As usual, the conversation is getting distorted to extremes. Yes, most drivers can tell the acceleration difference between a 25-hp VW Bettle and a 1000-hp Bugatti Veyron. That's not the point. The point is that most drivers cannot tell the difference between an engine making a few percent more power on a higher-octane fuel - not when there are so many other factors involved. The only reliable way to measure and confirm such small power gains is by a dyno (preferably) or at least some kind of instrumented runs to speed or a top speed run.

I stand on what I said earlier - lots of people think running a higher-octane fuel alone for an engine designed to make rated power on lower-octane fuel will make their car faster, but not a single solitary one has EVER coughed up a dyno chart to prove their point. So we're left with subjective assessments. And if you believe subjective assessments are good enough, then you might as well be off to Ebay to buy fuel magnets as well as there are thousands of people who swear on a stack of bibles that they work wonders.

- Mark

 

Well as I said, a lot of people won't be able to tell small differences. Some people can. Would I use this as evidence? No.

If I have a data logger and higher octane fuel affects timing, EGT, etc, the data logger can show some differences.

By the way, there have been dyno reports of one stock car running on different fuels.

 

I agree 100%

 

I found nothing on the web to support your claim about the all knowing N14 ECU (you would think Mini would market this). Direct inject systems all run the same way. Most people at least post references (not other forums) to support their claims (and educate people) when it totally goes against all the other known items and conventions on the market.

Its kind of funny that most of the high end tuners out there offer octane rated specific tunes (91, 93 and 100 are most popular) or they rate their single tune on a certain minimal octane. You would think if you could get more HP out of one tune of different octanes you would published that but you just don't see it...Hmmmm I wonder why?

I agree you get more HP from 91 than 87 octane because the ECU will protect the motor from ping by retarding the timing. This is a safe guard it but it does not work in the opposite way of making more HP from 91 to 100. The motor will run cooler with 100 by keeping head and cylinder temps down in turn make a few more horsepower but it would be hard to even see on the dyno between runs. When you go past 100 octane, fuel burn is also much different and has to be accounted for in the tune.

FYI its illegal to run "race gas" (any thing over 93 besides E85) on the street in the US since you do not pay road tax on it and it does not meet EPA emissions standards (non oxygenated etc).

 

TRY IT YOURSELF...stop spitting "theory" at me and the others that have first hand experience with this. Czar, Thepenl, etlaj arguably are some of the most knowledgeable people when it comes to R56 related matters and what works and what doesn't...and your sitting here refuting their experience and knowledge. We are not discussing whether or not some $5k part works...its simply fuel. Easy enough for anyone to go test it out for themselves.

And no...its not illegal to run "Race gas" A) its unleaded and B) They sell it here at the pump along with every other gas, and no where on the pump does it say for "off road use only." Being at the pump, it is subject to all the same taxes other pump gas is.

This thread is exactly why most people who know a damn about these cars have all left NAM...its comical.

 

2nd. I haz water/meth. I haz engineering degree, thus I is qualified.
Blind tested, ran a quart 50/50 w/m mix, then a quart 25/75, then a quart 100/0, and could tell which was which after driving all 3. Guess my butt is in check. IAT's had no effects, as it was 40*F out, with FMIC, IAT's never rose 10F above ambient, with w/m on or off. Same day trials. Dun.

Currently I haz leaking b00(b)st, and my thermostat housing iz crack'd, so i haz no powahs.

 

3rd! I can haz water/meth too lolz. I kept increasing the meth concentration from 50 - 100% and had the same experience as SooperCuper. R56 ECU haz mad powah yo. I know you won't believe us, that's cool. I just know what I know, you know?

Sorry about your leaking b00b Erik. :(

 

+1!!! totally agree with you SooperCuperErik

And something for the disbelievers...

Me too with MSc and PhD!

The blind test is my favorite...in fact I always drive with my eyes shut.

I just noticed some of the participants do not even own a Mini yet...so, my question is this...how on earth you assume all of your writings? Theory is good but in this case yours is just wrong and remember Theory without Practice is like making love without physical contact...

I have lived for nearly half a century and still I learn everyday new things. What I have learned all of my life and what I preach to my children is that: It is wise to listen someone that is more experienced than you and gain something out of it.

A few people on NAM are quite knowledgeable but the mate that is far more knowledgeable than anyone, is Czar. If anyone questions his experience, he/she is a fool.
I, for my self, just face everything with the way a true Engineer does...
with well thought-out designing, mathematical consistency and proven results.

Thank you for listening...

The end.

 

Don't forget to mention yourself there Blake.

Cottnballs, you have made a couple errors in your post, but to be honest, I don't like to discuss matters that have been discussed ad infinitum all over the net, and simply pressing the quote button and rifling through your post makes me want to cringe at the amount of work . There is no effort if there is a question, but I really don't want to argue over such a little thing.

Fact of the matter is, people who have tried higher octane, recorded it's effect (like me), will continue to use it. You can save your money and run whatever fuel you want. All I know is, running my car in the australian heat on a stock tune with 95 octane, my car drives pathetically, even though the car is rated to 95 octane. I need a minimum of 98, and even then if it's very hot and I drive hard, it will pre-det. Hence why I have a water-meth system (good-bye pinging).

If I had 100 octane here, I'd be running it.

 

i agree with etalj about 95 vs 98 and mine when stock ran way better on 98 as opposed to 95. also check out this vid. there is no mini but all the cars gained more with more octane, all stock too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQghB4asSnI

 

There are two big problems with that video.

1. They never say what the "ordinary unleaded" full they are testing is. Is it 87oct? Is it 91oct? They don't say.
2. They also never say what fuel each car is supposed to run...according the manufacturer.

If the car was designed for 87..and you run 100 race fuel, you are NOT going to see any more HP.

If the motor is designed for 91oct...and you compare 87 fuel to 100 race fuel, of course you are going to see more power.

Your motor will make the most power with the fuel that has the LEAST amount of octane...WITHOUT causing any pinging or detonation.

My mini says that it's supposed to be run with 91 fuel...but with 91 I sometimes hear a little bit of pinging when it's hot out, so I always run 93 in it...problem solved. I would bet everything I own that it's not going to make any more power running 110 race fuel than running 93 pump gas.

Unless the ECU in the newer turbo mini's is so advanced that it will run more than the stock boost, and more than the stock timing whenever it can...because it's got higher octane fuel, I don't' see how they would make more power running 100+ fuel compared to 93 pump gas.

But I'm not expert.......

 

Why is that? Please explain

 

Lol I don't like to toot my own horn, but thank you Although I think you, thepenl, and myself aren't even close to the knowledge and experience of someone like czar....I'm certain we know a thing or two about these damn cars!

When you've screwed with this car for 4 years...even before they were able to be tuned, tested a bunch of different crap, played with nearly 50+ tunes, blown a motor, taken it apart, etc... you being to learn what works and what doesn't, and kinda learn the thing inside and out.

I'm done with this thread. The OP asked a simple question, and he was answered by folks who have the experience to answer his question. But the internet experts know best, who don't even own R56's. Personal first hand experience and knowledge means NOTHING on NAM

 

I know. You try to offer your own experience with empirical evidence, and it means nothing.

I think if you combined everyone's knowledge on this forum, you wouldn't get close to Roger's knowledge. That guy is a bottomless pit of R56 knowledge. I don't think my Bentley manual even comes close.

@turtle343, cheers mate

 

The 5th gear video is actually pretty good data as it illustrates exactly what most of us have been saying: Feed a car premium when it is designed to run on regular (the Clio) did nothing. Feed a car regular when it is designed to run on premium (the GTI and STi) might or might not cause a power decrease, depending on environmental factors. None of these tests, however, say anything about taking a car designed to run on premium and feeding it gas with higher-than-premium octane.

I want to emphasize that, as I said at the beginning, cars do vary in tuning and how their ECU's are setup, so I don't think you can absolutely sure of anything on this question. That's why actual tests like Car and Driver did and 5th Gear did are so valuable. But putting race gas in a premium gas stock engine is most likely to do absolutely nothing. We're still waiting on the first piece of actual performance data (dyno, 1/4 mile, top speed, etc.) about this; instead, all we have are people doing a hissy-fit when anybody has the gall to ask them to back up their subjective experiences with actual data.

BTW, some of you who swear you can tell the difference sound like you're running heavily tinkered-with engines. This discussion was about running higher-than-recommended octane in a stock engine. All bets are off if you're talking about overboosted, ECU-modified, intake/exhaust modified motors. These certainly may be able to take advantage of higher octane as they may very well be prone to pinging on recommended octane.

- Mark

 

i know from personal experience that the sti and the gti are both designed to run on 95 and they gave it 98 and it made more power. the clio is for 92. this is octane rating so would be the same as 87 vs 91 vs 93 for US.
im comparing mine from experience with the r56 when it was stock and also with a stock r53.

 

why dont all you sceptics go and try it? instead of rubbishing what has been said many times now.

 

Ding ding ding ding ding!

 

Well, in fairness, not everyone (myself included) has access to 100 octane unleaded; the highest octane rating I can find at the pumps in my area is Sunoco 94 Ultra. And about all I can say there is: my stock JCW Clubman runs pretty good on that (good power, no pinging).

I'm not trying to throw gasoline on the fire (pardon the pun), but "markjenn's" point is a fair one: for those that have tried it with a stock N14 engine, and have some kind of corroborating hard data (back-to-back dyno runs, track times, etc.; not the so-called 'butt-dyno'), please present it to those of us who cannot independently verify the claims.

And such a request (leveled by anyone) should not be perceived as an affront to anyone's knowledge or understanding about fuels or the N14 engine; it's merely a valid request: show me the hard data, if you have some. If you don't, that's fine too. But under such circumstances, claims about performance gains that are not backed by hard data are, I'm sorry, just opinions. They may be knowledgeable opinions backed by years of experience, and therefore bear further investigation; but they're still unsubstantiated...

I'm not saying the claims of increased performance aren't true; at least not yet. But in the absence of hard data or first-hand experience (the former of which I cannot generate on my own because I cannot gain any of the latter, for the reasons I stated above), I (as an engineer myself), even in deference to the greater knowledge/experience that others on the forum may have, cannot accept opinion as conclusive proof of the premise. I'm personally willing to accept it as knowledgeable opinion, at this stage.

 

Here's another test feeding a premium-recommended GTI regular.

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtest...its-power.html

1.9% peak power loss. This is feeding a car less than recommended octane.

All the good data we have shows that the overall best strategy with the vast majority of stock cars is to use what the OM recommends - no more or no less. This is the "common sense" approach which is most often the best one.

- Mark

 

Your first paragraph is correct.

However, I was not saying that ALL cars benefit greatly from running higher-than-recommended octane rating. I said that the N14 R56 engine loves octane, and that in certain conditions, running the recommended 95 RON, the car will ping. In very hot conditions, even 98 RON will cause pinging.

I don't really want to run my car on 95 RON in order to satisfy people's curiosity. Can't people just do this themselves? It's quite an easy test.

 

+1. Cheers etalj.

 

anytime

 

I've run 100 on the track in my R53 when it's available. It turns the exhaust rips an interesting bronze color. When you drive hard you get about 10mpg, regardless of the octane.

 

I've been watching this thread...I'm considering a dynapack for my shop. One of the things on the top of my list will be pulls with 93 octane and 100 octane to see what the results are.