Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi all , in Sydney there are a few servos going under the AP banner and I noticed the 98ULP is claimed to have 10% ethanol content .

I'm curious to know peoples opinions on fuel octane and the different ways that a given fuels octane can be increased and the power potential because of it .

A good friend of mine in the automotive trades for nearly 40 yrs claims that if anything the lower octane fuels are better power developers with the only downside their tendency to detonate in high cylinder temperature/pressure situations .

He says that the higher octane petroleum fuels abilities to resist detonation actually make it harder to light the fire and burn efficiently .

Where I'm coming from with all this is that I suspect AP may be boosting the octane rating of say 95 ULP with ethanol and if that's the case is it possible that their 98E10 may burn better and possibly have a small edge over straight 98ULP - no ethanol .

I'm finding it actually resists detonation better than BP Ultimate in my old dinosaur tech (1986) turbo Subaru and I think it makes my Skyline run smoother as well .

Is anyone game to give this fuel a whirl in a high horsepower roadie ?

BTW it sells for around 1.32/L recently anyway which doesn't appear to be that much different to Ultimate - depending where you get that from .

Opinions ? Cheers A .

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/334648-ap-98e10-interesting-brew/
Share on other sites

I and a number of other RB owners over here in NZ have been using Gull "Force 10" for over a year. It is an E10 - 10% ethanol blend. Tuners like it. I think the evidence doesn't support your friend's contention that lower octane fuels can produce more power. Have a look at the E85 thread to see the power people are making with the higher ethanol content!

By volume he is right, you would need more ethanol for the same power but only a little. From my research ethanol has more oxygen in it hence the bigger bang and burns a bit longer in the bore which all equals more torque.

You will notice 98 e10 runs a bit leaner up top if not tuned due to the extra oxygen tricking the o2 sensor, that is the issue for those with factory ecu's.

A good friend of mine in the automotive trades for nearly 40 yrs claims that if anything the lower octane fuels are better power developers with the only downside their tendency to detonate in high cylinder temperature/pressure situations .

He says that the higher octane petroleum fuels abilities to resist detonation actually make it harder to light the fire and burn efficiently .

Hes mostly correct. If you cannot change the ignition timing at all and it doesnt knock on 91 with that timing then it'd be a complete waste to run 98 as it burns slower and costs more. But due to it burning slower and being more resistant to knock you can run more timing compared to 91 before it knocks, which far outweighs any minute gain you'd have with a faster burning fuel (91) with less timing.

At the end of the day, contrary to popular belief, 99% of standard cars arent worth putting 98 in. The extra cost simply isnt worth the very small gains, if there are any at all. If you have the ability to change the timing then you'll allways make better power/torque with higher octane fuels and possibly better economy too, but its up to the user whether they can justify the cost.

And i doubt the e10 98 would give you the same burn properties of 95 without the knock, as octane ratings are essentially a measure of a fuels resistance to burning and knocking, i'd say it'd essentially perform like 98 but maybe with a tiny bit of the cooling benefit of ethanol, which would make it slightly more knock resistant.

  • 7 months later...

Hi peoples,

Sorry to bring a post up from the past but I am quite keen on an answer from people with RB's who have used Gull Force 10 which has 10%ethanol. It is the only 98 fuel in Whangarei and I am quite keen to start using it and see if it fixes some of my temperature related pinging. My little intercooler is struggling with a dyno tune I have done. It is fine when the intercooler is cool but if it warms up (it does so quickly), it flat spots because the knock sensor kicks in. I have been running 95 premium of which people think may be my problem.

I am hoping to put off buying a FMIC if I can for now but I am dead sick of the flat spot.

Mods are:

Z32 tuned ecu

3" zorst

K&N panel filter

Walbro fuel pump

Dyno tuned at 168rwkw (auto transmission)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Forgot to include this but this is the mid section of my steering rack that looks like it has a thread/can be turned with that notch mentioned in the post:
    • Hey everyone, Wanted to pick some brains about this issue I'm having with rebuilding my 33 rack (PN is 49001-19U05). All of the tutorials/videos I've seen online are either R34 or S Chassis racks which seem to be pretty straightforward to disassemble but this process doesnt carry over to my rack. Few of the key differences that I've noted The pinion shaft on the other racks bolt on with 3 torx bolts: Whereas my rack bolts on with 2 allen head bolts: These changes are pretty inconsequential but the main difference is how you pull the actual rack out of the housing. The other skyline/s chassis racks can be taken out by tapping the rack out of the body with a socket and it just slides right out. I'm unable to do that with my rack because there's a hard stop at the end that doesn't let the seal/shaft be tapped out. Can also see a difference in the other end of the rack where mine has a notch that looks like you're able to use a big wrench to unthread 2 halves of the rack whereas the other racks are just kinda set in with a punch. My rack: Other racks: TLDR; Wanted to know if anyone has rebuilt this specific model of steering rack for the R33 and if there were any steps to getting it done easier or if I should just give this to a professional to get done. Sorry if this post is a bit messy, first one I've done.
    • I would just put EBC back on the "I would not use their stuff" pile and move on.
    • Can I suggest you try EBC directly again and link them to as many competitor catalogues as you can to show their listing is incorrect, eg https://dba.com.au/product/front-4000-series-hd-brake-rotor-dba42304/ If you have access to an R33 GTST VIN and your VIN, you could also use a Nissan Parts lookup like Amayama to show them the part number is different between 33 GTST and 34 GTT which may get their attention
    • So i got reply from EBC and they just this site where you can clearly see those 296mm fronts on R34 GTT. I send them photos and "quotes" that 296mm are not for 34 GTT and they are too small. But it will be very hard to return them cuz nobody here knows 100% and they just copy those EBC catalogue :-D https://ebcbrakesdirect.com/automotive/nissan/skyline-r34
×
×
  • Create New...