[peelerec]

Why is everyone so consumed with defining different “stages”? There is no value to this discussion. You all sound like children. No one should care about defining “stage #”.

Let’s discuss more critical topics such as handling modifications and how Jackie is going to adjust Aero now that he has more power. I’m looking forward to seeing Jackie test out the new setup on a not so cold day.

[G MONEY]

Originally Posted by peelerec

Why is everyone so consumed with defining different “stages”? There is no value to this discussion. You all sound like children. No one should care about defining “stage #”.

Let’s discuss more critical topics such as handling modifications and how Jackie is going to adjust Aero now that he has more power. I’m looking forward to seeing Jackie test out the new setup on a not so cold day.

Lol. Only on a BMW forum would people be arguing about stage definition. That’s stage 1. I mean stage 1.2567. Then hang an air freshener and your at Stage 2. me

[ChrisM4]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Remember we don’t have 93/94 in Canada, unless you fuel up in the US. So gains are smaller even. But 85hp is not too shabby…

Ontario has Shell 93 and Petrocan 94.

I believe BC and Alberta do as well?

Might be out of luck in the Maritimes.

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by ChrisM4

Ontario has Shell 93 and Petrocan 94.

I believe BC and Alberta do as well?

Might be out of luck in the Maritimes.

Again, Canadian 93 and 94 are worse than US 91/92. So having those numbers on the pump are meaningless for tuning and making power.

[ChrisM4]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Again, Canadian 93 and 94 are worse than US 91/92. So having those numbers on the pump are meaningless for tuning and making power.

I don’t get it…both countries are following the same rating standards and use ethanol… AKI, (R+M)/2

I’ve driven across the border and lived in the US previously and noticed zero difference logging on previous modded cars.

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by ChrisM4

I don’t get it…both countries are following the same rating standards… AKI, (R+M)/2

Yup, but the numbers are meaningless.

That’s why tuners tune cars differently depending on where they are.
Every tuner will have some tune called “CAN”, which stands for “California, Arizona, and Nevada”, because their 91 is worse than the 91 everywhere else.

I’ve tuned my car exclusively with the CAN tunes in Canada as well. Made more power in California with their 91 than with the 93/94 in Canada.

I have also tuned my car with 91 tunes and with a 93 tune. This 93 test almost ruined my engine, it misfired so badly I got a huge cloud of black smoke after a pull.

Just beware is my advice. Research the topic. To keep in topic, when talking about fueling, gains posted by an American with their 93 will never be achieved in Canada.
Compare gains posted to people in California on pump gas to see what we can get here with pump fuel.

We have access to E85 too, which opens up more gain potential, but they’re scarce and also limit the amount of power you can make due to fuel starvation (can only make so much power before needing a bigger fuel pump).

Cheers fellow Canucks

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Yup, but the numbers are meaningless.

That’s why tuners tune cars differently depending on where they are.
Every tuner will have some tune called “CAN”, which stands for “California, Arizona, and Nevada”, because their 91 is worse than the 91 everywhere else.

I’ve tuned my car exclusively with the CAN tunes in Canada as well. Made more power in California with their 91 than with the 93/94 in Canada.

I have also tuned my car with 91 tunes and with a 93 tune. This 93 test almost ruined my engine, it misfired so badly I got a huge cloud of black smoke after a pull.

Just beware is my advice. Research the topic. To keep in topic, when talking about fueling, gains posted by an American with their 93 will never be achieved in Canada.
Compare gains posted to people in California on pump gas to see what we can get here with pump fuel.

We have access to E85 too, which opens up more gain potential, but they’re scarce and also limit the amount of power you can make due to fuel starvation (can only make so much power before needing a bigger fuel pump).

Cheers fellow Canucks

The issue is mainly the ethanol content vs the octane. The tune needs to adjust fuel quantity vs timing, but will make as much power if done correctly. On my Caterham I need 3% more fuel to shift my Lambda from 0.88 to 0.86 at full throttle open loop operation when using Petro Canada 94AKI (normally rated as the highest RON fuel at 100 or slightly higher commonly available in North America). Canadian fuel along with California now is mandated to have ethanol content.

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by aerobod

The issue is mainly the ethanol content vs the octane. The tune needs to adjust fuel quantity vs timing, but will make as much power if done correctly. On my Caterham I need 3% more fuel to shift my Lambda from 0.88 to 0.86 at full throttle open loop operation when using Petro Canada 94AKI (normally rated as the highest RON fuel at 100 or slightly higher commonly available in North America). Canadian fuel along with California now is mandated to have ethanol content.

But that’s a separate conversation. We are not talking about AFR. And while there are differences between ethanol content across brands and provinces/states, it is pretty safe to say the range is between 5-10% ethanol in North America (we used to have 0% but I believe that’s gone now).

[aerobod]

Originally Posted by M2siast

But that’s a separate conversation. We are not talking about AFR. And while there are differences between ethanol content across brands and provinces/states, it is pretty safe to say the range is between 5-10% ethanol in North America (we used to have 0% but I believe that’s gone now).

A higher Lambda will cause more pre-ignition when beyond the optimum (0.86 for most engines at max power if more fueling is not needed to cool the combustion chamber). Running a tune that is optimized for non-ethanol containing fuel will cause a loss in power similar to the octane looking too low, especially if the higher Lambda will induce earlier pre-ignition and cause timing to be pulled.

Octane is measured in a standardized manner. Depending on which state in the US, there is a higher likelihood of 0% ethanol, which may look like a better octane rating compared with E10 (which has been effectively mandated in Canada since Nov 2022).

I’m running 30 degrees of advance at 8200RPM with 12.6:1 compression ratio on Canadian Shell E10 93AKI (at 1000m altitude in general) no problem. It is fine if you ensure enough fuel is being added to the fuel map in open loop operation to compensate for the lower 14.1 stoichometric ratio of E10 compared with 14.7 for E0.

[Kevin_The_Clean1]

Originally Posted by peelerec

Why is everyone so consumed with defining different “stages”? There is no value to this discussion. You all sound like children. No one should care about defining “stage #”.

Let’s discuss more critical topics such as handling modifications and how Jackie is going to adjust Aero now that he has more power. I’m looking forward to seeing Jackie test out the new setup on a not so cold day.

Exactly...

[xtougher]

I got a wireless phone charger in mine.

Pretty sure that makes me a stage -1

[exmowner]

Originally Posted by M2siast

Remember we don’t have 93/94 in Canada, unless you fuel up in the US. So gains are smaller even. But 85hp is not too shabby…

You do in Quebec and Ontario. 94 octane is available.

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by exmowner

You do in Quebec and Ontario. 94 octane is available.

I already covered this above in this thread. We don’t, for the purposes herein indicated.

[exmowner]

Originally Posted by M2siast

I already covered this above in this thread. We don’t, for the purposes herein indicated.

I hadn’t seen your reply.
When I lived there and sent Petro’s 94 for analysis it returned 93 and that was in February’s winter blend.

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by exmowner

I hadn’t seen your reply.
When I lived there and sent Petro’s 94 for analysis it returned 93 and that was in February’s winter blend.

There are 93 and 94 in BC as well. Both make less power than the 92 in the US.

There’s no way our 93/94 would make the same power as the US 93, that’s the point and the reason why all tuners use the ACN tune, to account for our crappier gas (which in my experience is crappier than the crappiest US one, the California 91).

[exmowner]

Originally Posted by M2siast

There are 93 and 94 in BC as well. Both make less power than the 92 in the US.

There’s no way our 93/94 would make the same power as the US 93, that’s the point and the reason why all tuners use the ACN tune, to account for our crappier gas (which in my experience is crappier than the crappiest US one, the California 91).

Nothing is worse then California 91.
I’ve had a R35 fbo tuned at 650 wheel and had no knock on 94.

My old e92 on an ess 675 kit never knocked either and made the same power as cars run on dynos using US 93.

That’s why I sent the fuel out for analysis. Your theory is incorrect.

[M2siast]

Originally Posted by exmowner

Nothing is worse then California 91.
I’ve had a R35 fbo tuned at 650 wheel and had no knock on 94.

My old e92 on an ess 675 kit never knocked either and made the same power as cars run on dynos using US 93.

That’s why I sent the fuel out for analysis. Your theory is incorrect.

Good to know.
My theory is based on gas in western Canada (although the 94 in Alta was really great). I had knocks and misfires here.

Perhaps ON and QC have better versions, as they’re more closely related to the US?

That’s just a theory. Glad to know you made the same power with the gas there. Great to learn. I may have thrown a wide blanket and I know nothing of eastern Canada’s gas, so I’ll trust you better