> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
> [mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net]On Behalf Of Kyle
> Vanditmars
> Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 8:41 PM
> To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
> Subject: Re: DML: Re: RE: Re: Superchips Dyno Results
>
>
>
> "Droo" <03dakotaCC4.7_4x4@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:3ED56361.3000802@comcast.net...
> >
> > No it isn't. If you ran your stock 3.9 on 91 octane, you
> wouldn't see
> > better performance. And they need to run the high octane
> fuel because of
> > the new programming. All chips are like that. It would ping
> like a mofo
> > otherwise.
>
> That's not the point. They should be using the same grade of
> gasoline on
> each run regardless of the timing curve. Granted, it
> probably wouldn't make
> any difference if they both ran 91, but it should still be
> done to see what
> the TRUE benefits of the superchips box are. To compare, it
> would make no
> sense to test a Fastman 52mm tb on an otherwise stock
> vehicle, then test an
> F&B 52mm on a vehicle with headers. You are looking for the
> differences
> that the tb's make, and that alone. It's basic science, and
> one of the
> first things you were likely taught in your high school science class.
Nope.
Higher octane is also slower burning, which in the case of the stock map
that only needs 87, it could theoretically produce less HP by using 91
octane. You have to keep in mind the definition of octane.
Kinda funny the way this one is being micro-analyzed. 20 HP on the table
shouldn't be something to be sneezed at, I would think. BTW, those numbers
on a percentage basis are fairly consistent with the gains on the 5.9 R/T
they tested.
Bob
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Feb 06 2004 - 11:46:22 EST