B5 S4 now admissable?

[R_Ethug]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

i get 500-525 a tank.. my avg cdn mpg says 10.6-11ish
thats with my wuss driving and the odd spirted 2nd or 3rd gear pull tossed in there

[The_Jerbel]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

False...even in my Stage 3 I consistantly get over 400km on a tank (usually 450-475), and that is 75% rush-hour driving. Even if I really beat on it for a whole tank I get atleast 350km.

Good old VAST tuning.

I get over 400 km to the tank if I BEAT on it the entire tank. If I'm any sort of decent on the throttle, I get about 550km to the tank.

[bigbadboss101]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

Hmm mine average about 10L/100k but I only get 450 km. Either the comp #s are wrong or I need a tune.

[The Brice]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

I only ever fill with the husky 94 so my milage certainly suffers, I get about 400 to a tank.

[The_Jerbel]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

You'll get better mileage and performance on either shell or petro 91 according to the logging I've done...

[The Brice]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

You'll get better mileage and performance on either shell or petro 91 according to the logging I've done...

That's where I'm a bit confused with what you say bud with the gas being gov't regulated wouldn't 94oct be 94oct and 91 be 91 etc. I understand that some guys were having issues with the 94 of recent at some of the locations (I use sundance and have heard no complaints from that location) but I've also heard from guys on beyond over the years that swear by husky 94 as they're able to run more advanced set-ups on it. Which Husky station did you use and when for your testing maybe it's just from a shitty batch I just don't see how you could get better performance from 91 than 94 (in our cars anyways) unless it is just from a tainted batch. We should get two stock s4's (if they still exist) fill one with the 94 and the other with say shell 91 and run some logs or dyno them at the same time and see the difference if any.

[PRY4SNO]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

I just don't see how you could get better performance from 91 than 94 (in our cars anyways) unless it is just from a tainted batch. We should get two stock s4's (if they still exist) fill one with the 94 and the other with say shell 91 and run some logs or dyno them at the same time and see the difference if any.

The 94 octane petrol from Mohawk is an ethanol blend. Ethanol cranks up the consumption and you're getting about the equivalent power of 91 octane fuel from elsewhere.

Also, two 'stock' cars (especially used ones) will still dyno differently because of unique wear characteristics, among other factors.

Next time you're doing a good amount of highway driving, fill it to the tits with V-Power. Then when you get to your destination refill it to the tits with again and calculate your consumption values. Once you're empty try again with Mohawk 94.

I can guarantee you'll burn nearly 10% more fuel with the Mohawk petrol than V-Power. Trust me, I've been there... done that. Stick with Shell, Petro-Canada or Esso and you can't go wrong.

[The Brice]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

The 94 octane petrol from Mohawk is an ethanol blend. Ethanol cranks up the consumption and you're getting about the equivalent power of 91 octane fuel from elsewhere.

Also, two 'stock' cars (especially used ones) will still dyno differently because of unique wear characteristics, among other factors.

Next time you're doing a good amount of highway driving, fill it to the tits with V-Power. Then when you get to your destination refill it to the tits with again and calculate your consumption values. Once you're empty try again with Mohawk 94.

I can guarantee you'll burn nearly 10% more fuel with the Mohawk petrol than V-Power. Trust me, I've been there... done that. Stick with Shell, Petro-Canada or Esso and you can't go wrong.

I understand that ethanol-blend gas is less efficient I could care less about the milage I get from my car, the point I'm bringing up is how could typ. 94oct (even ghetto husky 94) perform on our cars less than 91oct unless the 94oct is from a bad batch imo, and I understand that yes two different used cars tested at the same time would not be the "best solution" to prove which is getting more power as yes there would still be other variables in the equasion to consider so unless your a chemical engineer ready to bench test the different types of fuel there probably is no true solution asides from the fact I brought up previously that many others who have run the different fuels have said they can run more aggressive tunes with their cars on the husky 94 than with other stations 91oct, I'm sure there are others who would disagree with them as well and the war wages on. Not being a genious on the subject, all I have is an opinion, I do trust what Jordan says as he is very knowledgable when it comes to the b5 s4 I'm just bringing up other points that could be a factor as too why he registered those numbers with his testing. (crappy batch, varied weather conditions, etc. who knows?)

[b spot]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

The B5 holds 62 liters...

False...even in my Stage 3 I consistantly get over 400km on a tank (usually 450-475), and that is 75% rush-hour driving. Even if I really beat on it for a whole tank I get atleast 350km.

Notice the post I quoted mentioned "4.2L" referring to the V8 in a B6 S4, which I was discussing. Good luck getting over 400km in one in the city! If you're 75% rush-hour, hitting 300 might be an issue.

[The_Jerbel]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

That's where I'm a bit confused with what you say bud with the gas being gov't regulated wouldn't 94oct be 94oct and 91 be 91 etc. I understand that some guys were having issues with the 94 of recent at some of the locations (I use sundance and have heard no complaints from that location) but I've also heard from guys on beyond over the years that swear by husky 94 as they're able to run more advanced set-ups on it. Which Husky station did you use and when for your testing maybe it's just from a shitty batch I just don't see how you could get better performance from 91 than 94 (in our cars anyways) unless it is just from a tainted batch. We should get two stock s4's (if they still exist) fill one with the 94 and the other with say shell 91 and run some logs or dyno them at the same time and see the difference if any.

I have majored in biochemistry for a few years now, and to be honest, I'm not exactly sure why this occurs. I have tested several different tanks from various stations including Sundance, 16th ave, Bow trail, and 14th st. Shell and Petro-Canada 91 oct BOTH seem to register lower correction factors and less knock than does Mohawk's 94. Believe me, I ran NOTHING but 94 for probably a year and a half. Now I run only Shell or Petro 91 and my fuel mileage has gone up and my timing correction factors down. I can safely run a bit more timing now. Take it for what it's worth...

[The Brice]

Re: B5 S4 now admissable?

I have majored in biochemistry for a few years now, and to be honest, I'm not exactly sure why this occurs. I have tested several different tanks from various stations including Sundance, 16th ave, Bow trail, and 14th st. Shell and Petro-Canada 91 oct BOTH seem to register lower correction factors and less knock than does Mohawk's 94. Believe me, I ran NOTHING but 94 for probably a year and a half. Now I run only Shell or Petro 91 and my fuel mileage has gone up and my timing correction factors down. I can safely run a bit more timing now. Take it for what it's worth...

Cool man thanks for the advice, I admit it sounds quite odd imo but never having tested myself what do I know. Cheers again for those hookups man and if there's anyone else needing advice or top notch goods from Vast or JHM for their S4 talk to Jordan he's the man.