For those who use premium gas.........
06-18-2004, 02:36 PM
#41
Actually, in many instances it's not even 5%.
That guy was just "estimating"
One of the car mags did a test some years ago where they compared a handful of different cars on a dyno after running 3 tanks full of regular than premium.
For most of the cars the "recommended" or "required" premium there was a few hp drop. Not 5% as the guy estimated but, if I remember it was between 2 and 5 hp on most of the cars.
Conversely, just like this article states, the cars that only required regular unleaded, showed NO gains by putting in premium gas. In one case, I think it was a Honda Accord, it actually dropped in power by 1 or 2 hp when they used premium instead of regular.
This article states that too. If the car only requires regular unleaded, that you won't gain anything by adding higher octane gas in, and I believe it also stated you could lose power and get worse gas mileage with the premium, do to the more dense fuel.
Personally, I use mid-grade in my Max when the price is over $2.00 a gallon. Again, it's NOT an issue of cost, rather a mini-boycott to the oil companies.
Those of you who spend the extra to put in 93 octane or even 91 all the time, you probably also believe the oil companies claims that you MUST change your oil every 3K miles too huh?
It's called marketing and your getting suckered in.
Also, unless you are racing the car all the time, what difference does it make if you use mid-grade and lose 1-2 hp or even regular and lose 3-4 hp?
I also lease the car, so there's no point in me throwing extra money away just to gain a hp or two.
I'll believe the scientists, manufacturers, engineers, WAY, and I mean WAY before the corrupt oil billionaires.
It must get awfully hot driving around in the summer without A/C too. I imagine you guys don't run the A/C since you are so concerned about a couple horsepower. Because you do know that running your A/C cuts into your horsepower a lot more than using 87 or 89 octane will.
That guy was just "estimating"
One of the car mags did a test some years ago where they compared a handful of different cars on a dyno after running 3 tanks full of regular than premium.
For most of the cars the "recommended" or "required" premium there was a few hp drop. Not 5% as the guy estimated but, if I remember it was between 2 and 5 hp on most of the cars.
Conversely, just like this article states, the cars that only required regular unleaded, showed NO gains by putting in premium gas. In one case, I think it was a Honda Accord, it actually dropped in power by 1 or 2 hp when they used premium instead of regular.
This article states that too. If the car only requires regular unleaded, that you won't gain anything by adding higher octane gas in, and I believe it also stated you could lose power and get worse gas mileage with the premium, do to the more dense fuel.
Personally, I use mid-grade in my Max when the price is over $2.00 a gallon. Again, it's NOT an issue of cost, rather a mini-boycott to the oil companies.
Those of you who spend the extra to put in 93 octane or even 91 all the time, you probably also believe the oil companies claims that you MUST change your oil every 3K miles too huh?
It's called marketing and your getting suckered in.
Also, unless you are racing the car all the time, what difference does it make if you use mid-grade and lose 1-2 hp or even regular and lose 3-4 hp?
I also lease the car, so there's no point in me throwing extra money away just to gain a hp or two.
I'll believe the scientists, manufacturers, engineers, WAY, and I mean WAY before the corrupt oil billionaires.
It must get awfully hot driving around in the summer without A/C too. I imagine you guys don't run the A/C since you are so concerned about a couple horsepower. Because you do know that running your A/C cuts into your horsepower a lot more than using 87 or 89 octane will.
06-18-2004, 03:03 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 489
Originally Posted by Kevon1
"There is no gain. You're wasting money," insists Jim Blenkarn, in charge of powertrains at Nissan in the USA.
2) I use a mix of 93 and 94 octane. when i get a half a tank i fill1/4 93 ,1/4 94 it saves money and the effect is more or less the same. since 94 is significantly more expensive then 93 in NY.
I don't remmeber exactly where but i read somewhere that you should use the same octane as your car model year or better. so for example my grandfather has an 89 max he puts in 91 octane, he could use 89 but he knows how i am about this stuff and he'd rather not hear a speech as I would'nt wanna hear one from him about girls lol.
06-18-2004, 03:12 PM
#43
that article is bs.
too bad my car does not have luck of drinking 93, but i do put the best, 91 here in so cal. (emissions suck) either way.....our cars need 91 because if we put the cheap stuff, then the gas would just ignite itself before the sparkplug, since 87 is not able to handle the heat. (as far as i know)
too bad my car does not have luck of drinking 93, but i do put the best, 91 here in so cal. (emissions suck) either way.....our cars need 91 because if we put the cheap stuff, then the gas would just ignite itself before the sparkplug, since 87 is not able to handle the heat. (as far as i know)
06-18-2004, 08:03 PM
#45
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 571
The article was somewhat believable until they described knock as the rattling of the piston.
Any one claiming to be any sort of knowledgeable person on internal combustion engines should know that the "ping" sound is not from rattling, but rather it's from an almost spontaneous combustion of the fuel that is in cylinder.
Even with SI engines, all the gasoline does not ignite, rather the spark starts the combustion process and over time (even though that time is relatively short) burns up the fuel as the piston travels away from TDC (top dead center).
Knocking is when the fuel combusts due to high heat and pressure before TDC, and because the fuel burns as the piston traveling to TDC (more compression), along with the pressure produced by the initial combustion, creates such high pressures (and higher heat) to quickly burn of the rest of the remaining fuel, thus creating the virtual spontaneous combustion of all of the fuel in cylinder.
Research shows that normally, complete combustion occurs in about 30 degrees of crank angle, vs in a knock situation, combustion occurs within 2.5 degrees of crank angle.
The "ping" sound then is the sound of combustion, or more appropriately, explosion, and not rattling.
I also agree with all that observed lower fuel economy with regular gas compared to premium.
Same thing is noted with ethanol and non-ethanol fuel.
Do the calculations, if the gas gives you 3mpg better fuel economy, that would mean and additional a 12% more miles (based on 25mpg average) with a full tank of gas. But with premium at about 10% higher than regular gas (20 cents over average of 2 bucks per gallon), that means it will cost you more to use regular gas to travel the same distance than compared to premium gas.
Look at it this way, at 25mpg, you will travel 100 miles with 4 gal. 4*2.00=$8.00
Now if you use premium and get 28mpg, you will travel 112 miles with 4 gal. 4*2.20=$8.80
But since you only got 100 miles with the regular gas, then you’ll need an additional 0.48 gallons of gas ((112-100)/25=0.48)
It will cost you an additional 0.48*2.00=$0.96 to get to 112 miles.
Total cost of travel in this case is actually more to use regular gas than it is to use premium.
Obviously, not everyone will observe 3gpm of improvement…but the cost difference may not be as bad as the article makes it out to be.
But as for knock sensors, my philosophy is that when the knock prevention reduction algorithms kick in, it’s already too late, because you would have already generated knock in your engine. The damage is done.
Just my 2 pennies worth
Any one claiming to be any sort of knowledgeable person on internal combustion engines should know that the "ping" sound is not from rattling, but rather it's from an almost spontaneous combustion of the fuel that is in cylinder.
Even with SI engines, all the gasoline does not ignite, rather the spark starts the combustion process and over time (even though that time is relatively short) burns up the fuel as the piston travels away from TDC (top dead center).
Knocking is when the fuel combusts due to high heat and pressure before TDC, and because the fuel burns as the piston traveling to TDC (more compression), along with the pressure produced by the initial combustion, creates such high pressures (and higher heat) to quickly burn of the rest of the remaining fuel, thus creating the virtual spontaneous combustion of all of the fuel in cylinder.
Research shows that normally, complete combustion occurs in about 30 degrees of crank angle, vs in a knock situation, combustion occurs within 2.5 degrees of crank angle.
The "ping" sound then is the sound of combustion, or more appropriately, explosion, and not rattling.
I also agree with all that observed lower fuel economy with regular gas compared to premium.
Same thing is noted with ethanol and non-ethanol fuel.
Do the calculations, if the gas gives you 3mpg better fuel economy, that would mean and additional a 12% more miles (based on 25mpg average) with a full tank of gas. But with premium at about 10% higher than regular gas (20 cents over average of 2 bucks per gallon), that means it will cost you more to use regular gas to travel the same distance than compared to premium gas.
Look at it this way, at 25mpg, you will travel 100 miles with 4 gal. 4*2.00=$8.00
Now if you use premium and get 28mpg, you will travel 112 miles with 4 gal. 4*2.20=$8.80
But since you only got 100 miles with the regular gas, then you’ll need an additional 0.48 gallons of gas ((112-100)/25=0.48)
It will cost you an additional 0.48*2.00=$0.96 to get to 112 miles.
Total cost of travel in this case is actually more to use regular gas than it is to use premium.
Obviously, not everyone will observe 3gpm of improvement…but the cost difference may not be as bad as the article makes it out to be.
But as for knock sensors, my philosophy is that when the knock prevention reduction algorithms kick in, it’s already too late, because you would have already generated knock in your engine. The damage is done.
Just my 2 pennies worth
06-18-2004, 08:38 PM
#47
Originally Posted by Green_2
The article was somewhat believable until they described knock as the rattling of the piston.
Any one claiming to be any sort of knowledgeable person on internal combustion engines should know that the "ping" sound is not from rattling, but rather it's from an almost spontaneous combustion of the fuel that is in cylinder.
Even with SI engines, all the gasoline does not ignite, rather the spark starts the combustion process and over time (even though that time is relatively short) burns up the fuel as the piston travels away from TDC (top dead center).
Knocking is when the fuel combusts due to high heat and pressure before TDC, and because the fuel burns as the piston traveling to TDC (more compression), along with the pressure produced by the initial combustion, creates such high pressures (and higher heat) to quickly burn of the rest of the remaining fuel, thus creating the virtual spontaneous combustion of all of the fuel in cylinder.
Research shows that normally, complete combustion occurs in about 30 degrees of crank angle, vs in a knock situation, combustion occurs within 2.5 degrees of crank angle.
The "ping" sound then is the sound of combustion, or more appropriately, explosion, and not rattling.
I also agree with all that observed lower fuel economy with regular gas compared to premium.
Same thing is noted with ethanol and non-ethanol fuel.
Do the calculations, if the gas gives you 3mpg better fuel economy, that would mean and additional a 12% more miles (based on 25mpg average) with a full tank of gas. But with premium at about 10% higher than regular gas (20 cents over average of 2 bucks per gallon), that means it will cost you more to use regular gas to travel the same distance than compared to premium gas.
Look at it this way, at 25mpg, you will travel 100 miles with 4 gal. 4*2.00=$8.00
Now if you use premium and get 28mpg, you will travel 112 miles with 4 gal. 4*2.20=$8.80
But since you only got 100 miles with the regular gas, then you’ll need an additional 0.48 gallons of gas ((112-100)/25=0.48)
It will cost you an additional 0.48*2.00=$0.96 to get to 112 miles.
Total cost of travel in this case is actually more to use regular gas than it is to use premium.
Obviously, not everyone will observe 3gpm of improvement…but the cost difference may not be as bad as the article makes it out to be.
But as for knock sensors, my philosophy is that when the knock prevention reduction algorithms kick in, it’s already too late, because you would have already generated knock in your engine. The damage is done.
Just my 2 pennies worth
Any one claiming to be any sort of knowledgeable person on internal combustion engines should know that the "ping" sound is not from rattling, but rather it's from an almost spontaneous combustion of the fuel that is in cylinder.
Even with SI engines, all the gasoline does not ignite, rather the spark starts the combustion process and over time (even though that time is relatively short) burns up the fuel as the piston travels away from TDC (top dead center).
Knocking is when the fuel combusts due to high heat and pressure before TDC, and because the fuel burns as the piston traveling to TDC (more compression), along with the pressure produced by the initial combustion, creates such high pressures (and higher heat) to quickly burn of the rest of the remaining fuel, thus creating the virtual spontaneous combustion of all of the fuel in cylinder.
Research shows that normally, complete combustion occurs in about 30 degrees of crank angle, vs in a knock situation, combustion occurs within 2.5 degrees of crank angle.
The "ping" sound then is the sound of combustion, or more appropriately, explosion, and not rattling.
I also agree with all that observed lower fuel economy with regular gas compared to premium.
Same thing is noted with ethanol and non-ethanol fuel.
Do the calculations, if the gas gives you 3mpg better fuel economy, that would mean and additional a 12% more miles (based on 25mpg average) with a full tank of gas. But with premium at about 10% higher than regular gas (20 cents over average of 2 bucks per gallon), that means it will cost you more to use regular gas to travel the same distance than compared to premium gas.
Look at it this way, at 25mpg, you will travel 100 miles with 4 gal. 4*2.00=$8.00
Now if you use premium and get 28mpg, you will travel 112 miles with 4 gal. 4*2.20=$8.80
But since you only got 100 miles with the regular gas, then you’ll need an additional 0.48 gallons of gas ((112-100)/25=0.48)
It will cost you an additional 0.48*2.00=$0.96 to get to 112 miles.
Total cost of travel in this case is actually more to use regular gas than it is to use premium.
Obviously, not everyone will observe 3gpm of improvement…but the cost difference may not be as bad as the article makes it out to be.
But as for knock sensors, my philosophy is that when the knock prevention reduction algorithms kick in, it’s already too late, because you would have already generated knock in your engine. The damage is done.
Just my 2 pennies worth
word up doode. i like the way you wrote out the equation.
either way, i totally agree with you.
06-20-2004, 11:36 AM
#50
Originally Posted by Driver72
Actually, in many instances it's not even 5%.
That guy was just "estimating"
One of the car mags did a test some years ago where they compared a handful of different cars on a dyno after running 3 tanks full of regular than premium.
For most of the cars the "recommended" or "required" premium there was a few hp drop. Not 5% as the guy estimated but, if I remember it was between 2 and 5 hp on most of the cars.
Conversely, just like this article states, the cars that only required regular unleaded, showed NO gains by putting in premium gas. In one case, I think it was a Honda Accord, it actually dropped in power by 1 or 2 hp when they used premium instead of regular.
This article states that too. If the car only requires regular unleaded, that you won't gain anything by adding higher octane gas in, and I believe it also stated you could lose power and get worse gas mileage with the premium, do to the more dense fuel.
Personally, I use mid-grade in my Max when the price is over $2.00 a gallon. Again, it's NOT an issue of cost, rather a mini-boycott to the oil companies.
Those of you who spend the extra to put in 93 octane or even 91 all the time, you probably also believe the oil companies claims that you MUST change your oil every 3K miles too huh?
It's called marketing and your getting suckered in.
Also, unless you are racing the car all the time, what difference does it make if you use mid-grade and lose 1-2 hp or even regular and lose 3-4 hp?
I also lease the car, so there's no point in me throwing extra money away just to gain a hp or two.
I'll believe the scientists, manufacturers, engineers, WAY, and I mean WAY before the corrupt oil billionaires.
It must get awfully hot driving around in the summer without A/C too. I imagine you guys don't run the A/C since you are so concerned about a couple horsepower. Because you do know that running your A/C cuts into your horsepower a lot more than using 87 or 89 octane will.
That guy was just "estimating"
One of the car mags did a test some years ago where they compared a handful of different cars on a dyno after running 3 tanks full of regular than premium.
For most of the cars the "recommended" or "required" premium there was a few hp drop. Not 5% as the guy estimated but, if I remember it was between 2 and 5 hp on most of the cars.
Conversely, just like this article states, the cars that only required regular unleaded, showed NO gains by putting in premium gas. In one case, I think it was a Honda Accord, it actually dropped in power by 1 or 2 hp when they used premium instead of regular.
This article states that too. If the car only requires regular unleaded, that you won't gain anything by adding higher octane gas in, and I believe it also stated you could lose power and get worse gas mileage with the premium, do to the more dense fuel.
Personally, I use mid-grade in my Max when the price is over $2.00 a gallon. Again, it's NOT an issue of cost, rather a mini-boycott to the oil companies.
Those of you who spend the extra to put in 93 octane or even 91 all the time, you probably also believe the oil companies claims that you MUST change your oil every 3K miles too huh?
It's called marketing and your getting suckered in.
Also, unless you are racing the car all the time, what difference does it make if you use mid-grade and lose 1-2 hp or even regular and lose 3-4 hp?
I also lease the car, so there's no point in me throwing extra money away just to gain a hp or two.
I'll believe the scientists, manufacturers, engineers, WAY, and I mean WAY before the corrupt oil billionaires.
It must get awfully hot driving around in the summer without A/C too. I imagine you guys don't run the A/C since you are so concerned about a couple horsepower. Because you do know that running your A/C cuts into your horsepower a lot more than using 87 or 89 octane will.
I am a scientist (just not working in any science field - Have my own company
), and I've proven the HP and mileage gains on my own cars. All of my degrees are in science areas (hydrodynamics, aerospace engineering, general physics, well, except for my business and english degrees)...so I tend to run my own tests and post the results for the good of others. I don't get paid by anyone to do these tests, and therefore, my tests and published documents are not biased.
06-20-2004, 12:53 PM
#51
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Kojiro_FtT
I run 93 only. We don't have 91. People spend a couple hundred dollars on mufflers that give them 1 hp. This article says 5% power. That is nothing to my Mom, but enough for me. And this paragraph sums up the reason I argue with the cheapskates on here:
"Actually, the price debate is nearly worthless. At 20 cents more for premium, pumping 20 gallons of it instead of regular would cost $4 more. Annually, that's a difference of $171 for a vehicle that averages 14 miles per gallon — as some big sport-utility vehicles do — and is driven 12,000 miles a year."
And the Max gets much better than 14 mpg. So we are spending much less than $171 extra annually. Peanuts.
Despite this thread's original purpose, I think this article strengthens the argument for premium.
"Actually, the price debate is nearly worthless. At 20 cents more for premium, pumping 20 gallons of it instead of regular would cost $4 more. Annually, that's a difference of $171 for a vehicle that averages 14 miles per gallon — as some big sport-utility vehicles do — and is driven 12,000 miles a year."
And the Max gets much better than 14 mpg. So we are spending much less than $171 extra annually. Peanuts.
Despite this thread's original purpose, I think this article strengthens the argument for premium.
I put 35,000 on my max a year.
I had a 2000 firebird that got the same gas mileage and had more power....not complaining about the max.....but my firebird ran on cheap gas ALWAYS and the max was pinging and knocking the first week i bought it.....and even if it were 200$ a year thats something that some people dont wanna spend.
06-20-2004, 12:58 PM
#52
if you buy a maxima and can't afford premium gas you should sell it and buy a honda. and ok if you drive a firebird (or any sports car) and you put cheap gas in it... your insurance i can assure you will more than cover the "savings" by using cheap fuel.
06-20-2004, 01:09 PM
#53
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by slickrick
if you buy a maxima and can't afford premium gas you should sell it and buy a honda. and ok if you drive a firebird (or any sports car) and you put cheap gas in it... your insurance i can assure you will more than cover the "savings" by using cheap fuel.
06-20-2004, 01:30 PM
#54
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 56
on another note I have to thank the Org. When i first bought my car it didnt come with a manual{used car} i came on here and found out from some helpful people{before i wasted money having a ealer look at it}and problem solved. I just dont agree with people calling names because they have a valid complaint.
06-20-2004, 01:58 PM
#55
no name calling from me. i made a false assumption because i did not take into account the price of the vehicle. and how is this worthless? i mean there are way too many variables to say that using premium or regular gas is worth it or not. mileage put on the car, how hard the person drives the car, type of mileage, etc.
edit: when i said "you" i meant any person who doesnt want to put premium gas in a car that recommends it, not you personally.
edit: when i said "you" i meant any person who doesnt want to put premium gas in a car that recommends it, not you personally.
06-20-2004, 02:25 PM
#56
Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 56
Your right rick,
looking back at the thread there is a lot of people who agree on using premium fuel {as do i seeing that its runs waaaay better} I shouldnt have quoted you and said you were name calling I shouldnt have even been offended by the other calling names. You made a valid point {except the insurance :-p} Anyways I always read through threads and see name calling to one person or another...and just shrug my shoulder and move on. I think its the fact that i spent manyhourse reading here today...thanx to al the contributors. and saw an awful lot of argueing or negativity...then i ran across this thread.....wich as i stated before is a bit touchy to me.....its not like Nissan dealer walks up to me and says...you have to buy new O2 sensors {wich i allready have} new cd player cuzz yours is gunna crap out on you {mine has}. premium fuel because your engine will knock. repaint your car because the paints falling off {had to have mine repainted this months} and yes it literally fell off..... but when somebody posts about it....i see replies like this "so you paid 27,000$ for your car if ya cant afford to repaint it dont buy it" .... or " if you dont like spending 220$ a month on gas go buy a honduh" it just takes away a lot from all the good contributions that many others here strive to do. a better replie would be " yeah that paint problem sux, try the 3m bra...." or "hey have a mechanic install a new o2 sensor, have the timimg........" thats what constructive criticism is all about. My apologize to you SlickRick....you never did me wrong before 
looking back at the thread there is a lot of people who agree on using premium fuel {as do i seeing that its runs waaaay better} I shouldnt have quoted you and said you were name calling I shouldnt have even been offended by the other calling names. You made a valid point {except the insurance :-p} Anyways I always read through threads and see name calling to one person or another...and just shrug my shoulder and move on. I think its the fact that i spent manyhourse reading here today...thanx to al the contributors
. and saw an awful lot of argueing or negativity...then i ran across this thread.....wich as i stated before is a bit touchy to me.....its not like Nissan dealer walks up to me and says...you have to buy new O2 sensors {wich i allready have} new cd player cuzz yours is gunna crap out on you {mine has}. premium fuel because your engine will knock. repaint your car because the paints falling off {had to have mine repainted this months} and yes it literally fell off..... but when somebody posts about it....i see replies like this "so you paid 27,000$ for your car if ya cant afford to repaint it dont buy it" .... or " if you dont like spending 220$ a month on gas go buy a honduh" it just takes away a lot from all the good contributions that many others here strive to do. a better replie would be " yeah that paint problem sux, try the 3m bra...." or "hey have a mechanic install a new o2 sensor, have the timimg........" thats what constructive criticism is all about. My apologize to you SlickRick....you never did me wrong before
06-20-2004, 05:25 PM
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,280
Originally Posted by Y2KXCLAN
whats this w"WE" stuff?
I put 35,000 on my max a year.
I had a 2000 firebird that got the same gas mileage and had more power....not complaining about the max.....but my firebird ran on cheap gas ALWAYS and the max was pinging and knocking the first week i bought it.....and even if it were 200$ a year thats something that some people dont wanna spend.
I put 35,000 on my max a year.
I had a 2000 firebird that got the same gas mileage and had more power....not complaining about the max.....but my firebird ran on cheap gas ALWAYS and the max was pinging and knocking the first week i bought it.....and even if it were 200$ a year thats something that some people dont wanna spend.
And as far as people not wanting to spend extra $200 a year, then why not get a Sentra and save several hundreds of dollars on gas a year? Not to mention saving thousands on the price of the car in the first place.
06-20-2004, 05:32 PM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by mikeI302k
1)Jim Blenkarn probably said that so that we **** up out engines using **** grade fuel and come to Nissan/Ifiniti adn let them rape us in the *** to fix it.
2) I use a mix of 93 and 94 octane. when i get a half a tank i fill1/4 93 ,1/4 94 it saves money and the effect is more or less the same. since 94 is significantly more expensive then 93 in NY.
I don't remmeber exactly where but i read somewhere that you should use the same octane as your car model year or better. so for example my grandfather has an 89 max he puts in 91 octane, he could use 89 but he knows how i am about this stuff and he'd rather not hear a speech as I would'nt wanna hear one from him about girls lol.
too funny.
06-21-2004, 11:05 AM
#60
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 193
Originally Posted by Kevon1
WOW.......24 responses to an article I thought me be an intresting read. And I get responses like " My baby only drinks 93" "Might as well buy a hybrid or join a hybrid forum" I myself never recommended anything but premium fuel all I was stating is that there is apparently no benifit in useing 93 or 94 octane over 91 . Around my neck of the woods 93 and 94 although Sunoco doesent sell 94 here in NewYork anymore is around 15 to 20 cents more per gallon than 91. And according to the article a higher octane might cause some kind of buildup. The manual clearly states 91 octane as the recommended fuel not 93 or 94.
06-21-2004, 11:28 AM
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,594
I use premium because the car asks for it and although I could save a lot by going to 87 (more than the slight loss of fuel economy suffered by the retarded timing from the knock sensors) I hate to know that there is some mild power loss going to 87, and the long-term effects of relying on knock sensors are arguable.
However, if your car asks for 87 and you put in anything higher you should be shot, except in the cases where you've got engine problems, such as buildup in your combustion chamber and you're getting knock with 87, but it would be a better idea to try and fix that instead of patch the issue with a higher grade.
I actually hate people who put in 89+ when their car only asks for 87.
However, if your car asks for 87 and you put in anything higher you should be shot, except in the cases where you've got engine problems, such as buildup in your combustion chamber and you're getting knock with 87, but it would be a better idea to try and fix that instead of patch the issue with a higher grade.
I actually hate people who put in 89+ when their car only asks for 87.
06-21-2004, 12:56 PM
#62
Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 31
another way to get 91 in ur tank is to pour in 2 part 93 and 1 part 87. u might be able to save more than mixing half 93 and half 89 depending on what the price difference is between the three grades in ur area. 
oh who cares, they probably water the gasoline down anyways. is that a myth or fact? and they probaby mess with the pumps so u might not even get what the pump says u did, so for the dude who did the test on his own, did u think take that factor into consideration?
oh who cares, they probably water the gasoline down anyways. is that a myth or fact? and they probaby mess with the pumps so u might not even get what the pump says u did, so for the dude who did the test on his own, did u think take that factor into consideration?
06-21-2004, 01:23 PM
#63
Custom User Title
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 238
"I would stop driving rather than use a lower grade of gasoline," says Andrew Martschenko of Boston, who drives a 2003 Nissan Maxima. Nissan says premium is "recommended" for that engine — automaker code for regular is OK, but you'll only get the advertised power on premium.
You already know he's lying. We 3.5 guys can't get the advertised horsepower no matter what grade we use.
You already know he's lying. We 3.5 guys can't get the advertised horsepower no matter what grade we use.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post