compyelc4

https://www.consumerreports.org/fuel...d-premium-gas/

Here is an interesting article regarding Consumer Reports' testing of a 2016 Acura TLX and Nissan Maxima. They indicate their performance and mpg tests show no difference using 87 or 91.

What are your thoughts? My 2017 runs a steady diet of 87 octane all year round and she achieves an amazing mpg on the road. Over a year's worth of both city and interstate driving in Ohio weather I'm averaging 29.8 mpg overall, and the acceleration is like a bat out of hell. No knocking on the hottest day, even pulling a mountain incline. A trip down and back to Fl. this year yielded a tad under 34 mpg for the trip, including some city driving in there. The diff. between top tier 87 and 93 around here has climbed from around $.30/gal to around $.50/gal, and this is with fuel prices staying about the same. With all the hi-performance V6s and 4-cyl turbos they are pushing these days I wonder if big oil might be trying to take advantage of mfg's. "recommending" 91 octane in these puppies? Naw.

Blasterguy

^^^ 2 years of 87 and absolutely no hint of knock under the worst conditions.

lightonthehill

A misconception that has been around for decades is that higher octane gasoline can help a little with MPG. It will not. Scientists tell us that octane and MPG are not connected. Higher octane gives slightly better power, but does not change MPG.

I use 93 octane the first 18 months after I buy a Maxima, then 89 octane (midgrade) after that. That gives me a year and a half to confirm that scientists are correct. I get the same MPG with 89 octane that I get with 93 octane.

If I insisted on using regular (87 octane), I would skip the Maxima and buy a car designed for use with regular fuel. That is just me.

FattiesGoneWild

The car is tuned for the higher octane and takes advantage of it. So funny how people will buy an expensive car like this and be a complete cheap *** not putting in the recommended premium gas.

wild willy

iTrader: (10)

I read that article a few days ago, I agree with it. I noticed no difference in any VQ I owned ever. When the Altima 3.5 came out in Late 2001 it required premium according to Nissan and the Manual....That year the Accord came out with the same HP ratings on their v6 but it ran on regular. The following year in the Alima 3.5 the manual was changed to indicate that Premium was Recommended....For the record..I ran premium in my 02 Always...Not in my 12....No difference. And Premium is 45 cents more a gallon. When I get gas I use my fuel perks and get 30 Gallon...so that comes out to about 14 bucks a fill up difference.....Our Quest runs great on the Regular as well.

sdomingues

I have tested both on my 2016 with now 40k miles and can also confirm that there is no MPG difference between 87 and 91 and no knocking or other issues.

The only thing I can notice, is that it feels slightly sluggish on 87 in comparison to 91 when accelerating through the power band.

MadMax07SL

FattiesGoneWild is spot on. I had the 2007, tried regular for 2 tanks, noticed immediately there was a loss in performance. went back to 91 after emptying the tank (past the reserve as much as I could), and in under 50 miles the car adjusted for the gas change and performance was much better.


I get it, sometimes gas can be an overage expense. But as noted by some even with Gen8, the performance loss is noteworthy. Do the math, say you average 15000 miles a year, get 23 mpg, that's 652 gallons a year. Even at say a $0.60 difference between regular and premium (which is on the high end) it's $391 a year more. Now say you're 12000, getting 25mpg all year at a difference of $0.50, that's only $240 more a year to enjoy the car at full power. Of course that overage will vary for everyone, but WTF...don't be a pu$$y, just buy premium and ****...

Markdesigns

I recently bought a 2017 Maxima to replace my 07 3.5 Altima. My Altima always knocked when I put 87 in it, and it was loud. When I put 91 in, it went away. Quiet as a mouse and it ran better too.

I have put both in my Maxima and currently have 87 in it because our stupid Governor raised the gas tax....It doesn't knock and is very quiet and I have only noticed a slight performance difference. Acceleration, everything is still very good. I will be sticking with 87 for the time being.

Richard66

WOW - I don't know what the raised tax rate was, but even if it was 10 cents a gallon, you are going to put in less than approved octane because of a $1.50.

Markdesigns

Its $3 more for premium

Richard66

Wasn't talking gas selection, was talking tax increase as you were ranting about the extra tax imposed causing you to change from 91 to 87. At least that was my understanding of you original post. Even if it is only $4.50 extra per tank, very small price to pay to keep your fine auto running at peak performance.

Markdesigns

.42 per gallon is taxed. At current prices it costs $3 more to fill up with premium than regular. Why you gotta be an *** about it? I was simply stating my experience. Modern cars are tuned to run on either and most people do not notice a difference. I put 260,000 miles on my Altima 3.5 running mostly on regular. The most costly repair was my air conditioner......

CNTRT

Yes but, according to Honda, the accord made 10hp more when the ecu adjusted to 93 octane versus 87. (at least the 06-07 Accord V6 did)

lightonthehill

I have never understood the same situation that has existed on this board for over fifteen years - The argument is always between regular (87 octane) and premium (93 or 91 octane). After the first 18 months of ownership of each of my Maximas starting with the 1985 2nd gen,, I have always changed to midgrade (89 octane). costs more than regular and less than premium, but, unlike regular, gives performance much nearer to premium. But midgrade is almost never mentioned here, and I almost never see anyone buying midgrade at the pump. Reminds me of our country - folks usually seem to be extremely to one side or extremely to the other side. Sometimes (probably fairly often) the best compromise/answer is somewhere in between. But I realize I am simply barking at the moon, and the moon could care less.

sschumer

Point well made lightonthehill. I have never used anything other than midgrade/plus/89 octane in my 2005 Maxima. 170,000 miles and have always been more than happy with the performance.

BlakMaxiJoey

ever since i was able to get “cheaper” 91, i have not used 87. at 89, it feels the same as 91 because i do not really go past 5k rpm (passing). i get 87 because price of 91 is ridiculous on the highways. they recommend 91 because it burns the gasoline almost completely and cleaner, right? and that knocking sound is caused by premature combustion (likes to eat up internals) on this high compression engine (until it adjusts itself to not knock), and causes stanky exhaust, which degrades the cats?

dmc79

The power and torque ratings for the engine are on 91 octane fuel. Even if the benefit isn't all that noticeable, I'm going to use the recommended fuel to make sure I get full performance out of my engine. I have run 87 octane a couple times, and while fuel economy is the same, it just seems to feel slightly sluggish compared to premium, particularly at higher RPM.

compyelc4

0-60 runs have proven otherwise. No diff. I checked this with my car and no diff. either. I sure can't feel any diff. in seat-of-MY pants.

compyelc4

Guys, just run what makes you feel better. That's all. Bet you all sell or trade before your cats fall off anyway. :-)

dmc79

This is true. The car does not require premium, so it is perfectly capable of running reliably and for a long time on anything from 87 to 93.

2young2retire

Our local Wal Mart now carries non ethanol 91 octane. I normally use Shell 93 octane but just switched over to the non ethanol just to see if I can tell any difference.

lindros2

I religiously put 93 in my car for the first year. Then when the spread between regular (87) and premium (92/93) went to 40-60 cents, I gave up.

I haven't seen any noticeable, well, anything.

Premium isn't going to get me 20-30% improvement in fuel economy, and that's what the cost difference is.

compyelc4

Out of curiosity more than anything, I dumped 91 octane in an almost empty 87 octane tank this week (an extra $5 fill-up). I don't notice squat in mileage, acceleration, idling, engine noise, nada. Probably will return to 87 octane when this tank is done. Thanks for the "encouraging?" words from some of you.

robtroxel

Just crossed the 26000 mile mark with my 16 Platinum and I have never fed it anything other than 87 Octane. Plenty of power, great MPG and no knocks ever. Around my area the price difference is from 93 to 87 is 70 cents per gallon! Here is a case where premium to recommended by Nissan but not required and as such will not invalidate any warranty. While paying extra may give you comfort, then more "power" to you. I just don't see any actual benefit for the car.

240tomax

87 around town and in the winter. 91 during road trips in the summer weather to ensure no knocking or pinging (though the odd time I used 87 in hot weather there was no knocking or pinging).

AG2016

While it is correct that our Maxima's, as well as virtually all of today's modern vehicles, will adjust for different rates of octane in gasoline...one fact and one question remain:
1. Nissan manufactured the motor and recommends premium fuel (93 in most states; 91 in states in the West/Northwest). 2. If consumers/Maxima buyer's know and understand this fact, why put any other octane grade of gasoline in the/your Maxima?

I simply don't understand purchasing an expensive car with the understanding the manufacturer recommends premium grade gasoline for best performance/MPG and longevity...yet, owners elect to not adhere to said manufacturers recommendation. If spending $5.00 more per tankful of gasoline on the low side...and $8.00 on the high side...for premium over non-premium gasoline is a deterrent...whether financially or simply by decision to not purchase premium...then perhaps the Maxima wasn't, or isn't, the correct car to own/drive. Just my 2 cents...

compyelc4

In answer to your question my '17 Max SL IS the correct car for me to own. It meets my wants and needs perfectly. It checks every box for me. My decision to run the car on 87-89 octane is a financial one, meaning I am "cheap" and it tickles me that I can run 0-60 just as fast as yours running 93 and travel just as far, all else being equal... and I look just as good doing it! And one more thing- Nissan recommends 5,000 mile oil and filter changes using dino or synthetic blend, but as soon as warranty is up I'm switching to 100% syn and will probably do my oil/filter changes at 8,000 mile intervals, maybe even 10,000 if I feel rogue at the time. Oh, and she gets washed and waxed about every 2 weeks 'cause I'm **** like that. Nissan would think this is silly. Did I mention that I run 89 octane in my late-model Vettes instead of GM "recommended" 91-93 octane? Still run like a scalded dogs on the cheaper brand dog food,but I would never drag or track them with 87 because I get slightly less power without 91 in a Vette, but not in my Max. That's it for me. I started this thing, so I think I'll back on out now. Seems like it's about 50/50 on this site anyway.
Peace.............

AG2016

To each his own....I would wager, however, all things and conditions being equal, my SR vs your SL, my SR will indeed best your SL in a 0-60 run (if even by a fraction of a second) and produce better gas mileage (if even by a half MPG)...if every and all conditions are 100% equal.
There is no denying the empirical fact that 93 octane burns more completely, thus produces more power upon combustion...producing better thrust, acceleration and MPG. And over time and equal driven distances...again ALL conditions and factors being 100% equal...higher octane gasoline will produce better gas mileage and produce more power. So in essence, NO you won't run a 0-60 time as quickly as me or "travel just as far" as me...because you are "cheap." Granted the speed and distance greater than you will be minimal...but, as I said, empirical facts are facts nonetheless....you WILL BE SLOWER and YOU WILL obtain less MPG. Enjoy your extra $ 5.00 saved per tank.

And it is interesting that you acknowledge the fact that your Corvette produces less power with 87 octane, vice 91, but you think you Maxima doesn't? You are simply incorrect to presume one internal combustion engine works differently than another one, even if it has two cylinders less. And whatever you do is of no consequence to me, with regards to your oil changing frequency...the logic and rationale stated in my original post regarding using premium gasoline in the Maxima is still true.

wild willy

iTrader: (10)

You may find this hard to believe...but technology since 1991 Has come a long way....Including Knock sensors....lol

AG2016

Your reading compression is poor Wild *****...the 91 refers to the octane rating of the gasoline he referred to putting into the the Corvette, NOT the year 1991. And if you read my initial post, I made the inference that yes, most modern vehicles will adjust for variable octane ratings...i.e. Knock Sensor technology. Thanks for posting and showing your poor reading comprehension. You may find this hard to believe, but you are an IDIOT.

robtroxel

[QUOTE=AG2016;9162813]To each his own....I would wager, however, all things and conditions being equal, my SR vs your SL, my SR will indeed best your SL in a 0-60 run (if even by a fraction of a second) and produce better gas mileage (if even by a half MPG)...if every and all conditions are 100% equal.
There is no denying the empirical fact that 93 octane burns more completely, thus produces more power upon combustion...producing better thrust, acceleration and MPG. And over time and equal driven distances...again ALL conditions and factors being 100% equal...higher octane gasoline will produce better gas mileage and produce more power. So in essence, NO you won't run a 0-60 time as quickly as me or "travel just as far" as me...because you are "cheap." Granted the speed and distance greater than you will be minimal...but, as I said, empirical facts are facts nonetheless....you WILL BE SLOWER and YOU WILL obtain less MPG. Enjoy your extra $ 5.00 saved per tank.

Empirical evidence is what really happens and it is measurable. Most of the contributers here including me see no difference using the higher octane fuel. 1. There is no increase in MPG. 2. Time might be a couple of 10ths difference from 0-60. For the most part, unnoticable to anyone but a boyracer using a stop watch and I really wonder if that difference exists at all. I have never thought, "I wish I had more passing power". If 0-60 is that important to a person, this is indeed the wrong car for them.

AG2016

[QUOTE=robtroxel;9162827]It IS MEASURABLE...and even if, as you say, it is but "a couple of 10ths difference", it is still quicker on premium grade octane vice non-premium octane. And this point supports my initial post...EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE, no matter how small the difference. Simply because you, and most people, can't "see a difference", it doesn't mean that a "difference" doesn't exist...it does exist. Refer to my initial post and reread how higher octane performs in an internal combustion engine to produce power, if you have forgotten. And the fact exists independent of you "wishing you had more passing power." Arguing there isn't a difference is NOT SUPPORTED by the science of how an engine uses gasoline with a higher octane rating to produce power, provide acceleration and better gas mileage. I suppose you believe Earth is "flat" too, correct? And I did not reference a "Boy Racer" using a stop watch nor the importance or relevance of 0-60 times in my post. Stay on point, keep to the discussion and SUPPORT your point-of-view with facts...not juvenile assertions because you are "Butt Hurt" and can't provide any real facts/evidence to support your point-of-view.

robtroxel

It would appear you are a "gas pedal all the way down sort of guy". The rest of us get along just fine without the extra 10ths of either MPG or power you refer to. It seems what you bring to the table is alot of name calling and self ordained knowlege as closers to what ever point you are trying to make. So we agree to disagree. No further reason to exchange thoughts.

BlakMaxiJoey

ag2016, or anyone, correct me if i am wrong.
nissan recommends 91 because the engine was designed to cleaner than 87, no?
but if one has been using 87 from the beginning, hence the computer has relearned itself to run on 87, but then put a higher octane, the “noticeable differences” will not show up for a while until it relearns or adapts to the higher octance, right? otherwise, it will be confused and may get really sluggish?

MadMax07SL

Midgrade is kind of a wasted topic. I mean, first off, in my part of town good luck finding 89 anywhere. It's 87 and 91, that's pretty much it. Second, if you're paying for mid grade, you're only paying maybe a $1.50 less for a tank full vs full premium. The way I see it, either you go 87 or 91/93. 89 is a waste. What are you really saving at that point?

compyelc4

[QUOTE=AG2016;9162829]Pass the popcorn!

Mr. AG2016, Yes it's all empirically measurable (yeah, I like that word too) and, as you say, using higher octane in our Max's (which version do you own?) might yield small differences, but I'll wager too that most of us here that prefer to use lower octane are basing our decision on seat-of-the-pants "non-empirical" stimuli coupled with empirical measurements of $s debited to our credit cards. So let's just blow those empirical measurements out our tailpipes and enjoy driving our wonderful Max's in the manner each of us see fit. If I ever meet you at the strip we can then use the strip equipment for those empirical measurements, and if you are quick enough off the line you just might cross the finish line first (by 1/2 car length?) with me using 87 octane, but in this case I'll wager I'd be using 91-93 octane, but then fill up with 87 for the drive home, maybe stopping off for some groceries. Now, so you understand I am not a complete idiot, let me reiterate what I mentioned about my Vettes. I was not talking out of both sides of my mouth. I drive my Vettes on mid-grade while just easily cruising, but when I know I'll be doing some boy-racing at the track (at 71 years old...really?!) I'll go with 91-93 every time 'cause those high-compression V-8s will knock like crazy while the very sensitive knock-sensors retard timing and reduce power by quite a margin. Very noticeable in the seat-of-my-pants and on the tape at the strip; not noticeable at all with the Max I drive and how I drive it (groceries, work and stuff). That's all I meant.

PS- You know, I can tell by your replies that you are very interested in this particular topic and you present your thoughts in a fairly good manner, but are offended enough by other's "idiotic" (so you say) comments and non-empirical reasoning to revert to insults. No need for that here. I'll bet if we were all sitting in a bar having this discussion we would be enjoying each other's company, and name calling would only be made with a and a laugh. May I suggest we continue in this vein, while keeping it light and respectful? Wow, I sound like the moderator. Gotta get down off my box now.