Re-Tuning G35 engines to run on lower Octane

[G_whizz]

Hopefully this doesn't get me in hot water (as I truly don't think I deserve it), but I'm wondering why a moderator hasn't adjusted a certain someone's warning level.

This certain someone has been rude and made erroneous claims from the beginning yet gets to walk around with their nose up in the air.

Hell. I wanna be a mod! lol

Maybe they have been warned.. but by email and not posted here for everyone to see

Some people have STRONG opinions and beliefs. Although they may not communicate them diplomatically all the time and resort to some eloquent and "not so" eloquent jabs.. they do contribute to other threads. If someone is being a total troll and jerk off and contributes nothing but headaches to other Members... then a simple 1 week vacation or perma ban will be imposed. Sometimes, topics (like this one) can help bring together members. Especially when they get heated. It also makes for an interesting read and is a break away from the "same old" posts. If anyone here becomes offended by another Member or EVER wants to contact any of the mods regarding anything.. we are ALWAYS available and a click away!

Or... just simply don't continue reading the post if it get's you that upset.

[Jacko3]

rn79870:

I am going to apply your advice. I shall let stuff roll over my back. Why argue about a concept I studied for 2 years, when others have to do a search for the same concept? Not once did I refer to any book for my explanations.

[adren77]

C-Kwik:

If I had to give you a grade for your physics, I would assign a greade of 6 out of 10, because you have not satisfactorily provided a robust explanation for the heat transfer process. Read my previous comment again, and read my present comment, and you will come to have a good understanding of heat transfer. I won't even bother you with the mass transfer portion of this whole deal.

C-Kwik provided a lot more robust explanation than you did.

You claim that convection is the dominant mode of heat transfer that dissipates heat from the clutch. This may be true... but my guess is you have not done any analysis and are just speculating. Even if convection was dominating (which it may very well be at a certain times), the fluid (air) inside the transmition would quickly heat up (due to low specific heat), and convection would no longer be very effective (as it is driven by temperature gradient just like any other heat transfer).

In addition, friction generates heat only when slip occurs (as few people have already stated) ... therefore the entire point is MOOT. If you are driving at a steady state of 70mph, your clutch will not generate as much heat as you have stated (assuming it is working as intended by design).

This was all stated before, and you have failed to give a "robust explanation" of why these statements are false.

[W661335PF]

Maybe they have been warned.. but by email and not posted here for everyone to see

Some people have STRONG opinions and beliefs. Although they may not communicate them diplomatically all the time and resort to some eloquent and "not so" eloquent jabs.. they do contribute to other threads. If someone is being a total troll and jerk off and contributes nothing but headaches to other Members... then a simple 1 week vacation or perma ban will be imposed. Sometimes, topics (like this one) can help bring together members. Especially when they get heated. It also makes for an interesting read and is a break away from the "same old" posts. If anyone here becomes offended by another Member or EVER wants to contact any of the mods regarding anything.. we are ALWAYS available and a click away!

Or... just simply don't continue reading the post if it get's you that upset.

I've actually enjoyed this post more than any other (and have learned alot)... the debate was lively and intelligent (albeit at times snipey and alot like the early Obama/Clinton debates).... there was an excellent discussion of thermal dynamics and classical mechanics.... for some of us it did create a sort of strange bonding experience. The interesting thing is that, as someone else said here, this forum is filled with very intelligent folks who bring very unique perspectives-- we're not all gear-heads with limited interests and intellects!!! Want to see a "dead" Infinit site, go here:

removed by moderator...no competing forums...no matter how lame.

I've posted on this site one about 3 times--- lifeless, sort of like a Rolls Royce site filled with elderly folks on Geritol and taking advanced Pilates before dinner.

[Davgreg]

So has the quarum come to a concensus on if its possible to use 87 octane in the '35 or not???

Or should I come back in 4 more pages?

Davgreg.

[rn79870]

So has the quarum come to a concensus on if its possible to use 87 octane in the '35 or not???

Or should I come back in 4 more pages?

Davgreg.

If you mean G35, you might check this thread

zer...age=1

[smockers83]

If I had to give you a grade Jacko, it'd be lower than a 6/10 because you provide no or little "evidence" or a "robust explanation" for your argument, therefore failing the whole point of writing an argument.

If you've studied this stuff before, provide the insight you have and offer it in a comprehensible manner. In your schooling years, you should have learned how to present an argument and back it up by not assuming everyone may know what you're talking about, which means explaining concepts, words, theories, and what not that may not be common knowledge to everyone (I am an econ major and have come across terms that one Ph.D in econ uses in his/her class that are unbeknownst to another Ph.D in econ)--not doing so leaves the reader not being able to embrace your argument and understand it or leaves reason to doubt your in-depth knowledge of the subject. Also, giving up on an argument without presenting it very well is a sign of defeat.

C-kwik does a much better job at presenting his argument in a comprehensible manner in ways that can be understood, therefore you have most people, including myself, siding with him and thinking you of being an ego-driven narcissistic person (as said by others)--so if you want to win this argument, do so in a comprehensible manner and not giving up.

To end this argument in a civil and knowledgeable manner, I propose that we do this academia style--write a short paper, a long post in this case, on this topic, condensing what has been discussed thus far with a clear and working thesis, evidence, further explanations as needed that are clear and to the point, and a conclusion. Once that is done, we can find the holes in each paper, discuss them and rewrite one time only and then we'll see who wins this argument. From here on out, there is to be no pot shots at anyone and conversation kept to a minimum until both are posted. Just an idea.

[telcoman]

So has the quarum come to a concensus on if its possible to use 87 octane in the '35 or not???

Or should I come back in 4 more pages?

Davgreg.

You might as well check back again in a few more pages.

I wonder if a G would run on chicken soup?



Telcoman

[rn79870]

Speaking of Chicken, I was thinking about driving my G over to KFC for the Hillary special. 2 big old thighs & 2 small breasts for 5 bucks.

[smockers83]

^

The consensus is you can use 87 (just ask telcoman), its just a matter of preference and how you drive. And this thread has gone in the complete wrong direction as depicted by joe's post about 9 pages ago, I'm not even sure where it is anymore.

Can you freeze some of that for me and ship it? I'll pay

[!979TransAm]

Smocker Thank you so much for putting it in a nutshell. With the blur of information presented its great you cleared it up for someone looking at this thread who hasn't been with it since the beginning.

[Jacko3]

adren77 and Smocker83:

If you both want to defend C-kwik, please be my guest. You are free to beleive whatever you want. Like I said, I am done with this topic. I choose wisdom than rancour.

Smocker83, heat transfer is way too complex to explain to the ordinary mind to grasp. I only brought it into this discussion, as much as I hated to go into it, because I had studied it for a long time and becasue I could not help it. Again, you are free to beleive whatever you choose. But I think it is time for me to stop this discussion since C-Kwik had a hard time figuring out what linear and cubic expansivities---integral concepts to heat transfer, really are, as they relate to heat trasfer. His search yielded nothing of the two concepts. So, what am I to do? Start tutoring C-Kwik or what?

So, in my wisdom, I hail C-Kwik for providing a good response as you have both suggested, but yet failed miserably to underpin two concepts important in the understanding of fluids and solids in the heat transfer process.

Not once did i start this discussion as a challenge. I just wanted to discuss something tangible. Apparently, C-Kwik's demeanour is one of challenge and not one inclined to meeting of the minds. So, I have a conscious decision to stay away form C-kwik's diluted knowledge of whatever he says.

Wisdom is knowing when to back out and when to speak. It would appear to me that such an attribute is lacked by obvious some on this forum. heat transfer, mass teansfer, material sciences, and fluid mechanics, are way too complex to be discussed ordinarily on this forum. Yet, they are the basis for the many designs of your car. Of course, i would look like a fool discussing every car issue in terms of these complex disciplines. Yet, your auto manufacturer uses these disciplines in the design of your car.

So, I choose to focus on other issues. If this argument had not been raised, you would never have known nothing about me in this regard. So, let me apply my unbderstanding to my car, and let C-Kwik and whosoever wishes to be cowed by it, apply his understanding to his own car. To my credit, I have a car with over 200K, where I have applied these techniques, and they work.

[Jacko3]

adren77 and smocker83:

Wisdom is also knowing not to take sides prematurely. I learnt that lesson from my dad. Talk is cheap! Any good talker can convince anyone that snow is soot, and soot is snow. As I said again, your friend C-kwik knows nothing about the core concepts of heat transfer as he confessed by his lack of finding stuff on linear and cubic expansivity--you cannot talk about gases and fluid, without bring up these two concepts.

Maybe this discussion will force him to read up and go find the information. And when he comes back with the information, I shall be here waiting to send him out to get some more information, until he has perfected his knowledge of heat transfer and other fields related to auto design instead of the rudimentary knowledge in auto mechanics.

Taking sides says a lot about the individual.

[Jacko3]

For those who want to know more about the current state of my clutch, well, my clutch has stopped buring and smelling like it did the last time.

I anticipated this, as I was not sure if it would be the same in ly Little Nissan as it is with a G-35 Coupe. I remembered that I had the same situation with my little Nissan a fewy years ago, when I installed an after-market clutch, which chatters a great deal. Well, slip or no slip, that clutch system is still up and kicking after 4 years. Still pulls the car really good.

I expect the same with my current clutch on my G-35 Coupe. For those with wisdom as great as that of Methuselah who claim poor driving as reason for clutch burning, the last time my mechanic replaced my clutch in my little Nissan, he said the clutch looked so good, that he could reuse it again in another car. I told him I just wanted a new clutch in the car since the original clutch had lasted 8 years wihtout failure. I didn't change the clutch becasue it was bad. I changed it because i thought it had been there too long, and I noticed that the clutch cable was getting stiffer by the month--clutch moon going bad beacue grease in the moon was almost non-existent when they took it out. So, why not just replace the whol system at once?

Again, I drive my G-35 Coupe, using the same technique I had used in my little nissan to drive it. And it works. I just presented my experience here, and all i get is this Wikipedia knowledge. So, you can listen to the argument about slippage all you want form a wikipedia agent or you can listen toa person who has driven hard, a clutch that smelled for a while, for 8 years, and has installed another clutch that also smelled, and that clutch is now about 4 years in the little nissan car.

[Jacko3]

Btw, while my driving skills have been questioned, I beleive I have reported on a few posts here on my driving experiences with a G-37 and Honda Accord V-6. I don't remeber those with the wikipedia knowledge letting us know if they have test driven each of these cars.

None of my experiences are wikipedia knowledge. And I also beleive a few people agree with my assessments of these cars. So, go figure when i am told that my driving style is causing my clutch to burn and not the heat generated by the clutch itself!

Like I said before, talk is cheap!

[telcoman]

Speaking of Chicken, I was thinking about driving my G over to KFC for the Hillary special. 2 big old thighs & 2 small breasts for 5 bucks.

Chicken Soup without matzoh balls is like driving a G35 without gas.



Speaking of Hillary, her thighs may be big, her breasts may be small but her brain and intellegence far surpasses the others. We need someone with a brain in the white house because the current occupant sure doesn't have one. Just my opinion

Telcoman

[!979TransAm]

Jacko:

I don't believe anyone is "taking sides" just stating what they think. I understand you may know a few concepts like the back of your hand but it seems useless considering you are not correctly applying them.

It's beyond me why you felt the need to go into any great deal of heat transfer involving a none slipping clutch, explain that.

Also the way you present your ideas can come off in a demeaning way, I believe anyone on this forum has the capacity to learn about the complex ideas you are talking about. At least the simple principles of it.

Lets be honest your post seem rather wordy, comparable to that of a turkey puffing out his feathers to give the false appearance of size. BTW a good read would be politics and the english language by george orwell to show you what I mean.

Clarify on your ideas, I could use the schooling.

[Sentientbydesign]

Jacko,

Regardless of either of your arguments, your approach to arguing is very demeaning and rude.

You may know the physics behind what you argue about, but the presentation of the facts is very confusing and that has nothing to do with the limitations of my intelligence. It has everything to do with logic. I am a math major. A common misconception is that we are great with numbers. On the contrary, many of us hate numbers. It's that reason that lead to some of the greatest mathematical discoveries (or shortcuts to be more honest).

Anyways, the point is that we are trained in logic, not computation. Arguments are logic, not computation either. I don't think I was the only one who had a hard time following the logic involved in the aforementioned arguments.

[smockers83]

The smartest man alive could be in argument, but if he couldn't articulate his evidence well, it would be hard to take him seriously as the smartest man alive because he hasn't proved anything besides saying you're wrong. Instead of just saying you're wrong you're wrong, you need to say why and provide evidence and explain why, otherwise we can't take you seriously as being the most knowledgeable man about heat transfer on this forum.

C-kwik has asked you to say why and show why he's wrong and you have yet to reply, so can we take you seriously? As of now, no. The point here is not to drive one's ego in proving everyone you're right they're wrong, but to teach everyone. So on behalf of forum, I ask you to explain why C-Kwik is wrong besides just saying spikity slippity you're wrong you don't know what you're talking about and get this over with. It's nonsense. Personally, I'd like to see your expertise come out and tell us instead of waiting for someone else to figure out he's wrong in order to prove yourself right.

No one has taken sides prematurely, we are choosing sides based on the arguments as we see them now. Here's an example. George Bush 00-08 and Iraq. Bush, who everyone is quick to call a dumb man, won the argument on going to war based on the evidence his administration provided. Do I need to say more? So based on what I'm seeing and reading and going with my example, C-Kwik as of now is Bush at the beginning of the war and you're the Democratic party today saying he's wrong but won't provide a viable solution besides get out now and you're wrong.

Instead of making this drawn out, just f'in tell us man, personally I'm interested in what you have to say about this but I don't want to have to wait to have your ego inflated when C-Kwik comes back admits he's wrong and you're just going to say I told you so and won't tell us why.

[rn79870]

I wonder if a G would run on chicken soup?

The answer to your question, assuming your next post is accurate...

Chicken Soup without matzoh balls is like driving a G35 without gas. Telcoman

Can be proven by the following formula:

like driving a G35 without gas = pushing

pushing = high mpg & zero emissions.

high mpg & zero emissions = inexpensive efficient driving

therefore

inexpensive efficient driving = chicken soup without matzoh balls

The answer to your initial question is that the G probably will run on chicken soup, assuming the soup lasks matzoh balls.

[Beezer]

Can someone tell me if the red pill or the blue pill will take me back to the nico forum?

[adren77]

adren77 and Smocker83:

If you both want to defend C-kwik, please be my guest. You are free to beleive whatever you want. Like I said, I am done with this topic. I choose wisdom than rancour.

Smocker83, heat transfer is way too complex to explain to the ordinary mind to grasp. I only brought it into this discussion, as much as I hated to go into it, because I had studied it for a long time and becasue I could not help it. Again, you are free to beleive whatever you choose. But I think it is time for me to stop this discussion since C-Kwik had a hard time figuring out what linear and cubic expansivities---integral concepts to heat transfer, really are, as they relate to heat trasfer. His search yielded nothing of the two concepts. So, what am I to do? Start tutoring C-Kwik or what?

So, in my wisdom, I hail C-Kwik for providing a good response as you have both suggested, but yet failed miserably to underpin two concepts important in the understanding of fluids and solids in the heat transfer process.

Not once did i start this discussion as a challenge. I just wanted to discuss something tangible. Apparently, C-Kwik's demeanour is one of challenge and not one inclined to meeting of the minds. So, I have a conscious decision to stay away form C-kwik's diluted knowledge of whatever he says.

Wisdom is knowing when to back out and when to speak. It would appear to me that such an attribute is lacked by obvious some on this forum. heat transfer, mass teansfer, material sciences, and fluid mechanics, are way too complex to be discussed ordinarily on this forum. Yet, they are the basis for the many designs of your car. Of course, i would look like a fool discussing every car issue in terms of these complex disciplines. Yet, your auto manufacturer uses these disciplines in the design of your car.

So, I choose to focus on other issues. If this argument had not been raised, you would never have known nothing about me in this regard. So, let me apply my unbderstanding to my car, and let C-Kwik and whosoever wishes to be cowed by it, apply his understanding to his own car. To my credit, I have a car with over 200K, where I have applied these techniques, and they work.

I am not siding with C-Kwik. I am sorry you feel people are jumping on band wagon against you, but what you say makes no sense. The worst part is that when people contradict you, you just go on blabbering instead of supporting your own statements, and contradicting theirs. That does not make an intelligent conversation.

You claim thermal expansion of solids somehow impacts heat transfer, yet you did not give any explanation. This is just one example of how you did not argue your case very well. Instead of boasting and arguing you could have spent 1/4 of the time explaining your case intelligently. You want to "discuss something tangible"? Then give tangible evidence to support your argument.

[W661335PF]

So has the quarum come to a concensus on if its possible to use 87 octane in the '35 or not???

Or should I come back in 4 more pages?

Davgreg.

THE FACTS: OK Davgreg, apart from the ongoing theoretical debate, here's what you need to actually know and understand, in somewhat layman's terms.

Your main concern here should be engine 'health' as opposed to simply getting by on cheaper gas. The issue for you is one of detonation, or preignition, characterized by a "pinging" sound when you put lower grade gas into your car than that prescribed by the manufacturer. If you use lower grade gas (i.e., 85, 87, 89), the problem is that you won't always hear the pinging, and when you do it's at it's worst, doing the most damage. The higher octanes have a higher flash, or ignition point. Essentially, the higher the octane, the more resistant it is to burn. This keeps the fuel/air mixture from igniting prematurely (before spark plug sparks) because of heat or pressure, and trying to drive/force the piston back down on power stroke before the connecting rod is past center of crankshaft journal. This causes a great deal of stress and added distorted harmonics to entire reciprocating assy, and can cause damage to the engine (especially the top end).

Let me explain-- imagine pedaling a tricycle at 30 rpm,.....your foot gets right to the top as you're moving clockwise...almost, then it's forced/ driven counterclockwise with all the power you were going to apply as you moved forward. That's what is happening inside your engine when you hear pinging and when you're lower grade gas is forcing the ECU to adjust the timing. At top dead center and a hair beyond, the piston is almost @ critical point for combustion, but the low grade mixture ignites too soon, thereby trying to drive piston counterclockwise, but it can't for several reasons (centrifugal force & momentum of reciprocating mass in motion). Using the bike example, the jolting action you feel when pedaling counterclockwise is akin to what happens when lower grade gas is in your car. Of course, >90% of those here will tell you that your ECU (computer) will retard the timing and thereby accommodate the misfire; however, prolonged retardation may not be what is best for engine "health."

Keep in mind that the ECU's retardation of timing does not occur in a microsecond, but may take a bit longer-- this variance is where engine damage occurs also.

I know my analogy isn't perfect and that many will surely take me to task for not offering brilliant specifics, analysis or maybe b/c my engineering is off by a centimeter, but for your purposes (and to maintain a certain level of simplicity), stick to the recommended grade as specified in the manual (engine health rests on the recommendations), irrespective of the geniuses and MENSA members arguing thermal dynamics and classical mechanics. Most of us stick to the manual's recommendations-- and those of us that in previous lives rebuilt many an engine tend to rely very little on the theoretical and applied physics and more so on the actual workings of the engine.

Hopefully this helps and good luck!


Modified by W661335PF at 6:21 PM 2/12/2008

[rn79870]

Can someone tell me if the red pill or the blue pill will take me back to the nico forum?

I suggest the red.

[adren77]

Essentially, the higher the octane, the more resistant it is to burn. This keeps the fuel/air mixture from igniting prematurely (before spark plug sparks) because of heat or pressure & trying to drive piston back down on power stroke before the connecting rod is past center of crankshaft journal. This causes a great deal of stress and added distorted harmonics to entire reciprocating assy, and can cause damage to the engine (especially the top end).

I figured I'd clarify this a bit. Higher octane is not more resistant to burn, but rather more "resistant" to self ignition.

Knocking doesn't occur because the air-fuel ignited before the spark. Even during knocking, the self ignition still happens after the spark.

Having said that, the combustion still happens after the TDC (actually it starts slightly before TDC but the peak pressure happens after TDC not before) so it's incorrect to say it is pushing backwards on the power stroke. The reason knocking can damage your engine is because the rate at which pressure rises is much higher than during normal combustion. In addition, these pressures may be localized rather than spread uniformly across the piston surface.

I hope this doesn't start another war

[!979TransAm]

W6 good job for sure, explained the ideas and arguements simply on the actual topic

[G_whizz]

Excellent post!!! IMHO..

OK Davgreg, apart from the ongoing theoretical debate, here's what you need to actually know and understand, in somewhat layman's terms.

Your main concern here should be engine 'health' as opposed to simply getting by on cheaper gas. The issue for you is one of detonation, or preignition, characterized by a "pinging" sound when you put lower grade gas into your car than that prescribed by the manufacturer. If you use lower grade gas (i.e., 85, 87, 89), the problem is that you won't always hear the pinging, and when you do it's at it's worst, doing the most damage. The higher octanes have a higher flash, or ignition point. Essentially, the higher the octane, the more resistant it is to burn. This keeps the fuel/air mixture from igniting prematurely (before spark plug sparks) because of heat or pressure, and trying to drive/force the piston back down on power stroke before the connecting rod is past center of crankshaft journal. This causes a great deal of stress and added distorted harmonics to entire reciprocating assy, and can cause damage to the engine (especially the top end).

Let me explain-- imagine pedaling a tricycle at 30 rpm,.....your foot gets right to the top as you're moving clockwise...almost, then it's forced/ driven counterclockwise with all the power you were going to apply as you moved forward. That's what is happening inside your engine when you hear pinging and when you're lower grade gas is forcing the ECU to adjust the timing. At top dead center and a hair beyond, the piston is almost @ critical point for combustion, but the low grade mixture ignites too soon, thereby trying to drive piston counterclockwise, but it can't for several reasons (centrifugal force & momentum of reciprocating mass in motion). Using the bike example, the jolting action you feel when pedaling counterclockwise is akin to what happens when lower grade gas is in your car. Of course, >90% of those here will tell you that your ECU (computer) will retard the timing and thereby accommodate the misfire; however, prolonged retardation may not be what is best for engine "health."

Keep in mind that the ECU's retardation of timing does not occur in a microsecond, but may take a bit longer-- this variance is where engine damage occurs also.

I know my analogy isn't perfect and that many will surely take me to task for not offering brilliant specifics, analysis or maybe b/c my engineering is off, but for your purposes, stick to the recommended grade as specified in the manual (engine health rests on the recommendations), irrespective of the geniuses and MENSA members arguing thermal dynamics and classical mechanics. Most of us stick to the manual's recommendations-- and those of us that in previous lives rebuilt many an engine tend to rely very little on the theoretical and applied physics and more so on the actual workings of the engine.

Hopefully this helps and good luck!

Modified by W661335PF at 5:58 PM 2/12/2008

[G_whizz]

Yes... red is recommended... the blue one may make you happy in the pants!!

[W661335PF]

I figured I'd clarify this a bit. Higher octane is not more resistant to burn, but rather more "resistant" to self ignition.

Knocking doesn't occur because the air-fuel ignited before the spark. Even during knocking, the self ignition still happens after the spark. .........

I hope this doesn't start another war

I've always been a student of "PARSIMONY" which in science means that one look for the least complex explanation for an observation, and have been a fan of the principle termed Occam's razor, which basically states that that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.

Thanks for clearing that bit up!

[Jacko3]

Sentientbydesign:

I am very disappointed with your comment. But nonetheless, I do beleive you havebeen aching to say your peace of mind. As for Smockers, I have no comment for him.