ClubCJ - The CJ Lancer Club

The more we have to pay the more money the government makes. PERCENTAGE

Current Fed: policy appears to be. Money matters more then people!!!!!

Raise the price of fuel and you raise the price of every thing else.

Yep, although reading the article you will note that only 1 of the 5 strategies specifically states phasing out 91, and another seem to imply it. The rest will maintain 91 albeit with stricter sulfur requirements (which sounds like a good thing all round to me, anyway).

Lancer1993 wrote:Yes I know I can run PULP 95 or 98 but I really don't see the point, they are designed to run on RULP, putting anything else (aside from E10) in them is just a waste of money for me, the price difference over a year couple amount to $1000s. For a non RA/EVO its just not worth it.

If they mandate E10 to replace RULP then good as around here some older servos still don't stock it and many only have 95 with few having 98.

You should run 98 in our cars because that is what they are designed for not 91. It will actually work out cheaper as you will get more kilometers per tank and less maintenance costs for your engine.
Don't be fooled by the lower costs of 91 per litre over 98.

aspir3 wrote:

Lancer1993 wrote:Yes I know I can run PULP 95 or 98 but I really don't see the point, they are designed to run on RULP, putting anything else (aside from E10) in them is just a waste of money for me, the price difference over a year couple amount to $1000s. For a non RA/EVO its just not worth it.

If they mandate E10 to replace RULP then good as around here some older servos still don't stock it and many only have 95 with few having 98.

You should run 98 in our cars because that is what they are designed for not 91. It will actually work out cheaper as you will get more kilometers per tank and less maintenance costs for your engine.
Don't be fooled by the lower costs of 91 per litre over 98.

if tyhey had to run 98 fuel they would specify that, they rule how they are supposed to with lower octan fuel, there is little t no benifiet to running the higher octane fuel,

Do the non-turbo CJ's retard the timings on low-octane fuels to prevent knock, or are they designed with the lower octane fuels in mind? I have heard they have a dual ECU map for 91 and 95/98, however does this map change the ignition timings to suit the higher octane fuel? If so, that would be the only benefit to fuel efficiency IMO, as higher octane fuels don't necessarily contain higher energy, though "premium" fuels can... ie. the additives could be used to make "premium" 91 with the same amount of stored energy as "premium" 98, if the additives used were the same.

If someone with more knowledge regarding the engine management systems in the non-turbo (and turbo) CJs could chime in with what the actual deal is with the ignition timings that would probably be the most conclusive answer.

I've also read that the ignition timing can be advanced forward until knocking occurs, however this is a very slow process, requiring the continued usage of 95/98 over a large period of time, rather than a few tanks, and would require never going back to 91 in order to maintain the ignition timings. This could be BS, so I'd like to hear other peoples opinions on this. (EDIT: This is apparently known as adaptive ignition timing on the Prado's, not sure if the CJ has this or simply uses predetermined ignition timings depending on the fuel map?).

In short my general opinion/understanding is: use 98 if you want to and can afford the premium price. Use 91 otherwise as premium is not explicitly recommended (for non-turbo) and so knock is not going to occur on 91, meaning timings are not retarded and power should be as usual. If you want to use 98, use it all the time, allow for the car to adjust to the increased knock resistance of the higher-octane fuel, potentially giving you increased power/efficiency but not necessarily.

Yes the ecu retards the timing and also increases fuel ratio. This is why its not economical running 91. But you seem to know better

I guess there are 2 types of people who own old cars which can't use ULP, collectors who can afford the higher fuel prices with using 98 and an additive... and well that might be it. Don't think too many 'poor' people would own something that old given the price of used cars.

Dannn wrote:

sarusa wrote:I only use 98 anyway. Ethanol is used exclusively in some South American countries.
Just maybe, just maybe, haha this will bring prices down a level. As our petrol prices are held in line with oversees prices.
Wonder how they will get around this and how this will stack up.

Wishful thinking my friend!

I was reading an article the other day about movie goers and the exorbitant prices. Apparently we are one of the highest priced ticket fare in the world and even the humble choc top is 4 times as much as it costs in countries like usa etc.

With that in mind, i hope i dont crush your petrol price drop dreams! Haha

lol Realised higher prices in Aus half a century ago. As I only travel about 2,500 TO 3,000KS per year price rise wouldn't matter much to me!!!

aspir3 wrote:Yes the ecu retards the timing and also increases fuel ratio. This is why its not economical running 91. But you seem to know better

Sorry what? I assume you were talking to me, I never said I knew better, in fact I explicitly asked for someone with actual knowledge of the ECU maps to comment on it in regards to both the NA and turbo CJs if possible... Not for someone to be snarky with their belief that everyone should take their word as fact. I don't know why this can't just be an educated discussion.

If the NA CJs retard the ignition timing on 91, should they not then state that only 95/98 can be used in order to not need to retard the ignition timing? This seems to be the case for other cars that do actually require 98.

Sorry no that was directed at you. It was directed to those that say it's not worth spending the extra on 98. Read the thread you will know who it's directed at

aspir3 wrote:Sorry no that was directed at you. It was directed to those that say it's not worth spending the extra on 98. Read the thread you will know who it's directed at

LOL me of course, the NA lancer is not tune from factory for 98 octance fuel, how about you have a look at the timing andf fuel maps and you will see, cars tuned to run 98 will knock as the ecu can only retard the timing so far. if it was the case of them being tuned for 98, they would all knock heavily when you go to wot until the ecu retards the timing enough to conteract

Let's not forget where that ethanol comes from...

Ethanol requirements go up, farmers get more for their crop, so food prices go up due to lower supply (cause we are burning it as fuel as opposed to food). More crops you say? Only so much farmland..

toc wrote:Let's not forget where that ethanol comes from...

Ethanol requirements go up, farmers get more for their crop, so food prices go up due to lower supply (cause we are burning it as fuel as opposed to food). More crops you say? Only so much farmland..

You are very optimistic. If the dairy industry is anything to go by, the will just rip them off for more profit.

Researched the two or one fuel maps, and came up with yes there was two fuel maps in my MY15 ES CJ.
Personally I run exclusively om 98 and have no problems and am completely happy with everything.
Only performance mod to date is a RA snorkel purchased new for $175.
Take a chance with warranty soon with axle-back 2.5" which I have been left to believe is A OK
Then may be a tune!!!

There are two fuel maps. The base map and the tuned map. The car adjusts between the two based on the current fuel. From memory Merlin said there were 256 steps or something... Anyways, the issue with 98 not benefitting new cars like they should is simply because the performance tunes on Australian models is pretty poor. With new cars becoming more sensitive to fuel, especially those that are turbo and direct injected, they really need to get away from 91. The logistics of it means that 98 won't actually cost as much as it does compared to what it does if there were also 91, 95, and E10 unless they were profiteering. The main point would to get rid of 91, 95, and E10, and have just 98 and E10 98 (which is 100 octane). They should also set a minimum quality standard for that 98.

Realistically Australia should be producing all our fuel from gas instead of relying on imports (can be done and is economical for high quality 98 octane). In fact, you can aim for 100 or 105 octane etc since you aren't limited. You can also make it just as easily from biomass.