Practical comparison 87 e0 vs 91 E0 in 2015 Lexus IS350 RWD f sport
#1
Advanced
Thread Starter
Practical comparison 87 e0 vs 91 E0 in 2015 Lexus IS350 RWD f sport
I am gonna use this thread to post results of a practical comparison between those two fuels and the effects on performance they had on my 2015 IS350 RWD f sport (with blue f sport air filter). Everything else is stock on the car. I am also gonna reset the ECU ever time I fuel the car.
This is an offshoot thread that originated here https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...threads-8.html
this was the original post https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...l#post10370809 that prompted me to create this thread.
I am gonna post data logs from my BlueDriver OBD logger. Currently I am in the final stage of collecting base line for E0 91 fuel.
This is an offshoot thread that originated here https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...threads-8.html
this was the original post https://www.clublexus.com/forums/is-...l#post10370809 that prompted me to create this thread.
I am gonna post data logs from my BlueDriver OBD logger. Currently I am in the final stage of collecting base line for E0 91 fuel.
#2
Lexus Test Driver
Pretty useless unless a robot is driving the car the exact same way every time, under the same exact conditions. Too much variable with the human factor and placebo effect. The gas *you* want to win will win and you'll press the accelerator pedal as such, even if not on purpose.
but sure I guess if you want. Go for it. Tell us what you find.
but sure I guess if you want. Go for it. Tell us what you find.
#3
Pretty useless unless a robot is driving the car the exact same way every time, under the same exact conditions. Too much variable with the human factor and placebo effect. The gas *you* want to win will win and you'll press the accelerator pedal as such, even if not on purpose.
but sure I guess if you want. Go for it. Tell us what you find.
but sure I guess if you want. Go for it. Tell us what you find.
Years ago I used to keep every gas receipt from my cars, and calculate the mpg for them. They were all over the place, of course, even using the exact same pump 98% of the time, but after a while you see patterns emerge. If he did that, and then switched only the fuel, he could make valid assumptions.
But I agree that just a few tanks, no matter how technical, isn't really going to prove anything.
#4
Advanced
Thread Starter
Absolutely agree. I am not making any claims on the repeatability of the results
And even a robot will not let you control env. parameters like air pressure and temperature, road conditions, traffic patterns and traffic lights patterns.
Nonetheless, I will attempt to test two cases - low RPM high gear WOT pull and high RPM low gear WOT pull. Those are slightly easier to repeat, because you just have to stomp on the pedal as quickly as possible.
my primary interest is in how ecu will retard timing for 87. Mpg results are less of interest, especially because I am not sure I wanna run 87 for more than 1-2 full tanks.
And even a robot will not let you control env. parameters like air pressure and temperature, road conditions, traffic patterns and traffic lights patterns.
Nonetheless, I will attempt to test two cases - low RPM high gear WOT pull and high RPM low gear WOT pull. Those are slightly easier to repeat, because you just have to stomp on the pedal as quickly as possible.
my primary interest is in how ecu will retard timing for 87. Mpg results are less of interest, especially because I am not sure I wanna run 87 for more than 1-2 full tanks.
Last edited by sunamer; 12-04-18 at 02:29 PM.
#5
Advanced
Thread Starter
Okay, so here is the data.
Conditions were about the same for both sets. It was dry and about -2 to 3C outside temperature.
I did two types of pulls - high RPM pulls (3rd-4th gear from 65-74 mph to 85, from 0 to 80mph, WOT) and low RPM pulls (from 70-ish mph in 8th gear, WOT).
There were roughly about 20-24 pulls for each type of fuel (10-12 for low RPM and the same for high RPM).
I simply clumped together multiple pulls on the graphs, so I could look at all the data for the same fuel + type of test (low rpm or high rpm).
Also, I added averages, which are shown as thick marks to the right of each plot.
Low RPM data sets (left - 87, right - 93)
It is quite clear that the average timing for 87 was 10 deg, while for 93 it was 15 deg. RPMs (shown in blue *100) are about the same on average. Green value of 69 indicates that the throttle pedal is being pressed to the floor, but without activating that accelerator button at the end of the pedal travel. Pressing through that button would give 72 or so).
------------------------------------
High RPM data sets (left - 87, right - 93).
The average timing for 87 was 22 deg, while for 93 it was 24.5 deg.
Conditions were about the same for both sets. It was dry and about -2 to 3C outside temperature.
I did two types of pulls - high RPM pulls (3rd-4th gear from 65-74 mph to 85, from 0 to 80mph, WOT) and low RPM pulls (from 70-ish mph in 8th gear, WOT).
There were roughly about 20-24 pulls for each type of fuel (10-12 for low RPM and the same for high RPM).
I simply clumped together multiple pulls on the graphs, so I could look at all the data for the same fuel + type of test (low rpm or high rpm).
Also, I added averages, which are shown as thick marks to the right of each plot.
Low RPM data sets (left - 87, right - 93)
It is quite clear that the average timing for 87 was 10 deg, while for 93 it was 15 deg. RPMs (shown in blue *100) are about the same on average. Green value of 69 indicates that the throttle pedal is being pressed to the floor, but without activating that accelerator button at the end of the pedal travel. Pressing through that button would give 72 or so).
------------------------------------
High RPM data sets (left - 87, right - 93).
The average timing for 87 was 22 deg, while for 93 it was 24.5 deg.
Last edited by sunamer; 12-10-18 at 09:58 AM.
#6
Advanced
Thread Starter
I am actually wondering if I need to retest high RPM pulls for 93 with traction control being OFF, as to not cut the timing, when the ECU senses the wheel spin. That might explain those really low "negative" peak values on high RPM 93 fuel chart. I don't think it would matter for the low RPM tests, though.
#7
drives cars
I think turning off TC would help to eliminate a variable, sure. However I'd hope that wouldn't be a factor at those speeds...
So I guess early feedback seems that it actually has a meaningful effect even at lower RPM. Nice!
So I guess early feedback seems that it actually has a meaningful effect even at lower RPM. Nice!
Trending Topics
#8
Advanced
Thread Starter
I thought it was just odd that 93 octane has the timing cut, while demonstrating that the timing on average is higher than what 87 showed, while producing more power. My guess is that it does produce more power and enough of it to trigger TC. Matt Farah, Savagegeese and Everyday driver did mention that TC sucks life out of the car. So, it looks like it is a good theory for why timing gets cut on that 93 highrev graph. It is time to test it.
Last edited by sunamer; 12-10-18 at 10:07 AM.
#9
You getting any info on pre-det and knock? Pushing the engine hard with low octane (anti-knock) would show the timing pulled back like that. I haven’t bothered to look around and see if you can pull data from the Lexus knock sensors. If the engineers say use 91+ I use 91+. Having seen what knock and pre-det does to engines.
#10
You getting any info on pre-det and knock? Pushing the engine hard with low octane (anti-knock) would show the timing pulled back like that. I haven’t bothered to look around and see if you can pull data from the Lexus knock sensors. If the engineers say use 91+ I use 91+. Having seen what knock and pre-det does to engines.
#11
Advanced
Thread Starter
You getting any info on pre-det and knock? Pushing the engine hard with low octane (anti-knock) would show the timing pulled back like that. I haven’t bothered to look around and see if you can pull data from the Lexus knock sensors. If the engineers say use 91+ I use 91+. Having seen what knock and pre-det does to engines.
Modern ECU will not let the engine knock for long. Repeated signals from one of the knocking sensors will be enough for the ecu to cut the timing sufficiently to stop the knocking. Besides, in the official manual, it is said that occasional knocking sounds should be of no concern. In other words, they know that the Ecu will keep the motor safe, and they also know that it is impossible to prevent the knocking in 100% of the cases without compromising performance.
But if you stop it immediately right after it starts, the engine will be fine long term. It is not the knocking that destroys the engine, but rather HOW LONG you have that condition in relation to how long you run the engine.
I am not planning on running it on 87 anyway. It was just an experiment (allowed by the manual, btw).
#12
I dont, because my OBD2 scanner does not read that parameter. But I thought that timing will get affected by the ECU, when it detects knocking, so I might as well just use that.
Modern ECU will not let the engine knock for long. Repeated signals from one of the knocking sensors will be enough for the ecu to cut the timing sufficiently to stop the knocking. Besides, in the official manual, it is said that occasional knocking sounds should be of no concern. In other words, they know that the Ecu will keep the motor safe, and they also know that it is impossible to prevent the knocking in 100% of the cases without compromising performance.
But if you stop it immediately right after it starts, the engine will be fine long term. It is not the knocking that destroys the engine, but rather HOW LONG you have that condition in relation to how long you run the engine.
these engines have decently high compression, so that window is a lot smaller compared to older engines with mild to medium compression. I do trust Toyota’s engineers enough to not worry. Just curious to see if you had the data. My scanner doesn’t show it either.
#13
Just read this on Wiki. I had no idea..
"A minimum 87 octane fuel is recommend for most vehicles produced since 1984. Older cars with carburetors could operate with lower octane fuel at higher elevations. Regardless of legality fuel with an octane rating of less than 87 is generally not offered for sale in most states. However 85 and 86 octane gasoline can still commonly be found in several rocky mountain states."
"A minimum 87 octane fuel is recommend for most vehicles produced since 1984. Older cars with carburetors could operate with lower octane fuel at higher elevations. Regardless of legality fuel with an octane rating of less than 87 is generally not offered for sale in most states. However 85 and 86 octane gasoline can still commonly be found in several rocky mountain states."
#14
Advanced
Thread Starter
#15
OG Member
iTrader: (1)
I am actually wondering if I need to retest high RPM pulls for 93 with traction control being OFF, as to not cut the timing, when the ECU senses the wheel spin. That might explain those really low "negative" peak values on high RPM 93 fuel chart. I don't think it would matter for the low RPM tests, though.
You getting any info on pre-det and knock? Pushing the engine hard with low octane (anti-knock) would show the timing pulled back like that. I haven’t bothered to look around and see if you can pull data from the Lexus knock sensors. If the engineers say use 91+ I use 91+. Having seen what knock and pre-det does to engines.
1) Techstream
2) The OBD Fusion app with the Toyota/Lexus Enhanced Diagnostics add-ons.
Tracking these values will give you additional information on how the ECU is responding to the lower octane fuel (For KCLV, a value of 20+ means ignition timing advance is functioning at its peak).
The following 2 users liked this post by redspencer:
Darqhelmet (12-10-18),
sunamer (12-10-18)