[ForteGT2]

That is an adjustable vacuum advance made by MSD. It is not a factory one where vacuum advance is limited. Regardless, even at 12-degrees, that is far from "highest" at idle as you claimed previously.


No, you disconnect it because you get SOME advance, at idle just not fullest.


There is a lot of debate on that but Holley carbs use ported vacuum high on the metering block specifically for vacuum advance:

Yes, that's a full 30 deg advance (10 initial + 20 mechnical advance), not the 20-22 deg of vacuum advance (10 initial + 10 to 12 vacuum). Your statement that the engine have full advance at idle is wrong.

but thanks for your input...

Full vacuum advance at idle. You are now vindicated.

GM Echlin part number. For GM FACTORY replacement vacuum advance.

P/N ID# Application Starts @ “Hg Max Adv (Distr. Degrees @ “Hg.)

VC1837 AR11 1976 305 Blazer, Exc. Calif 6-8 12.5 @ 10.5-13.5
1976 350/400/455 Pontiac 4-bbl
VC1839 AR13 4-6 12 @ 11-13
VC1840 AR14 1975-76 350/400/455 Pontiac Firebird 6-8 10 @ 9-12
VC1841 AS3 1975-76 500 Cadillac Calif. 5-7 10 @ 13-14
VC1842 AS4 1976 350 Olds Cutlass 5-7 12 @ 13-15
VC1844 AR16 3-5 12 @ 13.5-15.5
VC1845 AS5 1978-79 425 Cadillac w/F.I. 4-6 14 @ 14-16 1977 425 Cadillac
VC1846 AR17 1977 301 Buick Skylark 3-6 13 @ 10-13 1977 301 Pontiac
VC1847 AS6 1978 403 Motor Home 4-6 12 @ 12-14
1977-79 350/403 Buick LeSabre Hi Alt, Riviera,
Olds 1977-79 350/403 Pontiac Hi Alt
VC1848 AR18 4-6 12 @ 9-12
VC1849 AR19 4-6 12 @ 7-10
VC1850 AR20 1977 350/400 Pontiac 4-6 10 @ 8-11
VC1851 AR21 1977-79 350 Buick LeSabre, Century 5-7 12 @ 11-13 1978-79 350 Pontiac
VC1852 AR22 77-78 305/350/400 Chev Truck, Heavy Duty7-9 5 @ 12-14
1975-76 350/400 Chev Truck Heavy Duty
VC1854 AR24 3-5 13 @ 10-13
VC1855 AS7 1977-79 260 Olds Cutlass 3-5 15 @ 10-12
VC1856 AR25 3-6 15 @ 10-14
VC1857 AR26 3-6 12 @ 13-1
VC1865 AR34 1973-74 350 Vette Special Hi Perf 3-5 15 @ 8.5-11.5

BTW vacuum at idle on a Buick 401, 425, 400, 430 and 455 is >14 inches. Which corresponds to FULL advance on the vacuum advance at idle.

 

[Acura_Kal]

I've cleaned up the thread a bit. If people can't stay on-topic without insulting each other or being passive aggressive, I'm just going to shut this thread down.

 

[ForteGT2]

Resurrecting thread...because the forum is too quiet...

I found this while researching fuel additives:

2017 Kia Soul Long-Term Test (caranddriver.com)

It's about the Soul with the 1.6T engine...and 40,000 miles of driving. No reason to believe the Forte GT 1.6T wouldn't behave the same.

 

[BlueStang]

And to think you can post that now without "someone" running in to argue with you about C&D being wrong lol

 

[ForteGT2]

And to think you can post that now without "someone" running in to argue with you about C&D being wrong lol

You have to admit...he made it "lively" on here...LOL!

 

[Chevrasaki]

I stand by my logic. The turbo 1.6L has enough tech and creates enough boost to warrant using 93. But this car also is able to de-tune itself to allow the use of 87 without any harm done, it just saps a bit of the performance and fuel mileage in the process. This all depends on how you drive, if you aren't flooring it all the time, you will likely not notice this difference, but then again, why even get the GT if you're NOT going to floor it all the time.

 

[currantredGT]

Resurrecting thread...because the forum is too quiet...

I found this while researching fuel additives:

2017 Kia Soul Long-Term Test (caranddriver.com)

View attachment 84099
It's about the Soul with the 1.6T engine...and 40,000 miles of driving. No reason to believe the Forte GT 1.6T wouldn't behave the same.

That is why I like to do my own testings lol

6.3s are extremely difficult to get, even when I was running 93 (I am still running the mid grade stuff)...


Ive not done anymore runs because weather has been crap even during night time (damn humid)...

Like I said in post #70, your biggest enemy is traction, temps, DA.

Ill be retesting, though, when temps improve to see if somehow I've gotten slower over times....

There was a guy here that made a post asking about 1/4 mile times as he did a 15ish @91 mph, or something like that...running 93.
SOOOOOO MANY factors that influence performance. Personally, Ive yet to see a trap speed of 91 mph on this car...lowest has been 93.5 mph with either 93 and 89.

This car is, on average, a 6.4-6.6 sec car...when the stars align and everything is great a 6.3 sec is possible. (DCT)

 

[El Spicoli]

I tried running biodiesel, that was a mistake.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

 

[ForteGT2]

I stand by my logic. The turbo 1.6L has enough tech and creates enough boost to warrant using 93. But this car also is able to de-tune itself to allow the use of 87 without any harm done, it just saps a bit of the performance and fuel mileage in the process. This all depends on how you drive, if you aren't flooring it all the time, you will likely not notice this difference, but then again, why even get the GT if you're NOT going to floor it all the time.

I agree - if you want to pump in 87 Octane your car will do fine, it will detune when it needs to to keep pre-ignition from occurring.. If you want max power you will need to use higher octane gas.

Telling people they shouldn't use higher octane gas because it cost more is like telling people to just get a hamburger at a classy Steak House because the steak costs more...LOL!

 

[Hamster-GT]

I don't have any quantitative measurements, but, I can tell there is a slight difference enough for me to stick with 91 octane. The higher octane is also a preventative measure to reduce detonation. Also, with all the hills, stop and go, and high speed California freeways, my mpg is higher compared to 87 octane.

 

[currantredGT]

what was the point of resurrecting this thread again? lol

To those saying they feel a difference between octanes, I have been providing data showing there is none...lol I guess that don't matter... I have no idea about mpg's cuz I don't really track that.

In terms of longevity, well, you'd have to compare at certain intervals how one 1.6t is holding up at 25k, 50k, 80k miles, etc. premium 91+ vs non premium, no?. How about looking at the of the avg driver who doesn't install a catch can and one who does? (GDI issues that alone might kill performance if not maintained properly - using synthetic, changing oil frequently, quality of fuel regardless of octane?).

 

[ForteGT2]

what was the point of resurrecting this thread again? lol

To those saying they feel a difference between octanes, I have been providing data showing there is none...lol I guess that don't matter... I have no idea about mpg's cuz I don't really track that.

In terms of longevity, well, you'd have to compare at certain intervals how one 1.6t is holding up at 25k, 50k, 80k miles, etc. premium 91+ vs non premium, no?. How about looking at the of the avg driver who doesn't install a catch can and one who does? (GDI issues that alone might kill performance if not maintained properly - using synthetic, changing oil frequently, quality of fuel regardless of octane?).

I won't say you're wrong and I won't tell someone who says they feel a difference that they are wrong. I accept everyone's opinion because that's what they think, feel, and believe based on THEIR experience. It does not have to be right or wrong.

I also don't believe in being so righteous that I can tell someone else what octane fuel they should use.

 

[Hamster-GT]

When you have fuel reformulated to burn cleaner while reducing mpg and power, higher octane can make a difference. California, Arizona, and Nevada has horrible gasoline. I'm not surprised that you really didn't find much difference and since you have 93, you are probably in the midwest or east coast where the fuel is better at making power than Cali gas. i bet your mid grade is just as good as our 91.

 

[currantredGT]

I won't say you're wrong and I won't tell someone who says they feel a difference that they are wrong. I accept everyone's opinion because that's what they think, feel, and believe based on THEIR experience. It does not have to be right or wrong.

I also don't believe in being so righteous that I can tell someone else what octane fuel they should use.

I never made any post here telling ppl what they should fuel up with. At all times I've been saying that I started out w/ 93 octane but decided to try 89 blah blah to see if there's a difference in performance. I am not the other guy who calls everyone names. No sir. I am not trying to be so righteous in trying to tell ANYONE what they should fuel up with. But to continue to say that this car will, in fact, be faster on 93, it's not correct. I provided runs at different speeds/pulls, 0-60s, trap speeds, showing no difference - any difference attributed to road conditions/slope, temps/da, traction. But not with 87, maybe my 89 is good 89....like Hamster-GT said. IDK. 2 octanes above 87 2 octanes away from 91....

I like data. I like being able to see numbers. Test things....see results...and share...I'm sorry that some people might have taken that as me trying to be "self-righteous" and trying to tell ppl what to use. In my point of view, if someone says they feel their car is faster on 93 but nothing backs up that statement then, yes, I'd hope anyone would say something....maybe some ppl don't like it bc it conflicts with what they originally thought. All I am doing is backing up my statement(s) with some evidence. I hope I am not doing anything wrong.

Anyway.....till nxt time.

 

[ForteGT2]

I never made any post here telling ppl what they should fuel up with. At all times I've been saying that I started out w/ 93 octane but decided to try 89 blah blah to see if there's a difference in performance. I am not the other guy who calls everyone names. No sir. I am not trying to be so righteous in trying to tell ANYONE what they should fuel up with. But to continue to say that this car will, in fact, be faster on 93, it's not correct. I provided runs at different speeds/pulls, 0-60s, trap speeds, showing no difference - any difference attributed to road conditions/slope, temps/da, traction. But not with 87, maybe my 89 is good 89....like Hamster-GT said. IDK. 2 octanes above 87 2 octanes away from 91....

I like data. I like being able to see numbers. Test things....see results...and share...I'm sorry that some people might have taken that as me trying to be "self-righteous" and trying to tell ppl what to use. In my point of view, if someone says they feel their car is faster on 93 but nothing backs up that statement then, yes, I'd hope anyone would say something....maybe some ppl don't like it bc it conflicts with what they originally thought. All I am doing is backing up my statement(s) with some evidence. I hope I am not doing anything wrong.

Anyway.....till nxt time.

It's all good! I was talking about me and not accusing you of anything. I accept what you say - again it's your experience. Car and Driver reports differently. The fact that you don't see any changes makes this confusing.

Maybe the gas you're buying isn't what you think it is? Maybe you're buying 91 octane but pumping in 89 octane?

 

[TRUBOOST]

The only difference between 87 octane and 93 on this car is that those buying 93 are spending too much money for nothing in return. There is no added performance, no added MPG, and the old wives tale that it keeps you engine cleaner is not true at all with modern gasoline. Some people are stuck in their ways and insist its better. This cars computer does nothing with it. So..... yeah.

 

[ForteGT2]

The only difference between 87 octane and 93 on this car is that those buying 93 are spending too much money for nothing in return. There is no added performance, no added MPG, and the old wives tale that it keeps you engine cleaner is not true at all with modern gasoline. Some people are stuck in their ways and insist its better. This cars computer does nothing with it. So..... yeah.

Please tell "Car and Driver" they don't know what they're talking about:

40,000 Miles in a 2017 Kia Soul Turbo Proves Its Usefulness

The Kia Soul is convenient and nicely packaged, but we have some misgivings, mostly with the transmission.

www.caranddriver.com

"Test Results
Our initial test of the Soul found about a half-second difference in the zero-to-60-mph time between using regular and premium-grade fuel (the 6.3-second figure in our specs is the result on 93 octane). At the end of our test, the car performed similarly to when new, with most measures improving by 0.1 second, which surprised us only in that we'd noticed a steadily worsening slippage in the dual-clutch automatic transmission that made for subjectively less satisfying launches, with an early 1-2 upshift. Perhaps the performance would have improved more had the gearbox stayed as sharp as it was when new. At higher revs in higher gears, the transmission was less of a concern, and getting the Soul to 120 mph took 1.4 seconds less than it had at first."

 

[TRUBOOST]

Please tell "Car and Driver" they don't know what they're talking about:

40,000 Miles in a 2017 Kia Soul Turbo Proves Its Usefulness

The Kia Soul is convenient and nicely packaged, but we have some misgivings, mostly with the transmission.

www.caranddriver.com

"Test Results
Our initial test of the Soul found about a half-second difference in the zero-to-60-mph time between using regular and premium-grade fuel (the 6.3-second figure in our specs is the result on 93 octane). At the end of our test, the car performed similarly to when new, with most measures improving by 0.1 second, which surprised us only in that we'd noticed a steadily worsening slippage in the dual-clutch automatic transmission that made for subjectively less satisfying launches, with an early 1-2 upshift. Perhaps the performance would have improved more had the gearbox stayed as sharp as it was when new. At higher revs in higher gears, the transmission was less of a concern, and getting the Soul to 120 mph took 1.4 seconds less than it had at first."

Could have been anything. There have been dyno tests showing zero gain in peak or under the curve power. I have a million data logs of both fuel that I tested. There is no added timing, fuel or anything else that would make power. The car is super sensitive to air inlet temp changes, steering angle, traction control response and just about everything else. I have seen 0-60 times vary by over a full second on the same day with the same tank of gas. Times can be a fluke.... dyno numbers and computer logs are absolute.

 

[ForteGT2]

Could have been anything. There have been dyno tests showing zero gain in peak or under the curve power. I have a million data logs of both fuel that I tested. There is no added timing, fuel or anything else that would make power. The car is super sensitive to air inlet temp changes, steering angle, traction control response and just about everything else. I have seen 0-60 times vary by over a full second on the same day with the same tank of gas. Times can be a fluke.... dyno numbers and computer logs are absolute.

"Dyno tests" are NOT road tests. Revving an engine to 2000 RPM on a dyno and then "aggressively" pushing the throttle to WOT is NOT the same as FLOORING it from a dead stop. PROVES NOTHING.

A million data logs? Please post them for all to see.

At 50 cents a gallon more, 10 gallons costs $5.00 more. SO WHAT? Just don't buy a pack of cigarettes.

It is a fact that this car will reduce timing when it detects preignition - that's why it only requires "87 octane OR HIGHER". Having a higher octane fuel will alleviate the reduced timing - giving you more horsepower.

You don't have a pseudo-name, like NovaResource, do you?

 

[TRUBOOST]

"Dyno tests" are NOT road tests. Revving an engine to 2000 RPM on a dyno and then "aggressively" pushing the throttle to WOT is NOT the same as FLOORING it from a dead stop. PROVES NOTHING.

A million data logs? Please post them for all to see.

At 50 cents a gallon more, 10 gallons costs $5.00 more. SO WHAT? Just don't buy a pack of cigarettes.

It is a fact that this car will reduce timing when it detects preignition - that's why it only requires "87 octane OR HIGHER". Having a higher octane fuel will alleviate the reduced timing - giving you more horsepower.

You don't have a pseudo-name, like NovaResource, do you?

View attachment 84484

"Dyno tests" are NOT road tests. Revving an engine to 2000 RPM on a dyno and then "aggressively" pushing the throttle to WOT is NOT the same as FLOORING it from a dead stop. PROVES NOTHING.

A million data logs? Please post them for all to see.

At 50 cents a gallon more, 10 gallons costs $5.00 more. SO WHAT? Just don't buy a pack of cigarettes.

It is a fact that this car will reduce timing when it detects preignition - that's why it only requires "87 octane OR HIGHER". Having a higher octane fuel will alleviate the reduced timing - giving you more horsepower.

You don't have a pseudo-name, like NovaResource, do you?

View attachment 84484

Key word will pull timing IF pre-ignition... aka knock is detected. But it really never does. The exception is during very cold weather with big boost spikes. But its really rare. I can dig out some logs to post. I have them on my laptop, not with me. The cost doesnt bother me at all when something is gained. I have an ecoboost mustang as well. That car makes HUGE gains on premium gas. The forte just.... doesnt. I know for a fact that there is no timing pulled on 87 octane in almost all conditions. There is also no timing added when switching to 93. The fuel trims do change slightly, but the only change that results is injector timing. Not duty cycle or ignition timing.