Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

It's fine. But unless it's the only fuel available, there's no point in using it.

91 all the way for a DE. There will be little to no benefit running 98 or 100 ron fuel.

10:1 is hardly high compression.

A 2ZZ-FE in a base model Corolla is 10.0:1 and requires 91 only. A Lancer VR-X is 10.5:1 and only requires 91. XT Falcon, 10.3:1 and only requires 91.

I'm not sure what makes the 25DE require higher RON fuel?

"Requires" and "runs best on" are two very different things though.

My VQ35de Stagea is 10.3:1 comp and requires a minimum of 95 although I will only be using the United 100 (and maybe a 98 every now and then).

The Wife's 380is 10.0:1 and "requires" only 91, but I can tell you that there is a massive difference when you run 95 and then an even larger jump when running 100 (as per the timing advance and engine load display via Torque on my phone).

Aren't the tuned for the use of Japans fuel?

Which is higher in octane than here?

They are the AU delivered ones, and of course a Falcon. They require 91 RON that we get here.

"Requires" and "runs best on" are two very different things though.

My VQ35de Stagea is 10.3:1 comp and requires a minimum of 95 although I will only be using the United 100 (and maybe a 98 every now and then).

The Wife's 380is 10.0:1 and "requires" only 91, but I can tell you that there is a massive difference when you run 95 and then an even larger jump when running 100 (as per the timing advance and engine load display via Torque on my phone).

I think you'll find it's mostly placebo affect.

Most ECUs don't have enough scope for self tuning to make any user of higher RON fuel. Note, I said most. I'd be surprised if an RB25DE could.

I too would be surprised if the RB25de ecu could make use of the higher octane fuel, but no harm in using a better fuel for a couple of bucks per tank IMO.

No placebo effect with regards to the two cars listed above (particularly the 380 - cleaver little ecu that one) although I am talking about 2005 ecu's as opposed to a late 90's ecu.

RB25DE on an R34 requires minimum of 95RON - Says on the manufacturer's brochure and on the manual. But if you need emergency fuel, I can't see any reason why 91 would cause major issues for short term use.

Oddly enough I still get some pinging on 95 and throttle response is not as crisp :unsure:

I always fill 98 myself - No pings and better economy. But I must stress the price of 98 will not make it cheaper to run vs. running 95.

Filling up with 100 or higher is a waste imho.

I believe by filling 98 you will be hitting the limits of the stock ECU and sensors - Filling 98 just guarantees you are definatly well within the 95+ range.

Aren't the tuned for the use of Japans fuel?

Which is higher in octane than here?

pretty sure their base fuel isn't any higher than here, they just have a premium fuel that is higher than what we have here. so they still have 91 octane fuel over there.

pretty sure their base fuel isn't any higher than here, they just have a premium fuel that is higher than what we have here. so they still have 91 octane fuel over there.

Ahhh ok.

Marc, you really need to stop posting useful shit.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hey Nismo, any chance in the world you still have these seats?
    • I'd say closer to OG GTX3582R, just smaller trim - so 59mm inducer/82mm exducer as opposed to 62/82 for the first gen GTX3582R. Yeah EFRs were boss, the EFR8474 is still an absolute beast and it perplexes me that people still go to things like Turbosmart/Garrett etc when the results people are getting with those are pretty unremarkable compared to what you could get with a turbo available well before those options came out.  DriftSquid (I think) "upgraded" from an EFR9174 to a Turbosmart turbo and promised a comparison video - and kinda shuffled awkwardly and did a bit of diversion from the fact that they didn't get any improvement going to the currently massively hyped brand of turbo from a turbo that was a bit of a frankenstein that had been well superceded in it's own range before the Turbosmart unit he put on there even came out. I suspect the EFR would outperform most Xonas for what a lot of less-insane RB owners would go for, in the 400-600kw range but the Xonas are looking hard to beat up to maybe in the mid 700kw range at this stage- basically where EFRs don't really reach, and before the Precision turbos take over.  What the Xonas do well in the "EFR range" is be easier to package etc, and work very well if a divided housing doesn't suit your application.  
    • Are you sure the gasket is blown? What are the issues? Thermocure is the only flush I've seen do anything with rust, very impressed with that, Prestone, rust will be by the pool having a cigarette.  
    • And since the flush you have a blown head gasket? Have you lifted the head off yet?
    • The answer is to get a hold of the wiring diagram, work out what voltage is supposed to be where, when, and then work out why it is not there, then. I can't speak to the HR34 stuff, because I have never paid any attention to the NAs. There is a possibility that the turbo diagram will help, but it could also be different - depending on whether there is an FPCM on the NAs.
×
×
  • Create New...