Close

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 38 of 38
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Posts
    2,792
    Rep Points
    258.1
    Mentioned
    142 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Get Ahmad to verify, he's a chemist isn't he? I used to mix custom fuels back when I raced bikes because the fuels we could run were limited, monitored and tested and when were wee mixing it wasn't 1 to 1.
    Click here to enlarge

    1000+WHP WEISTEC 2008 CLK63 Black Series
    790WHP WEISTEC 2012 C63 Black Series
    725WHP WEISTEC 2014 SLS Black Series

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,084
    Rep Points
    28.3
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JRCART Click here to enlarge
    wrong, it doesn't work that way, its not 1 to 1
    Prove it. Every fuel calculator says otherwise. Ive been doing mix fuels for a long time now. Every one I know says its 1 to 1
    Tune only 60-130: 8.57
    Tune only 1/4 mile record: 11.531 @ 122.12



  3. #28
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by propain Click here to enlarge
    Prove it. Every fuel calculator says otherwise. Ive been doing mix fuels for a long time now. Every one I know says its 1 to 1
    It's only 1:1 when you use a tank that has an even number of gallons because the common divider is the tank capacity, like your previous example using a 10 gal tank with 5 gal of 90 and 5 gal of 100 to get to 95. When you have say a 17 gal tank the math becomes a bit more difficult and is not exactly 1:1 ratio.
    For a 17 gal tank if you mix 10 gal of 90 and 7 gal of 100 you get an average octane level of 94.117. It really depends what octane you are trying to achieve and how many gallons total you are mixing. In my experience it is not always a 1:1 ratio.

    Here is a good online octane calculator:

    http://www.bazellracefuels.com/Calcs/OC1.htm

    Here is a chart for mixing 100 and 91:

    Click here to enlarge

    And the formula for mixing octanes is as follows:

    (Octane x gallons) + (Octane x gallons) / Total number of gallons

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    326
    Rep Points
    274.9
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    3


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Nice power!
    Current: C63 Coupe: Polar White/Classic Red, P31, H&R, Mode Carbon, RevoZport, Renn Motorsport
    SOLD: B8 S4 Sprint Blue Pearl, DSG, Stasis everything.
    SOLD Eurocharged C63: ARKYM, Forgestar, K&N, Revozport, Custom Rear Lip

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,051
    Rep Points
    339.4
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    4


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by BK63AMG Click here to enlarge
    Nice power!
    I like your sig..lol
    C63 Tuned Only 60-130 in 8.71

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    612
    Rep Points
    420.1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LZH Click here to enlarge
    And the formula for mixing octanes is as follows:

    (Octane x gallons) + (Octane x gallons) / Total number of gallons
    AKA a simple weighted average calculation.

    I agree with your post and logic, which incidentally supports what propain posted and directly refutes JRCART's original comment:

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by JRCART Click here to enlarge
    Octane formulas don't everage out with simple math, if you mix 5 gallons of 100 and 5 gallons of 90 common sense would have you thinking you are running about 95 octane but in reality you're probably running about 97.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    612
    Rep Points
    420.1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    You made more power than him and he was on 93 octane? Interesting:
    The car making more power is fully catless with an X pipe, vs. the other car with HF cats and no X pipe.

    Overall, it's amazing how identical these cars are up to around 6k rpm, where the catless car pulls away to 6600.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,827
    Rep Points
    31,567.4
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    AKA a simple weighted average calculation.

    I agree with your post and logic, which incidentally supports what propain posted and directly refutes JRCART's original comment:
    Just throwing in for those that don't know when mixing liquids other than gasoline, meth and water for example, it isn't 1:1 and you do it by weight.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,827
    Rep Points
    31,567.4
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    The car making more power is fully catless with an X pipe, vs. the other car with HF cats and no X pipe.

    Overall, it's amazing how identical these cars are up to around 6k rpm, where the catless car pulls away to 6600.
    It sure is.

    I just thought the advanced timing on 93 would make up for it if not more.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    612
    Rep Points
    420.1
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Just throwing in for those that don't know when mixing liquids other than gasoline, meth and water for example, it isn't 1:1 and you do it by weight.
    True, but that's not what's being discussed here - simply mixing gas with gas.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    It sure is.

    I just thought the advanced timing on 93 would make up for it if not more.
    bhamg tested swapping HF cats for catless test pipes with his MBH headers, and demonstrated a 20 WHP loss with the HF cats. I don't know how much 91 vs. ?? (91 with 100 splashed in) would gain/lose...

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Northport NY
    Posts
    1,550
    Rep Points
    736.0
    Mentioned
    23 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    8


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    True, but that's not what's being discussed here - simply mixing gas with gas.



    bhamg tested swapping HF cats for catless test pipes with his MBH headers, and demonstrated a 20 WHP loss with the HF cats. I don't know how much 91 vs. ?? (91 with 100 splashed in) would gain/lose...
    Don't know if this helps but mixing 1/2 ms109 -1/2 93 didn't prove much results at the track, but straight ms109 showed a significant increase
    Click here to enlarge
    Drives: Basically a pretty bad ass f250 lifted with 24" wheels! Dpf delete 4" exhaust h&s tuner and intake..

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,827
    Rep Points
    31,567.4
    Mentioned
    2066 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316



    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    True, but that's not what's being discussed here - simply mixing gas with gas.
    I know, just want people to keep their minds open to different approaches and reasons for them.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    31
    Rep Points
    100.9
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by c32AMG-DTM Click here to enlarge
    True, but that's not what's being discussed here - simply mixing gas with gas.



    bhamg tested swapping HF cats for catless test pipes with his MBH headers, and demonstrated a 20 WHP loss with the HF cats. I don't know how much 91 vs. ?? (91 with 100 splashed in) would gain/lose...
    Those were more restrictive 300 cell cats used in bhamg's testing. The HF cats in question here are only 100 cell, so I bet they make far less of a difference.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •