Notices

Shell 91 vs Petrocan 94?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 10-21-2017, 02:11 PM
  #16  
The DareDevil
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
 
The DareDevil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 4,607
Received 12 Likes on 10 Posts
Default

Awesome, thanks the data!
Old 10-21-2017, 04:14 PM
  #17  
gbuff
Rennlist Member
 
gbuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,199
Received 424 Likes on 290 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cstyles
A lot of subjective opinions always come up when this question gets asked, on any car forum.

I datalogged Shell V-power 91 and Petro Canada Ultra94 on my 2008 turbo, to see if I could determine which fuel my car liked best. On the stock tune, my car pulls timing on Shell 91 and the knock sensors pick up a lot of activity.

My car runs much, much better on Ultra 94 - not from seat of the pants or opinion, just based on the actual data I've logged. Significantly less knock detected during datalogging.

I've done the same datalog comparison using my stage 2 tune @ 20.5psi (factory tune is 17 psi). Same results, Ultra 94 much better according to the datalogs.

I can't speak for naturally aspirated cars but modern turbos should be running the highest octane you can get!
Great stuff--ethanol or no ethanol, if your car is tripping knock sensors you need octane.

Reminds me of my old E-Type.....I put the highest octane fuel short of avgas that I could find in it and still had to add octane booster to keep it from knocking (or retard the timing and have it run like crap )

Ah, memories

Gary
Old 10-21-2017, 04:50 PM
  #18  
wildcat077
Drifting
 
wildcat077's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Montreal,Canada
Posts: 3,438
Received 202 Likes on 172 Posts
Default

When i dyno'd my 944 race car with a stock 2.5 engine last Spring , we tried Shell 91 and Petro Can Ultra 94 and it was clear that my car prefered the 94 ... this was done at Lachute Performance and they know very well what to do on a dyno !

I was told my engine would be safer with the 94 octane and the dyno results showed it.
Old 10-21-2017, 05:31 PM
  #19  
.2PDK
Race Car
Thread Starter
 
.2PDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 3,565
Received 1,280 Likes on 768 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cstyles

My car runs much, much better on Ultra 94 - not from seat of the pants or opinion, just based on the actual data I've logged. Significantly less knock detected during datalogging.

I can't speak for naturally aspirated cars but modern turbos should be running the highest octane you can get!
Sounds similar to what I was told.

The tech said that on a turbo go for 94 while NA the diff between 91 and 94 is marginal.

Older cars use 91 (0 ethanol).
Old 10-21-2017, 08:15 PM
  #20  
TurboS
Drifting
 
TurboS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,876
Received 41 Likes on 30 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by tse
Sounds similar to what I was told.

The tech said that on a turbo go for 94 while NA the diff between 91 and 94 is marginal.

Older cars use 91 (0 ethanol).
In the GT2 and Mercedes I only buy 94, and have used 94 on my 996 TT as well. No detrimental effects from the Ethanol on either car.

A few weeks ago I filled up the Mercedes with 91 out of necessity. On a sustained hard acceleration the engine sputtered and I had to pull over turn the car off and on, and it was fine. Had a misfire in 3 cylinders. Lesson learned.
Don't try and outrun a Ferrari with 91!

Old 10-22-2017, 01:38 PM
  #21  
.2PDK
Race Car
Thread Starter
 
.2PDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 3,565
Received 1,280 Likes on 768 Posts
Default

I will try Ultra94 and see if I can feel a meaningful difference in daily driving.
Old 10-22-2017, 05:46 PM
  #22  
jumper5836
Nordschleife Master
 
jumper5836's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: great white north
Posts: 8,531
Received 72 Likes on 48 Posts
Default

996tt, I feel no difference with 91 or 94. I use 91 but the car may go months between drives and sits all winter. Got some misfires this year and changed plugs, runs great again.
Old 10-22-2017, 08:36 PM
  #23  
Matt Lane
Rennlist Member
 
Matt Lane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 4,461
Received 194 Likes on 116 Posts
Default

Steve Weiner corroborated my approach a while back - at least respecting a normally-aspirated engine.

Tooling around/commuting/normal street use - avoid the ethanol with Shell 91.

Track WOT, towing (!), excessive summer heat/load - use 94 for the margin of protection. Turbos would be in this group for certain.

Steve builds a lot of engines, I trust his input. The data posted above about (tuned) turbo engines is no surprise.

For me that means 91 most of the time between track events. 94 on track, where possible.

Cheers

Matt
Old 10-22-2017, 10:08 PM
  #24  
gbuff
Rennlist Member
 
gbuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,199
Received 424 Likes on 290 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Matt Lane
Steve Weiner corroborated my approach a while back - at least respecting a normally-aspirated engine.

Tooling around/commuting/normal street use - avoid the ethanol with Shell 91.

Track WOT, towing (!), excessive summer heat/load - use 94 for the margin of protection. Turbos would be in this group for certain.

Steve builds a lot of engines, I trust his input. The data posted above about (tuned) turbo engines is no surprise.

For me that means 91 most of the time between track events. 94 on track, where possible.

Cheers

Matt
I filled up at the pumps at Mosport Thursday and for the first time noticed the sign on the pump saying "94.9 OCTANE". All the better

Gary
Old 10-23-2017, 12:02 AM
  #25  
993GT
Rennlist Member
 
993GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,798
Received 569 Likes on 351 Posts
Default

best thing anyone can do is datalog their car and see if timing is being pulled.
In particular for turbo cars, tune for the octane/fuel quality you run
Old 10-23-2017, 12:35 AM
  #26  
CarlEightySix
Racer
 
CarlEightySix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Toronto, Ontário
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Don't modern engines have sensors to prevent knocking?
Old 10-23-2017, 12:39 AM
  #27  
993GT
Rennlist Member
 
993GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 6,798
Received 569 Likes on 351 Posts
Default

absolutely, however there is limitation too how much timing can be pulled to prevent knock...and is far from optimal from a performance/ efficiency/longevity standpoint... you want your DME basemap to have essentially zero timing pull on the fuel you run/car usage
typically a 91oct is very similar to a 94oct tune, however is richer
factory Porsche 93oct tunes commonly show more timing pull than quality 'aftermarket' tunes as they push towards higher efficiency/lower emissions
Originally Posted by CarlEightySix
Don't modern engines have sensors to prevent knocking?
Old 10-23-2017, 05:33 PM
  #28  
altesporsche
Instructor
 
altesporsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto, On / Miami, Fla / Land of the Newfs
Posts: 158
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Default

Ive data logged extensively with shell 91, Ultra 94 and Esso 93 when trying to sort my car out after installing larger turbos. Ultra 94, I was getting knock signatures of a 91 octane fuel and pulled a lot of timing on my car. Shell 91 when tuned for it ran perfect, but on a stock tune also pulled timing, like a lot of people tuning cars in Cali have also experienced. On Esso 93 I had the most solid tune and the car ran its best on this. I still add a can of booster to it just in case.
Old 10-23-2017, 06:14 PM
  #29  
991GTA
Instructor
 
991GTA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 128
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Default

My P-cars and my toys only get Shell 91

Otherwise I use Esso for the aeroplan points.

Not sure if it really makes a difference but I don't have to go out of my way to get Shell vs any other brand
Old 10-24-2017, 01:57 PM
  #30  
Johnny DB
Rennlist Member
 
Johnny DB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,988
Likes: 0
Received 137 Likes on 111 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by cstyles
A lot of subjective opinions always come up when this question gets asked, on any car forum.

I datalogged Shell V-power 91 and Petro Canada Ultra94 on my 2008 turbo, to see if I could determine which fuel my car liked best. On the stock tune, my car pulls timing on Shell 91 and the knock sensors pick up a lot of activity.

My car runs much, much better on Ultra 94 - not from seat of the pants or opinion, just based on the actual data I've logged. Significantly less knock detected during datalogging.

I've done the same datalog comparison using my stage 2 tune @ 20.5psi (factory tune is 17 psi). Same results, Ultra 94 much better according to the datalogs.

I can't speak for naturally aspirated cars but modern turbos should be running the highest octane you can get!
Same experience with my Turbo...


Quick Reply: Shell 91 vs Petrocan 94?



All times are GMT -3. The time now is 11:26 AM.