octane, Alkycontrol.com (single nozzle)
Tuned appropriately.

185dF thermostat, ambient air temp ~80dF..

EngRun Mph Rpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB PS Rtd
00:15:01 68 4375 228 100 186 99 27.1 14.77 10.9 0.0
00:15:01 69 4375 232 100 186 99 27.1 14.53 11.0 0.0
00:15:01 70 4375 223 100 186 99 27.1 14.56 10.7 0.0
00:15:01 70 4400 227 100 186 99 27.1 14.80 10.8 0.0
00:15:01 71 4375 228 100 186 99 27.1 14.56 11.0 0.0
00:15:01 71 4425 230 100 186 99 27.1 14.53 10.8 0.0
00:15:01 71 4400 223 100 186 99 27.1 14.53 11.2 0.0
00:15:01 72 4425 230 100 186 99 27.1 14.53 10.6 0.0
00:15:01 72 4425 230 100 186 99 27.1 14.53 10.8 0.0
00:15:01 72 4450 231 100 186 98 27.1 14.77 10.9 0.0
00:15:01 73 4450 232 100 186 98 27.1 14.77 10.9 0.0
00:15:01 74 4475 230 100 186 99 27.1 14.56 10.8 0.0
00:15:01 74 4450 230 100 186 99 27.1 14.34 11.1 0.0
00:15:01 74 4475 230 100 186 99 27.1 14.34 10.8 0.0
00:15:01 75 4475 227 100 186 98 27.1 14.44 10.8 0.0
EngRun Mph Rpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB Rtd
00:15:02 75 4475 231 100 186 98 27.1 14.31 10.8 0.0
00:15:02 76 4475 231 100 186 98 27.1 14.53 10.8 0.0
00:15:02 77 4475 231 100 186 98 27.1 14.86 10.6 0.0
00:15:02 77 4475 227 100 186 98 27.1 14.77 10.9 0.0
00:15:02 77 4550 229 100 186 98 27.1 14.95 10.7 0.0
00:15:02 78 4550 229 100 186 98 27.1 14.65 10.8 0.0
00:15:02 78 4550 232 100 186 98 27.1 14.65 10.5 0.0
00:15:02 79 4525 231 100 186 98 27.1 14.56 10.8 0.0
00:15:02 80 4550 231 100 186 98 27.1 14.95 10.5 0.0
00:15:02 80 4550 231 100 186 98 27.1 14.86 10.9 0.0
00:15:02 80 4575 229 100 186 98 27.1 14.62 10.8 0.0
00:15:02 81 4575 235 100 186 98 27.1 14.62 10.9 0.0
00:15:02 81 4600 230 100 186 98 27.1 14.62 10.5 0.0
00:15:02 81 4600 228 100 186 98 27.1 14.86 10.9 0.0
00:15:02 82 4625 231 100 186 97 27.1 14.99 10.7 0.0
EngRun Mph Rpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB Rtd
00:15:03 82 4600 229 100 186 98 27.1 14.65 10.5 0.0
00:15:03 83 4600 229 100 186 98 27.1 14.99 10.6 0.0
00:15:03 83 4625 227 100 186 98 27.1 14.62 10.5 0.0
00:15:03 83 4675 231 100 186 98 26.8 14.95 10.9 0.0
00:15:03 83 4650 228 100 186 98 26.8 14.74 10.4 0.0
00:15:03 84 4675 234 100 186 98 27.1 14.74 11.0 0.0
00:15:03 84 4675 235 100 186 98 27.1 15.08 10.5 0.0
00:15:03 85 4675 232 100 186 98 27.1 14.74 10.4 0.0
00:15:03 85 4675 232 100 186 98 27.1 15.08 10.7 0.0
00:15:03 85 4675 235 100 186 97 27.1 15.17 10.3 0.0
00:15:03 85 4675 236 100 186 97 27.1 15.17 10.5 0.0
00:15:03 85 4750 235 100 186 98 27.1 15.17 10.6 0.0
00:15:03 86 4750 231 100 186 97 27.1 15.17 10.5 0.0
00:15:03 86 4750 235 100 185 97 27.1 15.05 10.8 0.0
00:15:03 86 4750 230 100 185 97 27.1 15.26 10.4 0.0
EngRun Mph Rpm KPa Tps CtsF MatF Spkf PW WB Rtd
00:15:04 87 4775 230 100 185 97 26.8 15.26 10.2 0.0
00:15:04 88 4775 236 100 186 97 26.4 15.26 10.6 0.0
00:15:04 88 4825 232 100 186 97 26.0 15.26 10.3 0.0
00:15:04 88 4825 231 100 185 97 26.0 15.26 10.4 0.0
00:15:04 89 4825 235 100 185 97 26.4 15.17 10.5 0.0
00:15:04 89 4825 234 100 185 97 26.0 15.38 10.3 0.0
00:15:04 89 4825 237 100 185 97 26.0 15.38 0.0 0.0
00:15:04 89 4825 234 100 185 97 26.0 14.16 10.5 0.0
00:15:04 89 4725 237 100 185 97 26.4 14.07 10.9 0.0
00:15:04 89 4475 236 100 185 97 26.4 13.89 11.6 0.0
00:15:04 90 4325 237 100 185 97 26.0 13.89 11.5 0.0
00:15:04 90 4300 235 100 185 97 26.0 13.76 11.6 0.0
00:15:04 91 4250 228 100 185 97 26.0 13.55 11.3 0.0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
stevemon said:
Kenny, Well, for starters the brand of kit wouldn't make any difference. At full boost, the motor that's getting tha alky doesn't know who's kit the alky is coming from.

Yes, transitional knock may be evidenced more in a non-progressive kit when 87 octane is used but you can play with timing and eliminate that.

What Bruce is talking about works for Bruce. I don't doubt it but I'll wait to see some others make the same claim before I'd jump on the 87 octane bandwagon.
Yes, it does, I've tired both non-pregressive, and progressive, and it does matter.

Read my posting with the datalog, and get back to me.

Nothing like the safety of following the herd...... :)
Obviously, it does work for me, maybe because I invested the time to sort it out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
nero said:
True enough!

Agreed, no bandwagons here, however like you suggest, if something economical and 'worthy' works for one member of our TR commnnity it is well worth being objectively explored in order to enhance or denounce the validity of it from a broad usage standpoint.
Seems like you have the same opinion, but, again, have you tried both a progressive, and non-progressive.

No bandwagons here, other then trying to get people to think, and experiment.
Yep, why experiment?, why try for better performance, better emissions, longer engine life, did I mention better performance?... :)
 

·
nero v. 2.0
Joined
·
3,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Doc1of7 said:
Seems like you have the same opinion, but, again, have you tried both a progressive, and non-progressive.

No bandwagons here, other then trying to get people to think, and experiment.
Yep, why experiment?, why try for better performance, better emissions, longer engine life, did I mention better performance?... :)

Nah, my opinion is just a general interest in learning how to maximize efficiency and performance in our cars, if that's even an opinion!

The latter part little tidbit you quoted is merely me elucidating for Steve in hopes of disuading him from building any strawmen about my notions and reasons of inquiry.

The former, was ignorance. I didn't know the progressive v. non-progressive issue made a relevant difference in this thread. Glad you cleared it up!! :yup: :cheers:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,262 Posts
What?

:6: What kind of performance are we talking about at this boost and timing level? i.e. et & mph? :6:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
william brophy said:
What kind of performance are we talking about at this boost and timing level? i.e. et & mph?
Not everyone is into drag racing.
That, and all to often things get into being no more, then chest beating, when anyone mentions et's, so I elected to forgo getting into that anymore.

Not to mention that the original thread referenced to, was about fuel additives, which he was going to add in addition to running premium. To which I made my comments, and was trying to show how alky could be a cost effective alternative, for knock suppression.
 

·
nero v. 2.0
Joined
·
3,323 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Doc1of7 said:
Not everyone is into drag racing.
That, and all to often things get into being no more, then chest beating, when anyone mentions et's, so I elected to forgo getting into that anymore.

Not to mention that the original thread referenced to, was about fuel additives, which he was going to add in addition to running premium. To which I made my comments, and was trying to show how alky could be a cost effective alternative, for knock suppression.

Exactly, thanks for not letting the thread digress too much. As far as the 87 octane, I'm all for economic benefits!!! Tell me, does it matter what brand of fuel is used (cheapo stuff, shell, sunoco, etc) and moreoever, do you have a readily available chip (TT, Extender...etc) or is yours custom?

Please, continue to update the thread as you continue to observe your results while upping boost!

:headbang:
 

·
Village Idiot
Joined
·
4,813 Posts
I won't argue with you Doc but you'll never prove that 87 octane makes as much HP as 93 octane or that a progressive controller makes more power with less knock than a non-progressive at WOT. Just put me on the skeptics side of the list and I'll bow out of this thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
nero said:
Exactly, thanks for not letting the thread digress too much. As far as the 87 octane, I'm all for economic benefits!!! Tell me, does it matter what brand of fuel is used (cheapo stuff, shell, sunoco, etc) and moreoever, do you have a readily available chip (TT, Extender...etc) or is yours custom?

Please, continue to update the thread as you continue to observe your results while upping boost!
The only gas I refuse to use is Shell. Otherwise, I use whatevre's available, when I need gas. I had issues with that them, and that platformate or whatever they called the manganese additive they used to use.

Mine, is a one of a kind set-up. While based on GM's stuff, the entire code I run has been rewritten. For someone wanting to do this, they could get the similiar results with their own chips, or by working with their chip guy, or MAFTPRO, or Translator GenII. I've been open about posting my timing, and VE tables, so the info., is out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,311 Posts
stevemon said:
I won't argue with you Doc but you'll never prove that 87 octane makes as much HP as 93 octane or that a progressive controller makes more power with less knock than a non-progressive at WOT. Just put me on the skeptics side of the list and I'll bow out of this thread.
I didn't say that. I said I can run 87, without any timing penalty, with using alky.

Now your repeating yourself. You never did answer if you'd tried both set-ups, and if you haven't then what are you basing your judgement on?.

If you don't want to participate in the thread, just stop replying, I'm not going to miss your *opinions*. How about if you prove some of your claims, thou.

You said, *Kenny, Well, for starters the brand of kit wouldn't make any difference. At full boost, the motor that's getting tha alky doesn't know who's kit the alky is coming from.*
Do you have datalog, or anything to prove that statement?.
You also said, *Our 93 octane here went away late last and now that I can only buy 91, I had to turn down the boost from 24 psi to 20 psi or else it would knock.* Got a datalog to prove that?.

While you want to discredit what I've posted on nothingness, how about if you *prove* what you've claimed?. Let's see a datalog showing no difference in progressive, vs non.
 
1 - 20 of 77 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top