Quote:
Originally Posted by K.P.
Well, 80% of the Australian petrol market is 91 RON. Falcons have always run at standard fuel...and I seem to remember that the Barra engine will run on down to 80 RON (meaning a non-turbo [the majority] version) can fuel up anywhere, possibly old fuel in the outback.
I don't mean to imply that 80 RON is great, just they can and will run that low.
91 RON fuel is good. A lot of people could not afford to run their cars on 95, let alone 98. Sulphation is an issue, and yes 91 contains higher sulphur levels. I still don't bother with 95.
The FG Falcon was released in February 2008. Kevin Rudd had only become Prime Minister in December 2007. How Julia Gillard could have time-travelled back to pre-release FG Falcon days, become Prime Minister instead of John Howard and/or Kevin Rudd AND "interfered" with ADR regulations (killing people and ducks...apparently) is quite a mystery! Two months would make your culprit...John Howard. I doubt the Ford Geelong plant and engineers would have had TIME to "force" 91 RON fuel onto the last Barra iteration (discounting the minor "point" upgrade to Euro V in the Mk11).
This is if we accept your hypothesis in the first place. Which ah, relies on time-travel.
I don't.
|
I have never heard of 80 octane at the pump in Australia unless it was back in the 1940's
I think that the 1948 Standard fuel was 83 octane and a FJ ran 6.5:1 compression.
Now lets say a carby car say a 1975 XB 250 of 9.3:1 they had to run on 97 octane Super back then, but what would you do if you were out woop woop and only 89 Standard was available to you, well you would have to retard the spark timing so she would not ping to get you to find a Super fuel, now that XB is going to lose a lot of power and chew a lot more fuel you know bro.
And I do have a time machine that goes back to the days that I can remember the facts you know. but other than that I would have to find Dr Who.
But then again if you are lucky enough to have EFI this takes care of the spark timing to suit, now early types knocked the timing back 12 deg directly but more modern ones like sequential can do it in 2 deg 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 but at the end of the day if it had to do so you lose efficiency and performance to be sure and it's not what the engine should be doing as it's truly only a safety device truly.
now many people may be to stupid to understand the fact that their engines performance is being compromised and maybe they know the facts but are willing to compromise due to the cost and I did such with my VS in cold weather taking it easy I could get away with performance not being effected but on hot days and getting up it boy did it loose performance so much so that my wife's VS V6 auto would flog my V8 manual and that's a fact.
I could overtake one car on the highway and all was fine but come the next car and bang I have lost 50KW for sure on 91 with my 1999 5.0L I know what it's doing bro and why.