[Cruise'n]

Originally Posted by cobramite

91 octane is premium in CA. 93 that is available in most other states would make more power.

Now that all makes sense thanks
Guess why your fuel is so much cheaper and affordable also why mine is seriously stupidly expensive.

[cobramite]

Originally Posted by Cruise'n

Now that all makes sense thanks
Guess why your fuel is so much cheaper and affordable also why mine is seriously stupidly expensive.

Fuel here in FL is usually a little under the national average and we do have 93 octane.
I'm guessing that you are in CA where some pay 4 or 5 times what we do for electricity. FL has become a go to place for those willing and able to escape the CA nonsense.

[Cruise'n]

Hi, no I'm from a land down-under Australia.

But you might be still right about the power prices as here they care about wind farms and exports of coal then actual people.

Expensive fuel
Expensive power

Might need to move to Florida👌

[cobramite]

Originally Posted by Cruise'n

Hi, no I'm from a land down-under Australia.

But you might be still right about the power prices as here they care about wind farms and exports of coal then actual people.

Expensive fuel
Expensive power

Might need to move to Florida👌

You would probably like it here. Far and away the best place I have ever lived by a great margin.

[r33_RGSport]

Originally Posted by Cruise'n

Hi
Why isn't 95 or 98 Octane used in the Dyno runs?
Would it get better results and better for the engine?

As you said, higher octane will give your more power.
The reason I am doing it with California 91, it is the least that the car will take. So, I want to show you guys the amount of gain even with the crappiest gas.
Showing high number gain is easy, a lot of companies doing that to their dyno testing so they get sales. Marketing 101.

[cobramite]

Originally Posted by r33_RGSport

As you said, higher octane will give your more power.
The reason I am doing it with California 91, it is the least that the car will take. So, I want to show you guys the amount of gain even with the crappiest gas.
Showing high number gain is easy, a lot of companies doing that to their dyno testing so they get sales. Marketing 101.

Good play Ben.
Some of the graphic results that are advertised have 93 octaned based approximate E30 in the tank but this is shown at the very bottom in small print that is easily missed.

[r33_RGSport]

Originally Posted by cobramite

Good play Ben.
Some of the graphic results that are advertised have 93 octaned based approximate E30 in the tank but this is shown at the very bottom in small print that is easily missed.

Exactly.
I have been in this industry for 30+ years and hated those marketing numbers. So, I do it differently.
Yes, there is downside to it since guys who loves getting sold by marketing numbers don't like what they are seeing on my result.

[cobramite]

Originally Posted by r33_RGSport

Here is the Dyno sheet on Mustang Dyno with California 91 Octane.
Attachment 3239674

That baseline torque around 510 is going to be well over 600 at the clutch when the expected lower #s on a Mustang load device and drive line losses are factored. This S68 is a beast for sure.

[r33_RGSport]

Originally Posted by cobramite

That baseline torque around 510 is going to be well over 600 at the clutch when the expected lower #s on a Mustang load device and drive line losses are factored. This S68 is a beast for sure.

Indeed.
S68 on my XM was producing a good gain too.

[cobramite]

Originally Posted by r33_RGSport

Indeed.
S68 on my XM was producing a good gain too.

XM, very cool vehicle.

[SQUAWK3274]

Originally Posted by r33_RGSport

Here is the Dyno sheet on Mustang Dyno with California 91 Octane.
Attachment 3239674

Nice power gains. Interesting curve results with the HP dropping off (almost identical to stock for the last ~800 rpm) yet the TQ still shows significant gains. It almost looks like BMW intentionally killed power at the top of the power band to not encroach on X5M numbers.

[r33_RGSport]

Originally Posted by SQUAWK3274

Nice power gains. Interesting curve results with the HP dropping off (almost identical to stock for the last ~800 rpm) yet the TQ still shows significant gains. It almost looks like BMW intentionally killed power at the top of the power band to not encroach on X5M numbers.

Yea, couldn’t figure out that top.
I am thinking the mild hybrid thing kicking on and off on the top end.

[Gladiator1972]

Originally Posted by mike@x-ph.com

I use the Jb4 and have been using a Jb4 on my cars since 2010 with no issues.

It all depends on what the user is after.

The jb4 is the best tuner on the market; its got the most features, added safety failsafes, data logging, etc...
You get many more features, but you don't need to use them; if you want to keep it simple, you can install the jb4 and don't change any settings.

The Race Chip and Dinan are also excellent options; they are not as advanced as the JB4, but they are easier to install and uninstall.
If that's a deciding factor in your purchase, that would be the only time I recommend them over the jb4.

Race Chip claims up to 20% MPG also, while I don't see anything jb4. If I had to choose between the two, I would use RC because of that factor with the prices of gas these days.

[mike@x-ph.com]

Originally Posted by Gladiator1972

Race Chip claims up to 20% MPG also, while I don't see anything jb4. If I had to choose between the two, I would use RC because of that factor with the prices of gas these days.

You can't have more power and better MPG at the same time; that just does not make sense.

assuming your driving habits are the same with and without a tune

adding boost will decrease your MPG
lowering boost to less than stock will increase your MPG

So yes, technically, any tuner can increase MPG, but thats if you are running less power than stock which I dont think anyone is doing.