Gas Octane Article

[jpapa]

So the Detroit Free Press had this article today:
http://www.freep.com/money/autorevie...e_20050818.htm

What do you guys think about this? It seems like this is meant more for people with regular, non specialty vehicles. I would really like to see their reasoning behind a Ford GT being fine running of 87 for it's lifetime. The one line about premium being required for turbo charged Subarus and the STS-V is what tells me that we still need it for our supercharged fury.

What's your opinoins on this? Discuss...

[Pierre]

This guy is wasting his time as an automotive writer. If you're going to go foaming at the mouth and make false or misleading statements with no facts to back it up you may as well be a politician. Truuuust me :-)

Pierre

[Urbanman]

As a former Saturn Sales person, I was told that the ECU in a Saturn RL/SAAB that recommends premium fuel, can adjust for regular fuel, but at the expense of performance and horsepower.
Remember this is a recommendation not a requirement. Premium fuel is also cleaner than regular and will also go a long way in keeping the carbon buildup down as well, for longer engine life.

[Sp00ner]

Originally Posted by Pierre

This guy is wasting his time as an automotive writer. If you're going to go foaming at the mouth and make false or misleading statements with no facts to back it up you may as well be a politician. Truuuust me :-)

Pierre

What are you talking about? Why in gods name would you drop premium into an Envoy or Yukon. This idea has been thought of, tested, proven, questioned, proven again and again. We don't have to run premium in the Redline either, but if you want the full power of the engine you do.

It just like people that fill up their beaten up Regal with 93, cause they think it will clean the engine... Almost everyone that I talk to thinks that premium will clean, or help, their enigne somehow.

C&D did some tests with cars that were marked to use 87 octane, ran premium through them, and one of the cars, a BMW, lost horsepower with the 93 octane.

[goofyguy]

a car tuned close to knock or ping will run at its 100% at the fuel its reccomended. A car thats tuned for 87 octane say the new accord with 240hp will not all of a sudden realize there is 93 in there and advance the timing. Same with almost all cars. Our cars have a tune for 89 octane to my best finidings. So you will lose some power with the 87 because of the knock sensor will pull some timinig. As well you wont gain power with the 93 or 100 octanes because its not going to say hey its safe lets see what happens when I advance the timing a few more degrees. Its all in the tune.

[Pierre]

I agree 100% that the average car does not need it. Most are very happy on 87 octane. What I object to is the misleading statements.

" Your car almost certainly doesn't need premium. Even if it's a 550 HP Ford GT". No problem with the first sentance. As for the second I'm shure Mark has done exaustive research to support this claim. Maybe even a 24 hours of Lemans. with lap times.

He is correct for the next few paragraphs.

Comparing aviation fuel to over the road fuel is of no use. They are formulated for completely different enviornments. I would not have had a problem with a Race Fuel comparison though and some folks do use that. Anybody racing a modified turbo will benifit from extra octane at the track.

Next paragraph.

" Your owners manual may say "premium fuel recomended" by your car or truck will run fine on regular gasoline."

Who is Mr. Phelan to presume that he knows more about octane requirements than the manufacturer and where is the data to support this claim ?

Next paragraph.

"your engine won't benfit from higher octane gasoline"

I'd buy this if he qualified it by saying "if your manufacturer recomends 87 octane". Again claims out of context.

Next paragraph.
I love this one....

"The Octane level of gasoline simply means how much the fuel resists igniting"

What is this charcoal lighting fluid?

It should be pre-ignition, knocking and detonation.

" a serious knock could ruin an engine but todays electronic controls have vitually eliminated the problem."

Virtually ? That gives me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

Is Mr Phalen willing to pay for the damages that happens to those that fall out of the range defined by vitually?

Lunch time

Pierre

[Sp00ner]

Come on, he's writing it for common people that are dropping 93 octane into Yukons. Of course he exaggerated a bit, he's a journalist. I hear ya, but just not that concerned about the details to that extent.

[Rendog]

I've been consistantly running non-ethanol regular unleaded in my RL except for perhaps 2 tank fulls. I've had no problems whatsoever, and agree I've probably hurt HP some, but I've checked & I got 32mpg on my last highway trip using regular. I just don't feel the need to spend the extra cash for premium unless I really want all the HP. Just my 2 cents.

[max_boost]

I've been thinking about switching to 87 octane but the difference is only about .20 cheaper a gallon then the 93 octane so I haven't switched yet.

[Rendog]

Originally Posted by max_boost

I've been thinking about switching to 87 octane but the difference is only about .20 cheaper a gallon then the 93 octane so I haven't switched yet.

There's about a 10% difference. Now figure how much gas you go through in a year, and then decide how much you would save and if it's worth it. At least for me, it's worth it to run 87.