High Altitude, Power, and Octane.
When I was at the dealer the other day I was having a conversation with the service manager who told me to run 89 midgrade around town and that because of the altitude the car would run much better. He said that the 91 does not get a complete burn and causes carbon deposits and will cause the engine to hesitate. So I am getting conflicting answers to this question. I did some google searching and found that at higher altitudes that you can run a lower octane because the higher altitude has an effect on the engine like lowering the compression ratio because the air is thinner..
So I'm wondering if both can be correct .. in a nonperformance engine that normally runs on 91 you could run a lower grade fuel but on a performance engine seeking max power it may still be able to take advantage of the better fuel. Any experts want to way in ???
Why would 91 not burn properly just because the atmospheric pressure is lower?
Does that mean using a higher octane at sea level does the same thing?




As far as 89 running better than 91 at elevation, I don't think 2 octane points makes much of a difference either way. If that were the case you'd have an epidemic of cars with carbon deposits where you live. I call BS on that, never heard of it.
Last edited by BLKROKT; Mar 3, 2017 at 10:49 PM.




As far as 89 running better than 91 at elevation, I don't think 2 octane points makes much of a difference either way. If that were the case you'd have an epidemic of cars with carbon deposits where you live. I call BS on that, never heard of it.
As far as 89 running better than 91 at elevation, I don't think 2 octane points makes much of a difference either way. If that were the case you'd have an epidemic of cars with carbon deposits where you live. I call BS on that, never heard of it.




Like I said, just enjoy it.




When I was at the dealer the other day I was having a conversation with the service manager who told me to run 89 midgrade around town and that because of the altitude the car would run much better. He said that the 91 does not get a complete burn and causes carbon deposits and will cause the engine to hesitate. So I am getting conflicting answers to this question. I did some google searching and found that at higher altitudes that you can run a lower octane because the higher altitude has an effect on the engine like lowering the compression ratio because the air is thinner..
So I'm wondering if both can be correct .. in a nonperformance engine that normally runs on 91 you could run a lower grade fuel but on a performance engine seeking max power it may still be able to take advantage of the better fuel. Any experts want to way in ???
Do not listen to the service manager. 89 octane is not recommended. These cars need and want at least 91 and the higher the octane, the slower the fuel burn the less issue you have with detonation.
Listen to Jerry at Eurocharger. Believe me when I say this (A stranger on the internet) You will have more issues trying to use 89 as a performance or daily fuel than the higher octane fuels.
Most cars don't need 91. This is true, but the 6.2 is 11.3.1 compression. You need and want the higher octane fuel. As far as carbon deposits. I have heard of it happening when you use cheaper fuel or California fuels but that's what a few bottles of intake cleaner will help with.
Trending Topics
Detonation will damage the engine badly, relatively quickly.
The difference in tune for a turbocharged car between a 93 fuel tune and a 91 fuel tune is very noticeable, especially in terms of maximum torque.
The M156 runs a compression ratio of over 11:1, which means that it's very sensitive to detonation.
It very likely runs a suite of tables in the ECU where it detects detonation and reacts immediately by reducing timing advance for a duration of time, in stages, until there is no more detonation found, and then just runs at that timing level, while occasionally trying to raise it.
The torque will drop, the power will drop. However, with other cars, the very process of fiddling with the timing advance, waiting for detonation to happen, then pulling timing, causes damage.
In sum, carbon deposits with 89 fuel? I don't know.
Detonation with it? very likely. They may have a very good avoidance software suite, but I personally on my car would not risk finding out how good it is, if I could avoid it.
However, the higher altitude will cause a lower measured compression, but doesn't change the designed ratio. I can't say that I know what this will do to detonation, may well reduce it.
The other way around with extra high octane, unless there is a tune or a way for the software to compensate, you will have high EGT. This can be combined with high CHT (Cylinder head), which could burn off your carbon deposits, but could damage the converters, unless these are metal substrate. I did not read that the factory converters were metal substrate.
But I do recall reading in the XENTRY a live reading of the EGT, so somehow, although there is no probe (that I know of), they found a way to calculate it.
This means there's a table associated with the EGT and the ECU will take protection measures as soon as your high octane fuel raises the EGT and probably negate advantages you may have with it, unless there's a tune that accounts for everything.
Under my opinion it (the stock tune) will richen the mixture, to cool it down and you will burn through a tank of that stuff really quick.
Last edited by Vladds; Mar 4, 2017 at 08:26 AM.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Detonation will damage the engine badly, relatively quickly.
The difference in tune for a turbocharged car between a 93 fuel tune and a 91 fuel tune is very noticeable, especially in terms of maximum torque.
The M156 runs a compression ratio of over 11:1, which means that it's very sensitive to detonation.
It very likely runs a suite of tables in the ECU where it detects detonation and reacts immediately by reducing timing advance for a duration of time, in stages, until there is no more detonation found, and then just runs at that timing level, while occasionally trying to raise it.
The torque will drop, the power will drop. However, with other cars, the very process of fiddling with the timing advance, waiting for detonation to happen, then pulling timing, causes damage.
In sum, carbon deposits with 89 fuel? I don't know.
Detonation with it? very likely. They may have a very good avoidance software suite, but I personally on my car would not risk finding out how good it is, if I could avoid it.
However, the higher altitude will cause a lower measured compression, but doesn't change the designed ratio. I can't say that I know what this will do to detonation, may well reduce it.
The other way around with extra high octane, unless there is a tune or a way for the software to compensate, you will have high EGT. This can be combined with high CHT (Cylinder head), which could burn off your carbon deposits, but could damage the converters, unless these are metal substrate. I did not read that the factory converters were metal substrate.
But I do recall reading in the XENTRY a live reading of the EGT, so somehow, although there is no probe (that I know of), they found a way to calculate it.
This means there's a table associated with the EGT and the ECU will take protection measures as soon as your high octane fuel raises the EGT and probably negate advantages you may have with it, unless there's a tune that accounts for everything.
Under my opinion it (the stock tune) will richen the mixture, to cool it down and you will burn through a tank of that stuff really quick.
Thanks for the info VLADDS. I am running the V6 tune.




Glad you had fun
I would think that forced air from a turbo or supercharger would counteract this. We're at about 3500 feet in Calgary, and run 87 octane in our MDX without any noticeable degradation in fuel economy or performance (it requires 91).
I'd never try this in my E63 or any other forced induction engine.







...