Notices
Lancer General Come on in and discuss the US Lancer.

My First Track Run

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 04:45 AM
  #16  
sharkm87's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (29)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
From: Dirty Jerz
yea,it's manual, and i shifted normally...i wanted to baby it the first time down....i thought i would have more runs, but after i finished and pulled off and waited for my boys run...we found out that we only get one run.....but next time i will try the power shiftin//93 oc//stock wheels//half tank......and see what i come up with....free night is every second tuesday..but i can't wait another month..i'm about to just pay the $20 for 3 possible runs.!!
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 10:23 AM
  #17  
Blacksheepdj's Avatar
EvoM Staff Alumni
iTrader: (88)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,733
Likes: 3
From: Concord Township, Ohio
No offense, but with nothing but a CAI and catback, save your money on 93 octane. The car is tuned for 87. Run that. Use the extra 20 cents per gallon to save up for some badass tires too.

And get that heavy *** audio equipment out of the car!
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 01:28 PM
  #18  
sharkm87's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (29)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
From: Dirty Jerz
Originally Posted by Blacksheepdj
No offense, but with nothing but a CAI and catback, save your money on 93 octane. The car is tuned for 87. Run that. Use the extra 20 cents per gallon to save up for some badass tires too.

And get that heavy *** audio equipment out of the car!

none taken...haha, the subs i did take out for that run...ride home sucked though ...but i only say 93 oc, because lookin at the slips people that ran with it seemed to have done better than ......me, ha!...but yea, i'll give that a shot.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 01:35 PM
  #19  
ambystom01's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 75
From: Canuckistan
If the car isn't tuned for 93 octane, it's completely useless. You might actually be faster with 87 since the ECU actually knows what to do with it.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 01:38 PM
  #20  
sharkm87's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (29)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
From: Dirty Jerz
Originally Posted by ambystom01
If the car isn't tuned for 93 octane, it's completely useless. You might actually be faster with 87 since the ECU actually knows what to do with it.
well, "tuned"? i been using all kinds since i got it..i noticed the sonoco 93 i got best gas miliage so i used it for a while, but when prices started skyrocketing i dropped it down to 89...which gives me alot less mpg..but meh
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 01:43 PM
  #21  
Chizilds's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Oregon
so you guys would all recomend just using 87 instead of premium? i thought it was always better for your car?
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 01:45 PM
  #22  
ambystom01's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 75
From: Canuckistan
Tuned, as in the ECU has been modified to work with the higher octane fuel, or the higher octane fuel is needed to avoid detonation. I used to use 91, then I dropped down to 87 and actually noticed better performance. The higher the octane the slower it burns, which is great in some cases (such as in terms of gas mileage and in turboed engines), but it also means that there is more build up in the engine from unburnt fuel/carbon deposits. I currently use 89 octane, and that's because I have a hell of a lot more mods than just an intake and exhaust.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 01:46 PM
  #23  
ambystom01's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 15,634
Likes: 75
From: Canuckistan
Originally Posted by Chizilds
so you guys would all recomend just using 87 instead of premium? i thought it was always better for your car?
Yes run 87 octane as long as you can. It burns faster, which is better for the engine.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 02:20 PM
  #24  
Chizilds's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Oregon
well ****.... lol I just filled up with 92
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 02:53 PM
  #25  
Blacksheepdj's Avatar
EvoM Staff Alumni
iTrader: (88)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,733
Likes: 3
From: Concord Township, Ohio
Originally Posted by sharkm87
none taken...haha, the subs i did take out for that run...ride home sucked though ...but i only say 93 oc, because lookin at the slips people that ran with it seemed to have done better than ......me, ha!...but yea, i'll give that a shot.
Um, I'm interesting in your thought process there... "These cars ran 93 octane, and they had better times than me."

Hint - cars with higher-performing engines use 93. Lancers pushing out 103 whp don't.

We all gotta learn.

-----

PS - I'm amazed you got better mileage on 93. I got 400 miles on a tank of 87, then when the gas station gave me 93 (they were out of 87), I got 300 miles...
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 02:58 PM
  #26  
sharkm87's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (29)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
From: Dirty Jerz
yea, well they were stock too....it's not like i never put 93 in there...my thought process is very logical...i look at what they are running a CAI and exhaust, the only difference between the two setups are Octane in gas...it's obvious that I would go ......when i ran , it was this, they ran the same as me but with 93 oc and they had a much lower time...hmmmm......i wonder what i will try next.....very logical if you ask me..process of elimination.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 03:02 PM
  #27  
Blacksheepdj's Avatar
EvoM Staff Alumni
iTrader: (88)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,733
Likes: 3
From: Concord Township, Ohio
Originally Posted by sharkm87
yea, well they were stock too....it's not like i never put 93 in there...my thought process is very logical...i look at what they are running a CAI and exhaust, the only difference between the two setups are Octane in gas...it's obvious that I would go ......when i ran , it was this, they ran the same as me but with 93 oc and they had a much lower time...hmmmm......i wonder what i will try next.....very logical if you ask me..process of elimination.
I was kidding. Please don't take offense.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 03:04 PM
  #28  
sharkm87's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (29)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,034
Likes: 0
From: Dirty Jerz
Originally Posted by Blacksheepdj
I was kidding. Please don't take offense.
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 03:20 PM
  #29  
Chizilds's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Oregon
Originally Posted by Blacksheepdj
Um, I'm interesting in your thought process there... "These cars ran 93 octane, and they had better times than me."

Hint - cars with higher-performing engines use 93. Lancers pushing out 103 whp don't.

We all gotta learn.

-----

PS - I'm amazed you got better mileage on 93. I got 400 miles on a tank of 87, then when the gas station gave me 93 (they were out of 87), I got 300 miles...
makes me want to syphon my tank LOL
Reply
Old Aug 10, 2006 | 05:26 PM
  #30  
Blacksheepdj's Avatar
EvoM Staff Alumni
iTrader: (88)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,733
Likes: 3
From: Concord Township, Ohio
Originally Posted by Chizilds
makes me want to syphon my tank LOL
Sell it to an Evo!

Bah, you'll be fine. It's a waste of money (in my opinion), but it won't hurt anything.
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:36 PM.