gts on 87 octane - Page 2 - NewCelica.org Forum
  
Install Guides Parts Catalog Gallery Tech Info

Go Back   NewCelica.org Forum > Celica Discussion > General Discussion

General Discussion General Automotive Discussion Posts Here.

Support NCO
Google
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-16-2005, 04:54 AM   #51
treeh8r
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,599
iTrader: (0)
Send a message via AIM to treeh8r Send a message via Yahoo to treeh8r
Quote:
Originally Posted by prometheum
no there isnt we get 90 octane
This made me laugh. So I guess Toyota dealers there depend on the uneducated consumer to sell the GTS? They must get prizes for every one they sell
treeh8r is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-20-2005, 10:39 AM   #52
gtskev
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: boston, massachusetts
Posts: 455
iTrader: (6)
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrison888
87 octane $2.39 X 14gal = 33.46
93 octane $2.59 X 14gal = 36.26

it's really not that big of a difference, may be when you go out on the weekend, try drinking 1 less bottle of beer and you'll make the money back.
man i wish it was like that in boston here it $2.65=87octane\$2.89=93octane if your lucky.
__________________

SOLD!
current e90 328xi, 02 solara SE
01 GTS/6, 00 GTS/6, fx16 GTS x2, 86 ae86
gtskev is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 11:41 AM   #53
many
Maunder Minimum
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Montreal/Quebec/CANADA
Posts: 4,518
iTrader: (12)
Actually the higher the engine revs less octane is needed.
__________________
many is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 01:18 PM   #54
GT-S_aia
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ridgeland, MS
Posts: 69
iTrader: (0)
Send a message via AIM to GT-S_aia Send a message via Yahoo to GT-S_aia
i believe the gt-s was tuned to 91 from the factory, 91-93 is needed to appease the computer's settings. middle grade (89) should suffice, if your that big of a cheepo though, you should not of bought this car.
__________________
AEM CAI/ Apexi PF/ AEM Pulleys/ Comp Stage 2 Clutch/ Comp Flywheel/ ES Inserts/ B+G Springs/Tanabe SM Exaust
In the works: Ported Header, TRD Short Shifter, MWR Valve Springs
Coming soon: TRD Supercharger w/ factory warrenty, Phantom LSD Conversion, look good stuff...
GT-S_aia is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 01:36 PM   #55
Mert
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 313
iTrader: (0)
Send a message via AIM to Mert
my air/fuel ratio acts really wierd when i put 87 octane gas in my car
Mert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 01:16 PM   #56
NoRulzAt140 Mph
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Philly!!
Posts: 12,350
iTrader: (1)
Send a message via AIM to NoRulzAt140 Mph
Quote:
Originally Posted by many
Actually the higher the engine revs less octane is needed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GT-S_aia
i believe the gt-s was tuned to 91 from the factory, 91-93 is needed to appease the computer's settings. middle grade (89) should suffice, if your that big of a cheepo though, you should not of bought this car.
89 will not.
__________________
00 GT - SOLD/00 GTS - SOLD
06 S197 440/390 - SOLD
1999 C5 - SOLD
1998 Camaro SS 6M - SOLD
2001 Audi S4 TT - SOLD
NoRulzAt140 Mph is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-2005, 08:55 PM   #57
many
Maunder Minimum
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Montreal/Quebec/CANADA
Posts: 4,518
iTrader: (12)
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRulzAt140 Mph
Quote:
Originally Posted by many
Actually the higher the engine revs less octane is needed.

If you had read any books dealing on engines.....
Start with: Advanced engine technology by HEINZ HEISLER (chapter 4)
__________________
many is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2005, 08:33 AM   #58
sO mAnY mOdS
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,944
iTrader: (0)
Send a message via AIM to sO mAnY mOdS Send a message via Yahoo to sO mAnY mOdS
doesnt 93 give u better mileage anyway?
sO mAnY mOdS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2005, 08:51 AM   #59
harrison888
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by gtskev
man i wish it was like that in boston here it $2.65=87octane\$2.89=93octane if your lucky.
I've just heard the news saying gas price will continue to rise at least until laber day.
__________________


94' ST205
17" TRD T3 Forged Wheel w/ 215.45.17 Michellin Sport S3
harrison888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2005, 07:33 PM   #60
NoRulzAt140 Mph
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Philly!!
Posts: 12,350
iTrader: (1)
Send a message via AIM to NoRulzAt140 Mph
Quote:
Originally Posted by many
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoRulzAt140 Mph


If you had read any books dealing on engines.....
Start with: Advanced engine technology by HEINZ HEISLER (chapter 4)
While you may be right. Thi does not apply. The GTS REQUIRES 91 + to function properly.
__________________
00 GT - SOLD/00 GTS - SOLD
06 S197 440/390 - SOLD
1999 C5 - SOLD
1998 Camaro SS 6M - SOLD
2001 Audi S4 TT - SOLD
NoRulzAt140 Mph is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2005, 07:39 PM   #61
TRD-CELICA-GT02
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,998
iTrader: (15)
I'm glad I don't have a GTS nor have done the 2zz swap yet. Premium just hit 3.00 over here in my area of SoCal.
TRD-CELICA-GT02 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2005, 11:12 PM   #62
Yoda's Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 1,420
iTrader: (6)
Send a message via AIM to Yoda's Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRD-CELICA-GT02
I'm glad I don't have a GTS nor have done the 2zz swap yet. Premium just hit 3.00 over here in my area of SoCal.
regular will follow within a week
__________________
Yoda's Master is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2005, 05:21 AM   #63
sO mAnY mOdS
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,944
iTrader: (0)
Send a message via AIM to sO mAnY mOdS Send a message via Yahoo to sO mAnY mOdS
i paid 2.80 for 93 yesterday
tiger tuesday w00t w00t
sO mAnY mOdS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2005, 05:46 AM   #64
jlitman
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Under a red sun
Posts: 11,169
iTrader: (42)
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRD-CELICA-GT02
I'm glad I don't have a GTS nor have done the 2zz swap yet. Premium just hit 3.00 over here in my area of SoCal.
It's a "dirt cheap" 2.73 in Tampa.
__________________
jlitman is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2005, 06:03 AM   #65
sO mAnY mOdS
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 1,944
iTrader: (0)
Send a message via AIM to sO mAnY mOdS Send a message via Yahoo to sO mAnY mOdS
i saw 2.99 in queens
and u know how gas stations are
its 2.99 9/10 so thats 3 basically

wasnt gas like under $1 back in 99 or 2000
sO mAnY mOdS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2005, 06:23 AM   #66
jlitman
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Under a red sun
Posts: 11,169
iTrader: (42)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova_gts
less beer... NOOOO
I'm banging on 100 octane which isn't much more than Cali drivers pay for 91 cruising around. It comes out about equal.
I thought 100 octane gas caused the 2ZZ to run overly rich. Didn't that happen to Larry D?

Otherwise, yes, running an octane lower than specified by the manufacturer for your car is going to eventually cause engine damage. However, higher than recommended octane isn't needed either.

-jl-
__________________
jlitman is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2005, 06:37 AM   #67
harrison888
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Asia
Posts: 257
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sO mAnY mOdS
i saw 2.99 in queens
and u know how gas stations are
its 2.99 9/10 so thats 3 basically

wasnt gas like under $1 back in 99 or 2000

No, I remember it's like 1990-1992
__________________


94' ST205
17" TRD T3 Forged Wheel w/ 215.45.17 Michellin Sport S3
harrison888 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2005, 10:11 AM   #68
Yoda's Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 1,420
iTrader: (6)
Send a message via AIM to Yoda's Master
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrison888
Quote:
Originally Posted by sO mAnY mOdS
i saw 2.99 in queens
and u know how gas stations are
its 2.99 9/10 so thats 3 basically

wasnt gas like under $1 back in 99 or 2000

No, I remember it's like 1990-1992
depends on where u are.

that was the "Pre-Bush" Era
__________________
Yoda's Master is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2005, 11:37 AM   #69
GT-S_aia
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ridgeland, MS
Posts: 69
iTrader: (0)
Send a message via AIM to GT-S_aia Send a message via Yahoo to GT-S_aia
it was 1.25 when i graduated hs in 99'. and i thought that was kinda high...so the pre dollar era in MS was 96-97'
__________________
AEM CAI/ Apexi PF/ AEM Pulleys/ Comp Stage 2 Clutch/ Comp Flywheel/ ES Inserts/ B+G Springs/Tanabe SM Exaust
In the works: Ported Header, TRD Short Shifter, MWR Valve Springs
Coming soon: TRD Supercharger w/ factory warrenty, Phantom LSD Conversion, look good stuff...
GT-S_aia is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2005, 01:26 PM   #70
Nova_gts
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NOVA
Posts: 1,212
iTrader: (3)
Send a message via AIM to Nova_gts
it went down for a while in i belive 02 to 89cent a gallon, i couldnt drive then but my friend could, his parents bout kilt him we drove so much, we would put about 100 miles a day on his car, it didnt matter, gas was dirt cheap
__________________
Nova_gts is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 10:47 AM   #71
wawawaGTS
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Torrance
Posts: 202
iTrader: (0)
I just did a 2zz swap into my Mr2 spyder that had more than half tank 87 fuel... What should I do?

I already put a bottle of octane booster.
wawawaGTS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 10:54 AM   #72
ajh1717
Can't touch this.
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New York
Posts: 3,629
iTrader: (1)
You guys realize that we are paying less now for gas then 10-20 years ago? lol
ajh1717 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 02:39 PM   #73
monicka8311
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 413
iTrader: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by combatc87 View Post
Wow, I wish premium was 2.59 here. At some places, it's 2.98. ****ing 2.98! Can you believe that ****.
Dude..... 2.98 is still cheap compared to over here..... We're talking like 3.25-3.50 which really when you think about it, what's that maybe 5-10 extra bucks to get better performance, really i'd pay 20-30 more if I knew it was going to run better in my car.... I hope you're not that cheap when it comes to women.... only the best bro, you can't pick up a hot chick and then take her to fast food for your first date, right?! That's just my two cents though.
__________________
monicka8311 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 02:51 PM   #74
Bitter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago-south
Posts: 8,235
iTrader: (10)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monicka8311 View Post
Dude..... 2.98 is still cheap compared to over here..... We're talking like 3.25-3.50 which really when you think about it, what's that maybe 5-10 extra bucks to get better performance, really i'd pay 20-30 more if I knew it was going to run better in my car.... I hope you're not that cheap when it comes to women.... only the best bro, you can't pick up a hot chick and then take her to fast food for your first date, right?! That's just my two cents though.
you realize that post was from 2005 right?

$3.03 last night for BP 93 octane, mine doesn't like anything that costs less than $3 a gallon
__________________
2000 Celica GT-S 'slowest GT-S evar'
1998 Mazda 626 FS-DE/CD4E 'mom-mobile'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCMiller View Post
I'm gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundman98
no, don't even waste your time. if you want a honest sticker, at least get one that says "objects in mirror aren't really racing, so quit trying"...
Bitter is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 02:55 PM   #75
monicka8311
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: WA
Posts: 413
iTrader: (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitter View Post
you realize that post was from 2005 right?

$3.03 last night for BP 93 octane, mine doesn't like anything that costs less than $3 a gallon
No i didn't realize that..... thanks for pointing it out.....
__________________
monicka8311 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 03:01 PM   #76
RomanTaylor
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Portland OR
Posts: 1,094
iTrader: (0)
Get a GT and call it a day.
RomanTaylor is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 04:10 PM   #77
broderp
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Dayton, OH
Posts: 1,900
iTrader: (3)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sky2king8 View Post
Two nights ago the gas station ****ed up and I got premium for 2.31 instead of 2.59!!! go me
Bought 93 OCtane for $2.01/gal the other day.
__________________
2003 GT-S W/ Factory Action Package. UPGRADES: JBL componets Speakers
& 17" Rims MODS: "blinker mod" for turn signals, and installation of OEM foglight switch (Action package did not include fogs),
relay and rewire for semi-independent fog light operation


Yes, It's an Automatic.
broderp is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 05:08 PM   #78
2way
Electromagnetic Wave :-h
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: "America's Hometown"
Posts: 15,168
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by wawawaGTS View Post
What should I do?
Fill w/93..

2way is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 05:51 PM   #79
Carmaster
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Stone Mountain, Georgia
Posts: 1,001
iTrader: (0)
Wow, I guess gas is cheap in GA. I paid $2.70 a gallon for 93 octane. And my car can run on 87 or 93 for "maximum performance"!



Wow this thread is old.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dasher17 View Post
Do people really think we bought an auto on purpose? Where is anyone claiming they like their auto and think it's superior to a MT?

Stop beating a dead horse.
2001 Celica GT auto: 2/7/09 - 1/30/10
2002 Nissan Maxima SE: 1/30/10 - 1/16/11
1995 BMW 325is coupe (S52 engine swap, SRI, Borla catback exhaust, 3.23 LSD, ceramic clutch + lightweight flywheel, coilovers) 1/19/11 -
Carmaster is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 07:48 PM   #80
xsnakexbitesx
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Billerica, MA
Posts: 278
iTrader: (0)
Send a message via AIM to xsnakexbitesx
i always put in 93, even though its a gt , and its $2.89ish in my town :/

Quote:
Originally Posted by broderp View Post
Bought 93 OCtane for $2.01/gal the other day.
lucky hasnt been under $2.50 here in at almost a year now...
__________________
Photobucket
2000 auto gt, CAI, custom exhaust by R&D exhaust
xsnakexbitesx is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 07:53 PM   #81
lamboceliGTS
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 9,353
iTrader: (6)
Anything less then premium in a GTS will **** up your engine.

Anything more then regular on a GT is a waste of money.
lamboceliGTS is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 09:03 PM   #82
mustangraptor03
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Dawsonville, GA
Posts: 177
iTrader: (0)
I paid 2.649 for 93 about two to three days ago. If you ever consider running octane booster from an auto parts store to try to get by not using premium, think of this: The octane increase are in tenths of a point, though they label them as "points". So if you put 87 in and add octane booster you only get a total of about 87.2-87.3 depending on the concentration of the active ingredient they use (MMT, MTBE, etc.).
__________________
1986 Corolla Sport GT-S Hatchback - 410,000+ miles
2000 Celica GT-S - 230,000+ miles
mustangraptor03 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2010, 09:14 PM   #83
ibmike150
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 2,069
iTrader: (3)
Send a message via AIM to ibmike150 Send a message via Yahoo to ibmike150
Quote:
Originally Posted by harrison888 View Post
87 octane $2.39 X 14gal = 33.46
93 octane $2.59 X 14gal = 36.26
so you save around $3 its gonna take about 1000 fillups to justify running ur engine... and at or around 400,000 miles give or take ur engine would have problems not related to gas by than =\
ibmike150 is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2010, 07:32 AM   #84
roaf85
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: The Big O
Posts: 1,470
iTrader: (1)
This is why I bought a Mazda 6/Ford Fusion over a MS3. On average you are probably spending anywhere from 3-6 dollars more per fill up just for 91 octane, and around 200-400 dollars a year.
roaf85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 10:53 AM   #85
NoRulzAt140 Mph
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Philly!!
Posts: 12,350
iTrader: (1)
Send a message via AIM to NoRulzAt140 Mph
Wow.
__________________
00 GT - SOLD/00 GTS - SOLD
06 S197 440/390 - SOLD
1999 C5 - SOLD
1998 Camaro SS 6M - SOLD
2001 Audi S4 TT - SOLD
NoRulzAt140 Mph is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2010, 11:43 AM   #86
marc
NO ONE SLEEP IN TOKYO!!!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 15,579
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by full_metal_gts View Post
i wish we got 93...max. ive seen is 91...boooo
its not like 93 will do anything for you unless you've tuned to take advantage of the higher octane.
__________________
Our Cars < -- Click Here
My Car Blog < -- Updated Sporadically
marc is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2019, 06:23 AM   #87
DumpItSoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 16
iTrader: (0)
Old thread I know, but the car carries on, so for those Celica owners who continually search for this stuff like I did recently:

My 2000 GTS has 110,000 miles on it now. In a bit of irony I accidentally filled up with 87 octane thinking that I was filling up my motorcycle. I had never done this before! It is something I would consider egregious! On that tank of 87 my mileage went up from 27.8 to 30 mpg. (My commute is about 15 miles, 75% freeway.) I filled it again with 87 and the mileage shot up two more points to 32 mpg. Holy cow!

I have owned this car since new. I never got 30 mpg except on a cross-country trip. I have gotten essentially the rated mileage, 22 city and 28-29 highway.

I did the math and based on my yearly mileage, the difference in the cost of low vs. high octane and the difference in efficiency, this would result in a total of perhaps $200 per year difference. I do not feel $200. But if I keep this car five more years I would feel $1000. Just talking out loud here.

I next filled it with 89 to see what would happen. Every engine has sweet spots despite the published octane rating, so I figured I would test that.

I heard no pings whatsoever. I realize that in a modern car one may not actually hear the gurgle so that is not a clear indicator. I did a test at slow speed and put it in a higher gear like 4th, and mashed the pedal. No pings whatsoever.

I am unsure but I think the temperature gauge has spend more time one notch below it's typical position. So it seems the engine is running far cooler and significantly more efficiently.

I have not spent much time in VTEC but I do not spend much time there nowadays anyways.
DumpItSoon is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2019, 11:00 AM   #88
2way
Electromagnetic Wave :-h
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: "America's Hometown"
Posts: 15,168
iTrader: (2)


The compression ratio or sweet spot (as you describe) mandate for fuel in a GTS is 91 octane (US). The GTS OEM ECU can swing 2 degrees of timing accommodating approximately 89-93 octane. Using below 91 octane causes the timing to retard. Using below 89 is outside of the timing range and can cause engine damage. The GT's spot is 87 and can swing -2 to +6 degrees of timing accommodating approximately 85-93 octane.

While similar in result to VTEC, the GT-S utilizes an entirely different methodology than Honda to increase valve lift.

A 15-mile commute isn't really that much. You're probably spending at least 2-3 miles just getting up to temp while running in open loop, which will have an impact on your mpg. I hit peaks of 40mpg when commuting a mostly highway 75 miles. These days I'm no longer commuting and see 30-32 mpg averages on what are usually 35 mile trips.
2way is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2019, 10:44 AM   #89
DumpItSoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 16
iTrader: (0)
Shirley, you can't be serious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post


The compression ratio or sweet spot (as you describe) mandate for fuel in a GTS is 91 octane (US).
No.

Every engine is in a different condition, particularly after aging, and operates differently. The "sweet spot" is what it really wants, versus what is published. And the way to find that out is to test different grades of fuel and discover the experimental result. The published numbers with manufactured goods are usually a mile beyond the duty-cycle/limits/etc. of the product; The maker's "cover your a**" specification, not the "reasonable compromise/sweet spot."

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
Using below 89 is outside of the timing range and can cause engine damage.
Please give us one data point to support your statement. Note that I am not asking for 2,000 instance, or even 200, but merely ONE SINGLE instance of a 2000+ GTS that was perfectly taken care of, and the only parameter that differed was the owner used 87, and the engine was thus damaged. Oh, and not hearsay but a technical report.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
I hit peaks of 40mpg when commuting a mostly highway 75 miles.
That's nice. I just went 1000 miles and got 33. I have perfectly taken care of my engine, used Mobil 1 for its life, had the valves adjusted at 100k, etc. It is always nice to read wonderful numbers on the Internet. But I've owned since new, am a meticulous owner, and never saw anything near that. Your numbers are excessively higher than the window sticker showed. What am I to make of you? Seriously?

But personal anecdotes like mine are worthless. So look at this survey:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/celica/2000

You are well above ANY single reported data point.

I am glad to take in your experimental data. With your next post I expect you to provide it and easily demonstrate that you are not the typical Internet Theory King, but can in fact pound this right into the ground. I will HAPPILY relent as I have zero emotional need to "be right."

Last edited by DumpItSoon; 05-12-2019 at 10:57 AM..
DumpItSoon is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2019, 03:19 PM   #90
2way
Electromagnetic Wave :-h
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: "America's Hometown"
Posts: 15,168
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
Every engine is in a different condition, particularly after aging, and operates differently.
While I agree with this statement. Designed compression ratio, combustion chamber, etc. determine the initially manufactured required octane to prevent detonation. The GT-S has a high compression engine vs. the GT and has obvious differing fuel requirements. The point being is that there's a reason why there's a sticker on your fuel cover saying Premium Unleaded Only - it's designed that way. You'll also note that I said "can", not "will" cause damage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
Please give us one data point to support your statement.
I already did when I quoted the timing range specifications. As for any anecdotal data, I don't recall many on the board (except maybe one or two) who ran below rated octane for any significant time in a GT-S. One of those did see a noticeable performance improvement when switched to Premium. But, I assume you are familiar with the damage that detonation can cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
What am I to make of you? Seriously?

But personal anecdotes like mine are worthless. So look at this survey:

http://www.fuelly.com/car/toyota/celica/2000

You are well above ANY single reported data point.
Hehe... you're new around here. Had you looked at https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...hicle&id=17475 under details, you would've found me. Although I haven't updated data on that since 7/08 and there are a lot more data points that I could add. I also used to use CleanMPG.com's logging - it pre-dates fuelly.com. Unfortunately, CleanMPG stopped doing mileage logs when their forum platform changed.

Here's 2yrs worth of MPG data points of almost all full tank refills (click to enlarge):


My updated master database is on another PC that I have infrequent access to. However, the copy I have on this one covers 01/07 to 11/30/2016 and the lifetime cumulative average mpg at that point was 36.48mpg. This includes an engine replacement in 2012/13. I don't commute any longer and am not as fuel conscious as I was these days. So, I expect that the lifetime average will drop a lil further when I update the database. Looking at the 2016 data, I think my tank mpgs are currently running between 29.5-34.5mpg. I need to get & update my master database. I don't know what highway speed you are doing. But, speaking of sweet spots, the GT-S does have an mpg one between 67-70mph.

If you want to run 87 in your GT-S, go right ahead. But, it's not a practice I recommend to others.

and don't call me Shirley
2way is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2019, 04:33 PM   #91
DumpItSoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 16
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
You'll also note that I said "can", not "will" cause damage.
Yes, a platitude that everyone repeats but worthless without knowledge of one engine that has actually had problems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
I already did when I quoted the timing range specifications.
No the timing spec is not a data point of engines that were actually damaged. You know how many engine parameters contribute to an engine's longevity, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
Hehe... you're new around here. Had you looked at https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find...hicle&id=17475 under details, you would've found me.
Total communication gap. I point out that your numbers are nowhere near general surveys, but then you point me to another spreadsheet of your own personal numbers LOL. But no one in the general survey I pointed you to was anywhere near your numbers. That's all I need to know. I appreciate you providing the community numbers. But the first thing I do in the laboratory is throw out the outlier. It is real, but meaningless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
I don't know what highway speed you are doing. But, speaking of sweet spots, the GT-S does have an mpg one between 67-70mph.
Cross country I averaged about 75 mph, with 91 octane, and garnered 33 mpg, my all-time high. I drove pretty steadily.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
If you want to run 87 in your GT-S, go right ahead. But, it's not a practice I recommend to others.

and don't call me Shirley

I also am not recommending that anyone use 87. I simply provided my real-world study, of how my engine ran cooler and mileage shot up with 87. Real data that does not exist here, and which combats a LOT of the opinions posted ("mileage will plummet with low octane." --uh no mileage is based on vacuum and RPM....)

I just reject guesses and memes. I have spent a life in science. I am only interested in experimental data. So far every bit of it that is available actually contradicts damaging this engine.

I have no love of this car anymore and I feel like this summer I should use 87, race it around town in 95 weather, have the head removed, and report to you what is there. Then we would all have one single data point as to how this engine holds up (or does not.)
DumpItSoon is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2019, 07:38 PM   #92
2way
Electromagnetic Wave :-h
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: "America's Hometown"
Posts: 15,168
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
No the timing spec is not a data point of engines that were actually damaged.
You didn't originally specify damaged engines. I provided you an engineering spec that puts 87 outside of the limited timing adjustment range of the OEM GT-S ECU. Whether or not damage may actually occur would depend on a multitude of parameters. But, it can happen. However, to your specific point, I don't recall anyone ever reporting an instance of damage due to using low octane in a GT-S here. But, using less than premium isn't common practice among most owners either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
I simply provided my real-world study
You provided a single instance that, per your laboratory procedure, would be tossed out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
Cross country I averaged about 75 mph
Mpg is lower when above the 67-70mph sweet spot. Back then, I had the advantage of very long highway commutes & cruise control. The average driver would tend to have a more balanced city/hwy mix than I did when I was hitting high mpgs. So, results on fueleconomy.gov & fuelly.com look very reasonable to me. Keep in mind some of those on fuelly are automatics. I also see pokgai (a member here) reports on fuelly with a current average of 32mpg on his '01 GT-S. WTG! Considering that you have to get >32mpg at points in order to average it. Keep in mind that it's a good probability that a majority of Celica GT-S owners don't drive conservatively. So, reported data might reflect that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
Then we would all have one single data point as to how this engine holds up (or does not.)
Again, by your lab procedure, this would be tossed out as a single data point. But, feel free to try destroying it. After tossing a rod bearing (unrelated to fuel) @ 177K, I can tell ya that the engine doesn't have huge longevity.

BTW, here's a 9yr graph of my actual MPG data (211 data points). Not a single entry below 30mpg (and that includes after I stopped the long highway commuting). You can certainly see when my commute changed. The worst, so far, being 30.488mpg in Feb. 2012 on winter fuel & cold temps. But, I do need to update.:

Last edited by 2way; 05-14-2019 at 08:49 AM..
2way is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 01:41 PM   #93
DumpItSoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 16
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
Whether or not damage may actually occur would depend on a multitude of parameters. But, it can happen.
This is the problem - everyone posts it CAN happen but no one has a single instance where it DID happen to this engine. That is the point. I see people in the forum utterly berating people, that they will destroy their engine. Sorry, they have NO IDEA if that is true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
You provided a single instance that, per your laboratory procedure, would be tossed out.
My single instance belies every single opinion that has been posted, that's the point. Until 100 other people provide actual studies like I did, what I did is the only truth available.

I am beyond fed up with people saying "things" in automotive blogs (oil being and motorcycle physics being the most religious topics), and mocking, and berating people who disagree, while their opinions are unfounded. There is the reason I posted one anecdote. It is the only valuable information about 87 octane among a bunch of worthless opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
So, results on fueleconomy.gov & fuelly.com look very reasonable to me.
We agree to disagree. When someone posts numbers that are a dozen above the window sticker, and that I have not come near, the numbers are essentially meaningless for others, even if perfectly accurate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
After tossing a rod bearing (unrelated to fuel) @ 177K, I can tell ya that the engine doesn't have huge longevity.
Do you know what happened? That is really astounding, that driving so conservatively and getting spectacular mileage and your engine exploded. Does not give me a warm fuzzy about this car. There are one of two problems (guesses.) One, this was made in the era of Yamaha heads that ran HOT (see the V6 sludge issue, and I can feel power PLUMMET in the summer.) Two, the oil you used is not a good oil. What did you use or did you switch often? Where does it stand on 540 Ratt's Protection List?
DumpItSoon is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 01:48 PM   #94
DumpItSoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 16
iTrader: (0)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
After tossing a rod bearing (unrelated to fuel) @ 177K, I can tell ya that the engine doesn't have huge longevity.
I imagine you may have spent much mileage on mild grades on the freeway, in 6th gear, keeping the revolutions low in order to achieve your miraculous mileage. Any mild load really lugs this engine with this significant overdrive. If yes, that style of driving would in fact cause a crank failure like you experienced. I am guessing there was damage evident in some of the piston rings as well.

You may have caused the failure with your driving habits.


I completed my first 400 miles on 89 octane. The result is that mileage follows the change of octane/timing concisely.

87 octane: 32 mpg
89 octane: 30 mpg
91 octane: 28 mpg

Again not recommending low octane but merely presenting a real-world result.

Last edited by DumpItSoon; 05-15-2019 at 01:53 PM..
DumpItSoon is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2019, 02:25 PM   #95
2way
Electromagnetic Wave :-h
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: "America's Hometown"
Posts: 15,168
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
That is the point.
Oh, I got that point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
Sorry, they have NO IDEA if that is true.
If detonation occurs, damage can happen. While never documented here, there are plenty of other different engine examples.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
My single instance belies every single opinion that has been posted, that's the point.
& so does mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
numbers that are a dozen above the window sticker,
32mpg Hwy is the old style rating. 29mpg is the new style rating. I was REALLY trying to hit 40mpg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
When someone posts numbers that are a dozen above the window sticker, and that I have not come near, the numbers are essentially meaningless for others, even if perfectly accurate.
It does demonstrate what can be achieved, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
Do you know what happened?
The guesstimate from teardown was that the main bearing closest to the tranny wore down. Causing a loss of oil pressure/flow to the #4 rod bearing causing it to spin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
One, this was made in the era of Yamaha heads that ran HOT
Familiar with the issue. But, not really a prevalent problem w/the 2ZZ. Head & block were very clean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
I can feel power PLUMMET in the summer.
Hmm, that doesn't seem right. I've noticed mine likes 70F temps & summer fuel for economy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
Two, the oil you used is not a good oil.
At the time I used Castrol Syntec or Edge 5W-30 almost exclusively. Oil changes every 3k. When commuting, I was changing oil almost every month. Fuel was also almost exclusively Shell 93.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
Where does it stand on 540 Ratt's Protection List?
Syntec - 122; Edge - 71
These days I'm just using GTX. After the failure using synthetic, I don't see the point of the added expense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
I imagine you may have spent much mileage on mild grades on the freeway, in 6th gear, keeping the revolutions low in order to achieve your miraculous mileage.
150 miles a day.... lol. Alot of early upshifts. There was a section of 45-55mph road. Maybe 15% of the commute. 5% was street. The rest was all highway. I found the 3120-3150 RPM/68mph MPG sweetspot and I set cruise @ 67/68mph unless I was late. Anything over 70mph caused lower FE. There's also another RPM MPG sweetspot @ 2300RPM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
I am guessing there was damage evident in some of the piston rings as well.
Nope. #4 Main bearing & #4 rod bearing. Head had some damage. But, I believe it was unrelated & didn't get specifics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
I completed my first 400 miles on 89 octane.
You do realize that the Long Term fuel trims take about a tank to adjust? If you're testing, I advise that you consider doing more than a single tank before changing octane levels. Otherwise, you're liable to get some odd results. There's also a bunch of other variables like fill differences etc. That's why I look more for averages across several tanks. That 41.28mpg point probably had a fill difference, considering that the previous entry was 36.31mpg & the following was 38.063mpg. Averaging just those 3 gives 38.55mpg. I need to add the data for post 11/2016 to present. However, at 11/16 I had driven 100,230 miles on 2,747.752 gals of gas (36.48mpg total avg) costing $8,512.14 giving a fuel cost per mile of 8 cents. LOL

Here's the graph w/o the individual tank mpg labels. A lil easier to view. You can certainly see when winter fuel & temps hit.
2way is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2019, 01:53 AM   #96
DumpItSoon
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
Posts: 16
iTrader: (0)
You seem to have all of the right answers, so I wonder have others here had this main bearing failure? I expect my 4-cylinder to last far beyond 200k. Hrm.

Yes, it took two tanks on 87 for the mileage to hike way up. But the mileage on 91 was established long term. So the only thing left is some time on the 89 to get a consistent answer for that number. But given the history of the high and low octane, things are looking linear (so far.)
DumpItSoon is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2019, 10:15 AM   #97
2way
Electromagnetic Wave :-h
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: "America's Hometown"
Posts: 15,168
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by DumpItSoon View Post
have others here had this main bearing failure
There have been a few. That bearing being closest to the tranny is subject to more vibration. the ronin also found a possible factory assembly defect that partially blocked some oil flow to the main when his went. Unfortunately, Frank posted it on lotussport.org and that forum is gone. There have also been a number of spun rod bearings reported. Of those, #4 seems to be fairly common. I had replaced the spun rod bearing only to have it spin again right away. So, when they found the main bearing worn, I kinda figured.

You don't have access to 93 octane there? When was the last time you cleaned MAF? When you're done with your tests, you should try doing your highway portion strictly @ 68mph. Although, you're in an urban enviro & that might not be possible w/traffic. That was another advantage I had with generally light traffic on my old commute.
2way is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2019, 11:15 AM   #98
Bitter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago-south
Posts: 8,235
iTrader: (10)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2way View Post
There have been a few. That bearing being closest to the tranny is subject to more vibration. the ronin also found a possible factory assembly defect that partially blocked some oil flow to the main when his went. Unfortunately, Frank posted it on lotussport.org and that forum is gone. There have also been a number of spun rod bearings reported. Of those, #4 seems to be fairly common. I had replaced the spun rod bearing only to have it spin again right away. So, when they found the main bearing worn, I kinda figured.

You don't have access to 93 octane there? When was the last time you cleaned MAF? When you're done with your tests, you should try doing your highway portion strictly @ 68mph. Although, you're in an urban enviro & that might not be possible w/traffic. That was another advantage I had with generally light traffic on my old commute.
I wonder if the automatic is less #4 wear prone since there's no clutch whacking the end of the crank shaft constantly? I intend to keep my Celica 'forever' or until I can't buy gasoline for it anymore. I think I'll still keep it, just park it and sit in it when I need some nostalgia.
__________________
2000 Celica GT-S 'slowest GT-S evar'
1998 Mazda 626 FS-DE/CD4E 'mom-mobile'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCMiller View Post
I'm gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundman98
no, don't even waste your time. if you want a honest sticker, at least get one that says "objects in mirror aren't really racing, so quit trying"...
Bitter is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2019, 07:02 PM   #99
2way
Electromagnetic Wave :-h
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: "America's Hometown"
Posts: 15,168
iTrader: (2)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitter View Post
I wonder if the automatic is less #4 wear prone since there's no clutch whacking the end of the crank shaft constantly?
All the ones I've seen I believe have been manuals. But, I wish I had the pics from Frank's teardown showing the oil passage being partially blocked though.
2way is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2019, 06:41 PM   #100
Bitter
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Chicago-south
Posts: 8,235
iTrader: (10)
Data points for automatic GTS are probably very rare.
__________________
2000 Celica GT-S 'slowest GT-S evar'
1998 Mazda 626 FS-DE/CD4E 'mom-mobile'
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCMiller View Post
I'm gay
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundman98
no, don't even waste your time. if you want a honest sticker, at least get one that says "objects in mirror aren't really racing, so quit trying"...
Bitter is offline   View this Members' Photo Gallery Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Go Back   NewCelica.org Forum > Celica Discussion > General Discussion

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:32 PM.

vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.