Craig K. Balgobin

I always put Chevron in my 95 max. I just hit 100,000 and have regularly been putting reg 87 octane fuel. Should i be using the 89 octane gas now, and is there any specific reason why.

BlkCat

Your owners manual will tell you what octane is the best for your car. The higher the octance the better performance you'll get. I use Chevron 92 octane for my SC'ed Max.

clee130

I always use 91 octane.

Mad Dhan

btw what does the owners manual say the car needs. my car came w/out a manual that is why i ask.

SuDZ

91 or better.

SuDZ

jiaxima96

my 96 owner's manual says "Unleaded premium gasoline with an octane rating of at least 91 AKI (Anti-Knock Index) number (Research octane number 96). If unleaded premium gasoline is not available, unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of at least 87 AKI can be used. However, for maximum vehicle performance, the use of unleaded premium gasoline is recommended."

I have been using both 87 and 93 all the time, haven't noticed any mpg difference, as well as performance difference. I don't race maybe that's why.

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

yeah i used to use 93, but now use 87. have noticed no performance diff either.

BlkCat

I couldn't tell the difference between Chevron 92 and 94 either.

phatmax95

iTrader: (29)

and i bet my dad couldnt tell the difference between gas and water. hes gotta be one of the slowest drivers ever. i would go with what the manual says 91 or higher. i mean c'mon its just a few pennies extra. btw, we've had many dicussions on this.. and i think we've come out: if you drive slow, lower octane probably wont hurt you and if you drive fast or get on it sometimes then you'd better stick with high octane

Micah95GLE

Chevron 93 Octane Techroline

nigelcmf

I use 91. It's the highest we can get in CO....sucks! Wish I could get higher. Have you guys seen the NOS octane booster? Is it any good?

krzymax

iTrader: (2)

i always use the highest # gas

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

I'm not so sure it amounts to only pennies. currently where i live the diff in price between 87 and 93 is about 15 cents. multiply that by 16 gallons and that's $2.40. If you fill up 3 times a month that's $7.20. That adds up to $86.40 a year.

I drive a lot so i guess it adds up.

DRVLKEuSTOLEiT

Im Rolling in 96 stock autotragic and I was using 87 for a year or so, didn't noticed any ping or knock, and just found out that premium is recomendend. So I switched Ammoco 93 or Mobil 93 oct. My avg. has gone down I believe. I maintenece as scheduled, and just switched to synthetic fluids. During the summer it was 10$ a tank difference, now its only $2.50.

Go back to 87???

$PDP$

Sprint

iTrader: (10)

remind me never to buy a used car from one of your low octane people..

i used 93 or 94 .. mostly 94 since its $1.30 in my city

dwapenyi

iTrader: (3)

If you live in Colorado, chances are you live quite a bit above sea level, no?? If you do live quite a bit above sea level, then the need for high octane in your car goes down . Your car isn't getting in enough air to take advantage of the higher octane feul. So, you aren't missing anything.

This is where I really envy turbo and SCed cars. They can compensate for the thinner air in high altitudes and have their engine still produce the same power that they do at sea level. Awesome.

I still love my Max though


DW

nigelcmf

Wish I could get 94!...or even 92!

sinewave

I think there was a discussion here a while back with a link to an article in either Road and Track or Car and Driver. The jist of the article says that if your car does not require more than regular gas, you won't get any gains in performance or mileage by using premium.

If your car DOES require premium, you can expect up to a 10% drop in hp by using regular.

For an extra $2.50 a tank in a $25K car, I'll use premium.

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

no offense, but our 96 maxes aren't worth $25K, heck i bought my used for $16K and change and that was in 98!

10% drop in HP?? where did you find this info? if that's true then changing from 93 and 87 will result in a maximum of 19 horses (based on stock). this doesn't seem right?

premium gas won't hurt our maxes, but can the benefit be quantified?
I thought as long as the gas doesn't cause detonation it's fine.

Sprint

iTrader: (10)

tell that to the hippies that died form AIDS in the 80's..

Craig K. Balgobin

Damn, 16G's. I Paid 7 for my 95 in 99. It has miles but that dont bother me

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

I have no idea what you are trying to say or how it relates to this thread.

Here are some facts that may help educate:

http://www.total.co.za/External_cont...rol_octane.htm

j_bryan disclaimer: this has valuable information *not heresay* enter at your own risk and dare to be educated

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

yeah, that was the going rate in my city for an SE 5spd with leather, BOSE, heated seat, etc.

but now it's paid for! riding free is GOOD!

Craig K. Balgobin

will using the higher octane help my engine in the longrun. Like a preventative thing?

Sprint

iTrader: (10)

what i am trying to say was.. in the 60's and 70's .. hippies had sex with out protection.. because they didn't think it would hurt them at all.. but in the long run they died from AIDS..

hippie = YOUR CAR
hippie's life = YOUR ENGINE
un-protected sex = low octane..

comprende?

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

my man, did you peep the link??

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

yes i understand completely. it's quite clear that you have some issues. usually insecure, uneducated people try to insult so i'll disregard those comments.

although we all have our opinions, in the future, peep the thread title. this thread is about octane, not sprintmax's opinion on j_bryan's wip. thus, you can leave out the useless comments about my ride. no need to try to insult me. you don't know me or my car. in fact, i could care less. believe me, i could flame the shiet out of your car, but hey i don't have to drive it so it's pointless.

meanwhile, i'll stick to the fact as i was merely attempting to help people gain some info.

Sprint

iTrader: (10)

don't give me this intelligence bull****.. i wasn't trying to insult you.. i was meerly trying to show you that in the long run the life of your engine will not be as lenghty with the use of lower octane.. just becuase i use humor to get my point accross.. i mean.. we are all humans here.. if you want a robotic reponse i can give you one..

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

humor is relative my man. it's not really humor when the jokes on you.

"we're all humans here". i agree . so therefore i think you might want to act as though you're the most intelligent animal on the planet. otherwise i might mistake you for a llama with a big azz head or something. lol

Sprint

iTrader: (10)

I am a llama .. i do it from behind and i do it without thought process...

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

now that's humor!

sinewave

Here's the link, next time do your own homework. The relevent section is on page 3, second to last paragraph.

http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caran...e_gasoline.xml

The $25K figure was for illustrative purposes only. I used it because it is 4 orders of magnitude higher than the additional cost of a tank of gas. It is also pretty representative of the cost of a new Max.

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

Thanks for the link. Is this the paragraph you're speaking of:

The results were more dramatic with the test cars that require premium fuel. The turbocharged Saab's sophisticated Trionic engine-control system dialed the power back 9.8 percent on regular gas, and performance dropped 10.1 percent at the track. Burning regular in our BMW M3 diminished track performance by 6.6 percent, but neither the BMW nor the Saab suffered any drivability problems while burning regular unleaded fuel. Unfortunately, the M3's sophisticated electronics made it impossible to test the car on the dyno (see caption at top).

If so, then the 10% you mentioned above doesn't seem applicable to the maxima since we don't have turbos. In the paragraph before the excerpt above, the article mentioned the honda accord. here's what the article mentioned about the honda:

The Accord took a tiny step backward in power (minus 2.6 percent) and performance (minus 1.5 percent) on premium fuel, a phenomenon for which none of the experts we consulted could offer an explanation except to posit that the results may fall within normal test-to-test variability.

I think the accord is a closer comparison to the maxima than an M3 or a turbo-charged Saab. So the results (relative to the maxima) would seem inconclusive rather than a 10% loss of hp.

What'd you say about my homework??

Peep the link I provided-- you'll see that a supplier tried to offer 95 octane in South Africa, and was formally approach by government to remove the product from their forecourts and only market the applicable grades.

too bad things don't work like that in the US-- our gov't let's consumers fall prey to marketing hype.

sinewave

If you will notice, I said UP TO 10% drop was mentioned in the article. I did not mean to imply that the Maxima would lose that much (or that little).

Granted, the turbo SAAB may not be representative of the losses but, then again, it may. The only way to tell is to dyno a Maxima. However, I don't see how you can say that the Accord is closer to the Maxima since Honda recommendeds regular grade.

As I stated in my original post, there seem to be NO GAINS in running a higher octane gas than the factory recommends. There is only power to be lost in running a lower octane than the factory recommendation.

Sorry for the remark about doing your homework; I was referring to using the search engine here.

j_bryan

iTrader: (1)

I agree, but i'm sure the debate on this issue will continue.

Nissan recommends a 91 or higher octane, but that might be a conservative number--for those drivers in drier climates who may need a higher octane rating. Of course, that's just my opinion.

Speaking of opinions, I'm not so trusting of oil companies. It's been written on the org that a 3,000 mile oil change is not necessary, yet we constantly see ads about changing oil every 3K.
Why would oil companies and others promote this if it's not really necessary? Two reasons come to mind:

1. Money.
2. Changing the oil more frequently will technically not harm the car.

Oil companies are some of the most powerful in the world. And i would not be surprised if they recommend the conservative approach to gas choice (recommending a higher octane) as they recommend for oil changes. That way, they make more alot more$$ and the less-educated-yet-prone-to-marketing-hype consumer is neither hurt nor helped.

dwapenyi

iTrader: (3)

This brings up an interesting point. When Oil companies talk of 3K mile oil changes, it is assumed that the oil in question is dino oil, no? The oil FAQ on maxima.org has alot of info negating that frequent interval, but most of that info concerns synthetic oil. Hmmm.

I just compromise and use semi synthetic and change every 5K miles


DW

sinewave

I agree that the oil companies, in the way they market higher-octane fuels, have perpetrated one of the biggest frauds in history! They suggest it is necessary that ALL cars use premium to get the best performance.

It is analogous to saying that, if you wear size 8 shoes, you will run faster in size 12.

Steve Marsh

Hey guys i believe in premium fuel, i tried regular "once" in my 1991se and it starting spitting and coughing!! Since the purchase of my 96se (new) i have been using Texaco Systems 3 premium. Sometimes i would use Sunoco ultra 94. One key point to remember is that you change your fuel filter more often. Simply because a lot of these service stations neglect to change their inline fuel filters reguarly, which in turn allows a lot of pig s--t to be pump into your fuel tank! Thus clogging up your injectors/pump etc.I change my every 8,000 miles (nissan) regardless! Also i use Chevron synthetic fuel injection cleaner/fuel system cleaner (Walmart). As far as the oil companies being full of it i agree, just research the federal trade commission archives. 96se 157,000 plus miles, Amsoil 0w-30 synthetic,Amsoil ATF, Dunlop SP 5000's. Good luck