I have always believed because PULP contains the same amount of energy as ULP you dont get any more "bang" for your buck unless the engine is specifcaly tune (higher comp and altered ign timing) and therefor identical fuel econemy.

ignition timing alone wouldn't be enough to get some more kms from a tank i dont think.

anyone else heard differently?

That was pretty much my understanding however I used to get an additional 50km's from Shell Optimax.

Yep, but only when a set of Pacemakers were installed between drives with ULP & PULP in the tank.

lol lol lol

well when we fill up with unleaded we got 12.3-13L/100 km but filled up with pulp and am getting 11.3L/100km never higher . This is according to the trip computer not sure how accurate it is.

Im the opposite tried 2 tanks of pulp was getting 12.1 with the computer
and the car felt exactly the same,back the normal ulp fuel down to 11.5
thats in a 2002 tj 3.5 auto

I just did an experiment:

50litres of PULP got me 408km
50litres of UPL got me 372km

8.16 k/l @ 95c = 8.58k per $1
7.44 k/l @ 89c = 8.36k per $1

Therefore PULP is actually cheaper for me (as long as the price difference is ~6c) and better for the engine.

1st gen EFI.

Put some Utimate in today,and even jus leaving the petrol station it accelerated heeeps better than normal Unleaded,but it had next to no petrol in the tank dunno!

all we get is 95 and 92 ron up here in the sticks :rant: and even with my car i still dont run pulp cos i dont feel any difference and i run a fairly retarded static advance plus my vacuum operated advance actualy is boost operated and retards on boost. and i have never heard it ping so 92 will do me fine

Im the opposite tried 2 tanks of pulp was getting 12.1 with the computer
and the car felt exactly the same,back the normal ulp fuel down to 11.5
thats in a 2002 tj 3.5 auto

My car tends to do the same, I have tried 2 times and both times I got more km per tank on ULP then I did with PULP (Optimax). :nuts:

But on auto TF with the Unichip I get reasonablly more K's on PULP :D

I don't know if there is any difference in economy for me but i been told its better for the engine, for the extre 6 to 8 cents per litre, i think its worth the money.

Yer,PULP is meant to be better cause it is a Cleaner Fuel and Burns alot cleaner,and Cleans out ur Injectors too,as far as i know.
Any1 use Ultimate 98 here?
It's not bad,thow i would love to use Some Avgas sometime :bouncin:

it also depends on your driving too....
when u have pulp in you might be driving a lil easier or not encountering as much traffic

its the same fuel MAGNA ART one is just more resilient to compression det. same j/kg content

The theory is that without any tuning changes you wont get any better power out of a higher octane fuel. Now, the one catch here is the particular ECU your cars run. Some of them have just the one fuel and ignition map and stick to that (or like carb'd cars eg the charade). Then there are some cars that will move between two fuel and ignition maps depending on the quality of the fuel being used. If they detect knock, then they'll drop back onto the retarded timing map (along with its corresponding fuel map). If you feel no difference then your ECU would be of the former type.

The cars I've driven that have multiple maps, the difference is not huge, but is noticeable. Those that stick to one map, I've never felt a difference.

turbo_charade: You'll need to up the timing to get any benfit.

i find that when i use pulp i have a much worse fuel economy because i want to put my right foot down all the time.

The theory is that without any tuning changes you wont get any better power out of a higher octane fuel. Now, the one catch here is the particular ECU your cars run. Some of them have just the one fuel and ignition map and stick to that (or like carb'd cars eg the charade). Then there are some cars that will move between two fuel and ignition maps depending on the quality of the fuel being used. If they detect knock, then they'll drop back onto the retarded timing map (along with its corresponding fuel map). If you feel no difference then your ECU would be of the former type.

.

I suppose the question begging to be asked is; Are there any Mitsubishi Magnas endowed with dual Fuel and ignition maps in their Ecu?

Speaking for myself, I clock 140km per day over the same territory with virtually no traffic in the way. I generally stick to appx 105kph and routinely get more kays from PULP (about 70kms per tank). Actually I get far more Kays from my TJ Eexc than I did from my Manual TH Sports. I've owned both cars from new and treated them the same maintenance and fuel quality wise (3 weeks on PULP, 1 on ULP. Oil change every 8000-9000kms)

It's not bad,thow i would love to use Some Avgas sometime :bouncin:

Avgas in an EFI car = Big NoNo..........
unless u have too much money and want to change your valves, injectors and anything else u'd burn up in the process.

Avgas has an octane rating of between 120 (cheapy) and 180 (hardcore) .....i know my brother ran Avgas for a while in his 78 toyota Hiace workvan.... a few years back....he could take off in 3rd gear with a full load in the back of his SuperLong wheelbase van. Big Torque......
I remember him getting it for $1.20 a litre, back when petrol was at the 60c mark......i cant imagine what ridiculous price it would be now.

PigsKanFly: Judging by peoples responses....I'd say they do. I'd love to know for sure though.

Samurai: The other thing you'll destroy with avgas is your cat. Then again, they're only (supposed to be) effective for ~6 years or so.

plus remember. if you go country driving you "might" not be able to get PULP

i got no improvenent in power or economy using PULP, idoubt it even helps the environment by burning cleaner either unless u increase compression or spark time.

i saw no gains either way, my car runs piss all boost so its not nessisary for me.

The theory is that without any tuning changes you wont get any better power out of a higher octane fuel. Now, the one catch here is the particular ECU your cars run. Some of them have just the one fuel and ignition map and stick to that (or like carb'd cars eg the charade). Then there are some cars that will move between two fuel and ignition maps depending on the quality of the fuel being used. If they detect knock, then they'll drop back onto the retarded timing map (along with its corresponding fuel map). If you feel no difference then your ECU would be of the former type.

The cars I've driven that have multiple maps, the difference is not huge, but is noticeable. Those that stick to one map, I've never felt a difference.

turbo_charade: You'll need to up the timing to get any benfit.

How do you know if your car uses a fixed map or multiple maps? Mine is a 2000 TJ Auto. Like to find out if PULP works better for me.

Also, what does ECU stands for?

Thanks

ECU = Engine control unit

Determining if your ECU uses multiple maps or not probably wont be so easy. Short of pulling your ECU apart and reading the data stored on it, the only method would be practical testing. The reason that has lead me to beleive (but I'm still not 100% certain) that the V6 camry uses multiple maps, is that there are two distingishable power outputs that the engine will give depending on a few variables. Firstlty, the car is repeatably a good half second quicker 0-100 when running on PULP and very definitely is stronger throughout the whole rev range and has a distinuishably 'sharper' engine note.

Secondly, running on ULP but on a very cool night, when the car hasn't been running long (enough time for the engine to warm up, but not enough to heat soak the engine back and intake piping/manifold) it will run the same times as it would on PULP. This suggests that the cool air is just enough to stave off detonation, keeping the ECU on the more aggressive map.

Now, a 2000 model corolla for example, I see absoloutely no difference between running ULP and PULP.

As I said, I'm not 100% certain, but fairly sure. At the end of the day, if you can see measurable benefits from running PULP, then go for it. Otherwise, don't bother.