95 Ron warning on 2002 NB

Postby **NitroDann** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:41 pm

.....Because they have to meet emmissions standards while competing in a paper drag race of km/L, HP, and 0-100, with all of the other manufacturers at the same time.

Dann

project.r.racing · Postby **project.r.racing** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:57 pm

Silvia wrote:What I'm inclined to ask is- why make a motor that has to have 95 RON or can melt?
People seemed very happy with the 91 RON one and raved about it here and elsewhere.

Engines built for performance require minimums.

If you don't like it, buy a Camry.

p.s. The only people I know that rave about 91ron are poor people wishing to save $3-$4 a tank.

initial D · Postby **initial D** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:59 pm

I put 98 octane in mine

93_Clubman · Postby **93_Clubman** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:10 am

Silvia wrote:What I'm inclined to ask is - why make a motor that has to have 95 RON or can melt?

The price of progress

Aussie Stig · Postby **Aussie Stig** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:35 am

93_Clubman wrote:
Silvia wrote:What I'm inclined to ask is - why make a motor that has to have 95 RON or can melt?

The price of progress

Oh god, I have to :lol:

This reminds me so much of the "I don't want to use Unleaded when engines run much better on Super petrol" debate.

JBT · Postby **JBT** » Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:16 am

Silvia wrote:What I'm inclined to ask is- why make a motor that has to have 95 RON or can melt?
People seemed very happy with the 91 RON one and raved about it here and elsewhere.

The photos show the results of detonation - explosion instead of controlled burn. Remember, back before unleaded was even thought of here, some cars needed "super" grade petrol (hi octane) and others "standard" grade (lo octane). The same thing happened if you ran an engine needing super (e.g. the humble MGB 1800 boat anchor) on standard.