Quiet, you have to chance to win when debating with one like legionscion whose eloquence and overall grasp of their language surpasses all but the greatest of intellectual minds.

 

I've learned that is very hard to win an arguement against someone who is very ignorant so i am just going to let this end. If he thinks 100 octane is going to help him, then so be it.

 

Im reminded of the saying: "Never argue with idiots. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

 

^^
exactly.

 

I go then argue and tell gas does goood does not clean any better 87 octane does only alllow compression higher dont need but do if think it makes feel better.

I think maybe I got the language down huh?

 

lol im going to lock this before it gets out of hand.

 

...and I'm going to post anyway, Chris, because I still have something that *I* think needs to be said in this topic...

(OK, I won't mention that with 87 octane in this very hilly part of the country, the ECU retards the ignition to prevent pinging, and thereby reduces available power, on a regular basis. A perfect example is my 1/3 mile driveway that with my automatic requires 2nd gear with 87 while only 3rd with 92 octane. It is not that a fuel with higher than 87 octane creates more HP, but it DOES prevent the drastic retardation of spark timing while under load to prevent pinging with our 10.5:1 compression ratio. In other words one does not LOSE power just when it's needed. I won't mention that this is an easily repeatable test at each fillup, either. )

100 octane is very likely overkill with our engines - I doubt the static ignition timing is advanced far enough to take advantage of it, and the ECU is only programmed to retard from the static setting.