On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 11:28:43 -0800, Floyd Rogers wrote:
That's a sad state of affairs that I didn't take into consideration.
Had there been a fact in his reply I would have considered its merit. I
was simply amused by the "because I said so" nature of the reply. He's not
the only person who seems to have made the assumption that my question was
prompted by the price of gas and not my desire to keep my car on the road,
healthy and happy, for many years to come. It's very, very pretty.
I made no such assumption about the money you were willing/able to pay for
My response was in regards to the optimum performance.
Me too. But they help to keep one from looking like a smart ass, or worse.
(You asked a question, then put yourself in a position to look as though you
were arguing with the response; this is worse than a smart ass.)
You didn't ask that.
What you asked was an open ended question that inferred a dispute with the
recommended fuel requirement. I attempted to address the requirement.
Your original question that I replied to made no mention of difference in
American and European fuels. I can go back and get your original post if you
would like ...
You asked, for my opinion on the recommended fuel. My recommendation is, use
what they recommend.
If there is a difference in US and European markets then the
recommendation(s) will be tailored to the market. They will not give
european specs for fuel consumed in USA cars. Where they list specs from
different markets, they will list the appropriate market's spec first, then
give the other market's spec in parenthesis, ie: 5 gallons (20 liters), 1
jinch (25.4mm) 91 Octane (95 RON) -- or whatever the correlation between
octane and RON is.
Put in what they suggest ...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 19:50:13 +0000, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Actually I didn't infer a dispute with the recommended fuel requirement.
I, in fact, stated, in no uncertain terms, conflict and confusion between
opinions about the proper fuel to put in my car and asked for opinions.
How? By the knowledge that people that write such stuff do so after rigorous
testing, ond or compliance to engineering requirements. Technical Writers do
not pull shit out of thin air and put it on paper, they are fed data and/or
engineering requirements, and put that on paper.
If the manufacturer says shit stinks, I do not put my nose in it to see if
they are right. If they tell me the requirement is 91 ocatane, I accept that
It is my opinion that the standard is accurate because I have 15 years
expereince writing technical stuff, and I know that technical writers do not
pull stuff out of thin air and put it on paper. I also know that big-name
companies do not want lies and missrepresentations put onto paper. As a
general rule, they work very hard to ensure there are no errors in the
information that gets put onto paper -- although we all know that errors
make it to print.
Put in what they suggest ...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:37:11 +0000, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter
"NASA lost a $125 million Mars orbiter because a Lockheed Martin
engineering team used English units of measurement while the agency's team
used the more conventional metric system for a key spacecraft operation,
according to a review finding released Thursday."
Care to revise your statement?
Except that as Tom explains in the thread, though his 325i states its
required octane in American standards his BMW motorcycle states its
required octane in European standards.
I'm sure you're a very good technical writer... but I've made no dispute
of the information in the manual. The manual doesn't specify what fuel
standard is being used, you can therefore make no assumption of what
standard is being used.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.