oops .. that was supposed to read "91" RON octane is equivalent to 87
CLC octane.

Mike

Mike Collum wrote:
> With this being an international list ... the octane discussion gets
> confused.
>
> 1 RON octane is equivalent to 87 CLC octane.  (RON + MON)/2 = CLC octane
> number. This is the number that you will find printed on a yellow label
> on gas pumps in the United States.
>
> The RON (Research Octane Number) is used outside the United States.
>
> Mike
>
> Dennis Haynes wrote:
>
>> Your Vanagon does not need 91 pump octane fuels. That sticker is for
>> another, older rating system. 87 ROZ/RON is fine unless something is
>> wrong or the ignition timing is over advanced.
>>
>> Dennis
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf
>> Of Christopher Gronski
>> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2006 2:42 PM
>> To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
>> Subject: Re: Diesel Subaru Conversions
>>
>> I disagree with your calculation for two reasons:
>>
>> 1) A lot of people do conversions because they need a new engine
>> anyway, so for many the calculation needs to be done on the "premium"
>> charged for a diesel conversion over a rebuild of their 1.9 or 2.1
>>
>> 2) My 2.1 syncro lists the gasoline requirement as 91 octane right
>> next to the filler neck, so I have to burn premium gas. In Canada this
>> generally means paying $0.07 to $0.10 MORE per litre for diesel.
>>
>> The math still probably works out against the diesel but when I do it,
>> it will likely be for eco reasons and added (mostly flat) torque.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 3/10/06, Pensioner <al_knoll@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Musing over conversions, one of my many talents, brings me to consider
>>
>>
>> the
>>
>>> cost-benefit scenarios.  Let's postulate that we drive 10000 miles per
>>
>>
>> year
>>
>>> just to use easy numbers.  Discounting the normal maintenance for both
>>
>>
>> a
>>
>>> converted vanagon and a non-converted vanagon, the costs of conversion
>>
>>
>> seem
>>
>>> to range from ~$14000 (not a misprint) in my case to perhaps $3000 for
>>
>>
>> an
>>
>>> average of $5000 (high but we have to start somewhere).
>>>
>>> If fuel costs over time are the principal reason for going to diesel
>>
>>
>> (not
>>
>>> fuel availability, or the desire to side with Willie on the BioDiesel
>>> concert) then it makes sense to look at the fuel savings one would
>>
>>
>> enjoy
>>
>>> over that 10000 miles per year.  Diesel currently costs about %10 more
>>
>>
>> than
>>
>>> 87 Octane and is likely to stay that way.  For $2.50/gallon 87 octane
>>
>>
>> let's
>>
>>> say and vanagon average fuel efficiency of 17 miles per gallon.  The
>>
>>
>> gallons
>>
>>> per year is easily found to be ~588 gallons times $2.50 gives $1470
>>
>>
>> per year
>>
>>> fuel cost before conversion.   If you go with diesel the fuel
>>
>>
>> consumption
>>
>>> will probably be on the order of 25 miles per gallon.  For the same
>>
>>
>> 10000
>>
>>> miles per year you'll pay $1100 in fuel costs including the %10 higher
>>
>>
>> price
>>
>>> for diesel.  You will get additional range between fuel stops but
>>
>>
>> you'll
>>
>>> need it as not all fuel services feature diesel.
>>>
>>> In summary you'll save $370 per year in fuel costs for 10000 miles per
>>
>>
>> year.
>>
>>> How many years to break even on the installation is left as an
>>
>>
>> excercise for
>>
>>> the reader.
>>>
>>> Seems to be over ten years if your previously owned motor lasts that
>>
>>
>> long.
>>
>>> FTSOE let's say it does.  You will have saved $3700 towards the motor
>>> replacement.
>>>
>>> The above example is to be considered a conservative estimate process,
>>
>>
>> your
>>
>>> mileage, tolerance, costs, will no doubt be different.
>>>
>>> "If a man professes knowledge but cannot express that knowledge in
>>
>>
>> numbers,
>>
>>> then that knowledge is of a meagre and insufficient kind"  -- Lord
>>
>>
>> Kelvin
>>
>>> Numbers rule!
>>>
>>
>>
>