Octane....
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 78
Ford vs Subaru
Well, the Mustang is built by Ford. That is enough for me. Worst (reliability speaking) cars we have ever owned. That last one was so bad my wife doesn't want to drive anything made in North America ever again.
No experiece with Subaru but every Japanese built car I have ever owned has been excellent.
As for the juice, cars need higher octane based upon a combination of compression and boost. I started writing a dissertation on octane needs but I doubt anyone cares. Suffice to say that the WRX wants premium. It is the pricce you pay for performance. Performance cars have high compression (or low compression + boost) and high compression engines need high octane.
BTW: MotorTrend Mag says the WRX will take a Mustang 0-60. Since Mustangs have been about accelleration as long as I can remember, that kind of reduces the argument for the Mustang. Well, the Mustang is more of a chick magnet. That is worth soemthing depending upon your marital status.
No experiece with Subaru but every Japanese built car I have ever owned has been excellent.
As for the juice, cars need higher octane based upon a combination of compression and boost. I started writing a dissertation on octane needs but I doubt anyone cares. Suffice to say that the WRX wants premium. It is the pricce you pay for performance. Performance cars have high compression (or low compression + boost) and high compression engines need high octane.
BTW: MotorTrend Mag says the WRX will take a Mustang 0-60. Since Mustangs have been about accelleration as long as I can remember, that kind of reduces the argument for the Mustang. Well, the Mustang is more of a chick magnet. That is worth soemthing depending upon your marital status.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I was just curious of the octane it needed. As for realiabity, everyone has thier opinions...the two mustangs I have owned have been great...
As for the magazine quote...0-60 means nothing to me...they both perform the same stock, I would always think that ALL AWD would be any car out of the hole.
Both cars are great cars for the money.
Thanks for the input on the octane...I knew it would be 91 + just didnt see it mentioned anywhere....
That itself might push me towards the mustang...since in stock form it only needs 87 octane...I already have one that requires 91+ , wouldnt need the extra cost right now of higher fuel prices.
As for the magazine quote...0-60 means nothing to me...they both perform the same stock, I would always think that ALL AWD would be any car out of the hole.
Both cars are great cars for the money.
Thanks for the input on the octane...I knew it would be 91 + just didnt see it mentioned anywhere....
That itself might push me towards the mustang...since in stock form it only needs 87 octane...I already have one that requires 91+ , wouldnt need the extra cost right now of higher fuel prices.
Guest
Posts: n/a
If you're basing a car buying decision on the octane requirement for the engine, then you shouldn't be looking into high performance cars.
Sure the Mustang may run on lower octane but then it uses more fuel, so where's the savings? Again, MPG is usually not something sports car enthusiats are concerned with.
Perhaps you're just fishing?
T
Sure the Mustang may run on lower octane but then it uses more fuel, so where's the savings? Again, MPG is usually not something sports car enthusiats are concerned with.
Perhaps you're just fishing?
T
Guest
Posts: n/a
On a N/A engine you could argue all day about the diff of octane. I personaly dont think it matters a whole lot and most fuel companies will say so also. But people do claim better performance from higher octane. I put the good stuff in the WRX it says to do it in the manual so I do. EIther car your gonna pay for gas one way or another.
AS far as the whole ford thing goes that new mustang with the retro look, looks good, thats one car I wouldn't mind owning or that GT40. If money wasn't an object. I'm not one of those brand haters, I believe ford can make a goos car and if Subaru takes a crap and drops the shooting stars on it, it is still a piece of crap.
AS far as the whole ford thing goes that new mustang with the retro look, looks good, thats one car I wouldn't mind owning or that GT40. If money wasn't an object. I'm not one of those brand haters, I believe ford can make a goos car and if Subaru takes a crap and drops the shooting stars on it, it is still a piece of crap.
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 242
From: Good ol oregon
Car Info: 02' WRX
octane PREVENTS detonation on high compression motors. Thats all it does. If you put more octane in a motor that doesnt necceistate it, you mareswell me pileing up you're gas money and burning it...
Guest
Posts: n/a
If your car's tuning system is smart enough to advance the timing until pinging occurs, then running higher octane has its advantages. On the mustang boards this topic has come up many times. If you have a timing adjuster or have used chips or computer tunes that advance timing you need to run higher octane. If you build a high compression or high boost motor, you will most likely need high octane.
More compression = more heat
You need higher octane to guarantee your air fuel mix won't detonate before the spark plug fires. Detonation or pre-ignition isn't a nice thing to do to any motor. Results in bent/broken rods, oddly shaped cranks and holy pistons. I would imagine pre-ignition could blow a head gasket as well if left unchecked.
-CLD_FSN
More compression = more heat
You need higher octane to guarantee your air fuel mix won't detonate before the spark plug fires. Detonation or pre-ignition isn't a nice thing to do to any motor. Results in bent/broken rods, oddly shaped cranks and holy pistons. I would imagine pre-ignition could blow a head gasket as well if left unchecked.
-CLD_FSN
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
specb
Bay Area
17
Sep 12, 2006 01:56 PM
meebs
Aftermarket Forced Induction - Turboed factory NA engines
4
Dec 11, 2002 07:06 PM
