Mileage and Octane
12-13-2004, 05:21 PM
#1
BobT
Thread Starter
Mileage and Octane
I drive 750+ miles per week so I’m very concerned about gas mileage. My local station sells 87, 89, and 93 octanes. So the recent spike in gas prices caused me to start using 89 octane. BTW - your new ’04 TL runs just fine on 89 octane with no knock or problem at all.
I have been tracking mileage and comparing the MID average with actuals for several weeks now while using both 89 and 93 octane. Here are the results. And remember, these come from the same gas station with the tank filled to the same level and, usually, with the same pump (if I could get to it). All comparisons ran for about 2 weeks (1,500 miles) each. My TL now has approx 21,000 miles on it. I use 0W-20 Mobil-1 oil and the tires are inflated to 34 PSI. I drive a toll way into the western suburbs of Chicago so my speeds range from a cruise of 50+ miles at 75 MPH to 20+ miles at 30 MPH down to stop and go traffic. A pretty good mix of driving conditions.
While using 89 octane I averaged 26.6 MPG
While using 93 octane I averaged 28.8 MPG.
Over the course of a week, 750 miles, I burned approx. 28.2 gallons of 89 octane at a cost of about $53.30 (at $1.89/gallon).
Using the 93 octane, I burned about 26 gallons at a cost of almost $51.74 (at $1.99/gallon).
Over the course of a year, about 37,500 miles, you would save about 107 gallons using the higher octane. This saves you $213/year buying the higher octane gas.
If I remember correctly, RoadRage did a similar study a while back. He’s made me a believer now.
I have been tracking mileage and comparing the MID average with actuals for several weeks now while using both 89 and 93 octane. Here are the results. And remember, these come from the same gas station with the tank filled to the same level and, usually, with the same pump (if I could get to it). All comparisons ran for about 2 weeks (1,500 miles) each. My TL now has approx 21,000 miles on it. I use 0W-20 Mobil-1 oil and the tires are inflated to 34 PSI. I drive a toll way into the western suburbs of Chicago so my speeds range from a cruise of 50+ miles at 75 MPH to 20+ miles at 30 MPH down to stop and go traffic. A pretty good mix of driving conditions.
While using 89 octane I averaged 26.6 MPG
While using 93 octane I averaged 28.8 MPG.
Over the course of a week, 750 miles, I burned approx. 28.2 gallons of 89 octane at a cost of about $53.30 (at $1.89/gallon).
Using the 93 octane, I burned about 26 gallons at a cost of almost $51.74 (at $1.99/gallon).
Over the course of a year, about 37,500 miles, you would save about 107 gallons using the higher octane. This saves you $213/year buying the higher octane gas.
If I remember correctly, RoadRage did a similar study a while back. He’s made me a believer now.
The following 5 users liked this post by bobt:
Darthsamuel (12-14-2011),
DuoDSG (11-19-2011),
FCVadi (11-18-2011),
jgj925 (03-07-2013),
upcoast (02-21-2014)
12-13-2004, 05:37 PM
#2
Registered Member
I'm not at all surprised with your results as I've seen similar results when just the opposite situation exists; that is, using higher octane fuel than an engine is designed to use with no added-on mods to take advantage of such.
Basically, your timing was retarded by the ECU which means that the spark occurs higher up in the compression stroke. This results in less fuel burned before the exhaust valve is opened to begin cylinder purging. It also means that a slight increase in throttle would be required to attain and maintain a given speed which also results in more fuel burned.
Good test and good for you!
Basically, your timing was retarded by the ECU which means that the spark occurs higher up in the compression stroke. This results in less fuel burned before the exhaust valve is opened to begin cylinder purging. It also means that a slight increase in throttle would be required to attain and maintain a given speed which also results in more fuel burned.
Good test and good for you!
12-13-2004, 05:56 PM
#3
Pro
Umm...interesting...I always fill up the highest ocatane available...I believe the one, here in Arizona, is 91...I always felt that it would be better for the car overall, but did not think it would effect mileage... 
....Thanks for the info!!!
....Thanks for the info!!!
12-13-2004, 06:10 PM
#5
bobt: From one who has been saying this for a long time, here's a big
hi rets and whoever else is looking..............and one more for good luck
hi rets and whoever else is looking..............and one more for good luck
Trending Topics
12-13-2004, 08:27 PM
#11
Registered Driver
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol, Rhode Island
Age: 37
Posts: 2,493
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
This may sound like a 
question, but I've always sort of wondered about accelerating. I know thats when you use the bulk of your gas, holding the car at 80mph doesn't take much, but getting there does. Now to get there, would it make sense to accelerate to the peak of the engines power, so you get the most efficiancy from the gas? Or is this just a thought... (I'm only 17
)
question, but I've always sort of wondered about accelerating. I know thats when you use the bulk of your gas, holding the car at 80mph doesn't take much, but getting there does. Now to get there, would it make sense to accelerate to the peak of the engines power, so you get the most efficiancy from the gas? Or is this just a thought... (I'm only 17)
12-16-2004, 05:11 PM
#12
Registered Member
To UnsanePyro;
No it wouldn't.. and a good question, by the way. Street tuned engines generally deliver their best efficiency somewhere between 2000 and 2500 RPM. This is due to the fact that at these engine speeds and with our TL engine, available torque is in the vicinity of 90% of its maximum rating and the engine is well beyond any primary metering speeds (circuit).
If you took the engine up to 6700 RPM in first and second gear on your way to 80 MPH, you would not only be burning quite a bit more fuel, but you would be stressing your engine more than necessary and too often.
The engine will easily spin to 7 grand, but you don't want to do this on a regular basis.
Hope this helps and don't start any fires, Pyro.
No it wouldn't.. and a good question, by the way. Street tuned engines generally deliver their best efficiency somewhere between 2000 and 2500 RPM. This is due to the fact that at these engine speeds and with our TL engine, available torque is in the vicinity of 90% of its maximum rating and the engine is well beyond any primary metering speeds (circuit).
If you took the engine up to 6700 RPM in first and second gear on your way to 80 MPH, you would not only be burning quite a bit more fuel, but you would be stressing your engine more than necessary and too often.
The engine will easily spin to 7 grand, but you don't want to do this on a regular basis.
Hope this helps and don't start any fires, Pyro.
12-16-2004, 08:09 PM
#14
i used to not think that brand of gas made a differance mine use to "ride funny" according to my wife (i was deployed at the time) we were useing BJ's gas if you don't know what that is is it like Sam's club and then she switched to useing BP and the problem went away and never came back
11-06-2008, 10:42 AM
#15
I drive 750+ miles per week so I’m very concerned about gas mileage. My local station sells 87, 89, and 93 octanes. So the recent spike in gas prices caused me to start using 89 octane. BTW - your new ’04 TL runs just fine on 89 octane with no knock or problem at all.
I have been tracking mileage and comparing the MID average with actuals for several weeks now while using both 89 and 93 octane. Here are the results. And remember, these come from the same gas station with the tank filled to the same level and, usually, with the same pump (if I could get to it). All comparisons ran for about 2 weeks (1,500 miles) each. My TL now has approx 21,000 miles on it. I use 0W-20 Mobil-1 oil and the tires are inflated to 34 PSI. I drive a toll way into the western suburbs of Chicago so my speeds range from a cruise of 50+ miles at 75 MPH to 20+ miles at 30 MPH down to stop and go traffic. A pretty good mix of driving conditions.
While using 89 octane I averaged 26.6 MPG
While using 93 octane I averaged 28.8 MPG.
Over the course of a week, 750 miles, I burned approx. 28.2 gallons of 89 octane at a cost of about $53.30 (at $1.89/gallon).
Using the 93 octane, I burned about 26 gallons at a cost of almost $51.74 (at $1.99/gallon).
Over the course of a year, about 37,500 miles, you would save about 107 gallons using the higher octane. This saves you $213/year buying the higher octane gas.
If I remember correctly, RoadRage did a similar study a while back. He’s made me a believer now.
I have been tracking mileage and comparing the MID average with actuals for several weeks now while using both 89 and 93 octane. Here are the results. And remember, these come from the same gas station with the tank filled to the same level and, usually, with the same pump (if I could get to it). All comparisons ran for about 2 weeks (1,500 miles) each. My TL now has approx 21,000 miles on it. I use 0W-20 Mobil-1 oil and the tires are inflated to 34 PSI. I drive a toll way into the western suburbs of Chicago so my speeds range from a cruise of 50+ miles at 75 MPH to 20+ miles at 30 MPH down to stop and go traffic. A pretty good mix of driving conditions.
While using 89 octane I averaged 26.6 MPG
While using 93 octane I averaged 28.8 MPG.
Over the course of a week, 750 miles, I burned approx. 28.2 gallons of 89 octane at a cost of about $53.30 (at $1.89/gallon).
Using the 93 octane, I burned about 26 gallons at a cost of almost $51.74 (at $1.99/gallon).
Over the course of a year, about 37,500 miles, you would save about 107 gallons using the higher octane. This saves you $213/year buying the higher octane gas.
If I remember correctly, RoadRage did a similar study a while back. He’s made me a believer now.
11-06-2008, 10:51 AM
#17
it's abvoius with the results on an engine that is tuned for higher octane.
but people don't see it that way........
I have never run anything lower than 91 octane and I get pretty good mialge in the CLS
but people don't see it that way........
I have never run anything lower than 91 octane and I get pretty good mialge in the CLS
11-06-2008, 11:34 AM
#18
Registered Member
This does not surprise me at all. However, I would have been surprise if you had reported results just the opposite of what you experienced. The reason for this difference is in the ability of the engine and its management system to extract (produce) power from a given amount of fuel/air mix during each cylinder fill. Burning a lower grade of fuel will force your ECU to retard ignition timing a little and alter the fuel/mix slightly to compensate. Now we have the engine producing a little less power which equates to the driver having to tip into the throttle a little more to attain a desired rate of acceleration and speed.
I did something like this in reverse 14 years ago. I had a Honda Accord EX 5MT which required 87 octane fuel. I filled the tank with 93 before heading out on a vacation road trip. I recorded not only less economy, but a distinct drop in usable power. I knew this would be the results, but I just wanted to prove it.
I did something like this in reverse 14 years ago. I had a Honda Accord EX 5MT which required 87 octane fuel. I filled the tank with 93 before heading out on a vacation road trip. I recorded not only less economy, but a distinct drop in usable power. I knew this would be the results, but I just wanted to prove it.
11-06-2008, 11:54 AM
#19
car and driver did it with a V6 J30a accord and got the same results
slower accelleration
less power
slower accelleration
less power
11-06-2008, 01:16 PM
#23
Intermediate
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Drifting the wastelands of NJ
Age: 60
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been tracking my milage since I bought my TL. I write it down in a book I carry in the car. After reading several articles, including ones in Car and Driver I decided to put the Octane claim to test. Although I'm not sitting with my milage book in hand (I can post the actual numbers if needed) I can say that I came to the same conclusion that Car and Driver did. I see no difference what so ever in milage based upon octane. I have run 87, 89 and 91. I average about 23-26 MPG on each tank of gas. I generally get just over 300 miles per tankful. I drive at least 22k per year. I can tell you that I generally run 87 or 89. I tend to alternate tankfuls. I have been told that the biggest difference between 87 and 89 is that the lower grade doesn't contain the detergents that help clean the injectors. (That's why I switch back and forth). I'm going to try and post the info about the Car and Driver article because they came to the same conclusion. Higher Octane doesn't mean higher milage.
11-06-2008, 03:59 PM
#24
i can tell you for a fact that my type s gets better milage with 93 vrs 89, and its a big enough difference that it cost me more money to use the 89 octane...
i dont believe you or car and driver for that matter....
simple math for me, a tank of 89 gets me 300 miles, and a tank of 93 gets me 350, simple as that....one octane gets me about 23mpg, and the other gets me about 26....your car, your money, do what you want, but dont tell me about facts, i can do math....
i dont believe you or car and driver for that matter....
simple math for me, a tank of 89 gets me 300 miles, and a tank of 93 gets me 350, simple as that....one octane gets me about 23mpg, and the other gets me about 26....your car, your money, do what you want, but dont tell me about facts, i can do math....
11-06-2008, 04:32 PM
#25
Team Owner
I've been preaching this for a while now that it's cheaper to run premium in the TL.
I'm sure other cars with lower compression or less aggressive management could get by with less octane with no mpg or power hit but the TL needs it.
Keep in mind retarding the timing makes EGTs go higher so not only are you losing power and economy but you're heating everything up from the exhaust valves on. It might not be enough to hurt anything but it's still happening.
I'm sure other cars with lower compression or less aggressive management could get by with less octane with no mpg or power hit but the TL needs it.
Keep in mind retarding the timing makes EGTs go higher so not only are you losing power and economy but you're heating everything up from the exhaust valves on. It might not be enough to hurt anything but it's still happening.
11-06-2008, 04:39 PM
#26
Registered Member
I have been tracking my milage since I bought my TL. I write it down in a book I carry in the car. After reading several articles, including ones in Car and Driver I decided to put the Octane claim to test. Although I'm not sitting with my milage book in hand (I can post the actual numbers if needed) I can say that I came to the same conclusion that Car and Driver did. I see no difference what so ever in milage based upon octane. I have run 87, 89 and 91. I average about 23-26 MPG on each tank of gas. I generally get just over 300 miles per tankful. I drive at least 22k per year. I can tell you that I generally run 87 or 89. I tend to alternate tankfuls. I have been told that the biggest difference between 87 and 89 is that the lower grade doesn't contain the detergents that help clean the injectors. (That's why I switch back and forth). I'm going to try and post the info about the Car and Driver article because they came to the same conclusion. Higher Octane doesn't mean higher milage.
As for your statement, "I have been told that the biggest difference between 87 and 89 is that the lower grade doesn't contain the detergents that help clean the injectors", I have to tell you that whoever told you this misinformed you. All gasoline grades sold in this country since 1995 are required to contain detergent additives as mandated by the EPA.
11-06-2008, 04:55 PM
#27
Registered Member
As a follow-up for those who seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of octane, what it is, how it "works", and the why of it all, here is a link to a good start.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
In the simplest manner possible, octane is a measure of a fuel's resistance to detonation in a gasoline engine. Gasoline engines burn a fuel/air mixture.. they do not induce an explosion - at least not deliberately. Factors which affect this are the mechanical compression ratio, ignition timing, load, altitude, temperature, and the general condition of the engine and its components.
One of the biggest fallacies is the idea that burning 93 octane fuel in an engine designed for 87 will produce more power and result in increased fuel economy. If nothing else, common sense dictates this to be completely false. Such and engine will not be able to utilize the fuel to its maximum advantage because it will not be able to create as an efficient burn as with the lower grade of fuel. Also, higher levels of carbon will be deposited on the piston tops and valve faces. This will raise the compression ratio some, but not in the manner in which you would want.
The reverse is true for an engine designed for premium fuel, but worse since the potential for damage exists.
Gentlemen, read the link and do some research before you believe an old wife's tale or are sold a bill of goods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
In the simplest manner possible, octane is a measure of a fuel's resistance to detonation in a gasoline engine. Gasoline engines burn a fuel/air mixture.. they do not induce an explosion - at least not deliberately. Factors which affect this are the mechanical compression ratio, ignition timing, load, altitude, temperature, and the general condition of the engine and its components.
One of the biggest fallacies is the idea that burning 93 octane fuel in an engine designed for 87 will produce more power and result in increased fuel economy. If nothing else, common sense dictates this to be completely false. Such and engine will not be able to utilize the fuel to its maximum advantage because it will not be able to create as an efficient burn as with the lower grade of fuel. Also, higher levels of carbon will be deposited on the piston tops and valve faces. This will raise the compression ratio some, but not in the manner in which you would want.
The reverse is true for an engine designed for premium fuel, but worse since the potential for damage exists.
Gentlemen, read the link and do some research before you believe an old wife's tale or are sold a bill of goods.
04-01-2009, 11:36 AM
#32
i just dont get it.
Just read the gas door. cars will either say premium fuel ONLY, or premium fuel RECOMMENDED. most people dont notice the difference, but its significant. From looking through the acura site, looks like every car of theirs requires premium (min 91), except the TSX, where its only recommended, but is also designed to run on the 87 without issues. (this is for the newest models, i dont know about the earlier ones).
For all BUT the TSX, they even state "Using gasoline with an octane lower than 91 octane may cause damage to the engine." for the TSX, they say "Gasoline with an octane number lower than 91 may be used, with reduced performance. Use of a gasoline with a pump octane number less than 87 can lead to engine damage."
i understand the lack of trust in dealerships, but not sure why people keep trying to ignore the designers of the car. they obviously know what theyre doing if they can build a car like this. and if you want it run as long as possible, give the engine whats it's designed for. i just dont get it.
For all BUT the TSX, they even state "Using gasoline with an octane lower than 91 octane may cause damage to the engine." for the TSX, they say "Gasoline with an octane number lower than 91 may be used, with reduced performance. Use of a gasoline with a pump octane number less than 87 can lead to engine damage."
i understand the lack of trust in dealerships, but not sure why people keep trying to ignore the designers of the car. they obviously know what theyre doing if they can build a car like this. and if you want it run as long as possible, give the engine whats it's designed for. i just dont get it.
04-01-2009, 02:09 PM
#33
Chapter Leader (Southern Region)
Just read the gas door. cars will either say premium fuel ONLY, or premium fuel RECOMMENDED. most people dont notice the difference, but its significant. From looking through the acura site, looks like every car of theirs requires premium (min 91), except the TSX, where its only recommended, but is also designed to run on the 87 without issues. (this is for the newest models, i dont know about the earlier ones).
For all BUT the TSX, they even state "Using gasoline with an octane lower than 91 octane may cause damage to the engine." for the TSX, they say "Gasoline with an octane number lower than 91 may be used, with reduced performance. Use of a gasoline with a pump octane number less than 87 can lead to engine damage."
i understand the lack of trust in dealerships, but not sure why people keep trying to ignore the designers of the car. they obviously know what theyre doing if they can build a car like this. and if you want it run as long as possible, give the engine whats it's designed for. i just dont get it.
For all BUT the TSX, they even state "Using gasoline with an octane lower than 91 octane may cause damage to the engine." for the TSX, they say "Gasoline with an octane number lower than 91 may be used, with reduced performance. Use of a gasoline with a pump octane number less than 87 can lead to engine damage."
i understand the lack of trust in dealerships, but not sure why people keep trying to ignore the designers of the car. they obviously know what theyre doing if they can build a car like this. and if you want it run as long as possible, give the engine whats it's designed for. i just dont get it.
huh? you know this is a revived thread right? but yes.. there's still those out there who think their 11:1 CR engine can handle 87 octane with no issue.
Although this is a revived thread the matter of fact is that running on anything less than 91 is senseless since a few cents saving at the pump pretty much evens out in fuel efficiency and engine maintenance.. until knock starts to occur.. then you're fkd.
11-18-2011, 12:09 AM
#34
Instructor
I know this is a necro bump, but for anyone browsing through old threads about 91 vs. 87 or 89 octane like I was, I think it's important to post a counter-argument concerning the math in the OP. I'm not saying one should use a specific octane; rather, I just want to point out why, for the OP, premium is "cheaper" than economy gas.
First, the OP drives 37000 miles per year. The average driver drives 15000. The higher your mileage, the more of a difference mpg and costs make on your bottom line.
Couple all of this with the fact that the price difference between 87 and 91 octane is greater than it was in the early/mid 2000's (~30 cents differential in Austin: $3.15/gallon for 87 and $3.45/gallon for 91), and it's tough for premium gas to be cheaper in the long-run for average drivers unless your driving habits allow you to get phenomenal mpg differences (>2.25mpg) between the octanes.
Here are two examples based on current market rates:
15,000 miles / 28mpg = 535 gallons * $3.45 = $1,846 per year on 91
15,000 miles / 26mpg = 577 gallons * $3.15 = $1,817 per year on 87
As you can see, if you're lucky enough to achieve a 2mpg difference between the two octanes, the extra costs for 91 over any given year are marginal. If you're only getting around 1mpg difference, the cost savings for 87 starts to add up (~$100/yr), but if you're getting 2-3mpg the savings swing the other way.
Moral of the story: do your own tests for your own driving habits / car to see what works for you. If the additional costs for 91 are <$75/year, just go for premium.
First, the OP drives 37000 miles per year. The average driver drives 15000. The higher your mileage, the more of a difference mpg and costs make on your bottom line.
Couple all of this with the fact that the price difference between 87 and 91 octane is greater than it was in the early/mid 2000's (~30 cents differential in Austin: $3.15/gallon for 87 and $3.45/gallon for 91), and it's tough for premium gas to be cheaper in the long-run for average drivers unless your driving habits allow you to get phenomenal mpg differences (>2.25mpg) between the octanes.
Here are two examples based on current market rates:
15,000 miles / 28mpg = 535 gallons * $3.45 = $1,846 per year on 91
15,000 miles / 26mpg = 577 gallons * $3.15 = $1,817 per year on 87
As you can see, if you're lucky enough to achieve a 2mpg difference between the two octanes, the extra costs for 91 over any given year are marginal. If you're only getting around 1mpg difference, the cost savings for 87 starts to add up (~$100/yr), but if you're getting 2-3mpg the savings swing the other way.
Moral of the story: do your own tests for your own driving habits / car to see what works for you. If the additional costs for 91 are <$75/year, just go for premium.
11-18-2011, 07:02 AM
#35
Registered Member
This old horse has been beat to death so many times I'm surprised there is anything left of the poor animal. In the simplest possible terms and language, use the fuel grade which is recommended by the manufacturer. Doing otherwise is not recommended. How hard is that to understand? Now there is a caveat to this statement.
It is YOUR car. And because it is your car, you can use whatever fuel you wish and no one has the right or privilege to tell you different. But by the same token, for those who chose to use a lower grade of fuel that the engine is designed to use, they have no argument about whether or not they are doing something good or right... only that they are taking a decision to do something other than what is recommended. Once again, their car their decision.
Facts don't change and they don't lie... people do. And therefore people who do choose to do other than what the manufacturer intended deserved whatever happens as a result of their foolishness. Facts don't suffer fools.
It is YOUR car. And because it is your car, you can use whatever fuel you wish and no one has the right or privilege to tell you different. But by the same token, for those who chose to use a lower grade of fuel that the engine is designed to use, they have no argument about whether or not they are doing something good or right... only that they are taking a decision to do something other than what is recommended. Once again, their car their decision.
Facts don't change and they don't lie... people do. And therefore people who do choose to do other than what the manufacturer intended deserved whatever happens as a result of their foolishness. Facts don't suffer fools.
11-18-2011, 07:40 AM
#36
Racer
Bearings, pistons, connecting rods, timing chain, etc. They are ALL components which are stressed when pre-ignition occurs.
Acura engines are high compression engines. Use of low octane fuel causes the ignition at the wrong time. When this happens, you not only lose fuel economy, you cause excess heat (carbon buildup) and you increase pressure within the cylinder walls.
Don't be a statistic ... use 91+ or better octane rating in Acura vehicles. It isn't simply about fuel prices versus mpg - it is about engine design and undue wear and tear.
Acura engines are high compression engines. Use of low octane fuel causes the ignition at the wrong time. When this happens, you not only lose fuel economy, you cause excess heat (carbon buildup) and you increase pressure within the cylinder walls.
Don't be a statistic ... use 91+ or better octane rating in Acura vehicles. It isn't simply about fuel prices versus mpg - it is about engine design and undue wear and tear.
11-18-2011, 08:03 AM
#37
it's a car-drive it
Use what works for you-130,000+ miles using regular gas-over 30MPG. Have all the service done by acura/honda dealers. Besides the regular dealer I have taken my tsx to other acura/honda dealers in Nevada, California, Utah, Kansas, and North Carolina. My regular dealer is in PA. They have all complimented me on how well maintained my car is and to keep up the excellent job. I do mostly highway driving.
11-18-2011, 08:27 AM
#38
Team Owner
I find it amazing that people still run regular in the TL. You cost yourself additional money and wear and tear on the engine. It makes no sense to pay more money to destroy the engine sooner.
You're hammering the rod and main bearings along with the rings and pistons. EGTs go way up when the ignition gets retarded along with a loss of power and mpg.
The original post was based on mostly low load freeway running. Put the car in heavily loaded city driving where octane is needed even more and the 2mpg difference becomes a 5mpg difference.
Then factor in that premium usually comes with a higher detergent content and it blows my mind people still run regular.
You're hammering the rod and main bearings along with the rings and pistons. EGTs go way up when the ignition gets retarded along with a loss of power and mpg.
The original post was based on mostly low load freeway running. Put the car in heavily loaded city driving where octane is needed even more and the 2mpg difference becomes a 5mpg difference.
Then factor in that premium usually comes with a higher detergent content and it blows my mind people still run regular.
11-18-2011, 08:39 AM
#39
^^^agreed...and do the math, how much are they saving. $3 or 4 per fillup? C'mon...if it hurts that bad, get a friggin used prius.
if it wasn't meant to NEED premium...it would require you to USE premium. the more expensive gas to drive certain cars is NOT a selling point, I assure you.
if it wasn't meant to NEED premium...it would require you to USE premium. the more expensive gas to drive certain cars is NOT a selling point, I assure you.
11-18-2011, 08:40 AM
#40
Team Owner
iTrader: (4)
^^^^
Agreed. I still put Premium in my 03 Pathfinder. I do the same for my TL. There is a reason that the manufacturer will recommend a level of fuel. I would rather pay more for fuel than for a new engine. I drive way too much to be buying cars every 2 years.
Agreed. I still put Premium in my 03 Pathfinder. I do the same for my TL. There is a reason that the manufacturer will recommend a level of fuel. I would rather pay more for fuel than for a new engine. I drive way too much to be buying cars every 2 years.
The following users liked this post:
rockstar143 (11-18-2011)