Using higher than recommended octane fuel can result in incomplete combustion?

Joined
Aug 30, 2004
Messages
31,970
Location
CA
Application in question recommends 89:

91 is hard to ignite with cylinder heat and ignition resulting in an even more incomplete burn. Meaning less energy to push the piston. Spark plugs are also sold in heat ranges. Hotter spark plugs and higher compression engines for high octane. Vehicle never burn all the fuel. Does it work? Absolutely! They all do. We are talking atoms here but there is a difference. Unused fuel also creates carbon on the valves, pistons, etc... overtime.

Source: https://www.ramforum.com/threads/87-or-89-octane.147307/page-2#post-2087017

In summary, the quoted poster is stating that using a higher than recommended octane (91 instead of 89) results in an incomplete burn. In his opinion, overtime, this can result in excessive carbon buildup.

Is there any truth to his logic?

My understanding of octane is a bit different than his, but I am curious what the group thinks.
 
resistance to detonation

I learned this as resistance to combustion along those same lines, meaning that yes, octane keeps gas from combusting so easily, and I have read and heard this throughout the years from relatively smart sounding people. Heh... Of course I haven't the feasible means or knowledge to confirm it, but it does make sense to me. I also have read that higher octane (perhaps octane itself, I can't recall exactly) will result in more deposits. So I can't vouch scientifically, but there are many seemingly reputable sources that will agree with this.
 
The higher the octane, the more energy required to fully ignite a charge. Energy comes from the spark (ignition) and pressure (compression).

In an oversimplified explanation, motors have recommended octanes based on how much compression they produce in the cylinder. If you run a higher octane fuel (which requires a higher pressure input to fully combust), there will typically be unburnt fuel in each charge. That unburnt fuel is more likely to, for lack of a better word, smolder and burnt less cleanly, producing by-products like carbon buildup.

It isn't an absolute rule, but it is a pretty accurate generality.
 
What the octane rating of gasoline means and what it does not mean is widely misunderstood and part of the problem comes in because there is more than one way to alter the rating. All else being equal the energy content is the same regardless of the rating but an engine that can accommodate a higher rating through advancing the timing can achieve a higher efficiency. But running higher octane fuel in an engine designed for a lower octane fuel has no benefit nor does it cause harm. It burns just as completely. The instance where fuel does not burn completely is when there is pre-ignition because the rating is too low.
 
Last edited:
Detonation can happen from hotter than normal temps from carbon in the combustion chamber which the higher octane helps to prevent. The temp of the spark however is well above the requirements for high octane gas to ignite so I dont see how high octane gas would lead to deposits especially since most have more detergents in them.
 
Here was when you asked about running a lower octane fuel but there is discussion that is pertinent to this question:

 
One point I'll add is that many of the aromatic hydrocarbon additives used to increase octane have less energy per unit volume than gasoline. In this case, higher octane gas has lower energy content.

For example, consider E10 gasoline. Gasoline has about 119k BTU per gallon, ethanol has about 76k. Ethanol has 36% less energy per gallon. Mix it in 10% and you have roughly 3.6% less energy per gallon.

Engines designed to use the higher octane can run higher compression and more advanced timing to increase efficiency, which partially offsets the lower energy content of the fuel. Engines that don't use the high octane, don't do that, and thus are simply 3.6% less efficient and powerful.
 
I've only heard about that problem on cars spec'd for regular that don't have a knock sensor (7th gen Accord V6 from 98-02, for example)

And many stations don't even offer 89, just 87 and either 91 or 93. Do they really expect customers to mix it themselves at the pump? :unsure:
 
Application in question recommends 89:



Source: https://www.ramforum.com/threads/87-or-89-octane.147307/page-2#post-2087017

In summary, the quoted poster is stating that using a higher than recommended octane (91 instead of 89) results in an incomplete burn. In his opinion, overtime, this can result in excessive carbon buildup.

Is there any truth to his logic?

My understanding of octane is a bit different than his, but I am curious what the group thinks.
Higher octane fuels burn slower and more completely compared to lower octane fuel. So I would think the OP had it reversed.

 
The first paragraph of the first article you linked ignores the fact that many octane boosting additives (like ethanol) have less energy than gasoline itself. Of course, it opens by saying, "With slight variations ... " so it all hinges on one's definition of "slight".

Higher octane fuels burn slower and more completely compared to lower octane fuel. So I would think the OP had it reversed.
...
Hypothetically speaking, if "burning slower" means the exhaust valve opens while it's still burning, then it would seem that "more completely" goes out the window ... or in this case out the exhaust valve.

In other words, the point hinges on how one defines "incomplete burn". Is it in absolute terms, or relative to the piston stroke/cycle? Imagine an engine designed for 87 octane fuel; it has spark and valve timing designed to gain full expansion from faster burning gasoline. If you use slower burning (higher octane) gasoline, the exhaust valve may open or the piston reach the bottom of the stroke before the fuel reaches full expansion. Or, peak expansion / pressure happens later in the stroke/cycle than the engine was designed for. If this happens, then the "usable" burn relative to the engine stroke/cycle is actually less complete and the rest is wasted energy.
 
I always wondered if a higher octane gas was used in a lower compression engine say a mower engine, designed to function on 87 fuel, does the incomplete combustion exit through the exhaust valve as it continues to burn? Would that combusting gas exit the valve and continue to burn and raising the temperature of the exhaust as it passes out through the head to the muffler?

Like I was always told to never put 102 octane racing gas into my motorcycles by "back yard" know it all mechs, it would burn out the exhaust valves..

I've probably got that wrong, but I've always wondered that.
 
What the octane rating of gasoline means and what it does not mean is widely misunderstood and part of the problem comes in because there is more than one way to alter the rating. All else being equal the energy content is the same regardless of the rating but an engine that can accommodate a higher rating through advancing the timing can achieve a higher efficiency. But running higher octane fuel in an engine designed for a lower octane fuel has no benefit nor does it cause harm. It burns just as completely. The instance where fuel does not burn completely is when there is pre-ignition because the rating is too low.
This.

Octane rating is the fuel's ability to avoid detonation; spontaneously igniting.

He states:
91 is hard to ignite with cylinder heat and ignition resulting in an even more incomplete burn.

Igniting with cylinder heat is exactly what you are trying to avoid with higher octane. Combustion is a process, not a random event. Ignition occurs from the intended point of propagation (the spark plug) and the flame front spreads-out from there, evenly across the cylinder, creating a surge of pressure, which drives the piston down.

You do not need higher compression or different heat range plugs to take advantage of higher octane, you just need to be able to advance the ignition timing. Back in the day, we'd do that by rotating the distributor. You'd pick up a few HP on a 302HO by increasing base from 10 to 14 degrees BTDC. If you put regular in them with this done, they'd rattle (detonation).

Do you remember carbureted engines "running on"? They were "dieseling", which was the carbon build-up in the cylinder getting hot enough to ignite the air fuel mixture, resulting in very poorly timed and dirty combustion that didn't require a spark plug to take place. This could be avoided by using higher octane fuel typically. This happening (a spontaneous and improperly timed combustion event) taking place on a higher compression engine, or particularly a boosted one, can cause catastrophic results. Probably the best example of that is LSPI.

Now, there's no advantage in running higher octane fuel if your engine can't take advantage of it. This can be ascertained by monitoring spark knock. If your ECM is pulling timing, you'll benefit from higher octane fuel. If it isn't? You won't. The HEMI wants a minimum of 89, but can run on 87 by pulling advance. The higher compression 6.4L doesn't make that claim, it wants 91 minimum as do many Euro cars whose spark maps are designed around 91. Will they run on 87? Yes, if they have a knock sensor (and most do) you can get away with doing it, but it certainly isn't optimal.

Now, the HEMI has 16 spark plugs and this has nothing to do with octane or plug heat range and everything to do with combustion chamber design. Big valves in a hemispherical-style chamber results in very poor swirl at low speeds. This means less than ideal mixing of the fuel/air and a "dirty" combustion event. By igniting the flame front in two locations, using a phased approach, this can be somewhat mitigated, which improves emissions performance. Dual ignition has been around since at least the 1920's on big bore engines and IIRC, Mazda used it on their 4" bore 4-pot in the 90's. Pent roofs do better in this regard, as do wedges (hence the LS7 having huge bores and single plugs).

Now, spark plug heat range has nothing to do with what was postulated in that thread. In the simplest terms, the heat range of the plug is dictated, based on testing, on what is required to keep the plug clean. That's the primary purpose. Keeping the tip of the spark plug hot enough to keep the build-up off, while cold enough not to fail. This is achieved by the length of the ceramic insulator that controls how quickly the heat is dissipated into the cylinder head.

If a plug is too hot, it can cause preignition. If a plug is too cold, it can foul. Engines that are run under higher load (think marine engines) will often run a slightly colder plug than engines that aren't, even if the engines themselves are basically the same (like a Ford Windsor).

NGK has a decent little blurb on this here:

As @kschachn noted, once combustion is started, there's no difference in the burn between the two different octane ratings. Higher octane doesn't burn cooler, lower octane doesn't burn faster. This is covered very well in the link from MIT that @BMWTurboDzl posted:
Octane rating is a measure of grace under pressure: how evenly a gasoline will burn under difficult conditions, like hard acceleration. Ideally, the vaporized gasoline inside an engine’s cylinder burns by the propagation of a wave of flame, ignited by the cylinder’s spark plug. This allows a smooth transfer of power to the engine’s crankshaft and the car’s wheels. But at higher pressures or temperatures, small pockets of gasoline vapor can prematurely explode, or self-ignite, creating a distinctive “knocking” sound, as well as potentially destructive shock waves.

Gasoline with a higher octane rating does not self-ignite easily, and burns more evenly than lower-octane fuel under harsh conditions, resisting detonation and knocking.

Now, if you have an engine that requires 91 and is pulling serious timing to avoid pinging, you may experience incomplete combustion because the ignition event is moved up closer to the exhaust event and you've effectively shortened the power stroke. This means you may still have combustion taking place after the exhaust valve opens. This is part of that hit on efficiency @kschachn noted, so, this effectively works the opposite of what buddy was proposing.
 
Last edited:
Here in Cali the lower the octane used the better for passing the smog test, learned that the hard way. :LOL:
On my 83 Silverado 87 octane, on the wifes 08 Malibu LTZ 89 is recommended, on my 17 Regal GS 91 is king.
 
People seriously think about this stuff way too much

Like half the vehicles on the road (hyperbole) are turbocharged. So if you have a turbocharged car that calls for premium but you just putt around all day and go pick up milk and what not and never see even close to max cylinder pressure... Do people really think this is going to cause a long term problem?
 
... Dual ignition has been around since at least the 1920's on big bore engines and IIRC, Mazda used it on their 4" bore 4-pot in the 90's. ...
Mazda also used dual ignition in the 13B Wankel engines, sequential firing to compensate for the long narrow combustion chamber. And dual plugs are standard on most aviation piston engines (Continental & Lycoming), for both reliability (dual magnetors, dual plugs) and for power/efficiency (giant sized cylinders).

As a general rule, run the lowest octane fuel that does not ping or pre-ignite under the conditions you drive.
Using higher octane than necessary isn't likely to hurt anything (other than your wallet), but it won't help either.
 
Few modern engines have low compression. Consequently, many can take advantage of higher octane, through timing advance and mixture adjustment
 
Never thought about it this much. I run premium in the Trans Am, Caprice and Malibu. So everything gets it. Keeps it simple.
Anything else in my LS powered cars and I can see it pull timing in my logs. The Malibu DI 2.0 turbo loves premium.

The only think I own that does not care is the 1997 K1500. I think it may run on water... :)
 
Back
Top