Hottest Women In Their 50's

 

Yea, but I never MET any of those women, Gary.

And it's pretty low-class for a MODERATOR to be participating in the off-topic discussion.

 

Kind of depends, was the councilor cute, sexy AND FEMALE? (there, I said it, was not going to touch that with a 10 ft pole BUT, there I go getting in trouble again...)

 

Errrr, maybe Top-(less)-pic's???????? There I go again.....

 

Guess what....I'm bored

 

He he he he hee

 

You wouldn't be if you were prepping for the Dragon this weekend.

 

First of all I did look the CrossFire's over a lot before I purchased this one. Finally found one in near perfect condition with under 30,000 miles and purchased it for a bit over $9,000. I used to purchase a new Vette every other year thus I am quite familiar with sports cars. I even knew about the Premium thingy but incorrectly assumed that it was only recommended NOT required. As far as $600 to $900 for four tires, that sounds about normal to me plus the fact I only purchased it for a "toy" and will probably not drive it over 3,000 miles per year and it has all new tires on it.

The closest station that you listed is 40 miles from me (only one is that close) and most of them are approximately 145 miles from me.

And no, I don't plan on selling it soon!

In short, you made a lot of incorrect assumptions and didn't answer either one of my questions.

 

LOL....well, if you have to P..... at least you have some lonely roads to do it on. I am in Mt Pleasant at our new plant from time to time and I do realize premium might not be everywhere, but it is there. I wouldn't use anything less than 91 in your car...87 is too low. You have some nice lonely straight aways to play on as well... Pizza is just yanking your chain... You can get by on 87 but try to find premium where ever you can or add an octane booster found at a walmart or auto parts store...good luck welcome aboard.

 

Yea, but you answered mine.

 

That is good to know as I am in Mt. Pleasant quite often and it is only 31 miles from me...wife's mother lives there. I also suspect that it is available in Burlington which I am in even more often.

Okay, I have the fuel problem solved now how do I make the vehicle quieter without cranking Kid Rock all the way up.

Currently has near new Cooper ZEON 2XS tires (92Y and 96Y) all the way around but might have to switch.

 

It is to laugh. Sometimes I know just how to perturb people.

For them that may care, the whole octane thing stems from salesmen waving their ties over detonating engines. (I'll leave what that means to the students with one hint: Thomas Midgley )

More is better right ? Not really, higher octane requires more refining and you get less from a barrel of crude. Oil that is.

Gasoline has the same energy (btu/pound) regaredless of octane. What higher does is burn slower and combusts at a higher temperature. So a higher octane needs more advance to peak chamber pressure at the sweet spot (depends on the engine but generally between 5 and 15 degrees ATDC).

Back in the day, when we put premium in an engine designed for regular we needed to bump the timing a few degrees to compensate (like when you drop a QJ & headers on a 283 and back the lifters off a tad).

So a computer car designed for premium gas may not be able to retard the timing enough for regular gas and may burn too soon to hit the sweet spot. Best case you lose a little power, worst you get detonation and the engine, not having any other way to cotrol it like VVT, tosses in A Lot of retard which loses power and may cause overheating. Like I said, it really depends on what the car can do when trying to run on trash gas. Of course with OBD-II you can monitor the actual timing advance and injector pulse width.

Now I do not "hate" any engine, transmission, axle, or car. I even had several Vegas and an Astre (do draw the line at a Daimler SP250). The MB is a fine example of the last century just like my Judge has an engine that was pushed past any design limits because Pontiac never could afford a Big Block. And I would really like a five speed. OTOH it can turn 29" tires

Or take my 80's Reattae with an iron block pushrod "odd-filre" V6 (something it shares with the MB and a result of building a V6 that can go down the same line as a V8 (cost issues). All done at 4800 rpm but can cruise all day at 2000 rpm at 70. On 87 PON.

In the opposite corner is the Pentastar in my Jeep. DOHC 4valve, VVT i&e. Pretty Much SOA in 2011 and very similar in design to the current MB 3.5 liter

Also back in the day, there was an SLK200 with 134hp I4 that needed a really low first gear and why build more than one manual trans when most buyers of the 3.2 will get automagics anyway. Bean counters rule.

I really like my XF, it is really nice now that I fit for those long trans-Florida trips or when the weather is not right for my 'vert.

Would like it to "be all it could be" but not enough to change what it is (beyond what a sawzall can do). Otherwise I would not be here (with my goad 8*).

 

Thanks for the true enlightenment Sensei Padgett

 

Shouldn't that be BTDC?

 

No, ignition takes place BTDC but it takes a while to build to peak pressure (varies with octane and a bunch of stuff) and you want that to occur between 5 and 15 degrees ATDC.

Proper tune of an engine is something of an art form and best accomplished on a dyno with lotsa instrumentation but in simplest terms when at the "sweet spot" for a given load, the injector pulse width is at a minimum without detonation (easier with EFI than a carb.)

If you think about it you really want minimum chamber pressure BTDC since any is counterproductive.

And since the flame rate is near constant for specific conditions, the advance needs to vary with RPM.

I find it hard to think without a dyno sometimes.

 

I burn 93 unless 92 is all that is available.


Plain and simple, if timing retards due to lower octane, less power, more fuel is consumed. Lower mileage is the result.


Years ago, Chrysler learned that advancing the spark and not the throttle would improve mileage at high RPM's. They patented it.


I still maintain that people who buy high end cars to burn cheap gas are idiots.

 

And for me a car should be designed to use the lowest octane generally available unless there is a good reason to need more. While a boosted engine that lacks direct injection may need to control pre-ignition (detonation), a well designed NA engine should not.

Historically, octane available today is quite hgh but far below 130 octane av gas. PON is a kludge. Back in the 60's gas was rated by the Research method because the nubers were the highest and high numbers sell. Motor method numbers were considerably lower but a better guage of resistance to detonation.

With the oil crisis the Fed decreed that henceforce gas stationy would display the average between research and motor method and it was found to be about 4ish points lower than research. So a 98 octane "premium" becane a 93, 93 octane regular became 89, and what Sunoco had been selling as an "economy" grade 91 became 87.

Lead poisons catalytic converters so TEL had to go. Meanwhile Amaco had been selling uleaded for years, just was a few cents per gallon more expensive but had many advocates.

Change was slow and by 1984 you could still buy both: leaded and un & mfrs had to use a special noddel for unleaded & make gas tanks that would not admit a leaded nozzle.

Meanwhile high altitudes make for lower peak chamber pressures so a car designed for 87 at sea level runs happily on 85 in Denver.

Meanwhile the main reason for high octane, giant V8 engines with 4+" (100 mm) bores, usually with wedge chambers and the plug over on the side (remember "angle plug" heads for SBCs ?) needed "premium gas" to have time to completely combust without forming a secondary flame front ("knock" is when two flame fronts collide in a cyl).

My Jeep has a 3.6 with about the same bore as the 3.2 Pentastar just winds a little higher and produces 290 hp on 87 PON. Just is about a decade and a half newer design.

So while MB ays 91 octane, which 91 octane (Europe has different ratings yet and why. At the power level (215hp) and small bore it should run well on 87.

So why (other than we know more now than then) ?

BTW I should now have more time than ever to pontificate.

 

Well, it'll run on it. That said, if you want to enjoy all the car has to give you'll want to put in 91 or mix octanes to get close. Some cars tolerate low octane better than others. My 300C requires 89 which I can't get. It pings and scares me with 87 at part throttle. So 91 is what it gets or a mixture of 87 and 93 with ethanol. (I hate ethanol, lower gas mileage and higher AFR's with it) Your car will run on 87 but will most likely knock at anything over gentle throttle applications. Drive it with 87 and then put in 91. Make up your own mind based on the results.

Les

 

I would like to add that the engineers knew what they were doing. If they say 91, it's best to use it. I don't care what car or engine or management system. If it's stock or close to it, don't doubt them.

Les

 

thank you Less , also under the rules of gasoline,, all gas companies (their trucks) get their gas from the same tanks, Shell,Hess, race track all of them,, yes there are tanks for 87,,89,,91,,93 and the tank may say Esso, or Texaco and other names on it, as the shell truck pulls up to it to fill up with gas, to del to the gas station with the Hess truck behind the shell waiting his turn. as the shell fills his truck he has or it is in the tanker already the shell additive, ,,as the Hess does the same, they also add color, and so on,and so on, and so on jim