kargoboy

Hey all,

Coupla weeks ago I replaced the OEM plugs with the longer reach NGK ZRF5F-11's
and ran them with both 87 and 89 octane.
For those of you that may be interested in a less-than-scientific observation, here are the results. I ran two tanks of each 87 and 89 octane.
MPG with 89 octane -- 27.4
MPG with 87 octane -- 30.1
My only engine mod is an SRI with Monsterflow filter. My driving habit would be considered 'spirited' but not overly agressive. I generally shift at 4500-5000 k.
I also spend about 20 minutes each weekday morning in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Considering the above, I thought 30.1 mpg was pretty impressive. With the old plugs I NEVER, not even once, got better than 28 mpg.
But, and this is purely my own personal observation, when I used the 89 octane my car revved smoother in the upper rpm. When I used the 87 octane, there was some hesitation accelerating near 5000rpm.
Also, with the 87 octane, when accelerating to pass, especially uphill, I would get that 'pig rich' gasoline smell for a few seconds (this with the old plugs also). It did not happen at all with the 89 octane. There was no sign of detonation with either octane.
Overall I am very happy with performance and am convinced that these plugs are a better fit for our engine.
Just throwing this out there as an FYI and I would welcome comments.

Omron

I am no wiz on octane but from what i do know of it, I know the difference between 89 and 87 in terms of performance are nill, if not none existant at least with my results and tests... but what think iwould take into consideration is that Different gas companies formulate there gases differently,

different blends, different ****, and at times, more sulfer and other crap that your car just doesnt need...


but one thing i would advise ya to do is to run that test again and use fuel from the same gas station and to use fuel of 87 and 91, this will give you a more stable showing of results

Also try to avoid having your gases blend when your doing your second run.

and last, instead of using your whole tank, try using the set distance method. for example , starting from a full tank of your desired configuration and fuel, and drive on a predetermined route , perfering a highway, drive for 100 km, the fuel up again, and see how much fuel was lost. try using your cruise control to ensure that your keeping it as straight forward and simple as possible.


I think that should give you an idea of what your true MPG is..

just a thought,

cant wait to see

MProtegeLX

I havnt changed my plugs yet but plan to in the next few weeks, but as for the Octsin, I did some test of my own.

I live in Montreal, and ALL the gastations have only 87, 89, & 91 octain, ecept Petro Canada, they produce all the rest aswell as 94. It wasnt untill going from 87 to 94 that I was like (HOLLY ****). I dont know about the millage part, and frankly I dont care, but I have noticed the 94 lasting longer and taking less to fill the tank, but this is only from observation and no real test, I pay little attention to the milage and I use the car with no patern (I dont drive to work and I dont do the same **** after work everyday) (but for those who do and pay close attention to miliage, it's all good) What I noticed was the added PUNCH! Im not talking super Hp added, but noticeable gains in power across the band, aswell as much smother reving (on a side note, I used to hear a tingling sound when driving past concrete dividers (or anything that bounced back the engine sound) Once the 94 went in the sound is no more (I only use 94 since so dont know if it would come back)

I also want to interject a point more octain is better for your engine (in theses quantities) it will make the car rev better and a better reving engine is a better working engine, and that will prolong the life of the vehicle. (there are many other factors of why the 94 is better but thats for another thread)

Ive narowed it down to this (and its very simple) You get what you pay for

Cheap gas is exactly that CHEAP GAS

goldstar

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the octane rating of a fuel means. The octane rating refers to the temperature at which a fuel spontaneously ignites and is not a measure of the "power" contained in the fuel. High compression ratio engines require a higher octane fuel to prevent detonation caused by the higher combustion chamber temperatures inherent in such engines compared with lower compression ratio engines. The increased power comes from the higher compression ratio not the higher octane fuel.

Using 89, 91 or 94 octane fuel in an engine designed for 87 octane fuel is a total waste of money and will provide NO increase in power. Any increase in power you claim to have felt by using 94 octane fuel is a complete illusion on your part. Any increase you think you feel is all in your mind, or in your butt, as the case may be.

Higher octane fuel does not make your car rev better and does not prolong its life. Do some research on octane rating and you will see that your belief in its magical powers is wrong.

Also, it's good to do research on a subject before you post so that you do not spread misinformation to our Forum members.

Higher octane fuel is necessary if you go turbo, raise your compression ratio or run advanced ignition timing. In the stock, normally aspirated Protege, 87 octane is all that's required.

kargoboy

Omron--I realize there is not much of a difference between 87 & 89 octane. In truth, the only reason I did this little test at all is because Edwin Mann (Protege FAQ guy) recommended these plugs for our car (used in the J-spec engines) some time back and suggested that 89 would be better because American gasoline was of lesser quality than Japanese gasoline.
I have no intention of running any higher octane than 89 at this time.
Also, the only gas I used for four (now five) tanks was Sunoco, and I allowed the tank to run as dry as I felt comfortable doing. This really wasn't so much of a mileage test as my own observation based on Edwin Mann's suggestion. I put up the MPG numbers because Roddimus asked to see them. l
I did, however, find the result somewhat compelling.
MProtegeLX--you are just wasting your money. There are no gains to be had using 94 octane on a stock engine. There have been many threads discussing this. I did not change my plugs for any power gain nor did I see any. I plan on adding an MP3 ECU in the near future and added these plugs because I think they are more suited to that situation.

tonkabui

did you run the 87 tank right after your plug replacement? i got the same results with denso iridiums. first tank of 87, i got ~31mpg. same roads, same driving conditions, the next few tanks started dropping in mpg. i'm down to about 29-30 now, which is basically what i got before i replaced the plugs.

Roddimus Prime

i'm shopping for some spark plugs now...the BEST spark plugs available. The Womp needs some fresh spark since it's run so rich for a while the plugs are NASTY.

What is the best plug for a boosted protege and why?

Omron, what did you find out after your tests?

goldstar

I apologize if you thought my post was directed at you. Sorry for any problem I may have caused. My post was completely in reference to the content of MProtegeLX's post. As a matter of fact, like you, I'm using NGK ZFR5F-11 plugs based on the same thread by TheMAN that you looked at.

As was mentioned in that thread and in the references TheMAN provided, it was suggested that the extended reach design may have the effect of advancing the ignition timing by one or two degrees. That factor plus TheMAN's contention that American gasoline is inferior to that of Japans suggested to me that it would be a good idea to switch to 89 octane fuel. Consequently, I too am running 89 octane, and have been since making the plug switch, just to be on the safe side. I agree with you that this a case where a slight octane increase is probably warranted.

02 DX Millenium Red

kargoboy

Lol, it's all good, after I re-read your post I realized who you were addressing, but I was too lazy to delete it...I'll do it now.

goldstar

My suggestion is that you first try the same NGK plugs that are used in the MSP. If nothing else, this would be a safe starting point. I don't know the plug number but I can look it up for you or I'm sure another Forum member knows and will post the information.

02 DX Millenium Red

kargoboy

no, I ran the 89 first. Two tanks at 89, then two tanks at 87. Reset the ECU after each change in octane, just in case. I went back to the 89 just because I am convinced my engine is happier in the upper rpms.
Whatever baby wants, baby gets...

goldstar

Roddimus, here are the NGK recommended spark plugs for the MSP according to the NGK website.

V-Power ZFR6F-11

G-Power Platinum ZFR6FGP

Iridium IX ZFR6FIX-11

02 DXMillenium Red

MProtegeLX

Sory Testing My Signature

Omron

Careful with the ECU flashes, your in for a suprise for the first 100 km, i would be suspecitous of any results you get from right away flashes.

the learning curve for the protege is not as quick as you think.

We found that out when our cars were doing strange things on quickchanges from HIGH OCTANE to Low octane, we were getting performance bumpsfor breif moments doing drags... but the only down side is that after 10km of hard racing you will , I repeat you will get KNOCKS.... so if you got everything on the line and your racing for keeps trying it, hahhahaha but you might blow your engine ...

but back to the subject, with reflashing the results may be off for a little while, after 50km then fill your tank and do the test

Omron

Results showed the BOSCH plug to slightly out do the IX irridiums that we bought, two pairs of each... but 2 people out of 5 in my crew are disputing the dyno run because of the point i raised earlier ,

COLD Vs. Warm ENGINE BLOCK, gave BOSCH the edge, but i dont really beleive that...


in terms of can the plugs handle it, it deepends on how hard your engine is pushing it.... but from what i understand of the plug, the temp rating is slightly colder then stock NGK plugs, meaning, if it was a NGK of the same Rating, the NGK plug would foul because of cleaning temp.

But Bosch figured becauseof the selfcleaning action that goes on the plugs are resistant to fouling due to temp.

IN OTHER WORDS , these plugs can take a few more degrees of heat.... but if your system is super monster and your cooling system is still stock. i wouldnt go that far...

I called BOSCH about that question from before.

about the SILVER +4 vs. the Platinum, and i have had two different answers as to which one is better for advanced applications such as NOS or SuperC/TURBOS....

they said that because the plug is made with platinum,nickle and Itryium they are designed to be stronger together...so you will not have temp. failure unless the engine actually reaches close to Platinums true melting point..

they say the usual reason for failure for platinum is because the bonds get weak, over time even at lower temp, so on a scientific level , the chanceof breaking will in crease, but with the itrium it solves that problem..


anyways i am no geek, so i will make more calls and ask.

But i say BOSCH is worth a try