|
93 vs 91 octane
From previous experience with turbo charged high compression engines using 93 octane verses 91 will increase the power by 5% and torque by 10% (APR AudiRS7 dyno test). Is it reasonable to expect same results with the NSX? with 500 hp, 406 ft-lbs engine is it reasonable to expect another 25 hp and 40 ft-lbs using the higher octane? i do believe so. I think the total power on the new NSX with high octane should be around 600 with torque around 520 ft-lbs. I know it's very hard to dyno the NSX, still I do think such gains are attainable. The one thing that may bring doubt is at what octane was the NSX originally tested with? Which means, following the same logic, we need the higher octane just to get the quoted numbers. Food for thought. for reference I own a 2017 NSX but I only feed it 94 octane which is available in Canada and owned an RS7 before. |
Do you have any data which suggests Acura tuned the NSX engine to take advantage of the extra detonation resistance of fuel with an AKI of anything greater than 91? If they didn't, then there will be zero difference in power.
|
Originally Posted by horseshoez
(Post 16197038)
Do you have any data which suggests Acura tuned the NSX engine to take advantage of the extra detonation resistance of fuel with an AKI of anything greater than 91? If they didn't, then there will be zero difference in power.
NO! Do you have any data to the contrary? I only based my assumption on another car with high compression engine and twin turbos. Didn't mean to open a scientific debate and will not exert any more effort on the subject. God Bless |
The thing is, unless the programming allows more aggressive boost and/or timing levels beyond what would be expected with 91 AKI fuel, then any additional detonation resistance is useless. That said, aftermarket tuners make a lot of their living from retuning cars with forced induction to take advantage of higher AKI fuels. Many Audis for instance, cannot do diddly with better fuel unless they are tuned.
|
Originally Posted by timmins
(Post 16197130)
NO! Do you have any data to the contrary? I only based my assumption on another car with high compression engine and twin turbos. Didn't mean to open a scientific debate and will not exert any more effort on the subject. God Bless Horseshoez is right, though. The ECU needs to be tuned to make use of that additional octane level. We never know which engines are tuned to use higher octane levels... I remember hearing rumors back when I had my 03 V6 Accord, many moons ago... apparently a Honda engineer stated that the car is intended to run on regular fuel, but if you used premium, you would gain about 10 hp and 10lbft of torque. Was it true? No one actually knew (nobody wanted to pay for dynoing a stock car either, I guess). It could be true for the NSX... but we really won't know unless someone ponies up the cash to throw an NSX on a few dyno runs. Honda hasn't suggested anything themselves (they rarely, if ever would). |
Originally Posted by TacoBello
(Post 16197142)
It could be true for the NSX... but we really won't know unless someone ponies up the cash to throw an NSX on a few dyno runs. Honda hasn't suggested anything themselves (they rarely, if ever would).
|
The electric motors on the NSX-2 could also affect and cloud the final result. Acura advertises the V-6 engine has having 500 HP and 406 lb-ft of torque. After adding in the power of the electric motors, the numbers become 573 HP and 476 lb-ft. Now go from 91 octane to 93 octane fuel, and :shrug:
|
93 vs 91 octane
Originally Posted by nist7
(Post 16197286)
If someone can afford a 2nd gen NSX, and are curious/interested, and is scientific minded....I'd think they can easily afford a little experiment with 91 vs 93 and dynoing the results....
There is so much more to the NSX (and other cars in this segment) that a few extra hp (or not) is not meaningful. However carry on with the speculation. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands