Making claims (involving octane booster)

[Jackson1320]

Also, if you haven't already purchased the 3.5 pulley, look into the Griptech version. No slip, and you don't need to put nearly as much tension on the belt which will prolong the life of everything being turned.

Anyway, this is PC'ers thread about fuel and octane and lies, not belts.

Have you had a problem with the griptech eating belts

Sponsored

 

[SheepDog]

Have you had a problem with the griptech eating belts

I have not, Although I haven't put a ton of miles on it with the Griptec pulley. I went to an RPM belt after running a Green belt for a while, and the Green belt still looks perfect. I think people that are having issues with premature wear on the belt, are tensioning the belt too tight in conjunction with the added grip of the Griptec, which is putting unnecessary heat and friction into the belt.

 

[ProChargerTECH]

Thanks for the reading fellas...

What I think I may do is start doing pulls with it and without it and just posting both results. That way its win win, and everything is black and white.

 

[Devil5oh]

Okay so I have seen boostane, torco, and toluene in this thread, which is the best one to use?

 

[markmurfie]

This topic goes far deeper than just running octane booster. For quite some time now, OEMs have implemented one form of adaptive knock logic or another. Allowing your consumers the choice to run any octane from the pump rather than limit them to premium, leads to higher sales in vehicles, and doing it while not sacrificing any power is a bonus. Aftermarket tuners have been taking advantage of this for a while now. Dyno numbers really come down to honesty, and a little bit of education, as they always have. You can't be ignorant to what role octane plays in making horsepower, and expect to have the slightest hope of a proper conclusion of what caused the results. Someone could easily disable the adaptive knock logic, lock the timing curve at what they know would be safe for 93, put in the equivalent of 102 octane, and show that was no power increase from the octane. So running a calibration that would be safe on 93, and saying these are 93 octane numbers has become a thing. Others would see that and say see increased octane has no effect.
The same could be said for the correction factors and smoothing. Going to a dyno, with a NA motor, at 6000ft elevation, with 89 octane in the tank, and seeing 26* of timing, is not even close to the same as going to a dyno at sea level with 93 in the tank, and seeing 26* of timing. Most won't even fully understand why, just something about air, fuel , and pressure. It gets more convoluted when superchargers and turbos are mixed in.

Just be forthcoming with info and honest. Make it so the general public can replicate your results. Most importantly, but the hardest part, win races and set records while doing those first two, those are far better selling points.

 

[engineermike]

To further @markmurfie ‘s point, another thing I’ve seen is misleading high altitude dyno numbers. Running high altitude results in lower cylinder pressure and max timing can be added even without octane booster. 2-4 deg more timing makes a big difference when you are 14 deg below MBT timing. Then, the dyno software applies a 20-30% correction factor and you are double-dipping. The correction factor is there to correct for air density only and does not account for changes the PCM made on the fly that already partially offset the lower air density. Then, consider that some of these folks even increase the boost, since they can (as they should) at high altitude, and the advantage grows even more. Is there such a thing as triple dipping? This also comes into play when considering supporting systems because it’s easier for the transmission and fuel system to be sufficient when the car is only actually making 600 rwhp but 750 is shown on the screen. Don’t think that a fuel system that supports “1000 rwhp” a mile high will also support 1000 rwhp at sea level.

 

[Cory S]

Toluene is the best octane booster I know of. Mix in 12oz with 12gal Of 91and your over 100 octane

This is incorrect. It’s takes 1 GALLON of pure Toluene on 14 gallons of 91 octane to make an effective octane of 94.......

 

[SolarFlare]

Another misleading comment from Ms Jackson is fact checked. Guy is Fake news at its worst.

Sponsored