87 OCTANE Switch on the EcuTune Stage 1 v4 chip
 

Please direct me to info or give your opinion here for the 87 octane switched option on the EcuTune Stage 1 v4 computer chip. I have utilized this chip for about 9 months....but never tried the 87 octane map. Please give me any positive ...or negative feedback for this option.. . . :confused:

THANKS! Jim :D

P.S. I thought I had the answer to the high fuel price challenge these days through a fuel pill which would increase gas mileage....BUT the company was shut down (probably for good)...SO, I had kept using the premium fuel with the fuel pill...but now..the 87 octane option is looking more attractive!

Help!
 

Please tell or guide me to info about the performance of this 87 OCTANE switch....I can't find any substantial info about whether the switch is a good option or not? :confused:

Thanks...Jim :D

why don't you test it for us - since you have extensive mileage data already you would be the perfect candidate. I don't think there is much of any data on the network about it. Very few have bothered to use the 87 octane code at all.

NOT ME!.....Please...NOT ME!!!
 

After the gas pill fiasco..I'm not sure I'm the best evaluator!...HA! I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not....but I just assumed that since the chip was so apparently popular, that many had tried the switch...especially in light of the rising gas prices the last many months...

WELL...Maybe I just will test it...Maybe I can redeem myself........maybe...?

Thanks, Jim :D

I was not being sarcastic. I think you would be the perfect person to test the switch. I am also wondering how it will affect mileage and performance since I will be using it soon (but for nitrous application)

i am running the 87 codes right now, and so far have been seeing great increase in economy. i an just hitting the first big mark after F and i am at 80 miles. so 80 ish miles on an 1/8th of a tank. but we will see come the end of the tank

OH GOOD!.......A user!
 

Please keep us informed of how that works out for you! :cool:

Thanks! Jim :D

That's about what I get normally...

This past tank I was up to about 100 miles at that line, then a 1/2 hour in stopped traffic pretty much killed my mileage for this tank. Ended up with about 22.8 mpg using Stage 1 v4 and 93 octane.

thats the thing about colorado. well Ft Collins. our premium is 91 oct. so if i had acess to higher octane gas i would. but im SOL on that. im using 87, which is our midgrade. we have the lowest octanes in the state, i dont know why though... anyway. One problem i have is that in the areas of the 2nd and 3rd quarters, my needle dives fast. i know i have a good level sender. Does anyone else get this half tank level dive?

yup
 

My needle does the exact same thing. 1st half of the tank, the needle is very linear in its movement. Just below 1/2, around 3/8's of a tank and the needle races to E. It's deceiving because the needle will slow down again at around 1/8 and stay there for a long time before my low fuel light comes on. My reserve (based on the light) is just under 4 gallons.

yep needle goes really fast after hitting the 1/2 mark

yet again, another point to prove that our cars are really wierd.

Octane
 

Hi everyone, In areas of the country that have high altitudes the oil companys sell lower octane gas as the compression ratio of various vehicles is lower than at sea level. Take care, BOBB

The ratio is the same, the amount of air available to squish is less.

At 5000' you don't need more than 90. I'm using 87 @ 850' and it doesn't make a nickel's worth of difference in economy, highway, city or combined, vs. 93.

Here's something to think about: If higher octane is used for high compression engines in order to reduce detonation by inhibiting flame propagation why not put your gas in an open bucket or drum for a few days before pouring it into your tank? The 'fast stuff' will have evaporated early on, leaving the 'slow stuff' behind, effectively raising the octane rating for free!

Move over, Einstein! I's a geenious too!

Update
 

Hi everyone, Beav is right of course. I should have said that the effective compression ratio is lower. Take care. BOBB