mts Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 OK OK.... if you really want proof of poor burning in a Miller... look at you exhaust tips... if they are black on the rim after a long hard drive then you are getting carbon carryover and this WILL foul your O2 and catayltics... EVERY S I have seen in Toronto area has blackened tips... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 Mine doesn't. I polish the tips about either 3 car washes (which for me is insane) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted February 16, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 So do I... but I have noticed the black creeping up... BUT mind you I actually drive mine... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 So BHR, here's the deal: since Troy's using his car for our experiment (I say our because we've done almost all of the arguing) the loser pays for his test. If the results show that his HC count either remains relatively unchanged or goes up and the NOx goes up, then I pay for the etest. If, however, the HC's go down, and the NOx remains relatively unchanged, then you pay. For other variations we'll figure something out and take a poll to decide. I'm going to be devastated if I'm wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted February 16, 2007 Report Share Posted February 16, 2007 ren, I think you can only agree that its fair if both an emissions and dyno test are done. Maybe emissions are slated less but power is way down? either way your doing harm to the engine, I'm amazed people think automarkers tell you to use prem just for shits and giggles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 Put up, or shut up. It's $37. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ing-schu@online.no Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 Comparing the Miller 8:1 nominal compression ratio with a NA engine is wrong; its effective ratio including precompressed air is 10:1. Not to mention the charge is higher when driving, which will result in the same basic result as a turbo engine. Saab turbo engines has since long been equipped with advanced governing, giving WAY more performance on high octane fuel because the ignition is retarded with lower octane. It will not be damaged however, running low octane. Just slower. I guess the Miller governing is way less advanced, with a simple knock sensor instead of the sophisticated Saab system. Which makes the 2,3 four perform better than the Miller by horselenghts, with a MUCH simpler overall design. Not so smooth of course, but performance is better. Pity about their looks... That being said, I suppose ignition timing is very conservative in both the 2,5 and the 2,3, it usually is on most cars to be able to cope with lower octane often filled on them. Thus the 2,5 in my car probably would gain from advanced timing, either optimized for 95 RON which my car is said to need, or 99 RON also availible. My old Hiace certainly gains torque running on 14ish degrees instead of 8 or whatever factory setting. If anyone has an easy route to tweak the ignition timing on the KL I'd be interested. Low to midrange torque production could certainly need some gain... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 ren. if both an emissions and dyno test you to be right I will cover the cost of the emissions test by giving mts on of his t-shirts for free, and pay for the dyno depending on its cost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 Backwards, if it were ottocycle it would be 10:1, but because of valve timing it's 8:1. So even with an extra few pounds of boost, you're still not in premium territory. The 2.5 on the other hand, has a 9.2:1 compression, and timing set at 10degrees, so still somewhat conservative. To change the timing on the 'L', jump the TEN and GND pins in the diagnostic box and turn distributor. The engine should be warm when this is done, and a timing light used. Also, jump the pin with the key out of the ignition, and remove the pin with the key out. On the 'S', I THINK it's the same except instead of turning the distributor, you turn the cam sensor. Oh, and to those that don't believe me about the compression of the 2.3 and the 2.5, the standard compression of the 2.5 is 189psi, whereas on the 2.3 it's only 164psi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mts Posted February 17, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 You are right about the cam sensor.... though it is very, very tricky to do, as some dick at Mazda lock-tighted the screw in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 you still have addressed the question, why would auto makers tell you you MUST use prem gas, and why would ecu chip makers and piggy back makers demand you use prem with there chips if not already. Some companies will even void your warrenty if you use the cheap gas (which I support, if your that ghetto cheap then how can they assume you'll be able to make a payment) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 Last post on page: http://www.mazdaworld.net/forums/index.php...1197&st=140 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Time Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 ...if your that ghetto cheap then how can they assume you'll be able to make a payment) I make any number of payments it takes to keep a house, couple of cars, boats, a cottage, and kid in very expensive private school. I don't buy premium becuase the S.....DOES.....NOT.......NEED........IT. Edit -- btw, this is not intended as some kind of "I'm richer than you" bitchfest because I'd say I'm not rich at all. And the way I keep from getting less "not rich" is to spend where it makes sense. And prem in my S don't due to the ad nauseum explanations of the Miller Cycle workings as touted by me, Ren and others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 It does need it, and soon we shall find out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miller Time Posted February 17, 2007 Report Share Posted February 17, 2007 It does need it, and soon we shall find out. Bring it on! For then we shall find out who must OK OK.... if you really want proof of poor burning in a Miller... look at you exhaust tips... if they are black on the rim after a long hard drive then you are getting carbon carryover and this WILL foul your O2 and catayltics... EVERY S I have seen in Toronto area has blackened tips... Most interesting, MTS. My pipes are indeed nicely sooted. Perhaps it's time to run Regular! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 my exhaust tips are quite shiny and require very little cleaning by even my standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 Try driving 4 years without cleaning them and see what they look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latinopikachu Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 You're also obsessed with the colour pink and the village people... no, i'm not. that's a sterotype. AND, I WILL SETTLE THIS DEBATE ONCE AND FOR ALL the S runs like SHIT, i repeat, SHIT on regular. i had barely any money one time and put regular in it, NEVER EVER AGAIN. even on a cold winters day with REGULAR the S ran as if it was 105F outside and I had been doing 80mph for an hour. Poor acceleration and a small reserve of power, nothing like it normally behaves. It whined a lot louder for some reason, but the power was NOT THERE at ALL. This little test was done on Gold Beast and Silver ghost, BTW. But when I let it go almost completely empty and filled with Super, wham the power's back and the thing is like a rocket. So someone explain that difference if "it doesnt need it" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 18, 2007 Report Share Posted February 18, 2007 Don't take this the wrong way, but I don't give too much presedence to an ass dyno...the power wasn't there is just an unproven statement. Not to mention the brand has more importance than grade. Around here, every car I've ever been in runs better on Petro 87 than on Pioneer 91. So where exactly is your proof? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latinopikachu Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 the millenia is only fueled chevron, i hate shell, i refuse to give anymore money to exxon, and i will not fill at a ghetto rat station Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankzao Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 I agree with LAT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
///BHRpowered Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Not sure what brands you hav, but I agree that does make a huge difference. here we have shell, exxon/mobil, and recently sunoco. I myself generally run shell. now, after 4 years ANYTHING will be dirty, but the very idea that I of all people would go that long is insane. Hell, I washed the millenia dec 3rd, yes its been awhile, but even just sitting in the garage I have gone over it atleast once with quick detailer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ing-schu@online.no Posted February 19, 2007 Report Share Posted February 19, 2007 Backwards, if it were ottocycle it would be 10:1, but because of valve timing it's 8:1. So even with an extra few pounds of boost, you're still not in premium territory. The 2.5 on the other hand, has a 9.2:1 compression, and timing set at 10degrees, so still somewhat conservative. To change the timing on the 'L', jump the TEN and GND pins in the diagnostic box and turn distributor. The engine should be warm when this is done, and a timing light used. Also, jump the pin with the key out of the ignition, and remove the pin with the key out. On the 'S', I THINK it's the same except instead of turning the distributor, you turn the cam sensor. Oh, and to those that don't believe me about the compression of the 2.3 and the 2.5, the standard compression of the 2.5 is 189psi, whereas on the 2.3 it's only 164psi. Surely a compression test reading will be lower on the Miller, however the sc is supposed to compensate up to "normal" compression even from idle, and even more during driving, just like a turboed engine. Predetonations is the major concern in every blown engine, therefore I don't believe in your theory but fair enough. If any engine should need higher octane it would be the blown one. Soot being evident is just a proof of the old trick to chill blown engines; going rich. I'll dig out my strobe then, and add 2 degrees advance. The reason I asked was that I thought maybe the ECU would compensate my attemt to fool it. I guess it won't then, unless the knock sensor kicks in. Idle will not be affected either? I suppose the idle motor will take care of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renboy Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 Idle will go up, but that's just a turn of the idle screw to fix. Now, how is advancing timing any different than lowering octane? I agree if the charged air is hotter than n/a intake air higher octane will be needed. But if the charged air is the same temperature as a comparable n/a engine, then boosted or not the same octane is required. Boost from a s/c is cooler than that of a turbo, and with two (albeit not very good) intercoolers there should be no difference. By comparable I meant higher compression so that compression pressures are the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mohamedeladawy@hotmail.com Posted February 20, 2007 Report Share Posted February 20, 2007 ive been running 91 octane on the millenia the whole ive had it (a year give or take) however when my dad put 87 in it...they car had CEL out the ass...now...it never comes up (we never changed the sensors) recently ive been doing 93 octane for every 91 octane fillup. o wait...up there doesnt prove anything. i just wanted to say that i put 93 octane in mine for every 2 91 octane. carry on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.