Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: West Grove, PA
Mentioned: 74 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 928 Post(s)
Thanked 2,305 Times in 1,801 Posts
In your previous post, you were talking about people coming to conclusions without any "evidence" - yet that is *exactly* what you are doing here by assuming that a 3.6L V6, 11.5-1 compression ratio, direct-injected engine, in a car marketed as a "family sedan" and made by GM - would have the same results as 5.7L V8, 10.5-1 compression ratio, pushrod, port-injected engine, in a car manketed as a "performance car' and made by Dodge - would both have the same results. :-)
The engines in the V6 Impala and the V8 Charger are VERY different - as is the stock tuning and the primary "audience". Just because they are both naturally aspirated really means nothing. The Charger is tuned for "performance" from the factory whereas the Impala is tuned for "comfort" from the factory. I'm sure the Charger is tuned more aggressively from the factory, trying to get every bit of performance out the car as possilbe becuase of it's audience.
I have datalogged my 2012 Impala with 87 and 93 octance fuel and there is definitely a lot more knock on 87 octane fuel. Less knock = higher timing = higher performance. I don't do any 0-60 timed runs or even test the car on a dyno, but generally speaking, higher octane reduces knock, which increases performance.
You also have to take the 0-60 tests in that article with a grain of salt since there is so much "human involvement". The driver may have had a better run the first time, for example. Most people would never be able to have the exact same numbers from a 0-60 run even if they do it "back to back".
What *can* be taken from that article is some evidence that higher octane = increased horsepower - without a doubt. Even the naturally-aspirated Charger was stated to gain 14 horsepower with the higher octane fuel according to Dyno tests, which are much more accurate than 0-60 timed tests.