I am an engineer. I have formal training in internal combustion. The automotive industry recruiters haven't matched my salary expectations yet. But I check every few years. I run 89 in my 3.6 because it idles like shit on 87. If those powertrain engineers had their way, and their decisions were not impacted by marketing and accounting, you can bet they'd have everyone running premium and letting their designs shine, with calibrations to suit. But real engineering is a series of compromises, and Karen will put 87 in anyway.
I disagree...I think an unbiased reader would conclude that you jumped into a conversation that you weren't prepared for because you didn't actually read it.
This is reaching again. You try to paint group A as "inexperienced" and the only ones who do not notice knock and group B as "experienced" because they notice knock. Don't get me wrong, there are certainly plenty of owners (of any vehicle) that don't notice when their vehicle knocks. But if there's one thing i've learned in my decades of being a subject matter expert in many fields - assuming you are the only smart guy in the room is a poor tactic. It's far better to assume that you are of average intelligence in any given context because it's overwhelmingly likely to be the truth. That's definitely the case here - I am part of group "B", with extensive experience in almost all aspects of technology automotive and otherwise (it's my career in fact), and I am telling you that there is no audible knock on my JL...and i'm also reminding you that that is how it is supposed to be (if your JL is functioning as designed), as you should know, being a fellow subject matter veteran yourself. I am also reminding you that there are many contributors to this thread that are more knowledgeable that you or I and saying the same thing.
So then why has no one been able to produce any kind of proof? Again, you assume everyone here just backs out of their driveway, heads out to the closest straight flat road, and floors it, then goes "nope, nothing". But again you are making the classic assumption error. Many are smarter than that.
This, taken completely out of the context of your post, is not an unfair evaluation. It's why I have been very careful to word my request for proof as "appreciable increase" and not just any increase...cause I have no doubt that it would be possible to prove an increase of some kind at the cylinder...but now we go back to the very beginning of this thread, to the question that was answered 18 pages ago - if that doesn't translate to an increase of some kind at the pavement....then what am I paying an additional $0.70-1.00 per gallon for?
Damage to engines due to owners running insufficient octane fuels because "that's what's recommended by the manufacturer" is an extremely expensive problem for an automaker. Not just in warranty or recall cost either, in fact those are among the lowest costs of such a situation. Accounting cares every bit as much as the professionals who designed the engine. If the engineers say "look, we really need owners running premium because anything less is dangerous"...accounting is going to heed that warning. Legal will also be in that room recommending same.
I never said otherwise. If you are finding, whether through objective measurement or just your own preferences, that you aren't getting satisfactory results on 87, then by all means, go with premium. I agree 100%...as I said 18 pages-ish ago, there is no difference in behavior on my JL, thus I run 87.
You can duck and weave but I've made my point. You thought the 3.6 is a pushrod engine. Then you tried to claim that it was a generic remark and there are lots of 3.6 pushrod engines. Now you're trying to say what you meant was there are lots of V6 pushrod engines. All of this because you are unable to admit you made a mistake. All of this because when it comes down to it you really don't know much about engines.
Not at all. Group A's experience is just as valid as Group B. They are just different.
You've been shown data logs and dyno charts. We've explained the science behind this and what that data means. But it appears you lack the interest or ability to understand it.
For me, at 700 ft. elevation with a modified Jeep and as a frequent off roader, premium or in my case E85 is absolutely worth it. For you, in a stock Jeep that only sees pavement then regular is fine. Before you take offense, I'm not judging here, just laying out use cases.
That's not how it looks to me. Here is your post:
Here is the reply that got your panties in a wad:
and here is your response:
You Sir, are an internet bully.
BS - you are trying to bolster your position by discrediting me. But you are using a comment from a completely unrelated thread that you didn't even understand to begin with. So you're wrong, and it wouldn't even matter if you were right.
What does it take for me to get through to you and the few other keyboard mechanics in here that I am not disputing the data logs and dyno charts. I saw them and I KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN. Nothing needs to be explained to me...I have actually done a better job of explaining things than you have. The problem is simply that the data presented does not answer the question posed.
Whether or not a Jeep is stock and how much it offroads isn't necessarily relevant here. Atmospheric conditions and the quality of fuel used are far more likely to be the deciding factors. But yeah, you may very well find that in the conditions you drive in, and with the fuel available in your area, you need to run higher octane or your engine runs rough. Again, this was covered 18+ pages ago.
Your opinion is noted. I disagree. If you think the above posts present me as the bully, then you have a very unique view of aggression.
that's why I utilized the ignore button on that one certain member. Its a shame people stoop to these levels though over a subject like this.
