Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

It's fine. But unless it's the only fuel available, there's no point in using it.

91 all the way for a DE. There will be little to no benefit running 98 or 100 ron fuel.

10:1 is hardly high compression.

A 2ZZ-FE in a base model Corolla is 10.0:1 and requires 91 only. A Lancer VR-X is 10.5:1 and only requires 91. XT Falcon, 10.3:1 and only requires 91.

I'm not sure what makes the 25DE require higher RON fuel?

"Requires" and "runs best on" are two very different things though.

My VQ35de Stagea is 10.3:1 comp and requires a minimum of 95 although I will only be using the United 100 (and maybe a 98 every now and then).

The Wife's 380is 10.0:1 and "requires" only 91, but I can tell you that there is a massive difference when you run 95 and then an even larger jump when running 100 (as per the timing advance and engine load display via Torque on my phone).

Aren't the tuned for the use of Japans fuel?

Which is higher in octane than here?

They are the AU delivered ones, and of course a Falcon. They require 91 RON that we get here.

"Requires" and "runs best on" are two very different things though.

My VQ35de Stagea is 10.3:1 comp and requires a minimum of 95 although I will only be using the United 100 (and maybe a 98 every now and then).

The Wife's 380is 10.0:1 and "requires" only 91, but I can tell you that there is a massive difference when you run 95 and then an even larger jump when running 100 (as per the timing advance and engine load display via Torque on my phone).

I think you'll find it's mostly placebo affect.

Most ECUs don't have enough scope for self tuning to make any user of higher RON fuel. Note, I said most. I'd be surprised if an RB25DE could.

I too would be surprised if the RB25de ecu could make use of the higher octane fuel, but no harm in using a better fuel for a couple of bucks per tank IMO.

No placebo effect with regards to the two cars listed above (particularly the 380 - cleaver little ecu that one) although I am talking about 2005 ecu's as opposed to a late 90's ecu.

RB25DE on an R34 requires minimum of 95RON - Says on the manufacturer's brochure and on the manual. But if you need emergency fuel, I can't see any reason why 91 would cause major issues for short term use.

Oddly enough I still get some pinging on 95 and throttle response is not as crisp :unsure:

I always fill 98 myself - No pings and better economy. But I must stress the price of 98 will not make it cheaper to run vs. running 95.

Filling up with 100 or higher is a waste imho.

I believe by filling 98 you will be hitting the limits of the stock ECU and sensors - Filling 98 just guarantees you are definatly well within the 95+ range.

Aren't the tuned for the use of Japans fuel?

Which is higher in octane than here?

pretty sure their base fuel isn't any higher than here, they just have a premium fuel that is higher than what we have here. so they still have 91 octane fuel over there.

pretty sure their base fuel isn't any higher than here, they just have a premium fuel that is higher than what we have here. so they still have 91 octane fuel over there.

Ahhh ok.

Marc, you really need to stop posting useful shit.

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

    • How dare you sell your unreliable Skyline and buy a reliable, Toyota/Yamaha car with a strong gearbox, torsen LSD and Toyota reliability. At least you won't need to worry about oil pumps, big catch can, oil restrictors, blowing off power steering belts, sheering off 3rd gear, failing ABS relays/pumps, etc.
    • Hope you aren't too sore after that one, might take a day or 2 to notice yet and I guess it is a loooooong drive home. On the bright side, tube frame front end is a thing at superlap, right?
    • https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18rmVb1SKB/ 
    • The chart of front pressure to rear pressure (with one being on the x axis and the other being on the y axis) is not a straight line on a typical proportioning valve. At lower pressures there is a straight line with one slope, and at higher pressures that changes to a lower slope. That creates a bend in the line at that pressure, called the knee point. If you do not change the proportionng as the pressure gets higher, you will suffer excessive pressure (at one end of the car or the other, depending on which way you look at the proportioning action) and then get lockups at that end. The HFM BM57, from my memory of previous discussions, is based on the BM57 from a different car (to a Skyline), with a different requirement for the location of the knee point and the distribution of pressure front to rear, and so is not a good choice for an upgrade on a Skyline. Here's a couple of links to some old posts, one from here, one from elsewhere. A lot of it pertains to adjustable prop valves, but the idea is the same. There are plenty of discussions on here about this issue from al the many years of people wanting a cheap/accessible option. https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/learn-me-brake-proportioning-valves/236880/page1/ https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/learn-me-brake-proportioning-valves/236880/page1/  
    • Yeah dunno why johhny posted that here with no context, just post on FB/insta bro where he put it up?  Laine had an off at T4 during Thurs prac, he's ok, car is less than perfect, they are done for the weekend, he can fill in the rest. Bando also binned it like 100m up the road.   
×
×
  • Create New...