triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Fuel octane ratings

To: Brian Kemp <bk13@earthlink.net>, "INTERNET:triumphs@autox.team.net" <triumphs@Autox.Team.Net>
Subject: Re: Fuel octane ratings
From: Tony Rhodes <ARhodes@compuserve.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998 15:00:52 -0500
Message text written by Brian Kemp
>It was a Japanese manual.  My details might be a little off from a decade
ago,
but the manual did use a different measurement.  I was hoping to jog
someone's
memory and get a more accurate answer.

Sorry if I insulted your intelligence about the timing.<

I am anxious to get  ALL the Info possible.  You certainly did NOT insult
my inteligence.  I may 
be wrong about the difference between research and motor octane ratings. 
It may well be
that in UK in mid-60's they used one or the other which ever was higher.  
If that were true, then 
it may very well be that the 94 octane we have is perfectly sufficient for
a properly tuned and 
clean engine!  

However, the car dieseled like mad from very early on.  Maybe the carbon
occurred early on 
too!  After a moderately good de-carbonization of the combustion chamber
surface of the 
head, the run-on persisted.  I assumed that the problem would be
octane-related (high 
compression related).  The run-on may well still be engine related!


-Tony

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>