NOS Octane Booster
08-23-2010, 02:28 AM
#26
Nick Zag - I've had 2 cars tuned for 94 octane (custom Powerchip tunes), both header-equipped and pretty much modded out. I can say the difference between 91 and 94 octane in the same car, optimized for each octane rating, is quite pronounced. In my M5 the difference between both octanes on the dyno varied between 14-18hp but it felt more like 40hp...particularly the dramatically better throttle response throughout the midrange. I had much more fun in it running 94 octane than the crap 91 it gets now. Let's see...I paid 45 cents per gallon more for 94 than 91 at my local Chevron station and to this day feel it was worth every penny. That's about what NOS would run for the same octane equivalency...if it works that well (and doesn't lead to added combustion chamber deposits).
I doubt that anyone here would be willing use 87 octane in their C63 to save a little money. Similarly, if I said it would be worth it to me to tune the C63 for 94 octane and then pay that premium for the gas, well considering I have over 100k miles on 94 octane-tuned cars using 94 octane then I would also posit that I have the experience to back up that assertion that it's well worth it...for me. But JMHO, to each their own. You wouldn't, I would. I'm on track to use 2,470 gallons this year based on mileage driven so using that increased octane gas would cost me $9,140 for 94 octane versus $8,150 for 91 octane. I would pay that extra $1k in a heartbeat. But like you, I'd be MUCH more comfortable obtaining that increased octane at the pump.
I doubt that anyone here would be willing use 87 octane in their C63 to save a little money. Similarly, if I said it would be worth it to me to tune the C63 for 94 octane and then pay that premium for the gas, well considering I have over 100k miles on 94 octane-tuned cars using 94 octane then I would also posit that I have the experience to back up that assertion that it's well worth it...for me. But JMHO, to each their own. You wouldn't, I would. I'm on track to use 2,470 gallons this year based on mileage driven so using that increased octane gas would cost me $9,140 for 94 octane versus $8,150 for 91 octane. I would pay that extra $1k in a heartbeat. But like you, I'd be MUCH more comfortable obtaining that increased octane at the pump.
08-23-2010, 02:10 PM
#27
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63
Nick Zag - I've had 2 cars tuned for 94 octane (custom Powerchip tunes), both header-equipped and pretty much modded out. I can say the difference between 91 and 94 octane in the same car, optimized for each octane rating, is quite pronounced. In my M5 the difference between both octanes on the dyno varied between 14-18hp but it felt more like 40hp...particularly the dramatically better throttle response throughout the midrange. I had much more fun in it running 94 octane than the crap 91 it gets now. Let's see...I paid 45 cents per gallon more for 94 than 91 at my local Chevron station and to this day feel it was worth every penny. That's about what NOS would run for the same octane equivalency...if it works that well (and doesn't lead to added combustion chamber deposits).
I doubt that anyone here would be willing use 87 octane in their C63 to save a little money. Similarly, if I said it would be worth it to me to tune the C63 for 94 octane and then pay that premium for the gas, well considering I have over 100k miles on 94 octane-tuned cars using 94 octane then I would also posit that I have the experience to back up that assertion that it's well worth it...for me. But JMHO, to each their own. You wouldn't, I would. I'm on track to use 2,470 gallons this year based on mileage driven so using that increased octane gas would cost me $9,140 for 94 octane versus $8,150 for 91 octane. I would pay that extra $1k in a heartbeat. But like you, I'd be MUCH more comfortable obtaining that increased octane at the pump.
I doubt that anyone here would be willing use 87 octane in their C63 to save a little money. Similarly, if I said it would be worth it to me to tune the C63 for 94 octane and then pay that premium for the gas, well considering I have over 100k miles on 94 octane-tuned cars using 94 octane then I would also posit that I have the experience to back up that assertion that it's well worth it...for me. But JMHO, to each their own. You wouldn't, I would. I'm on track to use 2,470 gallons this year based on mileage driven so using that increased octane gas would cost me $9,140 for 94 octane versus $8,150 for 91 octane. I would pay that extra $1k in a heartbeat. But like you, I'd be MUCH more comfortable obtaining that increased octane at the pump.
08-23-2010, 07:29 PM
#28
Super Member
Nick Zag - I've had 2 cars tuned for 94 octane (custom Powerchip tunes), both header-equipped and pretty much modded out. I can say the difference between 91 and 94 octane in the same car, optimized for each octane rating, is quite pronounced. In my M5 the difference between both octanes on the dyno varied between 14-18hp but it felt more like 40hp...particularly the dramatically better throttle response throughout the midrange. I had much more fun in it running 94 octane than the crap 91 it gets now. Let's see...I paid 45 cents per gallon more for 94 than 91 at my local Chevron station and to this day feel it was worth every penny. That's about what NOS would run for the same octane equivalency...if it works that well (and doesn't lead to added combustion chamber deposits).
I doubt that anyone here would be willing use 87 octane in their C63 to save a little money. Similarly, if I said it would be worth it to me to tune the C63 for 94 octane and then pay that premium for the gas, well considering I have over 100k miles on 94 octane-tuned cars using 94 octane then I would also posit that I have the experience to back up that assertion that it's well worth it...for me. But JMHO, to each their own. You wouldn't, I would. I'm on track to use 2,470 gallons this year based on mileage driven so using that increased octane gas would cost me $9,140 for 94 octane versus $8,150 for 91 octane. I would pay that extra $1k in a heartbeat. But like you, I'd be MUCH more comfortable obtaining that increased octane at the pump.
I doubt that anyone here would be willing use 87 octane in their C63 to save a little money. Similarly, if I said it would be worth it to me to tune the C63 for 94 octane and then pay that premium for the gas, well considering I have over 100k miles on 94 octane-tuned cars using 94 octane then I would also posit that I have the experience to back up that assertion that it's well worth it...for me. But JMHO, to each their own. You wouldn't, I would. I'm on track to use 2,470 gallons this year based on mileage driven so using that increased octane gas would cost me $9,140 for 94 octane versus $8,150 for 91 octane. I would pay that extra $1k in a heartbeat. But like you, I'd be MUCH more comfortable obtaining that increased octane at the pump.
