Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:17:51 +0800 From: Bernd Felsche <bernienospamvative.iinet.net.au> Subject: Re: What a fnospamg scam - FuelSaver my ass - it's just a damn magnet
Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelationsnospamail.com> writes: >Bernd Felsche wrote: >> D Walford <walfordnospammus.com.au> writes: >> >Pooh Bear wrote: >> >> It's not *better* fuel. It has a higher octane rating. >> >And in many instances higher octane is better. >> >> More MJ/kg and more kg/litre. >> >> >> Some cars barely benefit from it. If she's got a V12 I doubt the >> >> potential extra bhp is actually needed. >> >With that type of vehicle its odds on that the manufacturer >> >specifies a higher octane fuel, its not so much that the engine >> >will "benefit" with increased hp, the benefit would be that the >> >engine is less likely to self destruct from pinging. >> It's also likely to use LESS FUEL over the same distance because a >> smaller throttle opening will be needed to achieve the same amount >> of torque. >In the real world it simply isn't that simple. It appears to be the case for many. I very much doubt that the Merc V12 wouldn't. My 1990 VW uses 10% less PULP/98 than ULP. Minimum RON 91; according to the manual and sticker inside the fuel filler flap. The manual for the 2005 Golf say that a lower RON fuel (than 95) can be used but will result in reduced performance and increased fuel consumption. >Some ppl claim to get better mpg from 95 RON fuel. Not in this country. -- /"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus! X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature / \ and postings | to help me spread!
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
