Re: What kind of gas?
09-08-2003, 02:40 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What kind of gas?
"Lon Stowell" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Rv27b.391517$YN5.258656@sccrnsc01...
> Approximately 9/7/03 19:43, Masterbiscuit uttered for posterity:
>
> > To tell you the truth, I have a 94 Cherokee 4.0 I6
> > and I find that with 87 it runs just fine, but it seems
> > to run slightly better on 89. A little better on the power
> > and gas mileage. As far as companies go, I'd say to shop
> > around. Usually the expensive gas isn't always the best.
> > But try a few places, and see for yourself how your
> > Wrangler responds. You might be suprised.
> >
>
> Dunno who else notices this, but have a similar issue, the
> I-6 pings mildly with California versions of 87 and stepping
> up to 89 seems to cure this. Once east of Nevada, it seems
> to run well on 87 even at high Utah/Colorado altitudes.
> No idea why.
>
You have more air down there, and the effect is similar to being at the same
altitude but with a greater compression ratio. "Regular" is 85 or 86 octane
up here, and most of the newer fuel injected cars seem to run fine on it.
Earle
news:Rv27b.391517$YN5.258656@sccrnsc01...
> Approximately 9/7/03 19:43, Masterbiscuit uttered for posterity:
>
> > To tell you the truth, I have a 94 Cherokee 4.0 I6
> > and I find that with 87 it runs just fine, but it seems
> > to run slightly better on 89. A little better on the power
> > and gas mileage. As far as companies go, I'd say to shop
> > around. Usually the expensive gas isn't always the best.
> > But try a few places, and see for yourself how your
> > Wrangler responds. You might be suprised.
> >
>
> Dunno who else notices this, but have a similar issue, the
> I-6 pings mildly with California versions of 87 and stepping
> up to 89 seems to cure this. Once east of Nevada, it seems
> to run well on 87 even at high Utah/Colorado altitudes.
> No idea why.
>
You have more air down there, and the effect is similar to being at the same
altitude but with a greater compression ratio. "Regular" is 85 or 86 octane
up here, and most of the newer fuel injected cars seem to run fine on it.
Earle
09-08-2003, 03:01 PM
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What kind of gas?
Approximately 9/8/03 11:40, Earle Horton uttered for posterity:
> You have more air down there, and the effect is similar to being at the same
> altitude but with a greater compression ratio. "Regular" is 85 or 86 octane
> up here, and most of the newer fuel injected cars seem to run fine on it.
Yeah, but what is wierd is that the Oregon and even Arizona gas
don't ping down around the bay area. It isn't a heavy ping enough
to bother, just the tick tick tick that you used to get with a
stickshift when in the wrong gear and running aggressive advance.
> You have more air down there, and the effect is similar to being at the same
> altitude but with a greater compression ratio. "Regular" is 85 or 86 octane
> up here, and most of the newer fuel injected cars seem to run fine on it.
Yeah, but what is wierd is that the Oregon and even Arizona gas
don't ping down around the bay area. It isn't a heavy ping enough
to bother, just the tick tick tick that you used to get with a
stickshift when in the wrong gear and running aggressive advance.
09-08-2003, 03:01 PM
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What kind of gas?
Approximately 9/8/03 11:40, Earle Horton uttered for posterity:
> You have more air down there, and the effect is similar to being at the same
> altitude but with a greater compression ratio. "Regular" is 85 or 86 octane
> up here, and most of the newer fuel injected cars seem to run fine on it.
Yeah, but what is wierd is that the Oregon and even Arizona gas
don't ping down around the bay area. It isn't a heavy ping enough
to bother, just the tick tick tick that you used to get with a
stickshift when in the wrong gear and running aggressive advance.
> You have more air down there, and the effect is similar to being at the same
> altitude but with a greater compression ratio. "Regular" is 85 or 86 octane
> up here, and most of the newer fuel injected cars seem to run fine on it.
Yeah, but what is wierd is that the Oregon and even Arizona gas
don't ping down around the bay area. It isn't a heavy ping enough
to bother, just the tick tick tick that you used to get with a
stickshift when in the wrong gear and running aggressive advance.
09-08-2003, 05:37 PM
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What kind of gas?
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:55:13 UTC Lon Stowell <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Approximately 9/7/03 19:43, Masterbiscuit uttered for posterity:
>
> > To tell you the truth, I have a 94 Cherokee 4.0 I6
> > and I find that with 87 it runs just fine, but it seems
> > to run slightly better on 89. A little better on the power
> > and gas mileage. As far as companies go, I'd say to shop
> > around. Usually the expensive gas isn't always the best.
> > But try a few places, and see for yourself how your
> > Wrangler responds. You might be suprised.
> >
>
> Dunno who else notices this, but have a similar issue, the
> I-6 pings mildly with California versions of 87 and stepping
> up to 89 seems to cure this. Once east of Nevada, it seems
> to run well on 87 even at high Utah/Colorado altitudes.
> No idea why.
I see two different things here in Colorado. They require oxygenated
fuel (ethanol, now) in winter and there is a small but repeatable
mileage gain - maybe .5 to 1 mpg - going from the base 86 octane they
sell here to the next higher level. I also get better starting on
cold days with the higher grade. Nothing earthshattering, but
noticable. During the summer months when the fuel is NOT oxygenated I
can see no perceptible difference period.
When I head South from here to Texas I get a noticable boost in
mileage and apparent power (passing acceleration) that doesn't exactly
track the altitude lose. I see a difference when I fill up east of
Raton where the gas is not oxygenated and is 87 octane base, but as
above that difference is far less noticable when the change is just 86
octane to 87.
From what I see with the two scenarios, I have to conclude that the
ethanol is far and away the major performance degradation and that the
octane makes virtually no difference. The 88 Jeep manuals make a
point about needing higher octane when towing or other heavy load
situations. I could see that yesterday running steep (8% or so)
grades above 10,000 feet. WOT in higher gears actually seemed to lose
pull while running the same RPM in a lower gear left me with plenty of
reserve. Next time I make that run I'll try high test and see if it
makes any difference since I do have a working knock sensor.
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
wrote:
> Approximately 9/7/03 19:43, Masterbiscuit uttered for posterity:
>
> > To tell you the truth, I have a 94 Cherokee 4.0 I6
> > and I find that with 87 it runs just fine, but it seems
> > to run slightly better on 89. A little better on the power
> > and gas mileage. As far as companies go, I'd say to shop
> > around. Usually the expensive gas isn't always the best.
> > But try a few places, and see for yourself how your
> > Wrangler responds. You might be suprised.
> >
>
> Dunno who else notices this, but have a similar issue, the
> I-6 pings mildly with California versions of 87 and stepping
> up to 89 seems to cure this. Once east of Nevada, it seems
> to run well on 87 even at high Utah/Colorado altitudes.
> No idea why.
I see two different things here in Colorado. They require oxygenated
fuel (ethanol, now) in winter and there is a small but repeatable
mileage gain - maybe .5 to 1 mpg - going from the base 86 octane they
sell here to the next higher level. I also get better starting on
cold days with the higher grade. Nothing earthshattering, but
noticable. During the summer months when the fuel is NOT oxygenated I
can see no perceptible difference period.
When I head South from here to Texas I get a noticable boost in
mileage and apparent power (passing acceleration) that doesn't exactly
track the altitude lose. I see a difference when I fill up east of
Raton where the gas is not oxygenated and is 87 octane base, but as
above that difference is far less noticable when the change is just 86
octane to 87.
From what I see with the two scenarios, I have to conclude that the
ethanol is far and away the major performance degradation and that the
octane makes virtually no difference. The 88 Jeep manuals make a
point about needing higher octane when towing or other heavy load
situations. I could see that yesterday running steep (8% or so)
grades above 10,000 feet. WOT in higher gears actually seemed to lose
pull while running the same RPM in a lower gear left me with plenty of
reserve. Next time I make that run I'll try high test and see if it
makes any difference since I do have a working knock sensor.
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
09-08-2003, 05:37 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What kind of gas?
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 16:55:13 UTC Lon Stowell <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote:
> Approximately 9/7/03 19:43, Masterbiscuit uttered for posterity:
>
> > To tell you the truth, I have a 94 Cherokee 4.0 I6
> > and I find that with 87 it runs just fine, but it seems
> > to run slightly better on 89. A little better on the power
> > and gas mileage. As far as companies go, I'd say to shop
> > around. Usually the expensive gas isn't always the best.
> > But try a few places, and see for yourself how your
> > Wrangler responds. You might be suprised.
> >
>
> Dunno who else notices this, but have a similar issue, the
> I-6 pings mildly with California versions of 87 and stepping
> up to 89 seems to cure this. Once east of Nevada, it seems
> to run well on 87 even at high Utah/Colorado altitudes.
> No idea why.
I see two different things here in Colorado. They require oxygenated
fuel (ethanol, now) in winter and there is a small but repeatable
mileage gain - maybe .5 to 1 mpg - going from the base 86 octane they
sell here to the next higher level. I also get better starting on
cold days with the higher grade. Nothing earthshattering, but
noticable. During the summer months when the fuel is NOT oxygenated I
can see no perceptible difference period.
When I head South from here to Texas I get a noticable boost in
mileage and apparent power (passing acceleration) that doesn't exactly
track the altitude lose. I see a difference when I fill up east of
Raton where the gas is not oxygenated and is 87 octane base, but as
above that difference is far less noticable when the change is just 86
octane to 87.
From what I see with the two scenarios, I have to conclude that the
ethanol is far and away the major performance degradation and that the
octane makes virtually no difference. The 88 Jeep manuals make a
point about needing higher octane when towing or other heavy load
situations. I could see that yesterday running steep (8% or so)
grades above 10,000 feet. WOT in higher gears actually seemed to lose
pull while running the same RPM in a lower gear left me with plenty of
reserve. Next time I make that run I'll try high test and see if it
makes any difference since I do have a working knock sensor.
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
wrote:
> Approximately 9/7/03 19:43, Masterbiscuit uttered for posterity:
>
> > To tell you the truth, I have a 94 Cherokee 4.0 I6
> > and I find that with 87 it runs just fine, but it seems
> > to run slightly better on 89. A little better on the power
> > and gas mileage. As far as companies go, I'd say to shop
> > around. Usually the expensive gas isn't always the best.
> > But try a few places, and see for yourself how your
> > Wrangler responds. You might be suprised.
> >
>
> Dunno who else notices this, but have a similar issue, the
> I-6 pings mildly with California versions of 87 and stepping
> up to 89 seems to cure this. Once east of Nevada, it seems
> to run well on 87 even at high Utah/Colorado altitudes.
> No idea why.
I see two different things here in Colorado. They require oxygenated
fuel (ethanol, now) in winter and there is a small but repeatable
mileage gain - maybe .5 to 1 mpg - going from the base 86 octane they
sell here to the next higher level. I also get better starting on
cold days with the higher grade. Nothing earthshattering, but
noticable. During the summer months when the fuel is NOT oxygenated I
can see no perceptible difference period.
When I head South from here to Texas I get a noticable boost in
mileage and apparent power (passing acceleration) that doesn't exactly
track the altitude lose. I see a difference when I fill up east of
Raton where the gas is not oxygenated and is 87 octane base, but as
above that difference is far less noticable when the change is just 86
octane to 87.
From what I see with the two scenarios, I have to conclude that the
ethanol is far and away the major performance degradation and that the
octane makes virtually no difference. The 88 Jeep manuals make a
point about needing higher octane when towing or other heavy load
situations. I could see that yesterday running steep (8% or so)
grades above 10,000 feet. WOT in higher gears actually seemed to lose
pull while running the same RPM in a lower gear left me with plenty of
reserve. Next time I make that run I'll try high test and see if it
makes any difference since I do have a working knock sensor.
--
Will Honea <whonea@codenet.net>
09-08-2003, 08:24 PM
#16
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What kind of gas?
Yes, the 4.0L has a knock sensor.
KH
"Lon Stowell" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Wy27b.391538$YN5.258677@sccrnsc01...
> Approximately 9/7/03 20:58, Kevin in San Diego uttered for posterity:
>
> > Doesn't the knock sensor allow the motor to run on lower octane, it just
> > retards the timing a bit or something? Even my old 88 4.0 has a sensor,
it
> > runs fine on 87. I think you only need high octane in high compression
> > engines.
> > KH
>
> Do any of the Jeep engines even have knock sensors?
>
> Having put a hole in a piston oncet, don't think I'd care to own
> a turbo engine without one, as they also cut boost, richen mix,
> whilst cutting advance on most of those.
>
KH
"Lon Stowell" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Wy27b.391538$YN5.258677@sccrnsc01...
> Approximately 9/7/03 20:58, Kevin in San Diego uttered for posterity:
>
> > Doesn't the knock sensor allow the motor to run on lower octane, it just
> > retards the timing a bit or something? Even my old 88 4.0 has a sensor,
it
> > runs fine on 87. I think you only need high octane in high compression
> > engines.
> > KH
>
> Do any of the Jeep engines even have knock sensors?
>
> Having put a hole in a piston oncet, don't think I'd care to own
> a turbo engine without one, as they also cut boost, richen mix,
> whilst cutting advance on most of those.
>
09-08-2003, 08:24 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What kind of gas?
Yes, the 4.0L has a knock sensor.
KH
"Lon Stowell" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Wy27b.391538$YN5.258677@sccrnsc01...
> Approximately 9/7/03 20:58, Kevin in San Diego uttered for posterity:
>
> > Doesn't the knock sensor allow the motor to run on lower octane, it just
> > retards the timing a bit or something? Even my old 88 4.0 has a sensor,
it
> > runs fine on 87. I think you only need high octane in high compression
> > engines.
> > KH
>
> Do any of the Jeep engines even have knock sensors?
>
> Having put a hole in a piston oncet, don't think I'd care to own
> a turbo engine without one, as they also cut boost, richen mix,
> whilst cutting advance on most of those.
>
KH
"Lon Stowell" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Wy27b.391538$YN5.258677@sccrnsc01...
> Approximately 9/7/03 20:58, Kevin in San Diego uttered for posterity:
>
> > Doesn't the knock sensor allow the motor to run on lower octane, it just
> > retards the timing a bit or something? Even my old 88 4.0 has a sensor,
it
> > runs fine on 87. I think you only need high octane in high compression
> > engines.
> > KH
>
> Do any of the Jeep engines even have knock sensors?
>
> Having put a hole in a piston oncet, don't think I'd care to own
> a turbo engine without one, as they also cut boost, richen mix,
> whilst cutting advance on most of those.
>
09-11-2003, 08:16 PM
#20
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: What kind of gas?
ICUC2
"mabar" <mabar@NOSPAMgbronline.com> wrote in message
news:EdWdnaG_Fd37lvyiU-KYgw@gbronline.com...
> OIC ?
>
> "Kevin in San Diego" <kevin_hedstrom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MO07b.47396$Qy4.33499@fed1read05...
> > OIC
> >
> snip
>
>
"mabar" <mabar@NOSPAMgbronline.com> wrote in message
news:EdWdnaG_Fd37lvyiU-KYgw@gbronline.com...
> OIC ?
>
> "Kevin in San Diego" <kevin_hedstrom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:MO07b.47396$Qy4.33499@fed1read05...
> > OIC
> >
> snip
>
>