edyvw
$50 site donor 2025
Automakers wanted that forever.
Think I may have solved fuel dilution problem in our '18 CRV
- Thread starter himemsys
- Start date
And here I thought everyone was going EV.
Everyone going EV is just as much of a joke as the senate limiting spending lol
They just want to be lazy, plain and simple. We should fight it and not make excuses for them.
There is nothing wrong with 87 octane, and don’t bring up Europe as an example. Despite their supposedly superior fuel, they drive little 3 cylinder penalty boxes, because that’s the major factor in fuel economy.
But as usual, the companies want to convince the average consumer that they can have the cake and eat it too, but in reality the benefits will only be on the corporate side.
I've been saying for years that higher octane in the gas tank, and higher HTHS in the crankcase is the winning combo to eliminating Honda's fuel dilution in that 1.5T.
But almost every time this statement was met with backlash and "Honda engineers know best", "it was made for 87", "this engine was made for 0W-20", "read the owner's manual", etc.
eh, feels good to be right.
But almost every time this statement was met with backlash and "Honda engineers know best", "it was made for 87", "this engine was made for 0W-20", "read the owner's manual", etc.
eh, feels good to be right.
Higher compression ratios are a legitimate means of increasing efficiency. Are you being silly?
Automakers are desperate to meet ever increasing CAFE requirements, and all the low-hanging fruit was eaten years ago. Now we as consumers are being forced to pay for dubious and expensive technologies for increasingly low returns.
You're blaming the wrong entity here. Saying they are lazy and making excuses shows you have no clue what you're talking about.
I’m not being silly, I do understand some efficiency can be gained, but i highly doubt it will be enough to offset the increase in fuel prices.
Since you seem to know what you’re talking about, what percentage of efficiency gains are you expecting to see?
It would depend on the compression ratio. But an exact number? I do not know. I was only commenting on the reasoning from an automaker perspective.
It's also convoluted by that article which is being linked. Here you have government taking advantage of technical reasoning and proposing a political solution - to a problem they created in the first place. That proposal is messed up on multiple levels. Note the state of residence for that Representative.
Automakers don't care where the octane rating comes from, they care about selling vehicles without penalty.
Which is exactly why I said they are being lazy and use lobby and political power to force in the high octane ratings, which will benefit them and most likely only them.
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 2,216
Nothing irks me more than when people "their engineers designed it, they know what they're doing!" Clearly not. Engineers also built Firestone's tires in the 1990s/2000s and it killed people, so no, just because someone designs something does not mean it's perfect.
Great discovery. Perhaps you could find which of those changes made the most difference - was it the 91 octane gas, or the Mobil 1 5W-30 ESP, or the econ mode off.
[QUOTE="I Nothing irks me more than when people "their engineers designed it, they know what they're doing!" Clearly not. Engineers also built Firestone's tires in the 1990s/2000s and it killed people, so no, just because someone designs something does not mean it's perfect.
[/QUOTE]
The engineers make a lot of mistakes, as they can never know the hidden defects in their designs until after the owners manual are written and the vehicles are on the road for 5+ years.
I came to realize the owner's manual's were written with the automakers best interests in mind (like avoid CAFE fines) and not in the best interests of the car owners who want engine longevity.
[/QUOTE]
The engineers make a lot of mistakes, as they can never know the hidden defects in their designs until after the owners manual are written and the vehicles are on the road for 5+ years.
I came to realize the owner's manual's were written with the automakers best interests in mind (like avoid CAFE fines) and not in the best interests of the car owners who want engine longevity.
Would reqire E30 to achieve cheaply, notice that the author and all co-sponsors are Midwest/farm state representatives.
There's also no reason for higher octane fuel to be expensive as it is. Pricing is based on what the market will apparently bear.
Plus it’s counterproductive. Yes you’ll extract more usable work out of the available BTU but ethanol has lower energy per volume than gasoline. Since CAFE is based on fuel economy a higher concentration of EtOH doesn’t help as much. Again, government making mandates that they subsequently attempt to achieve with more legislation.
Perhaps the NHTSA will issue wavers for high EtOH concentration fuels
Engineers spend too much time in AutoCAD/Inventor/SolidWorks and in the test cell. Not so much with the techs in the field.
The oil has nothing to do with it. I'm guessing it's mostly the 91 octane gas, but I'm not motivated enough to experiment between the gas and the econ mode. It's my wife's daily driver so it's not something that would be easy to test.
Can confirm, I am an engineer, and I go "into the field" like once a year, and do 99.9999% of my work in CAD and a phone call.
Not sure where I read, but probably here on BITOG, that thicker oil seals the piston better to the cylinder wall, therefore less blow by? Could be wrong.
If you look at toyota's engine design between the 2AR-FE and the A25A-FKS, both are 2.5L engines, one has a 10:1 and one a 13 or 14:1 compression ratio. All things being equal, the HP jumped 20-30hp and same with torque, and MPG went from around 30 avg to 35 avg, in the same car.
Yes, all things being equal. But E30 is not equal.
[QUOTE="I Nothing irks me more than when people "their engineers designed it, they know what they're doing!" Clearly not. Engineers also built Firestone's tires in the 1990s/2000s and it killed people, so no, just because someone designs something does not mean it's perfect.
[/QUOTE]
Except the problem with that was Ford engineers spec'ing they be run at 29 psi. Which of course was the starting point and then nobody ever checks them again afterwards, so they're even lower.
[/QUOTE]
Except the problem with that was Ford engineers spec'ing they be run at 29 psi. Which of course was the starting point and then nobody ever checks them again afterwards, so they're even lower.