Performance fuel

[monkeyhanger]

The ECU doesn't throw more fuel in on a RON95 optimised car if RON98 fuel were to be detected. As RON98 fuel is no more calorific than RON95 fuel, the output does not increase in using the same amount of RON98 fuel. If it did, the car would have 2 published outputs - 1 for RON95 usage and 1 for RON98 usage. TCR/CSS/R need more fuel to achieve 290/300/310ps than a GTI performance needs to achieve 245ps output. The amount of fuel a GTI Performance needs to max out can be handled without pinking, using RON95 fuel. Not the case for TCR/CSS/R - hence they need to use RON98 fuel.

How do you get these torque and power figures from the ECU without the need of a dyno. Genuinely interested in finding out what my car does without putting it on a dyno. VCDS? OBD11?

Min values on fuel cap to denote minimum RON value. There's no insinuation in any VW literature that you'll increase your bhp with higher octane fuels, and certainly not 21% over stock. If your car is performing that well, it'll be down to VW understating published output and having been run in well.

I used a stand alone device called Autopolar which connected to the OBD port & read the data...I have full unlimited VIN VCDS which will do the same...there is another device called Vector (I think) which will do the same....the data has always been there...there is a thread on an Audi forum that's years old which went into details of creating Excel spreadsheets for logging in VCDS for bhp & torque & creating graphs...eg dyno sheets...

Back to fuels & ECUs

The ECU is programmed with the various responses to the available fuels in its sales country, this is why it states the "95RON MIN" or "98RON MIN".....& other countries for the same engine will state "91RON MIN".

The ECU is written with a lot of parameters, & most of the fueling is controlled by two main parameters, knock sensors (pre-detonation)..& Lambda levels..(% scub of the exhaust gases registered between the two Lambda sensors).

Basically & simply put it has no idea what fuel you have put in, but it LOOKS at how the fuel has combusted, in the terms of two questions:- "can I advance/retard the timing & how much before I get knock?"...The second question it asks is "is the burn/emissions within the stochiometric parameters?".

The higher the octane rating the HARDER it is for the fuel to ignite.....this means LESS auto-detonation….(knock)...this also means more heat & energy is required to ignite it..this is why better ignition systems are required..with a more powerful & open spark.

Conversely it means that when the engine is hot & under load & at higher rpm, the ECU can better "open up" the timing/fueling until it hits the prewritten parameter end values in the ECU data by using a cleaner & more COMPLETE burn fuel like 98RON...compared to 95RON...

This is why in my car running Vpower (used as an example) it now generates MORE %BHP than torque increase over factory....its working rate has improved more, but the FORCE twisting the crankshaft (torque) has not increased much....thus the car is more responsive when you floor it....

I completely get what you're saying, but it's as much about the chemistry of combustion as the engineering of the car.

There's no way you can seriously attribute your 1.4 Golf apparently overperforming by 21% to the use of RON98 fuel. You are completely over-egging the marginal benefits of a slightly higher compression burn which is offset by higher octane fuel being slightly less calorific (this is why most cars aren't set up to run RON98 - there are no real mpg gains).

If using RON98 fuel were the holy grail of better fuel economy and far better power output for the same amount of fuel in, all the cars would be running on RON98, you'd effectively be getting a free remap. The R and TCR would have better economy figures than the GTI Performance if geared with the same ratios, and CO2 levels would be lower as derived from the WLTP test cycle.

Those GTI performance 245ps would be quoted as 245/295ps depending on fuel used. They're not

Unlike diesel, petrol (whether RON95 or RON98) evaporates easily within the cylinder, dispersing and mixing evenly with the air, That air/fuel mix ignites easily under spark for a complete burn, whether that be RON95 fuel:air mix compressed 10.5:1 or RON99 fuel:air mix compressed 12:1. The alkane hydrocarbon chains (C6 to C10 Allan's, average C8 i.e. Octane) in either petrol variant are the same, but in RON98, a small amount of them are replaced with compounds that are much less volatile (like ethanol). They absorb the extra heat from the slightly higher compression to prevent preignition under the higher temp and pressure  - those hydrocarbon chains making up the bulk of the chemical energy in the fuel are no more energetic.  Combustion of RON95 under RON95 engine parameters or RON98 under RON98 both lead to a clean and complete burn due to how easily those air:fuel mixes combust. If that wasn't the case, those RON95 optimised cars would need bigger GPFs and perhaps those set up for RON98 wouldn't need one at all. We all know that isn't the case - my 2015 Golf R running solely on RON99 fuel had very sooty tailpipes.

This isn't the case with diesel. With a higher average molecular weight and stronger bonds, you need a hell of a lot more heat and pressure to combust that larger average molecule. The thermal expansion of the excess air under much higher temperature and pressure contributes a lot to diesel mpg - diesel is only 8% more energy dense than petrol, yet yields 30-50% more kinetic energy.

So back to the timing/antiknock issue.

In a RON95 optimised car, timing advance only goes so far, far enough to ensure it is advanced enough not to allow preignition of RON95 fuel and no further. There are no tangible advantages for the car to advance timing to allow RON99 to get to the verge of preignition.

The RON98 optimised engines need the capability to run RON95 under RON95 optimised conditions to avoid preignition, so they have a wider range of timing adjustment to suit RON95 and RON98 in the EU. The opposite is not true. You don't need to advance timing to combust RON98 under RON95 conditions, so no harm done.

The cars set up for RON99 have engine component differences to cope with the slightly higher temperatures and pressure -stiffer piston rods, higher level of silicon in cylinder heads for better heat resistance harder, harder piston crowns and valves etc. If VW had engineered their RON95 optimised engines to run under RON98 conditions when fuelled with RON98, they'd all have more resilient components as you see on the higher output engines. They don't, and so VW don't give their RON95 optimised engines the ability to run as a RON98 optimised engine with RON98 fuel.

RON98 optimisation is for higher output variants of engines to get a higher level of fuelling and achieve their higher output without preignition - nothing more than that.

RON95 optimised cars are not built for the higher temp and pressure that RON98 optimised cars run at, so they are not set up to reoptimise themselves for RON98 fuel if they are supplied it.

[golfdave]

I completely get what you're saying, but it's as much about the chemistry of combustion as the engineering of the car.

There's no way you can seriously attribute your 1.4 Golf apparently overperforming by 21% to the use of RON98 fuel. You are completely over-egging the marginal benefits of a slightly higher compression burn which is offset by higher octane fuel being slightly less calorific (this is why most cars aren't set up to run RON98 - there are no real mpg gains).

If using RON98 fuel were the holy grail of better fuel economy and far better power output for the same amount of fuel in, all the cars would be running on RON98, you'd effectively be getting a free remap. The R and TCR would have better economy figures than the GTI Performance if geared with the same ratios, and CO2 levels would be lower as derived from the WLTP test cycle.

Those GTI performance 245ps would be quoted as 245/295ps depending on fuel used. They're not

Unlike diesel, petrol (whether RON95 or RON98) evaporates easily within the cylinder, dispersing and mixing evenly with the air, That air/fuel mix ignites easily under spark for a complete burn, whether that be RON95 fuel:air mix compressed 10.5:1 or RON99 fuel:air mix compressed 12:1. The alkane hydrocarbon chains (C6 to C10 Allan's, average C8 i.e. Octane) in either petrol variant are the same, but in RON98, a small amount of them are replaced with compounds that are much less volatile (like ethanol). They absorb the extra heat from the slightly higher compression to prevent preignition under the higher temp and pressure  - those hydrocarbon chains making up the bulk of the chemical energy in the fuel are no more energetic.  Combustion of RON95 under RON95 engine parameters or RON98 under RON98 both lead to a clean and complete burn due to how easily those air:fuel mixes combust. If that wasn't the case, those RON95 optimised cars would need bigger GPFs and perhaps those set up for RON98 wouldn't need one at all. We all know that isn't the case - my 2015 Golf R running solely on RON99 fuel had very sooty tailpipes.

This isn't the case with diesel. With a higher average molecular weight and stronger bonds, you need a hell of a lot more heat and pressure to combust that larger average molecule. The thermal expansion of the excess air under much higher temperature and pressure contributes a lot to diesel mpg - diesel is only 8% more energy dense than petrol, yet yields 30-50% more kinetic energy.

So back to the timing/antiknock issue.

In a RON95 optimised car, timing advance only goes so far, far enough to ensure it is advanced enough not to allow preignition of RON95 fuel and no further. There are no tangible advantages for the car to advance timing to allow RON99 to get to the verge of preignition.

The RON98 optimised engines need the capability to run RON95 under RON95 optimised conditions to avoid preignition, so they have a wider range of timing adjustment to suit RON95 and RON98 in the EU. The opposite is not true. You don't need to advance timing to combust RON98 under RON95 conditions, so no harm done.

The cars set up for RON99 have engine component differences to cope with the slightly higher temperatures and pressure -stiffer piston rods, higher level of silicon in cylinder heads for better heat resistance harder, harder piston crowns and valves etc. If VW had engineered their RON95 optimised engines to run under RON98 conditions when fuelled with RON98, they'd all have more resilient components as you see on the higher output engines. They don't, and so VW don't give their RON95 optimised engines the ability to run as a RON98 optimised engine with RON98 fuel.

RON98 optimisation is for higher output variants of engines to get a higher level of fuelling and achieve their higher output without preignition - nothing more than that.

RON95 optimised cars are not built for the higher temp and pressure that RON98 optimised cars run at, so they are not set up to reoptimise themselves for RON98 fuel if they are supplied it.

You say you "get what I'm saying...then go of at a tangent, then go back & reiterate in a different whey what I'm saying & then disagree with that I'm saying....


Plenty of "95" RON marked MK7 Golfs like GTI have been dyno'd before remaps...many run on 98RON & many run on 95RON...& a general trend is that those on 98RON BEFORE remapping make MORE BHP than those just on 95RON...simple plain facts...98RON does make more BHP

If as you state that there is no benefit of running a 95RON marked car on 98RON & that it couldn't cope as it isn't built for it as the internal components are not as heat/strength resistant….then please explain the masses of cars & MK7 GTIs which are successfully running 98RON stage 1 maps (ECU end stops on data parameters opened up) with no other alterations to them & are making more BHP than your "98RON specific" R....& reliably...

VW will write the ECU data for both 95 & 98RON for a 95RON marked car......the car will make more use of 98RON under high load, high rpm conditions compared to using 95RON fuel...the ECU data parameters will allow this.....

UPTO the point that it causes problems with the engine due to high thermal load/damage & the safety end stops on the data intervene…….your 98RON "specific" as it has extra strengthening will have wider parameters written into the ECU as it can physically cope with the extra heat...…

Higher octane allows the ECU to use the full parameter range that is written in....

In simple diagrammatic terms to use as an example...say on a scale of 1 to 10....91RON fuel has ECU parameters in the range 1-3...95RON is 4-7...& 98RON is 8-10...….

The car with "91RON min" on the fuel flap will have values written unto it from 1-10 to cope will all the fuels knock & combustion responses in that engine...BUT the ECU will wind back/reduce from the "10" value in certain rpm & load  conditions because the engine cannot physically cope with the heat etc...…

The car with "98RON" on the fuel flap will only have values from 8-10 written on it, but because the engine can physically cope with the heat etc there will be NO winding/reducing the values back as a safety net....

I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you to understand...

PS I never attributed the whole % gain in my car just to the fuel I stated that its just the drop in ITG filter & the fuel...but you state that it can't be the fuel...therefore the gain must be just the filter (according to you)...these filters don't make that much gain... & unfortunately these cars don't make a big % over book when run in on plain 95RON......so it is both the 98RON fuel & the air filter which makes the big % gain in bhp in my car.....

[monkeyhanger]

You say you "get what I'm saying...then go of at a tangent, then go back & reiterate in a different whey what I'm saying & then disagree with that I'm saying....


Plenty of "95" RON marked MK7 Golfs like GTI have been dyno'd before remaps...many run on 98RON & many run on 95RON...& a general trend is that those on 98RON BEFORE remapping make MORE BHP than those just on 95RON...simple plain facts...98RON does make more BHP

If as you state that there is no benefit of running a 95RON marked car on 98RON & that it couldn't cope as it isn't built for it as the internal components are not as heat/strength resistant….then please explain the masses of cars & MK7 GTIs which are successfully running 98RON stage 1 maps (ECU end stops on data parameters opened up) with no other alterations to them & are making more BHP than your "98RON specific" R....& reliably...

VW will write the ECU data for both 95 & 98RON for a 95RON marked car......the car will make more use of 98RON under high load, high rpm conditions compared to using 95RON fuel...the ECU data parameters will allow this.....

UPTO the point that it causes problems with the engine due to high thermal load/damage & the safety end stops on the data intervene…….your 98RON "specific" as it has extra strengthening will have wider parameters written into the ECU as it can physically cope with the extra heat...…

Higher octane allows the ECU to use the full parameter range that is written in....

In simple diagrammatic terms to use as an example...say on a scale of 1 to 10....91RON fuel has ECU parameters in the range 1-3...95RON is 4-7...& 98RON is 8-10...….

The car with "91RON min" on the fuel flap will have values written unto it from 1-10 to cope will all the fuels knock & combustion responses in that engine...BUT the ECU will wind back/reduce from the "10" value in certain rpm & load  conditions because the engine cannot physically cope with the heat etc...…

The car with "98RON" on the fuel flap will only have values from 8-10 written on it, but because the engine can physically cope with the heat etc there will be NO winding/reducing the values back as a safety net....

I don't know how much simpler I can make it for you to understand...

PS I never attributed the whole % gain in my car just to the fuel I stated that its just the drop in ITG filter & the fuel...but you state that it can't be the fuel...therefore the gain must be just the filter (according to you)...these filters don't make that much gain... & unfortunately these cars don't make a big % over book when run in on plain 95RON......so it is both the 98RON fuel & the air filter which makes the big % gain in bhp in my car.....

I know those filters make next to nowt - 1% if you're lucky - they're pretty pointless at stock power. The MAF ensures that stoichiometric air to fuel ratio is  maintained and the stock filter is more than capable of supplying all the air needed, even at the end of its service life and partially blocked. So if you are attributing your 21% overperformance to fuel and filter and acknowledge that the filter is doing next to nowt, then the fuel must be responsible for almost all that gain.

There is no-one here in this forum with their RON95 optimised GTI PP who were putting in RON95 and are now putting in V-Power or Momentum99 and claiming TCR rivalling performance. At best they claim slightly smoother running and marginal gains that are small enough to be placebo effect

No way is your unmodified (save for the filter) 140ps 1.4 making 167ps because of your use of RON98/99. I doubt it's making more than 150-155ps, and that'll be due to a good run in and VW conservative stock figures.

The fact that 230ps GTIs are remapped to 300ps without failing immediately (apart from manual clutch failure) means nothing to your argument. VW maintain an engineering standard relative to stock power, to ensure it can cope, with some margin. If VW thought that their stock 230 PP could make 20% extra power simply by switching from RON95 to RON99, they'd ensure it had the same internals as the R and TCR. Otherwise, why do they make the R and TCR engine with hardier materials with better heat resistance? Why would they bin your warranty if they know you're remapping? Its because your stock car has been designed to run at stock levels (inclusive of some natural variance), and not at 20%+ of reported stock output.

An R puts out 22% more power than a 245 Performance because its using 20%+ more fuel at full tilt, not because the RON98 fuel is deriving 22% more power per volume than RON95.

Some simple questions for you to answer:

1. Why do 245 Performance GTI owners bother with a remap when (according to you) they can just put RON99 fuel in and one of your filters (which you admit does next to nowt) to get 295ps?

2. Why don't VW publish performance and economy figures for both fuel types if a RON95 optimised 245ps GTI can run like a TCR  if you feed it RON99?

3. Why would anyone buy a 290ps TCR, running RON99 when they could buy a 245 performance and fill it with RON99 instead of RON95 to get 295ps?

4. Why aren't TCRs more economical than 245 GTIs on the WLTP testing cycle, with lower CO2 emissions to match, if you think that combustion of RON98/99 fuel is so much more efficient than combusting RON95 fuel (even accounting for slight weight differences between the 2)?

5. Why do VW. make the TCR/R/CSS engine variants with more robust and heat resistant internals, bigger intercoolers etc. if the 245 GTI is capable from stock of matching it for power if you give it RON99 fuel?

I'd like to know what your answers are to the above.

My answer to all of the above is that a 20% gain in power for using RON99 on a RON95 optimised car is bollocks and that a RON95 optimised car processes higher RON fuels the same way as it would RON95, with a timing setting to suit RON95. If there are any marginal gains, they will be because the timing is advanced to the top end of the RON95 range, with that RON99 fuel being combusted as an ideal RON95 fuel. Those gains will be tiny, like seeing slightly smoother running at the top end because the fuel is nowhere near the cusp of preignition when it is spark ignited, no meaningful bhp or mpg gains. Certainly nowhere near enough to justify the additional cost.

Your argument is based on the premise that your car would be running 140ps on RON95 fuel but is running 169ps/167bhp on RON99 and a largely superfluous filter.

You also assume that running under slightly higher temps/pressures as per a true RON98 optimised car is significantly more efficient. It isn't - it's a tiny step towards the way diesels operate under much higher temperature and pressure, a tiny step, whilst using fuel that is slightly less calorific than RON95.

[hog_hedge]

I think I might go and get a job in the fuel industry after gaining all of this knowledge. This lockdown is affecting people in weird and wonderful ways

[golfdave]

I know those filters make next to nowt - 1% if you're lucky - they're pretty pointless at stock power. The MAF ensures that stoichiometric air to fuel ratio is  maintained and the stock filter is more than capable of supplying all the air needed, even at the end of its service life and partially blocked. So if you are attributing your 21% overperformance to fuel and filter and acknowledge that the filter is doing next to nowt, then the fuel must be responsible for almost all that gain.

There is no-one here in this forum with their RON95 optimised GTI PP who were putting in RON95 and are now putting in V-Power or Momentum99 and claiming TCR rivalling performance. At best they claim slightly smoother running and marginal gains that are small enough to be placebo effect

No way is your unmodified (save for the filter) 140ps 1.4 making 167ps because of your use of RON98/99. I doubt it's making more than 150-155ps, and that'll be due to a good run in and VW conservative stock figures.

The fact that 230ps GTIs are remapped to 300ps without failing immediately (apart from manual clutch failure) means nothing to your argument. VW maintain an engineering standard relative to stock power, to ensure it can cope, with some margin. If VW thought that their stock 230 PP could make 20% extra power simply by switching from RON95 to RON99, they'd ensure it had the same internals as the R and TCR. Otherwise, why do they make the R and TCR engine with hardier materials with better heat resistance? Why would they bin your warranty if they know you're remapping? Its because your stock car has been designed to run at stock levels (inclusive of some natural variance), and not at 20%+ of reported stock output.

An R puts out 22% more power than a 245 Performance because its using 20%+ more fuel at full tilt, not because the RON98 fuel is deriving 22% more power per volume than RON95.

Some simple questions for you to answer:

1. Why do 245 Performance GTI owners bother with a remap when (according to you) they can just put RON99 fuel in and one of your filters (which you admit does next to nowt) to get 295ps?

2. Why don't VW publish performance and economy figures for both fuel types if a RON95 optimised 245ps GTI can run like a TCR  if you feed it RON99?

3. Why would anyone buy a 290ps TCR, running RON99 when they could buy a 245 performance and fill it with RON99 instead of RON95 to get 295ps?

4. Why aren't TCRs more economical than 245 GTIs on the WLTP testing cycle, with lower CO2 emissions to match, if you think that combustion of RON98/99 fuel is so much more efficient than combusting RON95 fuel (even accounting for slight weight differences between the 2)?

5. Why do VW. make the TCR/R/CSS engine variants with more robust and heat resistant internals, bigger intercoolers etc. if the 245 GTI is capable from stock of matching it for power if you give it RON99 fuel?

I'd like to know what your answers are to the above.

My answer to all of the above is that a 20% gain in power for using RON99 on a RON95 optimised car is bollocks and that a RON95 optimised car processes higher RON fuels the same way as it would RON95, with a timing setting to suit RON95. If there are any marginal gains, they will be because the timing is advanced to the top end of the RON95 range, with that RON99 fuel being combusted as an ideal RON95 fuel. Those gains will be tiny, like seeing slightly smoother running at the top end because the fuel is nowhere near the cusp of preignition when it is spark ignited, no meaningful bhp or mpg gains. Certainly nowhere near enough to justify the additional cost.

Your argument is based on the premise that your car would be running 140ps on RON95 fuel but is running 169ps/167bhp on RON99 and a largely superfluous filter.

You also assume that running under slightly higher temps/pressures as per a true RON98 optimised car is significantly more efficient. It isn't - it's a tiny step towards the way diesels operate under much higher temperature and pressure, a tiny step, whilst using fuel that is slightly less calorific than RON95.

Please make up your mind re my car, is it the 98RON fuel, the air filter or like that from the factory??..

You forget I stated that dyno runs of these engines (in for remaps) have shown that from factory on 98RON they make more than 95RON cars…BEFORE remapping….& that I am still making slightly more due to air filter & possibly running in method etc…

Now you are also stating that quote:- “No way is your unmodified (save for the filter) 140ps 1.4 making 167ps because of your use of RON98/99. I doubt it's making more than 150-155ps, and that'll be due to a good run in and VW conservative stock figures.”

Yet I explained to you how to do the data read outs from the engine ECU as you wanted to know how it was possible…as you did not know this was possible.

Your whole arguments re the 2lt engines in the GTI & R….Quote:- “”An R puts out 22% more power than a 245 Performance because its using 20%+ more fuel at full tilt, not because the RON98 fuel is deriving 22% more power per volume than RON95””.

The main reason it makes more power….R & Clubsport are fitted with a bigger IS38 turbo….which is why it also has the additional lower front coolers….the other 2lt engines just have the smaller IS20 turbo….without the additional lower bumper mount coolers…

The reasons that VW make & over engineer is to provide an engine which can cope with +40C outside heat with air-con at max & a person flooring it up a steep road & the heat soaking it..again & again…..right down to -40C cold & idling basically to cope with world wide environmental demands….go research how they test the cars…..

You are changing your tack, ignoring actual facts about the engines, & are getting totally confused….I can’t explain anything any clearer to you...

[monkeyhanger]

^ No confusion at all.

You claim that your stock (save for the air filter) 1.4 Golf is putting out 21% more than stock because you've done some indirect calculations to get to that figure.

You say your car is making 21% over stock because you use RON98 fuel.

You say that a Golf R makes 22% more because it has a bigger (IS38) turbo than the performance GTI (IS20) and bigger intakes. They certainly help, but we know that a remapped GTI can make 300ps with stock IS20 (which will be working harder than it was before) and no intake mods.

So your car can uniquely make 21% over book output by dropping in a superfluous air filter, but being otherwise stock hardware and feeding it RON98, yet the same doesn't apply for the Golf GTI 230/245 because it doesn't have the R/TCR's additional/improved hardware?

The ECU has a map for the car that governs all kinds of parameters with an end goal of achieving it's stated output or thereabouts as economically and cleanly as possible. A RON95 optimised car doesn't have a +20% power function for when it's being fed RON98. If it is meant to make 140ps, it'll make 140ps or thereabouts because the ECU won't allow massive overfuelling to make that extra 20% just because you're using RON98 in a RON95 optimised car.

It would need a completely different WLTP test economy set of figures and CO2 rating when running RON98 in the way you imagine it happens.

Who wouldn't buy RON98 fuel at 10% premium over RON95 to gain 20% more power? You'll put the remap companies out of business.

It's clear we're not going to come to any agreement, so you carry on thinking your car is really running 21% over book because you're running it with a fuel it is not optimised for, and I'll keep thinking otherwise because I believe you don't get 20% more power than stock without remapping and consuming 20%+ more fuel in the process.

For everyone else without a TCR/R/CS/CSS, forget paying for remaps, just fill up on Momentum 99! 

I used to fill my R exclusively with Momentum 99 until my local Costco got a filling station and I then switched to their own RON99 fuel which was just as good.

When we got our first Polo GTI (2.0TSI EA888 3b, 200ps 320Nm, without GPF), I started filling it with the Costco RON99 stuff, for the first 5 tanks/1400 miles. I switched to Costco's RON95 and there was no difference in performance, my mpg improved a little on RON95, not enough to be conclusive - 1mpg, could be natural variation accounting for that. No gains in using RON99 with that engine.at all. It's basically a detuned Golf GTI engine with IS20 turbo, retains port injection and has the Audi valve lift tech on the inlet side to facilitate a high effective compression ratio with a very lean mix under low loads for better low load fuel economy (Budack cycle).

[golfdave]

You claim that your stock (save for the air filter) 1.4 Golf is putting out 21% more than stock because you've done some indirect calculations to get to that figure.

You say your car is making 21% over stock because you use RON98 fuel.

I've just quoted the first few bits from your long post.

By totally mis-quoting what I have posted you have yet again proved that you are not reading or understanding anything that I post.

I'm out, my time is too important to waste on you.