Unleaded - Plus - or Premium - Which do you Use? - Page 2
Username
Do you already have an account?
Forgot your password?
  • Log in or Sign up

    Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
    Results 36 to 70 of 120
    1. #36
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Nov 2016
      Location
      Across town from ipd
      Posts
      56
      ^ ^ Very well said ^ ^
      2016 V60 CC T5 AWD, Platinum, Climate, BLIS

    2. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    3. #37
      Quote Originally Posted by Bunnspeed View Post
      That's great that it's been discussed before but those discussions are relatively useless if they are entirely subjective with regard to measurable performance or even butt-dyno performance. Some people have very vague butt-dynos and others' are much more dialed-in precision measurement tools, lol. We can close the book on this subject if and only if someone does dyno measurements and/ or quarter mile measurements with different octanes under identical conditions, otherwise it's just speculation and uninformed opinion, not fact. Many of us aren't all that concerned with fuel economy and are willing to spend a few dollars per tank more to have better throttle response and perhaps shave a tenth off our quarter mile times in the process. Some of us track our cars and drive them very hard, very often. Some of us aren't satisfied with "peppy" passing of dawdling minivans at part throttle and would rather pull down S4s at triple digit speeds

      I guess for some, merely adequate performance is worth saving a few dollars per tank, or at the time of purchase (the ole T5 versus T6 argument), while others here place a greater emphasis on performance than on cost per mile. Neither set of priorities is universally right or wrong, but you can't use your own priorities to decide when a topic is or isn't worth discussing further by people who care about such things.
      Or better put, why spend $40,000, $50,000, or $60,000 on a car and then neuter performance, if even minimally. I have the T5 and I still swear the one time I tried 87 vs Premium, the car lacked "pep".

    4. #38
      It doesn't seem like too many people run the mid-grade option (89 here in PA). Any particular reason for that? That's what I run in my T6 XC60.

      I have a friend driving the same roads in the same model (XC60 T6) in the same weather and she exclusively uses 87. Neither of us has had any drivability issues.
      2013 XC60 T6 AWD

    5. #39
      Member matt1122's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2012
      Location
      New Jersey
      Posts
      5,465
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      Or better put, why spend $40,000, $50,000, or $60,000 on a car and then neuter performance, if even minimally. I have the T5 and I still swear the one time I tried 87 vs Premium, the car lacked "pep".
      Reading this conversation has given me an alternate perspective. Cheap people who want near-luxury cars do tend to go to Volvo and Acura.

      So if you bought a Volvo because you're too cheap for a Mercedes or Land Rover or whatnot, it would make sense to go with regular.
      Fairwell Tour: 2015 V60 T6 AWD R-Design | Electric Silver / Nubtex | Platinum eBLIS Tech HFS [Long-Term Review Thread]
      Daily Driver: 2017 V90 T6 AWD XC | Osmium Grey / Charcoal | Convenience B&W HUD 4C+Rear Air Suspension Polestar[Long-Term Review & Microblog Thread]
      Past: 1995 Volvo 854 T-5R | 2001 Volvo V70 XC 2.4T AWD | 2007 Volvo XC70 2.5T AWD

    6. #40
      I've run both and found no discernible difference in drivability, performance, or economy. Furthermore, I've found the occasional "clicking" sound that some drive-e engines exhibit under load (including mine) occurs with both.

      Since premium is generally 25-30 percent more expensive around here (if not more) that corresponds to about a $500 annual difference.

      Without a clear benefit, I'd rather keep that money in my pocket.

    7. #41
      Member Bmo Pete's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2014
      Location
      N. Maryland
      Posts
      4,647
      Quote Originally Posted by matt1122 View Post
      Reading this conversation has given me an alternate perspective. Cheap people who want near-luxury cars do tend to go to Volvo and Acura.

      So if you bought a Volvo because you're too cheap for a Mercedes or Land Rover or whatnot, it would make sense to go with regular.
      I would say that if you're too cheap for premium fuel, you're too cheap for a Volvo. Most (non-turbo) Toyota's run fine on 87 octane.
      Rebel Blue, the new red! Intro & Updates Link
      Current: '15 V60 T6 3.0 AWD RD Plat | '15.5 XC60 T6 3.0 AWD Ocean Race Plat
      Prior: '15 S60 T6 3.0 RD Plat

    8. #42
      Member Bmo Pete's Avatar
      Join Date
      Mar 2014
      Location
      N. Maryland
      Posts
      4,647
      Quote Originally Posted by Norwegian Blue View Post
      I've run both and found no discernible difference in drivability, performance, or economy. Furthermore, I've found the occasional "clicking" sound that some drive-e engines exhibit under load (including mine) occurs with both.

      Since premium is generally 25-30 percent more expensive around here (if not more) that corresponds to about a $500 annual difference.

      Without a clear benefit, I'd rather keep that money in my pocket.
      Your engine is a higher compression turbo engine with direct injection, which should use higher octane gas. Whether or not you can discern a difference in performance or engine sound (so many can) is beside the point. You are doing harm to your engine over the long haul. "Pay$ me now, or pay$$$ me later" ...unless you lease, of course...
      Rebel Blue, the new red! Intro & Updates Link
      Current: '15 V60 T6 3.0 AWD RD Plat | '15.5 XC60 T6 3.0 AWD Ocean Race Plat
      Prior: '15 S60 T6 3.0 RD Plat

    9. #43
      Here's an interesting article on this topic:

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ice/100938746/

      Copying the link into my browser worked better than simply clicking it.
      Last edited by vroomr; 04-26-2017 at 04:53 PM.

    10. #44
      Quote Originally Posted by vroomr View Post
      Here's an interesting article on this topic:

      https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ice/100938746/

      Copying the link into my browser worked better than simply clicking it.
      For example, the new Dodge Challenger SRT Demon produces 840 horsepower using super-premium 100 octane fuel, but “just” 808 horsepower with 91 octane

      Scientific Proof that using lower octane does result in inferior performance. So I wasn't crazy when I noticed a difference!

    11. #45
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      For example, the new Dodge Challenger SRT Demon produces 840 horsepower using super-premium 100 octane fuel, but “just” 808 horsepower with 91 octane

      Scientific Proof that using lower octane does result in inferior performance. So I wasn't crazy when I noticed a difference!
      This isn't always true, as some cars don't actually benefit from higher octane. Plenty of cars do, however. A lot depends on how much the ecu is willing and able to adapt to a more aggressive state of tune, doing such power-making fun stuff as adding timing and/ or boost when it encounters higher octane gas, and then detuning itself when it encounters weaker gas. Some cars have ECUs where the tune is pretty static, and they won't be able to take advantage of higher octane. Plenty of cars do respond well to higher octane gas, to a point. They won't always get an extra 32 hp, but you might feel faster spool, better throttle response, and a fuller power curve even if you don't get huge gains on a dyno or at the drag strip.
      2011 S60 T6 with Polestar tune
      13.1 at 101 mph

      Current mods: KW V3 coilovers, DO88 fmic, Ferrita downpipe, Powerflex "race" torque mount inserts, more to come...

    12. #46
      Quote Originally Posted by Bunnspeed View Post
      This isn't always true, as some cars don't actually benefit from higher octane. Plenty of cars do, however. A lot depends on how much the ecu is willing and able to adapt to a more aggressive state of tune, doing such power-making fun stuff as adding timing and/ or boost when it encounters higher octane gas, and then detuning itself when it encounters weaker gas. Some cars have ECUs where the tune is pretty static, and they won't be able to take advantage of higher octane. Plenty of cars do respond well to higher octane gas, to a point. They won't always get an extra 32 hp, but you might feel faster spool, better throttle response, and a fuller power curve even if you don't get huge gains on a dyno or at the drag strip.
      Where does the Drive-E T5 and T6 Volvo S60 fall into the mix? I have a T5 FWD and swear I get better acceleration with Premium.

    13. #47
      Quote Originally Posted by Almaz View Post
      +1
      That pretty much sums it all up. It's a matter of preference.
      If you want to be bored and confused please check out the existing thread which deals with the topic ad nauseam.
      No need to rehash this
      I looked and found an older thread but not one discussing Drive-E engines. The one that came up was from 2012.

    14. #48
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Dec 2014
      Location
      DFW Area
      Posts
      244
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      Where does the Drive-E T5 and T6 Volvo S60 fall into the mix? I have a T5 FWD and swear I get better acceleration with Premium.
      A good comparison might be the new Mazda CX-9, which has the 2.5L turbocharged, direct injected four cylinder. Per Mazda, it makes 227 hp on 87 octane and 250 hp on 93 octane. The torque peak is the same 310 lb-ft on either fuel. Since premium fuel is recommended for the T5 Drive-E, the 240 hp rating was likely achieved on premium fuel. I would not be surprised if it loses 15-20 hp on 87 octane. I have the 5 cylinder which also recommends premium (though does not have direct injection), and when running 87 octane I've noticed mine to feel about the same at low engine speeds, but missing something at higher RPM. This behavior makes sense if peak power is lower but the torque curve remains roughly the same.
      Current: 2014 Volvo S60 T5 Premier / Caspian Blue

    15. #49
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Jun 2012
      Location
      Pittsburgh, PA
      Posts
      788
      I don't think 87 will hurt my 5-cylinder engine but I do get more pep with 93 so I stick with it.
      The newer direct injected small displacement high output engines are more demanding which makes this little article very interesting:

      http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-hin...els-95704.html
      2012 S60 T5 Savile Gray/Beachwood

    16. #50
      Member matt1122's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2012
      Location
      New Jersey
      Posts
      5,465
      Quote Originally Posted by MyVolvoS60 View Post
      Where does the Drive-E T5 and T6 Volvo S60 fall into the mix? I have a T5 FWD and swear I get better acceleration with Premium.
      I'm sure you do. The Drive-E engines use lower displacement with increased specific output (horsepower/torque per liter).

      This requires them to run a higher compression ratio.

      The Drive-E T5 runs at 10.8:1, whereas the 2.5L S60 T5 ran at 9.0:1 or 9.5:1 depending on model year. (fact check, please)
      The Drive-E T6 runs at 10.3:1, whereas the 3.0L S60 T6 ran at 9.3:1.

      A higher compression ratio means an increased chance of detonation as timing increases. Higher octane fuel specifically reduces the chance of detonation.

      Therefore, higher octane fuel will make more of a difference in what timing can be run as compression ratio increases.

      On higher compression engines, the fuel will affect timing more.
      Fairwell Tour: 2015 V60 T6 AWD R-Design | Electric Silver / Nubtex | Platinum eBLIS Tech HFS [Long-Term Review Thread]
      Daily Driver: 2017 V90 T6 AWD XC | Osmium Grey / Charcoal | Convenience B&W HUD 4C+Rear Air Suspension Polestar[Long-Term Review & Microblog Thread]
      Past: 1995 Volvo 854 T-5R | 2001 Volvo V70 XC 2.4T AWD | 2007 Volvo XC70 2.5T AWD

    17. #51
      Quote Originally Posted by matt1122 View Post
      I'm sure you do. The Drive-E engines use lower displacement with increased specific output (horsepower/torque per liter).

      This requires them to run a higher compression ratio.

      The Drive-E T5 runs at 10.8:1, whereas the 2.5L S60 T5 ran at 9.0:1 or 9.5:1 depending on model year. (fact check, please)
      The Drive-E T6 runs at 10.3:1, whereas the 3.0L S60 T6 ran at 9.3:1.

      A higher compression ratio means an increased chance of detonation as timing increases. Higher octane fuel specifically reduces the chance of detonation.

      Therefore, higher octane fuel will make more of a difference in what timing can be run as compression ratio increases.

      On higher compression engines, the fuel will affect timing more.
      Thanks for the explanation. It's kind of what I figured. To get the peak performance, premium was required. Sure I have the T5 (not a T6), but no need to skimp on fuel and lose out on performance. If you can afford a Volvo, then you can afford the extra 50 cents a gallon!

    18. #52
      Quote Originally Posted by dmc79 View Post
      A good comparison might be the new Mazda CX-9, which has the 2.5L turbocharged, direct injected four cylinder. Per Mazda, it makes 227 hp on 87 octane and 250 hp on 93 octane. The torque peak is the same 310 lb-ft on either fuel. Since premium fuel is recommended for the T5 Drive-E, the 240 hp rating was likely achieved on premium fuel. I would not be surprised if it loses 15-20 hp on 87 octane. I have the 5 cylinder which also recommends premium (though does not have direct injection), and when running 87 octane I've noticed mine to feel about the same at low engine speeds, but missing something at higher RPM. This behavior makes sense if peak power is lower but the torque curve remains roughly the same.

      Thanks for the comparison and explanation. I agree, that acceleration and performance appear diminished with lower octane. I tried 87 for some reason, a while back, and the car lacked pep. Once I put in premium, everything felt back to normal!

    19. #53
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Apr 2016
      Location
      Adelaide, Australia
      Posts
      248
      I thought I read somewhere that the Polestar optimisation on the T5 Drive E was conducted with 87, and there was no need to change fuel has it was optimised across all fuel types.

      We assume Volvo provide max power numbers with premium fuel, but I don't know if that is true.
      2015 V60 T5e - Sport Chassis - H&R Springs - IPD Rear Sway Bar - Polestar Optimization - Polestar Exhaust - Polestar Filter - Polestar Rear Diffuser

    20. #54
      Member matt1122's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2012
      Location
      New Jersey
      Posts
      5,465
      Specs are usually given at recommended octane, and 87 is not the recommended fuel for any of the Drive-E engines.

      It's generally not good for marketing to give the amount at a lower octane when you are recommending premium fuel in the first place.

      You want the published numbers to be as good as possible.
      Fairwell Tour: 2015 V60 T6 AWD R-Design | Electric Silver / Nubtex | Platinum eBLIS Tech HFS [Long-Term Review Thread]
      Daily Driver: 2017 V90 T6 AWD XC | Osmium Grey / Charcoal | Convenience B&W HUD 4C+Rear Air Suspension Polestar[Long-Term Review & Microblog Thread]
      Past: 1995 Volvo 854 T-5R | 2001 Volvo V70 XC 2.4T AWD | 2007 Volvo XC70 2.5T AWD

    21. #55
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Apr 2016
      Location
      Adelaide, Australia
      Posts
      248
      I used to think that, but if you look at what VW, Audi and Porsche do, they give output numbers in the worst possible scenarios. That's the minimum you can expect from the cars.

      GTI's are happy to put out 230WHP, when the are sold with that as their crank figure. An owner on here got 250WHP from his T5e on the dyno (matches and exceeds Crank HP number). I need to put mine on the dyno and find out, but I think Volvo are underrating these engines.

      Mine doesn't recommend premium in anything I can see.
      2015 V60 T5e - Sport Chassis - H&R Springs - IPD Rear Sway Bar - Polestar Optimization - Polestar Exhaust - Polestar Filter - Polestar Rear Diffuser

    22. #56
      Junior Member Catman420's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2016
      Location
      Columbia,SC
      Posts
      61
      2015 drive e. Ethanol free always.

    23. #57
      Is there any Top Tier ethanol-free gasoline?

    24. #58
      Junior Member Catman420's Avatar
      Join Date
      Apr 2016
      Location
      Columbia,SC
      Posts
      61
      Quote Originally Posted by vroomr View Post
      Is there any Top Tier ethanol-free gasoline?
      Normally 90 or 91 octane.

    25. #59
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Oct 2015
      Location
      Atlanta, GA
      Posts
      259
      Quote Originally Posted by MidnightSnooze View Post
      Mine doesn't recommend premium in anything I can see.
      I believe this is from your owners manual... "98 RON is recommended for optimum performance and minimum fuel consumption."
      2016 Volvo V60 T5 Platinum
      Onyx Black/Beechwood/Sport Package

    26. #60
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Apr 2016
      Location
      Adelaide, Australia
      Posts
      248
      Quote Originally Posted by SilverRubicon View Post
      I believe this is from your owners manual... "98 RON is recommended for optimum performance and minimum fuel consumption."
      It actually says "Volvo recommends premium fuel for best performance but using 87 octane or above will not effect engine reliability. Vehicles equipped with high performance 4 cylinder engines (B4204T9, T10) require premium fuel"

      On every other car ive had, when they require premium fuel it would say it on the fuel cap. My T5 doesn't. Im wondering whether the T6 does?

      In any case, i always use premium and always will, just trying to see it from the other side.
      2015 V60 T5e - Sport Chassis - H&R Springs - IPD Rear Sway Bar - Polestar Optimization - Polestar Exhaust - Polestar Filter - Polestar Rear Diffuser

    27. #61
      Member matt1122's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2012
      Location
      New Jersey
      Posts
      5,465
      Quote Originally Posted by MidnightSnooze View Post
      I used to think that, but if you look at what VW, Audi and Porsche do, they give output numbers in the worst possible scenarios. That's the minimum you can expect from the cars.

      GTI's are happy to put out 230WHP, when the are sold with that as their crank figure. An owner on here got 250WHP from his T5e on the dyno (matches and exceeds Crank HP number). I need to put mine on the dyno and find out, but I think Volvo are underrating these engines.
      Those dyno tests mean nothing, despite what people want to believe. And the reason people buy into them without question is because it's telling them what they want to believe - that their car has more power than it really does.

      The specs published by manufacturers are determined with the engine connected to a dyno at the output shaft of the engine. That dyno will produce consistent realistic results.

      A dyno measuring power at the wheels is really only useful when you are testing the same vehicle on the same dyno with the same calibration after making changes to its hardware or tuning. The numbers you get from these machines will only match the specs if the dyno is specifically calibrated to do so for that specific vehicle. It's a measuring stick to determine if power increases or decreases, and it can produce meaningful numbers. But they are not representative of crank HP.


      Quote Originally Posted by MidnightSnooze View Post
      Mine doesn't recommend premium in anything I can see.
      Owner's Manul, Page 278: http://volvornt.harte-hanks.com/manu...-Manual-v1.pdf

      "Volvo recommends premium fuel for best performance, but using 87 (AKI) octane or above will not affect engine reliability."
      Fairwell Tour: 2015 V60 T6 AWD R-Design | Electric Silver / Nubtex | Platinum eBLIS Tech HFS [Long-Term Review Thread]
      Daily Driver: 2017 V90 T6 AWD XC | Osmium Grey / Charcoal | Convenience B&W HUD 4C+Rear Air Suspension Polestar[Long-Term Review & Microblog Thread]
      Past: 1995 Volvo 854 T-5R | 2001 Volvo V70 XC 2.4T AWD | 2007 Volvo XC70 2.5T AWD

    28. #62
      Member KCCM's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2011
      Location
      Toronto, Canada
      Posts
      1,319
      From the Volvo manual app updated this morning:
      Volvo recommends premium fuel for best performance, but using 87 octane or above will not affect engine reliability.

      Minimum octane rating:

      (R+M)/2 method 87



      Typical pump octane label
      NOTE
      Vehicles equipped with the high performance 4-cylinder engines (B4204T9 and B4204T10) require premium fuel.

      TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline

      Volvo endorses the use of “TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline” where available to help maintain engine performance and reliability. TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline meets a new standard jointly established by leading automotive manufactures to meet the needs of today’s advanced engines. Qualifying gasoline retailers (stations) will, in most cases, identify their gasoline as having met the “TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline” standards.

      NOTE
      Information about TOP TIER Detergent Gasoline is available at www.toptiergas.com.

      Demanding driving

      In demanding driving conditions, such as operating the vehicle in hot weather, towing a trailer, or driving for extended periods at higher altitudes than normal, it may be advisable to switch to higher octane fuel (91 or higher) or to change gasoline brands to fully utilize your engine's capacity, and for the smoothest possible operation.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
      KECA Kombi - Now '16 V60 T6 AWD R-Design - Just a K&N filter so far, but love the PoleStar tune.

    29. #63
      Junior Member
      Join Date
      Apr 2016
      Location
      Adelaide, Australia
      Posts
      248
      Ill trust a wheel hp dyno over someone saying "it feels better". While yes, there are many factors that contribute to a whp number its the most cost effective method for a customer to show changes in a cars output, possibly more relevant than the manufacturers crank hp number.

      Until someone shows a engine output graph of power and torque levels at different engine octanes for these engines, we are all just speculating.



      Sent from my SM-T713 using Tapatalk
      2015 V60 T5e - Sport Chassis - H&R Springs - IPD Rear Sway Bar - Polestar Optimization - Polestar Exhaust - Polestar Filter - Polestar Rear Diffuser

    30. #64
      I thought I read somewhere that the DriveE engine produces 231hp on 87 octane versus 240hp on premium. I previously owned a supercharged Bonneville where some people who didn't use premium and beat on their cars on a regular basis suffered catastrophic damage because of chipping of a piston due to detonation. Of course, that was a GM car using nearly 20 year old technology to manage detonation.
      2015 V60 T5 FWD, Platinum, Climate, BLIS
      2012 Camry XLE Hybrid
      1970 Camaro, original owner

    31. #65
      Quote Originally Posted by Bmo Pete View Post
      You are doing harm to your engine over the long haul.
      probably not, if you're just tooling around town.

      Quote Originally Posted by dmc79 View Post
      I have the 5 cylinder which also recommends premium (though does not have direct injection), and when running 87 octane I've noticed mine to feel about the same at low engine speeds, but missing something at higher RPM. This behavior makes sense if peak power is lower but the torque curve remains roughly the same.
      if the torque curve remains roughly the same, the hp curve remains roughly the same.

      Quote Originally Posted by MidnightSnooze View Post
      I used to think that, but if you look at what VW, Audi and Porsche do, they give output numbers in the worst possible scenarios. That's the minimum you can expect from the cars.

      GTI's are happy to put out 230WHP, when the are sold with that as their crank figure. An owner on here got 250WHP from his T5e on the dyno (matches and exceeds Crank HP number). I need to put mine on the dyno and find out, but I think Volvo are underrating these engines.
      Quote Originally Posted by matt1122 View Post
      Those dyno tests mean nothing, despite what people want to believe. And the reason people buy into them without question is because it's telling them what they want to believe - that their car has more power than it really does.
      those tests do provide an indication of how the whp compares to advertised power, and it does appear that vw underrates. that said, it wouldn't exactly be surprising if vw had a "dyno mode" that ups boost to show higher hp figures for testing - they could totally leverage the code from the tdi.

    32. #66
      Member KCCM's Avatar
      Join Date
      Aug 2011
      Location
      Toronto, Canada
      Posts
      1,319
      Quote Originally Posted by poundsand View Post
      probably not, if you're just tooling around town.



      if the torque curve remains roughly the same, the hp curve remains roughly the same.




      those tests do provide an indication of how the whp compares to advertised power, and it does appear that vw underrates. that said, it wouldn't exactly be surprising if vw had a "dyno mode" that ups boost to show higher hp figures for testing - they could totally leverage the code from the tdi.
      Dyno WHP figures are actually more useful, and more accurate, than calculating crank HP using some sort of 'fudge factor' for driveline losses.
      HP to the drive wheels is what you want, after all, and shows the benefits to performance of increasing low-end torque and overall traction (e.g., in an AWD RD with a P* tune) vs simply increasing high-end output.


      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
      KECA Kombi - Now '16 V60 T6 AWD R-Design - Just a K&N filter so far, but love the PoleStar tune.

    33. #67
      Premium, no reason to use anything but.
      2015.5 S60 R-Design, S80 Inscription T6 AWD, XC70 T6 AWD Polestar tune OSD order, & V60CC

    34. #68
      Quote Originally Posted by TriShield View Post
      Premium, no reason to use anything but.
      Except if you can afford to buy a Volvo, and then suddenly decide to scrimp.

      I don't know about anyone else, but my 17 Gallon tank yields 425-500 miles of mixed driving. 500+ on Highway driving. Using premium of course.

    35. #69
      Forced induction= premium fuel. Simple.
      16 XC90 T6 Inscription
      12 VW Eos Executive
      04 Land Rover Discovery

    36. #70
      Member matt1122's Avatar
      Join Date
      Feb 2012
      Location
      New Jersey
      Posts
      5,465
      Quote Originally Posted by MidnightSnooze View Post
      Ill trust a wheel hp dyno over someone saying "it feels better". While yes, there are many factors that contribute to a whp number its the most cost effective method for a customer to show changes in a cars output
      That's fine if you're using it to get wheel hp and not crank hp.

      My point is that you're using VW/Porsche forum posts where people measured wheel HP to determine what the crank HP was at different fuel octanes.

      It's just not reliable or scientific to do so. The same dyno can be adjusted to say the specs are based on the higher octane fuel. In fact, someone had to guess which was the case in order to estimate crank HP in the first place.

      In other words, the manufacturer's specs are at the crank, not at the wheels. You can't throw the car on a dyno to figure out whether the specs are at higher or lower octane unless the dyno is connected to the crank.

      Quote Originally Posted by KCCM View Post
      Dyno WHP figures are actually more useful, and more accurate, than calculating crank HP using some sort of 'fudge factor' for driveline losses.
      Exactly. A wheel dyno measures wheel HP fine. It's not good for saying what's going on at the crank!
      Last edited by matt1122; 04-29-2017 at 11:41 AM.
      Fairwell Tour: 2015 V60 T6 AWD R-Design | Electric Silver / Nubtex | Platinum eBLIS Tech HFS [Long-Term Review Thread]
      Daily Driver: 2017 V90 T6 AWD XC | Osmium Grey / Charcoal | Convenience B&W HUD 4C+Rear Air Suspension Polestar[Long-Term Review & Microblog Thread]
      Past: 1995 Volvo 854 T-5R | 2001 Volvo V70 XC 2.4T AWD | 2007 Volvo XC70 2.5T AWD

    37. Remove Advertisements

      Advertisements
       

    Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast