My point exactly, when running pump fuel, BIG compromises have to be made with a significant reduction in the kind of aggressive ignition / boost map you can run. I wasn't stating it was impossible, I was stating that unsatisfactory compromises have to be made. By that, I mean a loss of response, a reduction in boost, heavily retarded ignition or a drop in comparable c/r etc. It's not rocket science - if you don't do the above (which reduces power etc), then the engine WILL GO BANG . It just seems that you are implying that no such changes have to be made - if that were true, then there were would be no adavantages running high octane fuel.

I agree that at your current level, the power you have is more than adequate (and would certainly be too much for me on loose surfaces ). However, I suspect that with the four wheel drive in place, you will feel that you will want more power, as the ability to lay the power down that you have will now be increased significantly. I wouldn't be surprised if after a few months of competing with 4wd, you will be wanting more power .

Accordingly, I fail to see why you think I'm blinkered, as I understand the compromises required to make an engine reliable depending on compression being run, but YOU don't seem to be able to grasp this simple principal .

All you have to do is look at an engine that has been recently given a lot of publicity - Yum's big power engine. This has been mapped to the limit of the turbo on pump fuel and gave 620bhp. The fuel was changed for a high octane variety, a few degrees of ignition mapped in a across the range, and voila, almost 50bhp extra and a shit load of torque for no mechanical changes what-so-ever. That tells you ALL you need to know about the benefits of race fuel and the compromises needed mapping for pump fuel by comparison .

Even Steve who I know would love to have the opportunity to disagree with me and give me a in my ass, is confirming everything I am saying. So who is it with the blinkers again?