I have experimented with 87, 89 and 93. I truly believe what is recommended is the best for our cars. I get better performance with 93 as opposed to 87. For some reason, I don't believe in using mid range. It is either premium or regular. But I stick to Premium now as I enjoy my performance.

I don't know if some have experience this, but I have experienced that a full tank of regular gas gets used up faster than a full tank of premium gas. With normal driving.

 

Gas mileage cannot be measured by the tankful. Back around five or six years ago, I listed dozens of reasons here on the ORG why that is not accurate.

We can begin to reach a somewhat meaningful number if we measure everything carefully for three or four tankfuls, but even then variables such as not following the exact same itenary or driving style with both types of fuels, temperature at fillup, slant and tilt of car at fillup, cutoff point of the particular nozzle being used to fill the tank, etc, etc, make resulting numbers a 'seat-of-the-pants' thing at best.

The most accurate measurements are laboratory controlled, and they show that, as long as the engine is efficiently running on the octanes being tested, changing octanes does NOT measurably change fuel efficiency, urban rumors to the contrary.

But once an urban rumor is started, nothing can ever stop it. We people are like lemmings. We tend to believe what 'seems' to be true without rersearching the reality of the situation.

PetitFrere - I am very glad you stopped using regular. Yes, it was possible to use regular in previous generation Maximas, sacrificing only some performance. But Nissan has changed the fuel setup for the 7th gen, and regular should NEVER be used in this 7th gen Maxima.

I am surprised you won't try midgrade. Midgrade is easily the best compromise between performance and economy, because, unlike regular, it affects performance in only extreme driving situations such as quarter mile elapsed time runs, yet costs from 15 cents to 30 cents less per gallon around where I live. My Maximas have always performed especially well on midgrade.

 

Remember Nissan went from requiring Premium in 09 to 10 back to what they have always said for the Max in prior years "recommended" for higher performance etc. I since have found out that nothing changed in its fuel system...... Also alot of the guys that I know that have 02+ 3.5 Maxima's notice performance difference and in many cases some slight knocking when they use Octane of less than 91, so that not running its best scenario applies to older 3.5 Maxipads as well. My wifes G is not so happy with anything under 91 Octane as well.

 

I am glad you brought this up. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, as a car got older and less efficient, rather than spend a gob of money for a complete tuneup, many folks simply switched to a higher octane gasoline, and the car ran better.

They took that route because tuneups of that era not only required new plugs and resetting the timing, but also new points, and often a new coil and new ignition and spark plug wires, and sometimes a new distributor cap.

Also, as cars get older, some can gradually become less efficient, and sometimes actually need a slightly higher octane than when new. Of course in many cases, a tuneup would have negated the need for a higher octane.

A lot depends on the flexiblility the fuel system. I once had a station attendant put regular in my '66 Olds Delta 88. That car weighed around 4400 pounds, had a 25 gallon tank, required premium, and got 8 MPG around town and 11 MPG on the highway. I was able to get a half mile up the road before the missing and knocking became so bad I had to pull over and call a tow truck.

Nissan has worked hard to have a fuel system that adapts to the fuel it finds in the car. Today's Maximas probably do a better job of adapting up to 93 octane, or down to 89 octane, than Maximas of the 'middle' generations.

I have owned all generations except gen 1, and began by using premium in each one, then after 18 months, switched to midgrade in every one, and I never had even the first whisper of pinging, much less a knock. Best of all, the MPG stayed the same with either octane.

But every car is slightly different. If a vehicle set up for 91 octane pings or knocks with 89 octane, then something is slightly out of adjustment with the fuel system setup. We would anticipate problems with using 87 octane in an engine set up for 91, but not with 89 octane.

The engine may not be quite as efficient with 89 octane, but there should be no pinging or knocking unless the engine is actually set up for 93 octane. Of course no stock Maxima has ever been set up for 93 octane.

But I ramble.

 

My 3rd gen gets better mileage on regular. I notice a 2-3 mpg difference, when using higher octane. A 2-3 mpg difference is about a gallon of gas.

It just depends on how you drive.

You can also learn how to drive with the CVT, such as CVT shifting. Where you feather the throttle to achieve lower rpms, while increasing or maintaining speed.

This car loves coasting more, so try that.

 

Yes, but not only that. The roads and traffic have A LOT to do with it. Country roads with 55 MPH compaired to a citys suburbs with lots of cross roads and red lights. The 7th gen is a heavy car and getting that big thing from 0-45 to 0-45 over and over dues to lights will kill the MPG. Here in Orlando red lights are very close together and often turn red. I can get 25MPG out in Disney area but around Orlando it can be as low as 19.5

 

True, I have owned 2nd though the 6th gen which was totalled then my wife purchased her G back in 05. To young for the 1st gen (older Sister had one although from 83 to 86 when she fell in love with the 2nd gen) and I Purchased a 370Z instead of the 7th gen last as we already have 2 Sedans in great shape, but when I travel on business I get to enjoy a rental 7th gen quite often love it. So I am just about as familiar with Maxipads as you are!

 

93 octane. Its what's recommended and what's a few cents more? Were getting screwed by the oil company's either way. Plus I don't want any lag in acceleration.

 

Minor correction. Nissan recommends PREMIUM gas, which is 93 in SOME parts of the country, but 91 octane in OTHER parts of the country. Nissan actually has the Maxima set up for optimum performance at 91 octane, so 93 adds nothing to the performance over 91.

You are lucky premium is only a few cents more where you live. Premium varies from 15 to 30 cents more per gallon than midgrade where I live. That is from $2.55 to $5.10 more per 17 gallon fillup.

 

I'm not so sure about your claim about 93 octane not making a difference, Nissan has designed the ECU to change timing for lower and higher octane fuels so theoretically 93 octane should give you a every so teeny itsy bitsy performance boost....

The reason why you see the 91/93 difference is mainly because of altitude, the higher in altitude you are the less octane you require for anti-knock, which is why you see 85 Octane in most of the rockies. If you live in a higher elevation you can actually get away with 87 for a car the requires 91/93. Just be careful if you drive to a lower elevation, however thankfully with modern cars today the ECU will adjust the timing enough to avoid any engine damage from detonation.

Here in AZ we only have a 10 cent difference between the 3 grades, we also can only get 91 Octane however my gas station has 107 Octane for $7.50 a gallon...

 

it would be fun to try that 107 octane for one fuel up, I would love to see what it would feel like.

 

Until you mentioned the price different light between the different grades out where you live, I didn't realize it could vary that much in different parts of the country. Out here on the East Coast, at least here in NJ and eastern PA, typically the difference between mid-grade and premium is 10 cents so your only saving 1-2 bucks a fill-up by getting midgrade over premium. For most thats not much of a difference so you either get regular or premium usually.

Out here, almost all the different gas chains sell 87, 89, and 93 octane. Since the mid-grade is 89 octane I wouldn't try it since Nissan recommends 91 and higher and thus I always fill up with 93. WaWa chains out here sell 87, 89, and 92 and Sunoco is 87, 89, and 94 I believe which are the only exceptions to the rule. Years ago, before BP bought Amaco, they used to sell 91 octane premium as the highest grade but once BP took over that went to 93 like everyone else.

So, if premium is required in my vehicles, they get 93 octane, simply b/c thats the only premium grade out here to put in. I guess in other parts of the country 92 or 91 octane is the highest premium grade available.

 

Here in Dallas we have a some Gas stations that carry 87,89,91 and 93 Octane and there is sometimes a 6 cents difference between 91 and 93 octane. As in the Atlanta area where Light lives our gas in the DFW area does not have the traditional 10 cent upcharge per octane from the 89 to 93, the 93 is 15 to 22 cents more here as well over the 89. I went driving around in the Z tonight and I observed several stations because of this thread!

 

The Sunoco near me (South Jersey) that I nearly always use carries 87, 89, 91, and 93. Almost without exception, the price increase is only a nickel a step among the top three grades.

The turbocharged Subie gets 93 (as strongly mfr-recommended), while everything else I own gets 91 (either mfr-recommended or required since taking delivery due to engine modifications that then demanded it) FWIW, both 91 and 93 grades were $2.6x last I stopped there, and like every other station in NJ those are not self-serve prices.

I don't even know what the 87 stuff goes for. Haven't had to fill the gas can for the lawn mower for quite a long time this summer


Norm

 

I am so jealous. It seems we are filling both our 2 1/2 gallon gasoline cans (with regular) every week. So much mowing, planting, picking fruit and vegetables, sawing, edging, mending fences, etc; work never ends. And this summer it all has to be done in heat between 95 and 102 degrees. There just has to be more to retirement than this.

We have a development picked out (low-maintenance xero-style landscaping) where we hope to retire to when this recession ends around 2013 and we can sell this property with its huge workload.

At that time, we will be able to fully appreciate our beautiful Maxima. We can already visualize cruising along the interstates to wonderful places with fun things to do. And we can replace our straw hats with tennis caps. We won't even have to bring a truck or tractor or mower or work gloves, mattock and pitchfork with us. Just us and our Maxima! I smile as I sit here thinking about that wonderful day to come.

 

Shoot, if our manual says 89 is cool I am down with that. Why pay extra when you save the money for the poker table lol.

Actually all the cars I uave, I used premium, but if we do not have to, then why. ? However I have been putting premium since I have had the car.

But what does our manuals recommend?

 

The manual recommends 91 octane for maximum performance. I ran premium (91/93) for 18 months, then dropped to midgrade (89). I have had excellent performance with midgrade, and have had no change in MPG, but absolutely would never consider dropping to regular (87 octane). The manual says if regular is the only fuel available, put in the minimum needed to get to a higher grade, and drive carefully (no strong acceleration) to where you can get the higher grade fuel.

If I were a very aggressive driver, or prone to occasional wide open throttle outbursts, I would stick with premium (91 or 93 octane). But for that 90 percent of drivers that drive in a reasonably normal manner, 89 octane works just fine physically, but there are those drivers for whom 89 does not work emotionally.

 

Why is it you have always chosen to use premium for 18 months then switching to mid grade? Is it for a breakin period where you feel it's more important to have that higher octane?

 

I'm both a creature of habit and a compulsive/obsessive type who, once he finds a procedure that works, continues to repeat that procedure indefinitely, even in the face of possibly contradictory evidence.

At least that would be the analysis some folks here on the ORG would apply to me.

A closer reality is that I like to be thouroughly familiar with exactly how the car performs in all driving conditions (including seasonal changes), and what the fuel efficiency is with the recommended fuel over an extended time period before trying something else. I feel that is the only way I can make a fair and accurate comparison of exactly what difference moving to midgrade is making.

Also, should there be any hint of problems in the ignition or fuel area early in the ownership period (which is when most Maxima problems occur), I want to be able to tell the service tech I am using the recommended fuel, and the problem can't be due to fuel.

I have always read any article I come across related to choosing octane for a vehicle. For decades, I adhered to Consumer Report's old edict that using any octane higher than the car will run smoothly on during very strong acceleration was a waste.

But I have gradually decided there was a little more to the situation. Modern cars can make adjustments for various octanes, but if that adjustment requires moving to an octane too far rremoved from what the fuel system was designed for, then the fuel system, although it may seem to be operating fine, is no longer operating at its best efficiency, and certainly not at its optimum power.

In 26 years of owning Maximas, I have never been able to detect a change in performance or MPG after moving to midgrade. My careful long-term measuring has convinced me of the veracity of the many publications that insist that, as long as we are using an octane on which the car can operate efficiently, octane affects only performance, not MPG.

Which then leads me to the conclusion that, should I take my Maxima to the track and run a long series of time trials, I would expect the difference in octane would show itself in the form of very slightly better elapsed times as the octane climbed.

I think MaxLoverAz is probably correct that the ability of these modern Maximas to adjust to the octane we put in the car might mean if it detects 93 octane, it would adjust and make slightly even more power with 93 than it would have with 91. Of course proving that might require carefully controlled time trials.

Perhaps more important, most Maxima lovers are emotionally involved with their cars, and when it comes to emotional involvement, many can't bring themselves to put anything but the very highest octane available in their baby. And there is nothing wrong with that.

 

I will not fill up at a station if it doesn't have 93, if I don't see a pump with that number on it, i drive off looking for the next station.

I think it's ridiculous that someone pays the money that we do for this car and then cheapens it by refusing to use 93, no disrespect to anyone here if you do but that is just my 2 cents.

 

Well, we are all entitled to our opinion, but I feel you may not be considering the full picture.

Over 90% of Maxima drivers are not involved in extreme acceleration, such as would be done with time trials. For that 90%, there certainly is little if anything to be gained by stepping from the recommended octane up to 93.

And using 91 octane IN NO WAY CHEAPENS THE CAR. It is simply using what the car is set up to use, and is the HIGHEST AVAILABLE octane in many parts of the country.

I feel the term 'cheapens' should be reserved for drivers who abuse their car, either through very harsh driving, failure to protect it from the elements, or lack of proper maintenence. Or maybe by never cleaning it.

 

So what you're telling me is that an amateur opinion based solely on some relative perception of the Maxima's price point is worth more than the results of the several thousand hours of engineering and test time that Nissan invested in their EFI calibrations?

By that logic, what sort of octane would you fill the tank of a Ferrari, turbo Porsche, Lamborghini, or Aston-Martin with?


Trust me, the car isn't going to get its feelings hurt if you "stoop" to feeding it 91-octane "rat pee".


Norm

 

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. Happy for you, keep using 91 or whatever you like and my opinion is just that, my opinion.

Sorry you took offense, you may now continue posting.

 

the poll ignores the widely available 91, so add me there. Sometimes 92 is available and not 91, so I'll get that, else I'm at 93 if all else fails

 

Using 93 where 91 is sufficient is only wasteful. I guess by age 45 you should know whether that's appropriate, so I won't belabor the point.

That doesn't bother me nearly as much as when people defend their decisions on what are purely technical points using purely emotional reasoning. The right new technical information can cause a person's technical position to change, but emotional positions tend to become "set in stone" and unchangeable regardless of how strong the opposing evidence may be. Both logic and emotion have valid places with respect to an individual's decision-making; the key is knowing where each is applicable (or not).



Thank you for your kindness in extending my posting privileges.


Norm

 

well Norm since you want to belabor this point then I'll just say it like this so that you don't think I'm only "emotionally" charged in my decision making on this:

I know that it doesn't matter much between the two as I know about Octane enough to know the differences in the ratings but as I said before I prefer it because it is right in line with paying for my car, not to mention it is a recommendation by the manufacturer.

But hey, if you think I only operate out of the "emotional" principle then that is your right to continue to do so, you use 91 and I use 93 for my reasons.

You may like butter on your popcorn and I may not but I'm not gonna try to equate that to a purely emotional decision.

And yes, you do have my blessings to continue posting

 

I use 91 as that's what premium is in Colorado. We have 85, 87 & 91 only. It's only $0.10 more per gallon at a maximum of 18 gallons which equates to less than $2.00 per fill up. Twice a month fill up's equals $48 (max) extra per year barring any road trips........It's a no brainer!!

 

So true dude....93 always, nothing less.

 

Just a minor correction. Nissan specifically set this car up for 91 octane, and tells us so in their manuals. 91 octane is 'premium' gasoline. Nissan never mentions 93 octane.

It stands to reason that if 91 is not available, then 93 is the clear choice. But where both 91 and 93 are available, 93 does nothing to change your miles per gallon, and would not have a discernable difference in performance. Maybe a fraction of a tenth of a second elapsed time zero to sixty, but that is detectable only by a very accurate timing system.

Unless a driver is actually running elapsed time trials, choosing 93 over 91 when both are available is a choice based purely on emotion, which is fine. Emotion plays a large role in why I prefer a Maxima to any of many fine vehicles that are available. Were emotion not involved, I might be driving a G37 or TL Type 'S'.

 

Edited the last poll option to include the various "premium" ratings from around the country at the request of the poll owner.

 

even before i did the 2* timing i ran 93 here in Dallas. anybody using under 91 should chew glass. 3.5's anyway should use

 

I've wrapped a towel around my head so hopefully nobody can hear the crunching sound.

I would have probably said anybody using under 89 in the 7th gen Maxima is being unkind to their best friend.

 

Its a habit in my eyes, i have never look for any gas lower then 93 for my 7th gen no matter what the cost eventually it be comes a automatic habit when pulling into pump station. I get 480 miles to a full tank going easy on the pedal of course thanks alot to 93 octane

 

NiteCrawler - Many here have the same habit - 93 only for my baby. Certainly can't hurt.

But be aware that, although the 93 helps our ego a great deal, it does not change the MPG from what the 91 gives us. Higher octane has the potential to improve performance, but not MPG, urban rumors and purported experiences notwithstanding.

 

I will add in, when towing (significant weight and/or in mountains) it is recommended/required to put in higher octane than what the manufacturer normally recommends.

The seat-of-the-pants scientific method guarantees higher mpg with higher octane.

 

I'm getting 28 to 29 mpg on 89 Octane. Runs great

 

Yes, when towing something on steep grades, we can use any help we can get.

I love that quote about 'seat-of-the-pants scientific method' guaranteeing higher MPG with higher octane. That describes exactly how so many posters here are measuring their MPG. Those 'seat-of-the-pants measurements, as well as measuring MPH on just a tank or two, or making some other error in measurement are involved when a poster announces he is getting better MPG with higher octane. But you are I know better.

 

Exactly what I am experiencing with 89 octane. I got just over 30 on one long freeway trip - exactly what I got with 93 octane last summer on that exact same trip.

I am convinced the CVT helps with MPG on open freeways, as it allows us to manipulate the cruising RPMs lower than if we we had a shifting tranny with fixed ratios for each gear.

 

I want to add a few things to this topic:

Each time I have been filling up with 93 I have been doing the math of cost vs 89 and have found it to be only $6-7 dollars more each fill from a empty tank.I also noticed while doing this that every gas stations math in the pumps is off.I will notify the weights and measure comission on this as at times its off by 50 cent and more!

Now about the octane I dont see any issues for those using 89 if they are never going to open it up to maximize all the power the max has to offer.But for us who want to achieve its potential for how the ecu was tuned we would need to use the reccommended premium fuel.It wont hurt it if somebody is using 89 and goes WOT all the time as the knock sensors will tell the ecu to pull timing back.

I run 93/meth on my supra daily and have no issues up to 26 psi with a good amount of timing.But I can go all out on straight C16 and utilize its full potential of 38 psi and run more timing.This is just me babbling on how it all depends on the purpose and the use of the said vehicle.

 

Exactly light! I have seen that as well. I drive around with the split status screen all the time that shows the mpg with the fluctuating bar and the audio information. As soon as I get onto open freeway using cruise control or light touch of the gas pedal, the bar shoots right up to the 30mpg+ level and stays there until I slow down, go up hill, or stop.