Author Topic: cheveron 94 vs mohawk 94  (Read 1364 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jim martin

  • If something is priced to good to be true ,do yourself a favour. DONT be a IDIOT and BUY IT
  • *
  • Posts: 1406
  • Karma: 1
    • http://www.dialedinperformance.com
cheveron 94 vs mohawk 94
« on: April 27, 2008, 08:33:27 AM »
anyone run both fuels back to back with a head temp guage and a LM1?
interested in head tempature and jetting differences




the 'WOK" June 2006 Hot VW's feature car  9.830 sec at 143.44 mph.
Sponsored by : LUCAS OIL PRODUCTS   www.lucasoil.com
KROC head porting services
Dialedinp

Offline AlanU

  • *
  • Posts: 478
  • Karma: 0
    • http://members.shaw.ca/acvw/index.htm
Re: cheveron 94 vs mohawk 94
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2008, 11:25:07 AM »
I'd find it hard to believe that  E10 would run any cooler than Chevron's 94.

I believe theres less BTU's in mohawk so I dont care to use it. I've had several customers that monitor fuel mileage and claim Mohawk decreased MPG compared to other non ethanol based fuels such as chevron, shell etc etc.


Offline James Buchan

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 6403
  • Karma: -51
Re: cheveron 94 vs mohawk 94
« Reply #2 on: April 27, 2008, 02:13:17 PM »
I ran mohawk once last year and couldnt make 8lbs boost without det.... Chevron only baby.....

Offline dale-j

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 194
  • Karma: 2
  • Steve
Re: cheveron 94 vs mohawk 94
« Reply #3 on: May 22, 2008, 12:44:34 PM »
Ethanol has a lower energy density than gasoline, so it will cause your fuel injected car to get poorer fuel economy - on a properly jetted carburated vehicle it is dangerous, will make it run lean.

I had good results using the Mohawk when I put a pipe on my bike and it ran too rich, until I jetted it properly...but please be aware that it will lean your A/F mixture and can be dangerous.

Steve
0-60 in...umm...can I call you back?