TESTED: NOS 60 point Race Formula Octane booster (spoiler alert, it WORKS!!!)

[ZimbutheMonkey]

So, ever since I got my B6 S4, I've been logging it intensively to see how I can get the most out of the engine. Either by reprogramming the ECU directly as I've made my own working DAMOS file from scratch and I use winOLS/Nefmoto flasher or by way of external changes such as hardware or additives.

Well the first thing I noticed is that my car seemed to pull timing like crazy no matter what. Early logs showed that I was getting 4-6 degrees timing pull on pretty much all cylinders as soon as it got into load in pretty much any gear.

Here's a log of a 1-4 gear pull with 1.5 degrees timing advance added via Unisettings Petro Canada 94 Octane. As you can see, I was getting a ton of variance in the timing.

-timing is in orange, each tick mark is 20 degrees (ME7logger 1-4th gear)
-I don't have RPM, however you can use the MAF readings in black as a reference each tick mark is 100 g/sec (ME7logger)


***I know that it should be showing timing pull on the ME7 Logger graph, but it wasn't, so I plotted the timing overall and timing pull in Excel for easier reference****


So, I decided to try the NOS race formula (the 60 point/6 number version) http://reviews.canadiantire.ca/9045/...ws/reviews.htm

I'll admit, I had my reservations about how well it would work, but I tossed a bottle in about 60 liters of fuel and BANG! the timing pull was gone. In fact, I ended up adding another 1.5 deg of timing for a total of 3 degrees advance and other than the odd 100-200 RPM blip of 0.75 or 1.5 in one or two cylinders, my timing was holding rock solid steady.

All in all, I was getting about another 3-5 degrees advance on average and up to 7 degrees advance in spots. The ignition advance was also much, much more consistent, which would lead to an improved combustion quality versus the oscillating timing I was getting with the regular 94 Octane.

***NOTE: the ambient temperature conditions as well as heatsoak were exactly the same between the 94 Octane alone and the NOS additive. Just under 0C and all pulls were done on the highway with minimal previous thermal loading. Also note that the engine load was the same between samples as well***

***also, disregard the 0.76 Lambda readings on the ME7 logger graphs, those are just momentary dips as I come into and out of load. I've reprogrammed the ECU to give it 0.83 at peak load between 3000-4000 RPM and then progressively lean out from 0.845-0.870 as I approach redline. The stock ECU asks for 0.910 at peak torque and then richens up to 0.840 at redline. Completely ass backwards for power production and detonation resistance, but I suspect it was programmed that way for emissions, fuel economy and Cat converter longevity.

That said, both comparisons were done with the new AFR settings, so that wouldn't be a confounding variable. I'm just including this little blurb in case wants to know why their 11:1 compression engine is trying to blow itself up every time it goes into peak load at 13.0-13.5:1 AFR's 'facepalm'***

2-3 gear pull


3rd gear 2000-6500 RPM pull.


So there you have it, I'd say that's about as conclusive as you can get. I honestly wasn't expecting this sort of improvement, but I was happy to have been proven wrong.

In terms of gains, I'd say it makes a noticable difference. Although it's not the same engine, here's a dyno that MotoIQ posted of a similar compression ratio ME7.1.1 ECU, 4 liter V8 from a BMW that had a similar improvement in ignition advance when they used Royal Purple 30 point/3 number octane booster in a tank of California 91 Octane.


I'm not saying that these are the gains that was getting, however even if I got half of the gains they got from controlling detonation, I think these engines could easily stand to pick up 5-10 AWHP by getting a consistent 5-7 degrees worth of ignition advance back.

[ottocycle]

Interesting testing, I'm eager to see some more results. Is gas is Canada calculated using RON, MON or AKI? Also, if I remember correctly Canada has lower benzine and sulfur content than American fuel. Wonder if that would have any effect on knock/timing? Have you tried American fuel for comparison's sake?

[Mr. Corey]

Additives don't do anything but burn up your valve seals....... for 5whp have fun with your 10k engine rebuild

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Additives don't do anything but burn up your valve seals....... for 5whp have fun with your 10k engine rebuild

Yeah, you have a great point..... complete with that.... you know.... things you use to prove things.... what the heck was it called again..... oh yeah ,evidence!

A great point, complete with evidence to back it up.

You're expert opinion is totally right, this additive is obviously doing nothing but burning up my valve seals (and I think you mean valve SEATS by the way) and the evidence that I presented of my engine no longer trying to turn itself into a detonating time bomb is obviously either false or a complete coincidence.

Besides, what's the worst that could happen by running an 11:1 compression engine with cast Aluminium pistons that's already pulling 4-6 degrees worth of timing on 94 octane in -0C temperatures....

Pshhh, detonation, now THAT's something that never killed an engine

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Interesting testing, I'm eager to see some more results. Is gas is Canada calculated using RON, MON or AKI? Also, if I remember correctly Canada has lower benzine and sulfur content than American fuel. Wonder if that would have any effect on knock/timing? Have you tried American fuel for comparison's sake?

Same as the USA, a combination of RON and MON.

But your point about fuel differences is well taken. An added concern I would have as a Canadian (and a lot of Americans are in the same boat) is that our fuel here can contain up to 10% Ethanol. If memory serves, that means that for a given A/F ratio, you're running 0.5 points leaner, so stioch goes from 14.7:1 with E0 to 14.2:1 with E10.

The issue is that the ECU has no way of knowing that he stoich point has changed and these cars are programmed to run really lean from the factory already as it stands. Here are the stock values and here are the ones that I reprogrammed the ECU to run.

Stock fueling

10 * * *20 * * * 40 * * * * 60 * * * 80 * * * * 100 * * * * * *% LOAD

1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *1000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *1520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *2000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *2520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *3000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.97663 0.96100 0.91412 *3500 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 0.98444 0.95319 0.94537 0.90631 *4000 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.93756 0.92975 0.90631 *4520 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.92975 0.91412 0.89850 *5000 RPM
1.00006 0.95319 0.93756 0.92193 0.90631 0.88287 *5520 RPM
1.00006 0.93756 0.92193 0.90631 0.89068 0.88287 *6000 RPM
1.00006 0.91412 0.88287 0.89068 0.88287 0.86724 *6520 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.87506 0.85943 0.85162 0.85162 *7000 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.86724 0.85162 0.85162 0.85162 *7520 RPM

However, my understanding is that on a N/A engine, you should richen up to about 12.5:1 (0.85V) at peak torque then lean out to about 13:1 - 13.5:1 as the revs rise towards redline.


My revised fueling settings

10 * * *20 * * * 40 * * * * 60 * * * 80 * * * 100 * * * * * *% LOAD

1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.92975 0.85943 *500 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.92975 0.85943 *1000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.96881 0.89850 0.85943 *1520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.93756 0.86724 0.85943 *2000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.92975 0.85943 0.85943 *2520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.90631 0.84380 0.84380 *3000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.89850 0.84380 0.84380 *3520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 0.98444 0.89068 0.84380 0.84380 *4000 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.88287 0.84380 0.84380 *4520 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.88287 0.85943 0.84380 *5000 RPM
1.00006 0.95319 0.93756 0.88287 0.85943 0.85943 *5520 RPM
1.00006 0.93756 0.92193 0.88287 0.86724 0.85943 *6000 RPM
1.00006 0.91412 0.88287 0.88287 0.86724 0.85943 *6520 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.87506 0.86724 0.86724 0.86724 *7000 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.86724 0.86724 0.86724 0.86724 *7520 RPM

So with the stock fueling settings between 80-100% load you get:

13.43:1 (E0) / 13.93:1 (E10) @ 3000-4000 RPM
13.32:1 (E0) / 13.82:1 (E10) @ 4000-4500 RPM
13.20:1 (E0) / 13.70:1 (E10) @ 4500-5000 RPM
12.97:1 (E0) / 13:47:1 (E10) @ 5000-6000 RPM
and so on and so forth.... and it's even leaner from 60-80% load if you're at about 3/4 throttle

My reprogrammed settings have the engine running at about 12.3:1 (E0) 12.8:1 (E10) at peak torque and leaning out to about 12.7:1 (E0) 13.2:1 (E10) at redline.

While there may be some mix richening by the ECU (in stock form) in response to factors like IAT's / EGT's and knock, I don't like relying on that as it always takes some amount of time for the ECU to respond and the interventions usually result in oscillating mixture conditions which aren't optimal.

[Mr. Corey]

Yeah, you have a great point..... complete with that.... you know.... things you use to prove things.... what the heck was it called again..... oh yeah ,evidence!

A great point, complete with evidence to back it up.

You're expert opinion is totally right, this additive is obviously doing nothing but burning up my valve seals (and I think you mean valve SEATS by the way) and the evidence that I presented of my engine no longer trying to turn itself into a detonating time bomb is obviously either false or a complete coincidence.

Besides, what's the worst that could happen by running an 11:1 compression engine with cast Aluminium pistons that's already pulling 4-6 degrees worth of timing on 94 octane in -0C temperatures....

Pshhh, detonation, now THAT's something that never killed an engine

Valve stem seals are prone to fail without silly additives, this is a known FACT on the B6/7 S4 platform. It happened to me and many other S4 owners. That being said, putting some additive from Pepboys into your car for 5whp is fucking stupid. But its your car do whatever you want just don't show up here posting about air intakes and octane booster noob. Read this if you wanna improve your cars performance http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...ew-PLEASE-READ

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Valve stem seals are prone to fail without silly additives, this is a known FACT on the B6/7 S4 platform. It happened to me and many other S4 owners. That being said, putting some additive from Pepboys into your car for 5whp is fucking stupid. But its your car do whatever you want just don't show up here posting about air intakes and octane booster noob. Read this if you wanna improve your cars performance http://www.audizine.com/forum/showth...ew-PLEASE-READ

Dude, I've been on this forum for years, I've been wrenching for over 20 years, I know more about performance mods and testing than you ever will and when I make a claim I do so with evidence to back it up. Go check my post history (from the beginning I may add) and then try and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

So sorry that you're butthurt at being shut down, but the fact is that takes a LOT of my own valuable time to test and write up a post like this in a concise, easy to read and accurate matter. However I strongly believe in trying to contribute to these forums by posting something other than speculation and opinion.

Therefore I have ZERO patience for keyboard racers who feel the need to try and derail a thread by stating an opinion as a fait accompli with no evidence or even a reasonable explanation of their thought process to back it up. As a trial lawyer, I exist in a world where people have to actually back up a statement with some sort of evidentiary/theoretical foundation and I expect the same from members here.

Also, just stating that something is "a KNOWN fact" without any explanation as to why and how it happens and being too lazy to even provide a link to this KNOWN 'fact' doesn't cut it.

So either 1) present your argument in the form of a well written, RESPECTFULLY worded theory and I'll provide the same in response or 2) take a hike.....

[tchuck]

Does it say on the bottle what octane and mixture you need to achieve their stated max increase (up to 60pts)?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Does it say on the bottle what octane and mixture you need to achieve their stated max increase (up to 60pts)?

No, it doesn't have an exact ratio, however it's roughly one bottle per 60 liters.

But from what I understand, the increase will differ based on the starting octane. So putting it in a tank of 87 octane may give you the full 6 points but from what I've read, these additives will give about a 2.5-3 point increase with 91-94 octane.

Still, the cost is about $15 CAD per bottle, which works out to about 30 cents per liter, which is the difference between 91 and 94 octane in my neck of the woods. If the gas stations sold 97 octane for an additional 30c per liter, I'd buy it, so I'd say the cost is justified, but that's strictly my opinion, others may differ on the cost/benefit ratio.

[tchuck]

No, it doesn't have an exact ratio, however it's roughly one bottle per 60 liters.

But from what I understand, the increase will differ based on the starting octane. So putting it in a tank of 87 octane may give you the full 6 points but from what I've read, these additives will give about a 2.5-3 point increase with 91-94 octane.

Still, the cost is about $15 CAD per bottle, which works out to about 30 cents per liter, which is the difference between 91 and 94 octane in my neck of the woods. If the gas stations sold 97 octane for an additional 30c per liter, I'd buy it, so I'd say the cost is justified, but that's strictly my opinion, others may differ on the cost/benefit ratio.

$15 for a 432ml bottle is $30/L.

And the starting octane definitely matters.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

$15 for a 432ml bottle is $30/L.

And the starting octane definitely matters.

You got it Pontiac

Also, here's another interesting dyno comparison that MotoIQ did using a Royal Purple octane booster in a high compression/detonation prone engine in the Subaru FR-S (different brand, but roughly the same additives for the most part as far as I know)

[tchuck]

Honestly, and I mean this in the most constructive way possible, I just don't see the value in the testing you've done as it relates to the product. You've logged an unknown octane fuel on an unproven/unknown tune (yours) in a fairly uncontrolled environment (outside). Yes you've found a change, but what does it mean? I respect your effort and seriously no offense, but I don't see the point.

It's not really surprising that an octane booster boosts octane. If it didn't that company would probably be out of business or facing a huge false advertising lawsuit. The really interesting thing (imo) is how well it lives up to its claims, and how much it costs.

One way to meaningfully value the product would be to find out the conditions of their claimed increase (maybe one 432ml bottle in 50L of 87oct) and apply that effect to your situation (50L of 94oct). If those number were real you'd have a new octane value of 99. So you're paying $15 for a 5oct bump in 50.432L. Comparing that to the cost if 100oct race gas gives you valuable data. Around here race gas is about $10/gal and it's hard to find. A $6/gal premium equates to a $78/tank premium, which makes the $15 octane booster pretty appealing. However it all hinges on the validity of the conditions of the manufacturer's initial claim.

You could verify their claims by comparing the logged results to a known octane fuel. For instance if you arrive at a calculated octane rating of 99, go get some 100oct race gas and do some more logs. If you see similar results then you've sort of substantiated your claim. If not, maybe you could be the automotive Erin Brockovich.

If you want to demonstrate the value for other b6s4 owners, then I'd test the stuff on a stock tune. How do we know the changes you've made haven't caused the problems being corrected by the additive? Seems weird that the stock tune would pull so much timing.

Again, not trying to shit on your thread but I feel like there must be a reason people buy race gas instead of just using this stuff. I don't know what that reason is, but I'm interested...

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Honestly, and I mean this in the most constructive way possible, I just don't see the value in the testing you've done as it relates to the product. You've logged an unknown octane fuel on an unproven/unknown tune (yours) in a fairly uncontrolled environment (outside). Yes you've found a change, but what does it mean? I respect your effort and seriously no offense, but I don't see the point.

It's not really surprising that an octane booster boosts octane. If it didn't that company would probably be out of business or facing a huge false advertising lawsuit. The really interesting thing (imo) is how well it lives up to its claims, and how much it costs.

One way to meaningfully value the product would be to find out the conditions of their claimed increase (maybe one 432ml bottle in 50L of 87oct) and apply that effect to your situation (50L of 94oct). If those number were real you'd have a new octane value of 99. So you're paying $15 for a 5oct bump in 50.432L. Comparing that to the cost if 100oct race gas gives you valuable data. Around here race gas is about $10/gal and it's hard to find. A $6/gal premium equates to a $78/tank premium, which makes the $15 octane booster pretty appealing. However it all hinges on the validity of the conditions of the manufacturer's initial claim.

You could verify their claims by comparing the logged results to a known octane fuel. For instance if you arrive at a calculated octane rating of 99, go get some 100oct race gas and do some more logs. If you see similar results then you've sort of substantiated your claim. If not, maybe you could be the automotive Erin Brockovich.

If you want to demonstrate the value for other b6s4 owners, then I'd test the stuff on a stock tune. How do we know the changes you've made haven't caused the problems being corrected by the additive? Seems weird that the stock tune would pull so much timing.

Again, not trying to shit on your thread but I feel like there must be a reason people buy race gas instead of just using this stuff. I don't know what that reason is, but I'm interested...

Hey, no problem at all, I really appreciate that you took the time to write out a clear response. With a response like yours, I can at least try and address your concerns one by one and if you raise a valid point, then I either need to rethink my theory or dig deeper to get an answer.

I'm not in the business of trying to substantiate a claim just to say that I did. I do so with the intent that others can make some use of it.

Now, I can only touch on your concerns briefly as I have some other matters. However I'll at least say this.

1) The fact that the tune is different shouldn't adversely affect my conclusion. I think it's perfectly reasonable that the stock tune would be pulling timing based on it's fueling values and the fact that it's an 11:1 compression engine

If anything, having a richer mixture would reduce the chance of detonation and diminish the effects/need for any octane boost. I would submit that the fact that the stock tune is prone to running lean would actually increase the benefit of an octane booster in a stock application.

2) With respect to the testing environment. Again, the conditions that it was pulling timing in were 0C and little humidity. Those are optimal conditions, If the car had been running in warmer weather, it probably would have been more prone to detonating.

3) with respect to getting an actual Octane number out of it, I think it's kind of a side issue. What we can say is this :

a) that I tested my car with a known octane fuel (the first graph was done on Petro Canada 94 octane E10

b) during that time, the timing in the logs was oscillating by about 4 degrees and it pulled 5 degrees on pretty much all cylinders in 3rd gear.

c) Once I added the NOS Octane booster, the timing pull disappeared completely, to the point where I could actually add another 1.5 degrees with virtually no timing pull, short of a few brief 0.75 and 1.5 degree corrections in one or two cylinders.

d) It should also be noted that 5 degrees timing is a lot. I had a tune for an AVK B6 3.0 with 10.5:1 and the 93 octane tune was running about 3-4 degrees over stock. With that in mind, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that a 2-3 point octane boost would allow for 5 degrees timing.

e) The cost is 30c per liter, my conclusion is that being able to run 5+ degrees more timing is well worth the cost, both in terms of performance and safety of my engine which is no longer pinging to the point of pulling timing out of the ignition.

However I'll add to this last part later

[tchuck]

I found this old comparison with straight up laboratory octane testing. Granted, the additive in question isn't included but all of the tested products are below 100RON (~105oct).

http://www.nfadditives.com/Octane-Booster-Shootout.php

[Audi 4 Life]

I highly recommend looking into using Toluene. Its the next best thing to high octane gas.

[Andrew149]

I highly recommend looking into using Toluene. Its the next best thing to high octane gas.

Where do you buy the stuff at?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[c0ntract_thrill]

Home Depot sells Toluene in the paint supply section in most areas, body shops and painting specialty stores sell it as well.

Unlike MTM and other harmful octane additives, Toluene is actually used by fuel producers to increase octane ratings on pump fuel ( 91 octane pump gas is ~%17 Toluene). Toluene has been used in F1 and other racing series as a fuel source, so technically adding toluene to gasoline is "fuel blending" not octane boosting nor is it a fuel additive. Toulene is more stable and has more energy in it and no metallic content like MTM and it won't harm your valve stem seals or burn out your O2 sensors prematurely. Toluene is = 114 octane and its about $2.50-$4 a litre. toluene can be blended with different proportions of gasoline to make specific target fuel octanes IE 1 gallon of toluene mixed with 3 gallons of 91 octane would be 4 gallons of ~95 octane, 2 gallons of Toluene with 4 gallons of 91 would be ~97 octane and etc (to us Canadians, that 1gallon = 3.8L, so you would have 15.20L)


I have an excel sheet that does the calculations either from target octane to fuel blend ratio, or ratio of fuel blend to octane, its pretty handy.

[Audi 4 Life]

Great explaination!

[ZimbutheMonkey]

EDIT: As I was looking at the Virtual Dyno plots again, I wanted to go back just to make absolutely, 100% certain that the results were accurate and it looks like accidentally double copied a portion of the same csv for the octane booster run.

I've got to get some shut eye, so I don't have the time to figure out where the run I was trying to use went, but I'll figure it out in the morning.

My apologies, but mistakes do happen and I don't want to post up anything that's misleading.

It may be the case that the other run I was trying to use has the same profile as the first one I used, but until I get a chance to figure out where it was (there's a LOT of data that I have logged) I can't say for sure.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

Home Depot sells Toluene in the paint supply section in most areas, body shops and painting specialty stores sell it as well.

Unlike MTM and other harmful octane additives, Toluene is actually used by fuel producers to increase octane ratings on pump fuel ( 91 octane pump gas is ~%17 Toluene). Toluene has been used in F1 and other racing series as a fuel source, so technically adding toluene to gasoline is "fuel blending" not octane boosting nor is it a fuel additive. Toulene is more stable and has more energy in it and no metallic content like MTM and it won't harm your valve stem seals or burn out your O2 sensors prematurely. Toluene is = 114 octane and its about $2.50-$4 a litre. toluene can be blended with different proportions of gasoline to make specific target fuel octanes IE 1 gallon of toluene mixed with 3 gallons of 91 octane would be 4 gallons of ~95 octane, 2 gallons of Toluene with 4 gallons of 91 would be ~97 octane and etc (to us Canadians, that 1gallon = 3.8L, so you would have 15.20L)


I have an excel sheet that does the calculations either from target octane to fuel blend ratio, or ratio of fuel blend to octane, its pretty handy.

Just to comment on this, I've tried Toluene when I was experimenting with fuel blends in my 2003 3.0 V6. However, it didn't make much of a difference.

That said, I think I was blending it at about 1:6, so it may have been an insufficient quantity.

Also, I would add a word of caution with respect to toluene. I think it's a misnomer when you say that Toluene is harmless to an engine. High enough concentrations of Toluene can eventually start to damage components in fuel systems. whether or not that would occur in effective concentrations I'm not sure though.

Also, Toluene is hard to find and bloody expensive. Where I live, it's about $25 CAD a gallon. To get a 2 point increase in 94 octane, you have to blend about 12% which is 2 US gallons per 60 liter fill.

So assuming that I was filling 60 liters total, I'd be looking at close an additional $50 per 53 liters of 94 octane at $66.25 (@ $1.25/liter) to get the same effect as I'm getting at $15 per bottle of octane booster. At $35 difference per fill, I would say that renders the Toluene option cost prohibitive.

Hell, I can buy Fury 99 MON for around $2.50 per liter at AFD Petroleum in Edmonton where I live. Blending that half and half with 94 Octane would give me 97 octane for $1.88 per liter vs the $1.93 per liter that it would cost me to get 96 octane out of a toluene blend.

[tchuck]

40whp is a lot. It would be cool to see a couple runs on the stock tune graphed with and without the juice.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I also decided to do some research into the effects that MMT has on an engine, as there have been some concerns (valid question I may add) over whether or not these octane additives are safe to use.

The research papers I found seem to indicate that there is a slight risk of plug fouling at 8 mg Manganese (MN) per Liter, however, there does not appear to be any real risk to anything else (i.e. catalytic converters) until the proportions exceed at least 16 mg/L and the damage is usually found at concentrations exceeding 32 mg/L.

My research indicates that until about 2000, Canadian fuel producers were allowed to put up to 18 mg/L MG in fuel http://www.airimprovement.com/report...t_1_report.pdf. However, this may have changed. The point is, that even with some fuels containing up to 18 mg/L MMT, there were no widespread reports of emissions component or engine failures related to MMT in these quantities. That's not to say it had no effect, however it provides us with something to use as a reference point.

The same report (and others) indicates that the maximum allowable MMT in US formulations is 8mg MG/L and I can't say how many producers still use it in their fuel.

Now, the MSDS data sheet for the NOS additive lists the proportion of MMT at less than 10%, http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=213019 which at 473ml, would mean a maximum of 48 ml of MMT per bottle.

The MSDS data sheet found here: https://www.aftonchemical.com/Produc...C-3062_PDS.pdf indicates that MMT is 9.58 lb/gallon weight by volume, and contains 15% actual Manganese per fluid unit.

So, if we convert 9.58lb/gallon to mg/L we get 1147937 mg/l, multiplied by 0.15 to give us the proportion of MG/L we get 172,190 mg of actual MG in a liter of MMT.

divide 172,190 by the 48ml of MMT in a bottle of the NOS additive and we get a total of 8,265 mg of MG per bottle.

Finally, divide 8,265mg by 60,000 ml of fuel that you use it in and you're left with 13 mg/ml MG/L if you use it to treat 60L. The bottle says it can be used in as little as 40L, which, not surprisingly would put you right around the maximum recommended Canadian limits of 18 mg Mg/L.

So, what does that mean? I guess it depends on whether or not the fuel you're using already contains MMT and in what quantities.

The MSDS data sheet http://ftp.nirb.ca/01-SCREENINGS/COM...x%20I-IT2E.pdf for the Ultra 94 Octane that I use does not indicate that there is any MMT contained in it and I suspect that it may have been phased out since the time of the Canadian report that was done in early 2000. So as far as I can see, putting this additive in 60L of the fuel I'm using is probably no worse than using the fuels that were being produced at the time the car was new in 2005.

That may explain why almost all Canadian fuels now contain up to 10% Ethanol, as it has likely been used to replace MMT as an octane booster.

In any event, I guess it comes down to your risk aversion and how much MMT is already in your fuel. Based on my research, I wouldn't worry at all about using it occasionally and although I might have some concerns about using it all the time for years, even then, I don't know that 13mg MG/L is really that harmful given that it has been used in these concentrations for 30+ years up until recently.

Ultimately I can't see myself using this stuff long term anyway as I can probably get the same (or better) effect from a $500 water/meth kit which would pay for itself in about a year by not adding $15 a fill for additives.

However, for those who may want the occasional performance boost, on track days and such by adding some octane booster and bumping up their timing with Unisettings, I don't think there's really much of a risk in using it occasionally. Of course your mileage may vary

Anyway, I at least wanted to take the time to provide some form of an assessment of it's risks that went beyond the normal speculation that seems to accompany 99.9% of all additive threads. (seriously, why is it that virtually no one actually takes the time to actually look this stuff up... )

Cheers and happy motoring

[ZimbutheMonkey]

40whp is a lot. It would be cool to see a couple runs on the stock tune graphed with and without the juice.

EDIT**** as indicated in the earlier post, it looks like I accidentally double copied the same run for the one with the additive. So until I dif through and find another clean 3rd gear run from a different day, I can't confirm the gains at this point.******

The rest of my comment still stands though

However, if anyone with a $10 generic VAG-COM cable, a laptop and an S4 and an extra $15 for a bottle of additive wants to download ME7logger and VirtualDyno, I'd be interested to see what happens as well.

I kind of wish that more people would actually take the time to log some good data to contribute to these threads.

If you're up for it, I'd be more than happy to have you post up the results from your 1.8T. If this stuff actually works the way I think it does, I think that a high compression turbocharged engine would probably see proportionally more gains than an N/A S4 would.

And, even if it doesn't, at least we have some empirically based results for discussion right?

[Eric F]

Also, I would add a word of caution with respect to toluene. I think it's a misnomer when you say that Toluene is harmless to an engine. High enough concentrations of Toluene can eventually start to damage components in fuel systems. whether or not that would occur in effective concentrations I'm not sure though.

Back in the first turbo era of Formula One in the 1980's they were running fuel concentrations as high as 86% toluene. Granted, they most likely designed the fuel system around using those kinds of concentrations. But the use of toluene was largely responsible for their ability to achieve 1350+ horsepower out of 1.5 liter engines.

[tchuck]

...

If you're up for it, I'd be more than happy to have you post up the results from your 1.8T. If this stuff actually works the way I think it does, I think that a high compression turbocharged engine would probably see proportionally more gains than an N/A S4 would.

And, even if it doesn't, at least we have some empirically based results for discussion right?

The b6 is my wife's and I don't get much time with it anymore, but it as well as my b5 are tuned for the 91oct we get around here so I'm not sure how valuable my data would be in this context. I'll get one today anyway.

Whay are the parameters you logged?

[c0ntract_thrill]

Just to comment on this, I've tried Toluene when I was experimenting with fuel blends in my 2003 3.0 V6. However, it didn't make much of a difference.

That said, I think I was blending it at about 1:6, so it may have been an insufficient quantity.

Also, I would add a word of caution with respect to toluene. I think it's a misnomer when you say that Toluene is harmless to an engine. High enough concentrations of Toluene can eventually start to damage components in fuel systems. whether or not that would occur in effective concentrations I'm not sure though.

Also, Toluene is hard to find and bloody expensive. Where I live, it's about $25 CAD a gallon. To get a 2 point increase in 94 octane, you have to blend about 12% which is 2 US gallons per 60 liter fill.

So assuming that I was filling 60 liters total, I'd be looking at close an additional $50 per 53 liters of 94 octane at $66.25 (@ $1.25/liter) to get the same effect as I'm getting at $15 per bottle of octane booster. At $35 difference per fill, I would say that renders the Toluene option cost prohibitive.

Hell, I can buy Fury 99 MON for around $2.50 per liter at AFD Petroleum in Edmonton where I live. Blending that half and half with 94 Octane would give me 97 octane for $1.88 per liter vs the $1.93 per liter that it would cost me to get 96 octane out of a toluene blend.

First, you can't make more power off the octane bump unless you have a tune for it. With a 91/93/100 etc file, the software is expecting certain parameters from the fuel and will only advance so far.

1.5) Your story about blending toluene 1:6 would help if you stated what octane you started with. Also with the 6;1 ratio (gas and toluene), 81 octane would yield 85, 87 octane would yield 90.7, 91 octane would be 94 octane and 94 octane would be 97.

Second, toluene is in pump gas. Higher octane gas often has higher proportions of toluene as high as 40+ %. I won't argue with you... so I will just link the MSDS for a Canadian fuel supplier

http://www.online.petro-canada.ca/da...n_CA/w102e.pdf

Note: The MSDS sheet is Petro-Canada and covers 91- 100+ octane specialty products. The MSDS states that the Toluene level is 0-40% depending on the Gasoline octane rating because this sheet covers 20 different gasoline products, and I am too lazy to run every product number just to show you that you are wrong.

The 0% rating is because fuels below 91 octane are blended with ethanol 1-3% but in some cases as high as %15 (instead of toluene )


Third, I live in Canada. I race regularly. I have been fuel blending for years. Toluene is cheaper than race fuel.

[ZimbutheMonkey]

First, you can't make more power off the octane bump unless you have a tune for it. With a 91/93/100 etc file, the software is expecting certain parameters from the fuel and will only advance so far.

1.5) Your story about blending toluene 1:6 would help if you stated what octane you started with. Also with the 6;1 ratio (gas and toluene), 81 octane would yield 85, 87 octane would yield 90.7, 91 octane would be 94 octane and 94 octane would be 97.

Second, toluene is in pump gas. Higher octane gas often has higher proportions of toluene as high as 40+ %. I won't argue with you... so I will just link the MSDS for a Canadian fuel supplier

http://www.online.petro-canada.ca/da...n_CA/w102e.pdf

Note: The MSDS sheet is Petro-Canada and covers 91- 100+ octane specialty products. The MSDS states that the Toluene level is 0-40% depending on the Gasoline octane rating because this sheet covers 20 different gasoline products, and I am too lazy to run every product number just to show you that you are wrong.

The 0% rating is because fuels below 91 octane are blended with ethanol 1-3% but in some cases as high as %15 (instead of toluene )


Third, I live in Canada. I race regularly. I have been fuel blending for years. Toluene is cheaper than race fuel.

Ahh, from NS I see, good folks there and nice to see a fellow Canuck

I had some friends in Amhurst. I went to see them once, let me tell 'ya, as a devotee of Trailer Park Boys (I can do a spot on impression of Bubbles lol) it didn't take me long to realize that the show wasn't a spoof, it was reality TV out there

So, one quick request, if you care to respond to my comments, I would ask one thing of you before you do. Please go through the thread and re-read what I've written. I'm honestly not saying this as a passive aggressive swipe, however in reading your response, you're raising points that I've already addressed and I don't think it's a good use of either of our time to re-hash things when we could be adding to the discussion with a new subject.

1) Your point about higher octane fuel not making more power has some truth to it. IF, the engine isn't pulling timing on a lower octane fuel then yes, you won't make any more power by going to a higher octane rating. BUT, if your engine tends to want to pull timing, then you'll stand to make more power on a higher octane fuel by getting that timing back.

As my logs and the fueling tables that I provided would suggest, an 11:1 compression engine running lean in stock form is probably pulling timing in anything other than completely optimal conditions.

I've been wondering of late if that might account for the variance in the stock dyno results for these engines. Some look really healthy and some look like they're way down from Audi's quoted 340 CHP. I'll wager that heat soak on a dyno kills the timing on a stock engine after a few pulls.

With respect to needing a tune, again, there' some truth to that as well. While a tune is the best way to go about getting more out of a higher octane fuel, you can also shortcut the process for free by adding a few degrees across the board with Unisettings/Lemmiwinks. Again, you won't gain as much as you would with a purpose written tune, but let me tell you, I've examined at least one 'reputable' tuner .bin and it wasn't much more than that....

2) In answer to your question, I started with 94 octane fuel when I blended the fuel 6:1

As well I never said that toluene is necessarily bad for your engine. However the original post on the subject led me to think that the OP was under the impression that toluene was completely harmless to your fuel system. As you indicated, yes, you can add a certain percentage of toluene as aromatics are already used in fuel, however, there does come a point where it can be detrimental to the rubber in your fuel system. That's all I was saying.

3) If you feel that Toluene is cheaper than race fuel, please outline your costs and blending system. I'm all ears if you want to put some numbers together and show us the cost. However, simply stating that it's cheaper without showing us why and how really doesn't get us any further. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see (for my benefit and others') how you came to that conclusion.

[c0ntract_thrill]

Ahh, from NS I see, good folks there and nice to see a fellow Canuck

I had some friends in Amhurst. I went to see them once, let me tell 'ya, as a devotee of Trailer Park Boys (I can do a spot on impression of Bubbles lol) it didn't take me long to realize that the show wasn't a spoof, it was reality TV out there

So, one quick request, if you care to respond to my comments, I would ask one thing of you before you do. Please go through the thread and re-read what I've written. I'm honestly not saying this as a passive aggressive swipe, however in reading your response, you're raising points that I've already addressed and I don't think it's a good use of either of our time to re-hash things when we could be adding to the discussion with a new subject.

1) Your point about higher octane fuel not making more power has some truth to it. IF, the engine isn't pulling timing on a lower octane fuel then yes, you won't make any more power by going to a higher octane rating. BUT, if your engine tends to want to pull timing, then you'll stand to make more power on a higher octane fuel by getting that timing back.

As my logs and the fueling tables that I provided would suggest, an 11:1 compression engine running lean in stock form is probably pulling timing in anything other than completely optimal conditions.

I've been wondering of late if that might account for the variance in the stock dyno results for these engines. Some look really healthy and some look like they're way down from Audi's quoted 340 CHP. I'll wager that heat soak on a dyno kills the timing on a stock engine after a few pulls.

With respect to needing a tune, again, there' some truth to that as well. While a tune is the best way to go about getting more out of a higher octane fuel, you can also shortcut the process for free by adding a few degrees across the board with Unisettings/Lemmiwinks. Again, you won't gain as much as you would with a purpose written tune, but let me tell you, I've examined at least one 'reputable' tuner .bin and it wasn't much more than that....

2) In answer to your question, I started with 94 octane fuel when I blended the fuel 6:1

As well I never said that toluene is necessarily bad for your engine. However the original post on the subject led me to think that the OP was under the impression that toluene was completely harmless to your fuel system. As you indicated, yes, you can add a certain percentage of toluene as aromatics are already used in fuel, however, there does come a point where it can be detrimental to the rubber in your fuel system. That's all I was saying.

3) If you feel that Toluene is cheaper than race fuel, please outline your costs and blending system. I'm all ears if you want to put some numbers together and show us the cost. However, simply stating that it's cheaper without showing us why and how really doesn't get us any further. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, I just want to see (for my benefit and others') how you came to that conclusion.

For actual racing your'e not going to run a full tank of fuel, you will only run the smallest amount of fuel required because fuel= weight. For a track day you want the minimum amount of fuel needed to make your laps or passes without running out. So most people are only ever running a few gallons at a time. In this regard, 2 gallons of toluene will treat more than enough fuel for a weekend of racing without the pains that storing race gas brings.

I know Mr. Lahey in real life haha

As for the rest of your comments, I have read your posts and there is some great information but I disagree with some of your points related to earlier posts on blending.

First I agree, occasionally using MMT for "octane boosting" is probably not going to cause your valve train to fail, but it will hurt your 02 sensors for certain. That being said, all the other junk in that product probably is not good for your engine either.

Toluene is actually a fuel, and it is very high in energy compared to the alternatives IE ethanol

Back to the Tune part though

If you have a 91 octane tune, putting 93+ octane in will only yield a small increase at best, the ECU thinks it is only going to be seeing certain fuel parameters and will not exceed those on a factory ecu. So putting C16 into your car with a stock tune will probably due jack squat compared to running 93 pump. You have to be able to make use of the fuel, the car must be tuned for it.

In terms of you running lean, that has nothing to do with the octane level of your fuel, if you were too low in octane (which is impossible on 94) you would get knock, and your engine would pull timing. I would be amazed if your were actually running lean on a factory tune (unless you have a leak post MAF), the ECU can compensate for a lot of factors.

Anyway, I would suggest getting a good tune like JHM 93 octane if you want to see a performance bump, but even then running 100+ octane on a JHM 93 tune is not going to add massive amounts of hp, I would guess 1-3 bhp tops.

Here is some of what I was talking about, I respond in red to highlight where I disagree:

Just to comment on this, I've tried Toluene when I was experimenting with fuel blends in my 2003 3.0 V6. However, it didn't make much of a difference.

The 3.0L V6 is not exactly a high performance engine and it does not have factory tuning to make use of (blended 1:6 toluene with 94) 97 octane. Even with a ECU tune, the most aggressive tunes on 93 will not yield significant gains on anything above that. You might make 1-3 hp more on 100, but it would be a waste of money to run C16 on that engine. My point being, even with a tune, adding more octane will not yield more power or performance if your car is not tuned to make use of it.

That said, I think I was blending it at about 1:6, so it may have been an insufficient quantity.

That would be 97 Octane

Also, I would add a word of caution with respect to toluene. I think it's a misnomer when you say that Toluene is harmless to an engine. High enough concentrations of Toluene can eventually start to damage components in fuel systems. whether or not that would occur in effective concentrations I'm not sure though.

Again, pump fuels have in excess of %40 toluene already, you could run much higher concentrations and it wouldn't hurt your engine. The rubber seals and etc, will be fine, they are already exposed to toluene daily if your'e running even 91 octane fuel and they do not fail.


Also, Toluene is hard to find and bloody expensive. Where I live, it's about $25 CAD a gallon. To get a 2 point increase in 94 octane, you have to blend about 12% which is 2 US gallons per 60 liter fill.


$25 a gallon (3.8L = $6.57/L) is a good price for 114 octane, and remember, your'e buying an actual FUEL, not a fuel ADDITIVE/Detergent/anti knock agent. Even a %20 mix would yield 2.5 RON compared to the NOS product which according to tests is about 1.8 RON. (both are assuming full tanks which, as I said above, you wouldn't be using during actual racing unless you don't care about making fastest times possible)

When you compare the cost $16/500 ML for NOS vs $6.57/L for actual fuel. The other advantage of Toluene for racing purposes is that it helps protect the engine when running hot, or in hot climates

So assuming that I was filling 60 liters total, I'd be looking at close an additional $50 per 53 liters of 94 octane at $66.25 (@ $1.25/liter) to get the same effect as I'm getting at $15 per bottle of octane booster. At $35 difference per fill, I would say that renders the Toluene option cost prohibitive.

MMT is very potent octane booster, it replaces lead which is the king of the race gas blends (hence why a lot of VP race fuels still use lead) , anyway the downside to MMT like (lead aka TEL) is that the metallic compounds are very hard on your o2 sensors and some internal engine components. This is where we talk about "Risk", so just like there might be some marginal cost savings in the quantities needed to treat the gas, the benefits come from the safety factor toluene provides.That is where the value and performance have to be weighed against the risk.

Hell, I can buy Fury 99 MON for around $2.50 per liter at AFD Petroleum in Edmonton where I live. Blending that half and half with 94 Octane would give me 97 octane for $1.88 per liter vs the $1.93 per liter that it would cost me to get 96 octane out of a toluene blend.

Why are you even bothering with octane boosters if you have 99 at the pump!???! Hell even with 94 octane, there is zero point in using an octane product( even toluene) as fuel blending is ideal and much safer for your engine...also you don't even have a tune that will make more power than 93!!!! Even with unisettings and etc, you can't increase timing past the ECU safety limited threshold.

Basically... if you have access to good 94 octane fuel... why are you messing around with Canadian tire junk?

[ZimbutheMonkey]

I know Mr. Lahey in real life haha

As for the rest of your comments, I have read your posts and there is some great information but I disagree with some of your points related to earlier posts on blending.

Well thanks for the kind words and may I ask as to where and how you came to know the real Mr. Lahey?

First I agree, occasionally using MMT for "octane boosting" is probably not going to cause your valve train to fail, but it will hurt your 02 sensors for certain.

Interestingly enough, I really didn't see much, if any information about O2 sensor failures in the research articles that I examined. Not to say that it can't happen, but most of the concerns seemed to center around spark plugs and the catalytic converters. To summarize the research, there was one test conducted by Ethyl which indicated that concentrations of 8 to 16 Mn/L could impair O2 sensor function. However, the two subsequent studies did not find any evidence of O2 sensor function impairment.
http://www.cvma.ca/eng/publications/...MMT_072402.pdf
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default..._ICCT_2004.pdf

Here's the quote from the CVMA study "The limited available data regarding MMT impacts on oxygen sensor performance indicate that MMT has the potential to adversely affect sensors, but do not prove that low
level (8.3 mg Mn per liter) MMT use adversely impacts the performance of current sensors."

Now, as I said earlier, just because the studies found little evidence that MMT impaired O2 sensor function doesn't mean that it's not a risk. I would say that the biggest issue with the study results is due to the years that they were conducted, they were likely testing narrowband O2 sensors. It's entirely possible that MMT could have a greater effect on wideband O2 sensors. However I haven't been able to find any research articles to confirm nor deny this.

What I would invite you to consider is this, up until very recently, MMT has been used between 8 Mn/L and 16 Mn/L (the latter number in Canada at least) concentrations and has been used to power hundreds of thousands of vehicles. If the effects of MMT were as severe as some claim, you would think that these vehicles would be suffering O2 sensor failures in droves. However, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Again, I want to be clear, I'm not suggesting that MMT poses NO risk to your sensors. However when I look at the research, and the fact that MMT has been (and still may be) used for years with O2 sensor equipped vehicles, you would think that somewhere along the lines, researchers would have been able to show a causal link between MMT and sensor failures and that doesn't seem to be the case.

If you have a 91 octane tune, putting 93+ octane in will only yield a small increase at best, the ECU thinks it is only going to be seeing certain fuel parameters and will not exceed those on a factory ecu. So putting C16 into your car with a stock tune will probably due jack squat compared to running 93 pump. You have to be able to make use of the fuel, the car must be tuned for it.

This is what I was referring to when I asked you to have a re-read of what I had posted earlier. No biggie tho If you look at my logs, you can see that my car was pulling up to 5 degrees of timing on the stock ECU tune on 94 octane at around 0C no less. That's power that you would get back even with the stock tune.

As well, you don't need a new ECU tune to take advantage of a higher octane fuel even if you aren't pulling timing on the stock ECU settings. You can always add timing in 0.75 increments with Unisettings/Lemmiwinks.

With respect to my own vehicles I've spent hundreds of hours over the last 4-5 months developing winOLS definition files for both 3.0 V6 and 4.2 V8 and teaching myself how to tune ME7 vehicles. So while I may choose to buy a tune from a vendor, it's not necessary if I wanted to take advantage of higher octane.

In terms of you running lean, that has nothing to do with the octane level of your fuel, if you were too low in octane (which is impossible on 94) you would get knock, and your engine would pull timing. I would be amazed if your were actually running lean on a factory tune (unless you have a leak post MAF), the ECU can compensate for a lot of factors.

I realize that my running lean has nothing to do with octane. As I had indicated in post #4 the stock ECU is the reason that the engine runs lean. What I was saying is that I think that part of the reason that i was pulling timing is because you go into peak load @3000 RPM at about 13.5:1 AFR and it doesn't raise above 13:1 until after 6000 RPM. Factor in the fact that stoich decreases to 14.2:1 with E10 and that means that you're running even leaner than that.

Stock fueling

10 * * *20 * * * 40 * * * * 60 * * * 80 * * * * 100 * * * * * *% LOAD

1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *1000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *1520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *2000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *2520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *3000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.97663 0.96100 0.91412 *3500 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 0.98444 0.95319 0.94537 0.90631 *4000 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.93756 0.92975 0.90631 *4520 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.92975 0.91412 0.89850 *5000 RPM
1.00006 0.95319 0.93756 0.92193 0.90631 0.88287 *5520 RPM
1.00006 0.93756 0.92193 0.90631 0.89068 0.88287 *6000 RPM
1.00006 0.91412 0.88287 0.89068 0.88287 0.86724 *6520 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.87506 0.85943 0.85162 0.85162 *7000 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.86724 0.85162 0.85162 0.85162 *7520 RPM

However, my understanding is that on a N/A engine, you should richen up to about 12.5:1 (0.85V) at peak torque then lean out to about 13:1 - 13.5:1 as the revs rise towards redline.


My revised fueling settings

10 * * *20 * * * 40 * * * * 60 * * * 80 * * * 100 * * * * * *% LOAD

1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.92975 0.85943 *500 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.92975 0.85943 *1000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.96881 0.89850 0.85943 *1520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.93756 0.86724 0.85943 *2000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.92975 0.85943 0.85943 *2520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.90631 0.84380 0.84380 *3000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.89850 0.84380 0.84380 *3520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 0.98444 0.89068 0.84380 0.84380 *4000 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.88287 0.84380 0.84380 *4520 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.88287 0.85943 0.84380 *5000 RPM
1.00006 0.95319 0.93756 0.88287 0.85943 0.85943 *5520 RPM
1.00006 0.93756 0.92193 0.88287 0.86724 0.85943 *6000 RPM
1.00006 0.91412 0.88287 0.88287 0.86724 0.85943 *6520 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.87506 0.86724 0.86724 0.86724 *7000 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.86724 0.86724 0.86724 0.86724 *7520 RPM

So with the stock fueling settings between 80-100% load you get:

(I have included values for both Ethanol free E0 and 10% Ethanol E10)
13.43:1 (E0) / 13.93:1 (E10) @ 3000-4000 RPM
13.32:1 (E0) / 13.82:1 (E10) @ 4000-4500 RPM
13.20:1 (E0) / 13.70:1 (E10) @ 4500-5000 RPM
12.97:1 (E0) / 13:47:1 (E10) @ 5000-6000 RPM


Finally, the reason that I'm not using the Fury 99 Oct that I can buy at AFD Petroleum is 1) because it's a 50 min round trip from my house and I'm hardly never on that side of town 2) I have to be there between 9-5 Monday to Friday.

[tchuck]

...

This is what I was referring to when I asked you to have a re-read of what I had posted earlier. No biggie tho If you look at my logs, you can see that my car was pulling up to 5 degrees of timing on the stock ECU tune on 94 octane at around 0C no less. That's power that you would get back even with the stock tune.

...

Wait. I thought all those logs were with your modified tune?

[c0ntract_thrill]

Well thanks for the kind words and may I ask as to where and how you came to know the real Mr. Lahey?

We have some mutual friends.

Interestingly enough, I really didn't see much, if any information about O2 sensor failures in the research articles that I examined. Not to say that it can't happen, but most of the concerns seemed to center around spark plugs and the catalytic converters. To summarize the research, there was one test conducted by Ethyl which indicated that concentrations of 8 to 16 Mn/L could impair O2 sensor function. However, the two subsequent studies did not find any evidence of O2 sensor function impairment.
http://www.cvma.ca/eng/publications/...MMT_072402.pdf
http://www.theicct.org/sites/default..._ICCT_2004.pdf

Here's the quote from the CVMA study "The limited available data regarding MMT impacts on oxygen sensor performance indicate that MMT has the potential to adversely affect sensors, but do not prove that low
level (8.3 mg Mn per liter) MMT use adversely impacts the performance of current sensors."


That part right there^^^. There is another study by a GM research group, the assertion that MMT has negative effects on O2 sensors is because it contains metallic components naturally... which is the same problem with Leaded fuels (TEL), the metallic components burn off during combustion cycle and cake onto the O2 sensors and are impossible to clean off. The metallic deposits are also what are theorized to negatively affect your valve train and what is guaranteed to affect the catalytic converters.

Even though I can't produce the study on a whim, (it is on the internet), we can still look at the bolded part of your own quote and use common sense: Eessentially we know MMT leaves deposits because it has metallic components in it, we know those same/similar types of deposits are in TEL, so therefore if TEL fuels cause O2 failure, it is reasonable to assume MMT does as well.

Now, as I said earlier, just because the studies found little evidence that MMT impaired O2 sensor function doesn't mean that it's not a risk. I would say that the biggest issue with the study results is due to the years that they were conducted, they were likely testing narrowband O2 sensors. It's entirely possible that MMT could have a greater effect on wideband O2 sensors. However I haven't been able to find any research articles to confirm nor deny this.

We agree.

What I would invite you to consider is this, up until very recently, MMT has been used between 8 Mn/L and 16 Mn/L (the latter number in Canada at least) concentrations and has been used to power hundreds of thousands of vehicles. If the effects of MMT were as severe as some claim, you would think that these vehicles would be suffering O2 sensor failures in droves. However, that doesn't appear to be the case.

Where in Canada is MMT normally used in fuels aside from off the shelf fuel additives?

Again, I want to be clear, I'm not suggesting that MMT poses NO risk to your sensors. However when I look at the research, and the fact that MMT has been (and still may be) used for years with O2 sensor equipped vehicles, you would think that somewhere along the lines, researchers would have been able to show a causal link between MMT and sensor failures and that doesn't seem to be the case.



This is what I was referring to when I asked you to have a re-read of what I had posted earlier. No biggie tho If you look at my logs, you can see that my car was pulling up to 5 degrees of timing on the stock ECU tune on 94 octane at around 0C no less. That's power that you would get back even with the stock tune.

But my understanding is you only added timing through Unisettings. There is a limit on the factory ecu, there is a reason why JHM/APR/Unitronic/Revo and etc have dedicated software that affects multiple areas of the ECU system, they don't just add a bunch of timing or nobody would buy their products and they would make no more power than someone like you who is adjusting timing increments on their own. Anyway, the timing adjustments you made have a limit, even with what you see on lemi/uni, there are reference tables within the software and your extra timing will be pulled by the ECU based on many of factors, I have limited knowledge on ECU tuning but I know Engine load, IAT, duty cycle and etc all play a big role in how our ECUs modulate power. Timing alone (or pulled timing) is not an indicator of anything.

As well, you don't need a new ECU tune to take advantage of a higher octane fuel even if you aren't pulling timing on the stock ECU settings. You can always add timing in 0.75 increments with Unisettings/Lemmiwinks.

Like I said above, Lemmi/Uni has limitations, really your'e not going to even approach the capabilities of anything that the dedicated remaps provide from a vendor. I really wish APR/JHM or another forum sponsor would comment and address this as they could explain much better than I about the limitations of what your'e adjusting.


With respect to my own vehicles I've spent hundreds of hours over the last 4-5 months developing winOLS definition files for both 3.0 V6 and 4.2 V8 and teaching myself how to tune ME7 vehicles. So while I may choose to buy a tune from a vendor, it's not necessary if I wanted to take advantage of higher octane.

You're not tuning anything, you don't have stand alone or a piggy back, your adjusting a few limited components that will be ultimately trumped by the internal safety features of your ECU

I realize that my running lean has nothing to do with octane. As I had indicated in post #4 the stock ECU is the reason that the engine runs lean. What I was saying is that I think that part of the reason that i was pulling timing is because you go into peak load @3000 RPM at about 13.5:1 AFR and it doesn't raise above 13:1 until after 6000 RPM. Factor in the fact that stoich decreases to 14.2:1 with E10 and that means that you're running even leaner than that.

Are you using VCDS to get your AFRs or did you install a wideband ?



I still don't even understand the point of this thread aside from saying that NOS octane booster works. We all know it works to a degree, nobody argues that MMT is effective for increasing octane.

What prompted you to start logging? Is your car performing subpar? do you have misfires/rough idle?


You have to realize that what you're proposing sounds a bit silly. Octane boosters are usually really going to help people that have really poor fuel supplies like 91 octane, really if you had told me you had 87 octane in the tank and had knock, I would understand that... but you are running 94, which on a factory ecu (even tuned by yourself with lemi/uni) should run fine on anything above 91 octane. If you saw any improvement in performance on a tank of 94 with the NOS additive, I would personally assume it was coincidental and would be looking for a mechanical cause to your issues.


Stock fueling

10 * * *20 * * * 40 * * * * 60 * * * 80 * * * * 100 * * * * * *% LOAD

1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *1000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *1520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *2000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *2520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.91412 *3000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.97663 0.96100 0.91412 *3500 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 0.98444 0.95319 0.94537 0.90631 *4000 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.93756 0.92975 0.90631 *4520 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.92975 0.91412 0.89850 *5000 RPM
1.00006 0.95319 0.93756 0.92193 0.90631 0.88287 *5520 RPM
1.00006 0.93756 0.92193 0.90631 0.89068 0.88287 *6000 RPM
1.00006 0.91412 0.88287 0.89068 0.88287 0.86724 *6520 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.87506 0.85943 0.85162 0.85162 *7000 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.86724 0.85162 0.85162 0.85162 *7520 RPM

However, my understanding is that on a N/A engine, you should richen up to about 12.5:1 (0.85V) at peak torque then lean out to about 13:1 - 13.5:1 as the revs rise towards redline.

Don't take this as me being rude, but your understanding of engine tuning and the understanding of Audi engineers, are probably on vastly different levels.

My revised fueling settings

10 * * *20 * * * 40 * * * * 60 * * * 80 * * * 100 * * * * * *% LOAD

1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.92975 0.85943 *500 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.92975 0.85943 *1000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.96881 0.89850 0.85943 *1520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.93756 0.86724 0.85943 *2000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.92975 0.85943 0.85943 *2520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.90631 0.84380 0.84380 *3000 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 1.00006 0.89850 0.84380 0.84380 *3520 RPM
1.00006 1.00006 0.98444 0.89068 0.84380 0.84380 *4000 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.88287 0.84380 0.84380 *4520 RPM
1.00006 0.97663 0.95319 0.88287 0.85943 0.84380 *5000 RPM
1.00006 0.95319 0.93756 0.88287 0.85943 0.85943 *5520 RPM
1.00006 0.93756 0.92193 0.88287 0.86724 0.85943 *6000 RPM
1.00006 0.91412 0.88287 0.88287 0.86724 0.85943 *6520 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.87506 0.86724 0.86724 0.86724 *7000 RPM
1.00006 0.90631 0.86724 0.86724 0.86724 0.86724 *7520 RPM

So with the stock fueling settings between 80-100% load you get:

(I have included values for both Ethanol free E0 and 10% Ethanol E10)
13.43:1 (E0) / 13.93:1 (E10) @ 3000-4000 RPM
13.32:1 (E0) / 13.82:1 (E10) @ 4000-4500 RPM
13.20:1 (E0) / 13.70:1 (E10) @ 4500-5000 RPM
12.97:1 (E0) / 13:47:1 (E10) @ 5000-6000 RPM

Why are you running Ethanol fuels???????

Finally, the reason that I'm not using the Fury 99 Oct that I can buy at AFD Petroleum is 1) because it's a 50 min round trip from my house and I'm hardly never on that side of town 2) I have to be there between 9-5 Monday to Friday.

I get that part, it wouldn't do you any good without a tune for it anyway

Thought it would be easier to answer point by point.

Have you ever ran your car in the 1/4? do you have any modifications?