I got the new Consumer Reports magazine over the weekend. This issue was dedicated to the new vehicles. I've noticed that almost 75% of them require premium fuel. Ouch. Has any of you bought a vehicle that specifies premium and you use good ol' regular anyway? I guess they require premium to get every ounce of horse power out of those engines that they can.
regular and premium
- Thread starter Schmoe
- Start date
- Status
My Volvo says use 91 or better but will run just fine on 89. With the boost controller I have installed it just will not give me more than 9.5 to 10 psi in boost due to detonation. If I use 91 to 93 I can easily get 12.5 to 14.5 psi out of the Turbo Charger. As Johnny said most will run fine but you lose MPG and performance due to the computer backing off the timing with the lower octane.
I agree, I use 87 in my 93 octane reccomended car and the gas mileage isn't as good and the performance is lacking, but it does dial back the timing quite effectively.
I might start to use 89 if he mood hits me, as 93 is just wayyyy too expensive.
The dealers all use 87 anyway, that's who told me how to save.
[ March 15, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: seotaji ]
I might start to use 89 if he mood hits me, as 93 is just wayyyy too expensive.
The dealers all use 87 anyway, that's who told me how to save.
[ March 15, 2004, 08:09 PM: Message edited by: seotaji ]
In imports that can actualy take advantage of the better fuel it makes a marked difference not just in power output but gas milage. I am not sure if it a hardware issue or a program issues but this effect seems to be less pronounced on domestic brands!
Patman
Staff member
My LT1 engine runs 10.5 to 1 compression plus has a rather agressive spark advance curve (40 degrees total timing) so it definitely needs premium in the summer to prevent the knock sensors from backing off the timing and robbing me of horsepower. But in the winter I can get away with 87 octane just fine.
A guy at work was looking at a new Subaru turbo, which was "premium only".
We were looking at how he could complete a trip that he had planned, given that he did not want to carry three jerry cans of premium ULP inside his car. So we were looking at octane boosters, etc.
When he ran the octane booster (and the jerry cans) past Subaru, their response was to use regular (only as required), and let the computer do the work.
We were looking at how he could complete a trip that he had planned, given that he did not want to carry three jerry cans of premium ULP inside his car. So we were looking at octane boosters, etc.
When he ran the octane booster (and the jerry cans) past Subaru, their response was to use regular (only as required), and let the computer do the work.
My car is chipped which requires 93 octane. Just recently I experimented with 89 octane and it works just fine. Only if I really lug the engine will it ping, so I make sure to stay in the proper gear. If gas prices get any higher though, I guess I'm going to have to start experimenting with 87 octane.
I have a "ping prone" '95 Mustang with the obligatory "bumped timing mod". I find that I can run 89 octane when temps are below 50 deg, but usually need 92-93 when it gets warmer.
94-95 5.0 cars had more agressive part throttle (light load) timing, and leaner fuel mixtures compare to 87-93 cars. My pinging problems are worst at half throttle, 2000-4000 RPM... going WOT seems to back off timing a bit, and/or richen the A/F, and the pinging will disappear. Still, even at WOT, I need 93 octane in the summer.
Think about how far we have come. My 1965 Impala had a 10.5:1 327ci V-8 and 100 octane leaded fuel was not adequate in the summer. Chevron sold 104 here prior to 1970, when unleaded was introduced.
- Status
Similar threads
