Thinking about getting a used maxima for around 10k, probably a 98 se, but i dont want to pay extra at the pump. Does anyone know why newer maximas dont use premium?

 

The VG and VQ engine have had a compression ratio of 10 since 1992. You might wanna check a 3rd gen to see what the manual recommends. I'm not 100% sure on this, but cars with high compression ratios usually use 91 octane or higher. But now that I think of it, my GF's integra has a compression ratio of 10 and it recommends 87 I think.

2002 Maxima has a compression ratio of 9.9

 

thanks for the info, im just curious as to what years exactly use premium, and what years only need regular.

 

who told you that.. my sources say 10:3


in anylight.. to the best of my knowledge.. the maxima always had a minimum octane rating of 91

 

thats weird, the EPA fuel mileage site says that Maximas after 97 only require regular gas :/

 

The Nissan manual for my 98 says that premium is the best for maximum performance, BUT, if you're in the desert and the only gas station that you desperately need is a gizzilion miles from anything else, then you can use regular. Since the 95-99 Maxima have the same motor, it wouldn't be wrong to assume that the 95-99 carries those same recommendations. Even the 2K-2K3 is probably the same. If you do run regular, you'll increase the chance of pinging, which will reduce the life of your motor significantly.

DW

 

my 97 manual says 91

 

So who are we to beleive, the EPA, or Nissan, the company that actually produced the car?

DW

 

just put premium
it doesnt hurt does it?? you'll be saving maybe like 5 cents/gallon everytime you fillup. put 10 gallons in ur tank..that should go like a week or so...so you actually save like 50 cents a week using 91 octane.

 

I believe that Nissan uses the word "recommended" as far as super unleaded goes. The more expensive fuel gets, the more sense it makes to use super. Price elasticity, when regular is 1.599 and super is 1.749, it is less expensive from a % point of view than when regular is 1.149 and super is 1.349. Not only from the % point of view, it's often true from an absolute point of view when fuel is expensive. Super is typically 20 cents more when gas is cheap, and can be as little as 9-11 cents more when gas is expensive. Moral of the story is don't worry about recommended or required, use super when gas is expensive. Consider otherwise when gas is cheap.

 

Here's my source

http://autos.msn.com/vip/engines.asp...=10135&src=vip

 

Moral of the story is I don't understand your logic. I use premium all the time. If you are going to pay 1.749 per gallon now, why would you "consider otherwise" when it is 1.349? You treat your car well when fuel prices are high, and punish it when prices are good?

 

Hmm, that makes sense too. Frank, what do you have to say about that

 

here is mine..

http://www.nissannews.com/?http://ww...ma/specs.shtml

 

I just had some regular in my tank(89 octane from Amoco, usually have 93 from Amoco) and the car felt like ****. The acceleration and throttle response were a snail...

 

My source if for 2k2, yours is for 2k3.

 

The 4th Gen FAQ has links to a good article about what octane to use and why...

 

i am sorry.. i didn't know they change the engine for the 2k2 for the year 2k3

 

Didn't the 3rd gens have a sport/comfort button that could differentiate between the 93 and 87 (hehehehej/k)

 

I know in my friends 91 VG30E Maxima SE, his manual said 91+ octane recommended.

 

Yeah, my 91 wants premium and if it doesn't get it my acceleration is noticably worse, and I'm also guessing it regular gas gave my max serious abuse

 

I think what he is trying to say is that when gas prices are higher the percentage difference in price between premium and regular is negligible. $1.75 versus 1.55 is only a 13% difference. But when prices go down the percent more you are paying for the premium goes way up. 1.25 versus 1.00 is 25% more for the premium. So when prices are high it makes more sense to buy the premium because you are actually only paying a slightly greater percent for it. The other factor I throw into the equation is you get better gas mileage with the premium so the amount of money you spend for the number of miles you drive is the same. Plus it is better for the car . That is my lesson for the day, time for a nap.

 

I understand what the post said and again I say your logic doesn't apply here. Why even consider percentage differences? Why buy premium at 1.75 because the percentage difference in price is less, and question buying it at 1.25? I am paid a fixed amount annually as are most other people, so if at any time I would ever consider cost a factor(not that I do), it would be when prices are outrageously high, not the scenario you are discussing. Premium gas is beneficial to your car. Period.

If you had to purchase perscription pills for yourself, I am quite sure you wouldn't use price percentage differences to make your decision, would you? Hmmmm... lower quality pill for 1.55, or superior quality for 1.79. You chose the superior product because the price differential is less? But when the pills are 1.00 and 1.25 respectively, you choose the inferior one? It's retard math. You should be buying it because it is the best one for you.
Why should buying gas be different? You do take pride in maintaining your vehicle, correct?
If regular was 20 cents per gallon and premium was 40 cents, would you buy regular because of the 100% price difference?

 

You are correct in your argument, but what I think that Frank Fontaine was getting at is that the main reason that people choose regular 87 over super 91+ is price. Given that, he argued that the price difference is less significant at higher price levels. So, when gas prices are high, those people using 87 have even less of a reason to do so.

DW

 

I think he ment the best bang for your buck

and I see his logic and actually agree with him to some extent if I had a limited budget. of crouse if my pocketss were deep I'd always get premium

 

The argument isn't why would premium buyers go to regular, it is why regular buyers would go to premium. Because the price differential is negligible at higher prices so why not get the good stuff. This is actually a very simple thing to understand.

 

To make the rated horsepower and torque, you need to run premium fuel. You can still run lower octane, but you're just not going to get the performance that you would otherwise. A 190HP/205TQ 98 Maxima is rated that way on premium fuel. It won't run as well on regular fuel and might only give you 180HP/195TQ.

If you're really serious about not paying extra for premium fuel, then I'd consider a different car. The 98-02 Honda Accord V6's make the rated 200HP/195TQ on regular fuel only and actually perform WORSE with higher octane fuel. Of course, that car is heavier, auto-only, has little low-end torque, and in general slowashell

The Camry's V6 make 192HP/209TQ on regular. But if you put premium in it it will make closer to 204HP/219TQ.


Gotta pay to play

 

The argument is not about regular buyers going to premium. It is about using the correct fuel for your vehicle regardless of price.
Which obviously is not a very simple thing for you to understand.
Like SteVTEC mentioned, buy a Honda if you are so concerned about price.

 

That's VE and VQ Nick.

The VE and all VQ's should use 91 or higher. If you have one, and don't buy 91, then you should have bought a cheaper car.

 

really??? Do you have any facts backing that up? I want to show my friend hee hee he drives an '00 V4 Accord

 

V4?

 

yeah... Honda, Saab, Lancia... Lot's of V4's out there.

 

I use 93 octane from Texaco.

 

i get better gas mileage on premium, and i imagine better power as well (although its not noticeable) no the better gas mileage (only 1 point usually) doesnt pay for the extra 10 cents im spending, but im sure its better on the motor...
fyi in the 3rd gen manual for the ve it says to use premium but regular can be used if premium is not available, for the vg it says regular is fine but premium will yeild better performance...kind of a flip flop b/t the 2

 

its a 4 door too.. I always ask him why he didnt get the V6, he keeps saying VTEC VTEC in his head and doesnt listen to me

 

I'd like to see a picture of a USDM Honda V4 in a car please.

 

Where in my post do I mention US? Lancia is obviously not USDM either, and most of the Saab v4s were based on the european Ford Taurus.

 

One day I let my wife use the car and she tried to put in some 87 and when I drove my car it ran like $hit, my car was hicupping and it wouldn't accelerate fast enough to run against anything.

I asked her what type of gas did she put in it, she said I put 87, I went biserk, I must have been ranting and raving for an half an hour or so on why you don't put anything except 91 or above in the Maxima.
I really gave her a lesson that day. I don't care what people say about it's ok to use lesser than 91, I don't recommend it and if you're just being too cheap to buy super, then maybe you should've bought a Pinto or Yugo.

 

Well, I dunno what to say mang.

 

No there ain't lots of V4s out there. The only V4 I have ever come across was an old 1960s or early 70s Saab. The most common 4 bangers are I4s, or straight 4s. The next popular would be H4s, or horizontally opposed 4s. Subaru makes quite a few H4s.

DW