Quite the contrary. A too low octane gasoline will result in carbon buildup when the computer enriches the mixture to prevent pre-ignition and ping. A higher octane gasoline will eliminate the problem.
> Is there any truth to the oft-repeated wisdom that running high octane (91-93)
> gas in a motor that is designed for 87 octane will leave carbon on the pistons,
> thus increasing compression and necessitating use of the higher octane until
> the carbon is removed? I don't even know where to start in getting to the
> bottom of this.

Signature
Mike Walsh
West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S.A.
HLS@nospam.nix - 30 Aug 2005 23:17 GMT
No truth to it at all, Ryan.
lugnut - 31 Aug 2005 12:28 GMT
>Quite the contrary. A too low octane gasoline will result in carbon buildup when the computer enriches the mixture to prevent pre-ignition and ping. A higher octane gasoline will eliminate the problem.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> the carbon is removed? I don't even know where to start in getting to the
>> bottom of this.
lugnut - 31 Aug 2005 13:15 GMT
>Quite the contrary. A too low octane gasoline will result in carbon buildup when the computer enriches the mixture to prevent pre-ignition and ping. A higher octane gasoline will eliminate the problem.
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> the carbon is removed? I don't even know where to start in getting to the
>> bottom of this.
The ECM does not increase the fuel to reduce detonation.
That would result in increased hydrocarbon emissions. The
ECM retards the ignition timing and, in some cases,
increases the EGR flow to combat detonation or ping. The
octane rating indicates the fuel's resistance to
autoignition or detonation. The major, but not only,
determining factor for the requirement for increased octane
is the effective compression ratio of the engine. All
manufacturers recommend the correct octane for their
vehicles. If there is a little ping, there is no problem
and is, usually, expected where an engine is optimally
tuned. Just because you hear an occasional, ping does not
mean you engine needs or will perform better with a higher
octane fuel. In many cases a bit of ping is, in fact
desireable as it will many times dislodge carbon before it
becomes a problem. All gasolines produce carbon as a part
of the combustion process. It is, therefore, necessary that
it somehow be maintained at an acceptable level. Occasional
light ping can get this job done. That is also why many
techs and engineers recommend that the engine be "blown out"
occasionally by operating at full throttle for a few
seconds. That is also why a vehicle that has always been
"babied" or always just used around town can turn out to be
a mechanical train wreck when a regular driver gets into it
for a while. Best performance and fuel economy are almost
always found with a good quality gasoline of the vehicle
manufacturers recomendation. If the engine persist in
excessive detonation or ping when driven normally, it should
be checked for proper operation of the EGR system, proper
state of tune and correct ignition timing. If these items
are in spec, it may be time for a decarbonising which can be
accomplished in many cases by simply "running it through th
gears" a couple of times. You almost never see a
performance engine with a carbon problem. In some cases a
fuel additive can do this. There are several commercial
carbon removal processes.
If these fail, it may be time to pop the heads and
mechanically clean it. The bottom line is that, if the
manufacturer recommends a particular octane fuel, it is most
likely what that engine needs. Anything more is overkill
and detrimental to you wallet if not the engine. Using a
fuel with a higher than recommended octane rating is only a
coverup for a problem that either does not exist or needs
attention to be properly corrected.
Regards
Lugnut
I remember like it was yesterday how gas station attendants
would warn customers against selecting the highest octane
on the blender pump because it could "burn your valves"
> Is there any truth to the oft-repeated wisdom that running high octane (91-93)
> gas in a motor that is designed for 87 octane will leave carbon on the pistons,
> thus increasing compression and necessitating use of the higher octane until
> the carbon is removed? I don't even know where to start in getting to the
> bottom of this.
Don Stauffer - 31 Aug 2005 14:11 GMT
> I remember like it was yesterday how gas station attendants
> would warn customers against selecting the highest octane
> on the blender pump because it could "burn your valves"
This is the same kind of misunderstanding that folks talk about with the
high volatility racing fuel- methanol. Or the high energy jet fuel,
etc. If something has high performance it must be because the fuel must
be providing more energy, right? Size of engine, its makeup, power to
weight ratio, all that is too hard to think about- performance must mean
high energy, high volatility, high danger, fuel.
. - 31 Aug 2005 14:42 GMT
> > I remember like it was yesterday how gas station attendants
> > would warn customers against selecting the highest octane
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> weight ratio, all that is too hard to think about- performance must mean
> high energy, high volatility, high danger, fuel.
It was as hilarious then as now.
> Is there any truth to the oft-repeated wisdom that running high octane (91-93)
> gas in a motor that is designed for 87 octane will leave carbon on the pistons,
> thus increasing compression and necessitating use of the higher octane until
> the carbon is removed? I don't even know where to start in getting to the
> bottom of this.
At one time perhaps.
Older higher octane fuel blends tended to be higher in olefins that
might not completely burn and could leave some carbon deposits. All
reformulated gas these days are restricted in the amount of certain
components, including olefins. There are also detergency requirements.
Even if the olefins tend to create carbon, it's not a problem if the
detergent level is high enough to prevent buildup.
<http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/phase2rfg/char.shtml>
<http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/bulletin/fed-refm/rfg-char.shtml>
> Is there any truth to the oft-repeated wisdom that running high octane (91-93)
> gas in a motor that is designed for 87 octane will leave carbon on the pistons,
> thus increasing compression and necessitating use of the higher octane until
> the carbon is removed? I don't even know where to start in getting to the
> bottom of this.
Geeze we just saw this one in the chrysler newsgroup again.
The latest theory constructed around this idea is that the knock sensor
doesen't hear the engine knocking so it keeps enrichening the mixture
until it just begins to hear knocking, since it never will due to the high
octane it makes the engine run too rich.
We have one regular poster who believes high octaine gas causes fouling
fervently, most people just give up and ignore these posts.
Ted
ed - 31 Aug 2005 13:59 GMT
its all that sulfer and additives....
Ryan Underwood - 31 Aug 2005 20:16 GMT
>The latest theory constructed around this idea is that the knock sensor
>doesen't hear the engine knocking so it keeps enrichening the mixture
>until it just begins to hear knocking, since it never will due to the high
>octane it makes the engine run too rich.
If you were going to use the knock sensor instead of the O2 sensors to
calibrate the mixture, wouldn't you want to LEAN the mixture until it started
knocking, and then slightly richen it from that point? How would you ever get
knocking by continuing to enrich a mixture which is already not knocking?
Ted Mittelstaedt - 01 Sep 2005 06:23 GMT
> >The latest theory constructed around this idea is that the knock sensor
> >doesen't hear the engine knocking so it keeps enrichening the mixture
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> knocking, and then slightly richen it from that point? How would you ever get
> knocking by continuing to enrich a mixture which is already not knocking?
Good point I hadn't really even bothered thinking about the logic behind it
since my BS detector had already gone off.
Ted