Corvette engines run fine on 87 octane, especially in cool weather. 3 examples: LT1, LS1, LS2...
Well I tried 87-octane in my LS-1 Firebird a few times and yes it does run fine many times. The computer adjusts based on the octane. But there were times such as going up hills when you could hear it knocking. 87-octane was not adequate if you wanted to "use" the LS-1 at anything above (I'd guess) 1/2 throttle. Driving around town or cruising @ 70mph 87-octane was okay. Again the $3/week for premium is cheap insurance for cars that suggest premium. If an engine runs an extra 20,000 miles because it wasn't knocking many times, it's money well spent.
similar here for LS1/etc, kernick - i use the 87 octane for the frozen tundra months or for the many extended/95% highway tanks. OK, that's 94 44/100% of my driving.
as for *hearing* the knocking with LS1, I'm betting you mean pinging and I've heard it too and felt the power loss as timing is backed way off . do not be afraid - it's normal/expected/nominal operation. in winter with 87 octane i appreciate a few less HP & ftlbs even on dry roads with traction control. also consider that the maximum mpg is when the spark is timed to give a tiny ping, so the computer/knock sensor is always skirting the ping-zone in order to save the planet and 0.5 mpg in CAFE tests. ? maybe that's why one can see better highway mpg with 87 octane, or maybe it's just the 87-octane placebo-effect: a lighter-leadfoot? either way, it saves the planet along with making sure to "air up" those tires!
either way, it saves the planet along with making sure to "air up" those tires!
LOL. I'm pretty sure I couldn't find an environmentalist who thought a Chevy V-8 running on 87-octane is a way to save the planet - whatever "saving the planet" means.
A Vette engine running on regular runs the risk of knocking and early wear. I'm not sure how you can feel safe letting an LS engine run on regular because it sure is not recommended in my area. An 89 is the minimum recommended there and dealers note that it should only be done on emergency basis. And yes, the knocking noise may sound minimal, but I'd like to see what happens in the long term, lol...
Another note, running the engine on lower than recommended octane, apart from the risk of knocking, early wear, catalic converter damage, lowered hp, there's also higher fuel consumption.
Also, it doesn't matter what kind of fuel you use, neither saves the planet! Less fuel consumption is saving the planet, not the octane numbers.
Even Ferrari and all other super/sportscar warranties still apply if you run the car on 87 octane all the time. Now that's confidence! Get out there and save $4 per tank and buy yourself a largest-possible high-octane premium coffee like I do!
Uh, no thanks. I think I'd rather buy premium gas and enjoy the 10-20% less fuel consumption and keep my engine in one piece w/o voiding the warranty.
Oh yeah, and btw, Ferrari's warranty does void if you feed the engine with regular.
DETROIT -- General Motors Co.'s campaign to promote the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid may be paying off.
Bob Lutz, vice chairman in charge of marketing, says 50,000 people have registered at Web sites and indicate a strong intention to buy the vehicle, which is scheduled to arrive in November 2010.
.......GM will build about 10,000 Volts next year. In 2011, the company expects to build 50,000 to 60,000 Volts. GM plans to ratchet up Volt marketing at the Los Angeles auto show in December.
Once GM has about 200 preproduction Volts in stock next year, it will "pull out the heavy artillery and get Volt buzz" going with media and customer events, Lutz says.
He adds: "We might even do the same thing we did with the Chevrolet Equinox and have Project Driveway and have real Americans driving Volts where they use it as a daily car for a couple of months."
Did that Project Driveway thing really do any good? How many of the "intenders" will actually turn into "buyers", do you think? Price should be about $32,500, after the $7500 tax credit.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Here we go again - some of us would rather pay more for a laser printer than an inkjet just to keep the cost of consumables down.
I bought a used Apple PS16/660 Laserwriter on eBay for $140 (I believe the guts are all HP), and bought one extra toner cartridge (also on eBay) for $20. For $160, I got my wife and I through graduate school which is even more impressive considering her curriculum was mostly PDF documents - which had to be printed - in addition to every paper or assignment we wrote. Better still, it was networked, so either of us could print from anywhere in the (tiny :sick: ) apartment.
It was replaced, recently, by a Brother networked laser printer/copier/scanner/fax that has so far not required a toner, while the free with a laptop Cannon ink-jet we use solely for printing photos has required 4 $30 cartridges every holiday season.
As they say YMMV.
Both of my vehicles are designed to run on 87 octane and do so happily. I use BP almost exclusively, as the cheapest gas in the region is a BP station close to home. I don't anticipate any issues.
I also have been using Castrol GTX exclusively in each vehicle. Neither vehicle "required" synthetic and I don't feel anything about our current driving patterns or technology associated with the motor warrants its use.
And people who are not willing to pay the differential shouldn't and probably aren't looking for a performance engine anyway, so it all works out
FWIW, I never see complaints about premium fuel in European publications, just here. It's a weird form of cheapness. Someone will spend 40K+ on a nice upmarket car but be unwilling to spend maybe $100-150/year for quality fuel?
I have the fintail of printers - an HP Series III, that's about 17 years old. It's so tough, for a while there I just dumped old toner out and then refilled it and reused it with the old stuff.
I know of a guy near Trier who drives over (sneaks, really) to Luxembourg every couple of weeks and fills his tank and several cans. The guy isn't broke by a long shot either. Maybe he's just a tax cheat, but I think he just hates paying more than he has to for the consumables.
Now, the premium fuel requirement isn't going to be a deal killer for most people, but GM could really gain some interest by bragging that their cars need zero regular maintenance, other than wear and tear) for 30 or 50k.
Now, the premium fuel requirement isn't going to be a deal killer for most people
Interesting observation, though I suspect more people are aware of the premium fuel issue than you might think.
My daughter, when she found that the Mini takes premium fuel, crossed it off her "must have" list. My wife also dinged the Outback XT we drove a few years ago for the same reason.
I agree, that the small premium paid shouldn't really matter, but for some people, it does.
BTW, all our Saturns run on 85 Octane (lowest available here in CO), though the Ford Focus we owned specifically stated that 87 octane (mid-grade here) was necessary, even in high altitude states.
True premium in CO is 89 octane. Can't find 91 or higher anywhere in the state, to my knowledge.
I thought the fintail of printers would be a dot matrix :shades:
That Trier guy is probably just a cheap [non-permissible content removed] - probably drives a Dacia Logan diesel and is just looking to scrimp a little :P . Probably doesn't drive any kind of performance car. A lot of people do that kind of thing there and in NA - depending on loonie vs greenback, many Canadians will make gas trips across the border, and it gives gas stations an excuse to jack up prices a few cents for the locals.
It would be a good marketing ploy to tout it, yes - but for most people who drive cars that recommend premium, a regular fuel ability probably won't turn their world around. The other maintenance would be a bigger draw.
I see your point about people taking advantage of a graduated exponentially ever-increasing rebate system to offset "problems" during warranty.
I think it would be reasonable to exclude problems (they wouldn't count as a strike towards the ever increasing rebates) that fall under the following categories: 1) an unrepeatable or unable to duplicate at the dealer problem 2) repeated visits for the same problem (provided it is the exact same problem; meaning two visits since they didn't have the part in stock). This would not exclude the replacement part if that part also failed and they needed to order a 2nd replacement part in the future as the 3rd part installed for that vehicle. 3) visits within the same 3 or 4 weeks for different problems would be counted as 1 problem. in this way, you can't already know about 3 issues and then report them one after another every week to rack up the points. 4) However, if your vehicle is racking up problems, the customer deserves to be rewarded with rebates every month anyway.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
I was thinking the guy in Trier was an engineer like my friend who know him and told me story. Turns out he's a banker (should've figured eh? :shades: ).
Although my friend doesn't speak German and this guy speaks no English, they had fun together "smuggling" gas across the border. His technique is to go to two gas stations, one to fill the tank, one to fill LOTS of plastic cans in the trunk. I guess it lessens suspicion not to fill everything at one stop.
Topical - didn't find out if he drove an Opel.
Tlong - you know there are some people who do just that! (I think they call some of them "lessees").
Transporting plastic containers of explosive fuel in the trunk of a car to save a few bucks (literally). Yep, sounds like an engineer :shades:
Opel is an interesting issue with that weird partnership by the Canadian parts supplier and Russian bank. Talk about an odd couple. The company should stick around though...probably has GMs best engineering staff.
I think you missed the Turns out he's a banker part.
Both bankers I've known (including the bank VP who sold me my Subaru) were very generous people. But it's fun to pick on them anyway. Come to think of it, the engineer always did love getting something for nothing, so it's no wonder he went along for the ride.
Odd couples. Ok, how about Detroit and Bangalore making a G-Wiz model? That would be GM and Reva tweaking the Spark.
Those rules sound fair enough. But, as we know, "everybody loves a deal". Would you be willing to pay MSRP for a car, only to receive rebates later for problems?
I thought the fintail of printers would be a dot matrixj
I still have one of those packed away somewhere. I think it was originally designed for a TRS80 home computer, but a friend of mine re-wired it to work with my Texas Instruments 99/4a computer. I still have that thing, too. It had a pretty awesome home version of Donkey Kong. :P
Amazing. Someone who knows the TRS III home computers. The door module in my Buick driver's door controlling windows, mirrors, and locks probably has more computing power than my TRS Model III did.
87 octane fuel has just as much quality as 91+ octane. Same detergents. But of course the octane is different, and the blend necessary to get the octane. (More ethanol can make more octane, for example. I prefer my gasoline with less ethanol, personally. There's another selling/save-the-planet point for 87 octane - it may tend to have less ethanol since ethanol is an octane-boost. btw, ethanol in gasoline is a fuel-wasting scam from the cornbelt lobbyists, had to mention that too!) I "recommend" that folks review the difference between RECOMMENDED and REQUIRED and take a look at your owners manual and see which word is used with regard to fuel type. A *recommendation* can be ignored as you see fit and you can be sure that the manufacturer will still support the warranty and their product. As for Ferrari voiding warranties due to 87 octane gasoline being used, there was an ancient USA today article that stated the opposite more than a decade ago. Maybe I'll find it again and post it - but either way, perhaps the capabilities of Ferrari engineers have somehow decreased since then, in that they forgot how/why to use a knock-sensor to back off timing . I'm pretty sure the folks at Bosch know how to do that - maybe Ferrari engineers can get some remedial/refresher instruction from the Bosch engineers.
I've put 100k miles on each of these GM vehicles which "recommend" premium, most of it with 87 octane. With no problemo. Looks like the GM engineers have figured out what allegedly eludes the Ferrari engineers?!
Next I'd like to try 87 octane in a 2010 Z06 or GS... or CTS-V.
Oops. Well, a banker could be even worse - the business world does a lot of idiotic things to save a little money, and seldom thinks of long term implications.
Geez, when I was in grade school in the late 80s one of the classroom computers was a TRS80, and even then it was a doorstop. I called it the "trash-80" :shades:
One? We had a whole room of them in high school in the early '90s. We disparaged them as "'70s computers", not knowing any better. Sadly, the Apple II's we played Oregon Trail on in middle school were newer.
If the car was something to be desired, and the MSRP set appropriately (meaning set at a point where it's fair, competitive, and does not result in massive depreciation compared to the competition.
I'd be willing to pay MSRP if it was a car I really wanted and like I said, it was a fair price.
'18 Porsche Macan Turbo, '16 Audi TTS, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
My 2006 Audi A3 is cheaper to own than a Neon, that I can attest to as I approach 56,000 miles shortly Whoa whoa whoa...
First off an A3 is more VW then Audi and while VWs are expensive to fix they aren't nearly as expensive as Audis. Which A3 do you have 2.0T or 3.2?
You just think the Audi is more reliable. You are just exiting your factory warranty period so just wait till your first major out of warranty repair. :sick:
Audi's have the most inflated parts prices of any non-exotic brand. Even more so when a particular model goes out of production.
I have told my story about my wife's Audi many times. It had a crack in the coolant expansion tank. No biggie just a crack I will order another one charge it to my shops wholesale account to get the wholesale discount then just pay myself back.
I call up the Audi dealer tell him the VIN and what part I need. Sure no problem that will be 780 dollars. :surprise: What I wanted the wholesale price. He says that is wholesale retail is 1,100 bucks. I fixed the tank with the highest temp epoxy I could find and a two inch section of PCV pipe that was just a little smaller then the outflow tube in the bottom of the tank.
At a 100,000 miles if that A3 needs an engine or transmission it is basically totalled. A 2.0T engine installed probably runs 7,000 to 8,000 plus installation so figure close to 10,000 dollars. A neon at 100,000 miles that needs an engine isn't that big a deal. Any garage can put a motor in one and you can get used or rebuilt engines for less then a grand.
I agree, but look at manufacturers' specs nowadays, how many of them use the word RECOMMENDED on premium fuel? Most of them require premium, and for a reason.
I'm not sure what kind of car you drive, but a lot of domestics only recommends 89 or above octane fuel, true. OTOH they make less power than import engines of the same size.
And if you think it's technological, let's take Dodge Intrepid for example. It's engine can run on 87, but a switch to 89 increase engine response noticeably, and at the same time fuel mileage improves by about 10%. How's that?
fintail, i want my car to perform as intended too. It's intended to produce between ~360 & 400 hp & ftlbs with 87 octane, and to produce at least 400 hp & ftlbs with 91+ octane. I have selected the 87 octane performance level for much of my driving, especially in cold weather and for highway-commutes. (During winter there is rarely enough traction or a proper situation to ever apply 400 ftlbs, even if the road is 100% dry.)
m4dcow, sounds like you are doing exactly as I *recommend*. You tried your car with the various octane levels, noted any performance & mpg effects, and chose according to your preference. Cool. My tests years ago in CA with 1992 & 93 honda civics with their "87 octane recommended" showed they got >10% mpg improvement from switching to 87 octane to 89 octane, on my 52 mile 70 mph commute over highway 17 -> 880 -> 85 -> 101 . Also I could repeatedly show a slight mpg improvement with the civics running with MTBE-oxygenated fuel compared to ethanol-oxygenated fuel. And the other driver in the household could say with 100% accuracy whether the civic had 89 or 87 in it, based on the seat-of-the-pants throttle-response. All this on a car which was designed for 87 octane!
And if you think it's technological, let's take Dodge Intrepid for example. It's engine can run on 87, but a switch to 89 increase engine response noticeably, and at the same time fuel mileage improves by about 10%. How's that?
I have a 2000 Intrepid, and have never run anything other than 87 octane in it. And it gets more or less its EPA ratings...~20 city/29 highway. I just filled it up this morning, and mpg on that tank was around 20.4. And that was mostly short-trip driving, probably no more than 4-5 miles at a time. And it's not too hard to break 30 mpg on the highway.
Would a higher octane fuel seriously do anything for it? I know some vehicles are designed to run on a higher grade, but are "smart enough" to retard the spark automatically if you use too low of a grade. You lose a little performance and economy, but at least don't get the valvetrain clatter like back in the old days. But the Intrepid, as far as I know, is designed to run on 87, so I'd think any higher grade would be useless, unless it was getting to the age your valves and such were getting carboned up.
I'm actually kinda curious to try some hi-test in the car next time around, to see if it makes a difference. I guess it might take a few fill-ups before I notice anything though?
When I was in high school (small town) in the 90s, at the time when the Win 3.x machines were hitting the streets, we had a room full of Apple II's. I had a couple hands-off teachers who every few weeks would give us a day just to play on them. I remember my first typing class was in 1993, on new Windows machines. By the next year, all of the Apples were gone. We had an Apple II when I was a kid...Oregon Trail was a favorite game. It was replaced with a 486/75 in 1993 or so, with printer it cost like $2300!
OK, maybe I want my car to perform to maximum levels. Between my cars I drive maybe 6K miles/year. The price difference isn't going to kill me, and justifiably or not, I feel better using the higher grade in my cars.
I want to say the owners manual in my old car recommends 98 octane, or something like this. Has the calculation method changed over the past 50 years? When I was in school I would run it on mid-grade (89) as I was a cheapskate, but now it gets premium. I have to believe that number isn't necessary, as the car was sold in many places where such high octane simply couldn't have existed.
fintail, i want my car to perform as intended too. It's intended to produce between ~360 & 400 hp & ftlbs with 87 octane, and to produce at least 400 hp & ftlbs with 91+ octane.
Actually, it's far more than a 10% loss in actual driving since the thing will ping at more than about half throttle with 87. So you'll instinctively back off the throttle when it hits 3K or so and starts doing it. And for good reason - they test the engines with 87 in it but don't care if the engine thrashes itself in the process to hit redline and get that high HP figure. The same is true for how they normally test 0-60 times in the Corvette as well - it's transmission is only designed for 50 full-power launches. The flog it to death and get a good 0-60 time. But sane people don't (or shouldn't) abuse their vehicles. So while you CAN run 87 in it, you can't let it ping, which means 1/2 throttle at best. That means a practical 2/3 the rated torque and HP.
I know this because my truck's engine has been heavily modified and will only run properly with premium(and about 5 degrees advanced timing). Goes like stink as a result but sounds like a Mercedes diesel without premium in it.(as well as ZERO extra power over 4K).
Completely off topic but I just downloaded Oregon Trail for my iPhone. Just played it all the way through man was that fun.
As to the Fintail needing 98 octane there are several different ways to calculate octane but higher octane fuel was available back in the 60s then there is now. I would find it hard to believe that Mercedes would design what was essentially their bread and butter sedan to operate on 98 octane as it is measured now. You are probably just seeing the difference in how octane is measured in the US vs. Europe.
Funny thing on octane available then vs. now. I just brought it up in the Volvo topic.
My old 69 Volvo 142 not only required premium but was pretty fussy about what premium it got. It ran best on Shell and Texaco, tolerated a lot of brands and just cough and gasp if you put Gulf in it. Back then premium was about 98 octane. CAn't imagine trying to run that car now.
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
Well, mine is the FI model, which was kind of the equivalent of the sport sedan and I assume has a higher compression ratio than the lower models. The mainstream models would be 4cyl or diesel, both of which could probably run on a 50/50 fuel-water mixture as the cars were sold worldwide and used as workhorses in less developed areas. I will have to check the manual the next time I drive the car. The Euro thing makes sense - but the car is an export model with a NA owners manual.
I ran it on 89 for some time, the car didn't seem to mind, no pinging or anything. It now gets 91-92 or whatever premium is here.
Plekto, I'm not sure why you would say the limitations of your modded truck would also apply to my unmodded GTO LS2. Of course they do not. Also my leadfoot instincts might be different than yours since I do use 100% throttle, no matter what octane fuel is in the tank.
One warm night I ran my 94 Z28 at the dragstrip with 87 octane. 3 runs at full throttle - best was 14.1 seconds, 101 mph. no problemo... Possibly the car was easier to launch thanks to the possible timing-backoff!
You say corvette only designed for 50 fullpower launches? If you are serious please cite a reference for that? It sure sounds like hogwash, but may no more than any of my unattributed points, eh?
Also to be clear: I tend to avoid 87 octane when temps are too "hot" (above 70F), but have used 87 octane in all temperatures. 87 octane worked great on my summer bostonflorida roundtrip - with an astounding 26 mpg on southern 87 octane fuel - about 20% better mpg than I ever get with northeast 91 octane on highway cruises.
My MINI Cooper S listed the Euro spec octane ratings first in the owner's manual then the US spec rating equivalent. It had some other odd-ball UK/Euro things on it too. The bonnet release was on the passenger side and their was a hidden glove box under the steering wheel.
I remember working on mid 80s to 90s Mercs that listed the Euro octane requirements on the inside of the fuel door along with tire pressure specs for different load configurations and for high speed 100+ mph driving.
Do all Minis have those features, or was your car special? Regarding the octane, I wonder if the methodology used to determine a number has changed in the past 50 years. Maybe the 98 of old is the 92 of today.
My E55 has those tire pressure recommendations for "high speed" driving - which is counted as 130mph +. I am surprised the feds even allowed that to be printed.
All previous body MINIs, R53 or R50 chassis code, I have seen had those features but I haven't been in every year they made the first gen new MINI so I don't know for sure.
I am surprised the feds even allowed that to be printed.
And why not, since it could be printed in some other country like Germany, and simply posted on every auto enthusiast website. Thank God the feds don't sensor the web. If the feds were serious about preventing high-speeds they would simply have the manufacturers use the engine control CPU's to limit speed to the highest speed limit in the country.
OK, I guess I need to be ultra-specific :P ...I meant that in jest....of course the Feds couldn't control what was printed elsewhere (although they'd try, no doubt), but it is amusing the group who so long relied on speed kills mantra for its planning would even want people to know that cars are capable of more than 65mph.
The web isn't censored - not here anyway, and not yet...
You should just use what the manufacturer recommends unless you are in some unusual situation like extremely high altitude. Otherwise, putting premium into a 87 octane car gets you nothing but a higher gasoline bill. Of course, Madison Avenue would like to make you think you get cleaner performance for the extra money, but you'll never see that in the major oil company technical literature, just their marketing nonsense.
Comments
3 examples: LT1, LS1, LS2...
Well I tried 87-octane in my LS-1 Firebird a few times and yes it does run fine many times. The computer adjusts based on the octane. But there were times such as going up hills when you could hear it knocking. 87-octane was not adequate if you wanted to "use" the LS-1 at anything above (I'd guess) 1/2 throttle. Driving around town or cruising @ 70mph 87-octane was okay.
Again the $3/week for premium is cheap insurance for cars that suggest premium. If an engine runs an extra 20,000 miles because it wasn't knocking many times, it's money well spent.
as for *hearing* the knocking with LS1, I'm betting you mean pinging and I've heard it too and felt the power loss as timing is backed way off . do not be afraid - it's normal/expected/nominal operation.
in winter with 87 octane i appreciate a few less HP & ftlbs even on dry roads with traction control.
also consider that the maximum mpg is when the spark is timed to give a tiny ping, so the computer/knock sensor is always skirting the ping-zone in order to save the planet and 0.5 mpg in CAFE tests. ?
maybe that's why one can see better highway mpg with 87 octane, or maybe it's just the 87-octane placebo-effect: a lighter-leadfoot? either way, it saves the planet along with making sure to "air up" those tires!
LOL. I'm pretty sure I couldn't find an environmentalist who thought a Chevy V-8 running on 87-octane is a way to save the planet - whatever "saving the planet" means.
Another note, running the engine on lower than recommended octane, apart from the risk of knocking, early wear, catalic converter damage, lowered hp, there's also higher fuel consumption.
Also, it doesn't matter what kind of fuel you use, neither saves the planet! Less fuel consumption is saving the planet, not the octane numbers.
Uh, no thanks. I think I'd rather buy premium gas and enjoy the 10-20% less fuel consumption and keep my engine in one piece w/o voiding the warranty.
Oh yeah, and btw, Ferrari's warranty does void if you feed the engine with regular.
My AMG tuned engine could manage on 87, but as I actually like the car, I am not going to cut that small corner.
September 28, 2009 - 12:01 am ET
DETROIT -- General Motors Co.'s campaign to promote the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid may be paying off.
Bob Lutz, vice chairman in charge of marketing, says 50,000 people have registered at Web sites and indicate a strong intention to buy the vehicle, which is scheduled to arrive in November 2010.
.......GM will build about 10,000 Volts next year. In 2011, the company expects to build 50,000 to 60,000 Volts. GM plans to ratchet up Volt marketing at the Los Angeles auto show in December.
Once GM has about 200 preproduction Volts in stock next year, it will "pull out the heavy artillery and get Volt buzz" going with media and customer events, Lutz says.
He adds: "We might even do the same thing we did with the Chevrolet Equinox and have Project Driveway and have real Americans driving Volts where they use it as a daily car for a couple of months."
http://www.autonews.com/article/20090928/ANA03/309289934/1261
Did that Project Driveway thing really do any good? How many of the "intenders" will actually turn into "buyers", do you think? Price should be about $32,500, after the $7500 tax credit.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So true...
I'd pay quite a bit more for a car with a hood welded shut too. :shades:
I bought a used Apple PS16/660 Laserwriter on eBay for $140 (I believe the guts are all HP), and bought one extra toner cartridge (also on eBay) for $20. For $160, I got my wife and I through graduate school which is even more impressive considering her curriculum was mostly PDF documents - which had to be printed - in addition to every paper or assignment we wrote. Better still, it was networked, so either of us could print from anywhere in the (tiny :sick: ) apartment.
It was replaced, recently, by a Brother networked laser printer/copier/scanner/fax that has so far not required a toner, while the free with a laptop Cannon ink-jet we use solely for printing photos has required 4 $30 cartridges every holiday season.
As they say YMMV.
Both of my vehicles are designed to run on 87 octane and do so happily. I use BP almost exclusively, as the cheapest gas in the region is a BP station close to home. I don't anticipate any issues.
I also have been using Castrol GTX exclusively in each vehicle. Neither vehicle "required" synthetic and I don't feel anything about our current driving patterns or technology associated with the motor warrants its use.
FWIW, I never see complaints about premium fuel in European publications, just here. It's a weird form of cheapness. Someone will spend 40K+ on a nice upmarket car but be unwilling to spend maybe $100-150/year for quality fuel?
I know of a guy near Trier who drives over (sneaks, really) to Luxembourg every couple of weeks and fills his tank and several cans. The guy isn't broke by a long shot either. Maybe he's just a tax cheat, but I think he just hates paying more than he has to for the consumables.
Now, the premium fuel requirement isn't going to be a deal killer for most people, but GM could really gain some interest by bragging that their cars need zero regular maintenance, other than wear and tear) for 30 or 50k.
Interesting observation, though I suspect more people are aware of the premium fuel issue than you might think.
My daughter, when she found that the Mini takes premium fuel, crossed it off her "must have" list. My wife also dinged the Outback XT we drove a few years ago for the same reason.
I agree, that the small premium paid shouldn't really matter, but for some people, it does.
BTW, all our Saturns run on 85 Octane (lowest available here in CO), though the Ford Focus we owned specifically stated that 87 octane (mid-grade here) was necessary, even in high altitude states.
True premium in CO is 89 octane. Can't find 91 or higher anywhere in the state, to my knowledge.
That Trier guy is probably just a cheap [non-permissible content removed] - probably drives a Dacia Logan diesel and is just looking to scrimp a little :P . Probably doesn't drive any kind of performance car. A lot of people do that kind of thing there and in NA - depending on loonie vs greenback, many Canadians will make gas trips across the border, and it gives gas stations an excuse to jack up prices a few cents for the locals.
It would be a good marketing ploy to tout it, yes - but for most people who drive cars that recommend premium, a regular fuel ability probably won't turn their world around. The other maintenance would be a bigger draw.
I think it would be reasonable to exclude problems (they wouldn't count as a strike towards the ever increasing rebates) that fall under the following categories:
1) an unrepeatable or unable to duplicate at the dealer problem
2) repeated visits for the same problem (provided it is the exact same problem; meaning two visits since they didn't have the part in stock). This would not exclude the replacement part if that part also failed and they needed to order a 2nd replacement part in the future as the 3rd part installed for that vehicle.
3) visits within the same 3 or 4 weeks for different problems would be counted as 1 problem. in this way, you can't already know about 3 issues and then report them one after another every week to rack up the points.
4) However, if your vehicle is racking up problems, the customer deserves to be rewarded with rebates every month anyway.
Besides maybe some false pre-conceived notions about high maintenance costs, why would you include an LS460 but not an A8L or S8?
It is beautiful inside and out, and large enough to please you I'm sure (at least in L trim).
My 2006 Audi A3 is cheaper to own than a Neon, that I can attest to as I approach 56,000 miles shortly.
No oil changes? Wow, 30K or 50K! Those are some engines!
Although my friend doesn't speak German and this guy speaks no English, they had fun together "smuggling" gas across the border. His technique is to go to two gas stations, one to fill the tank, one to fill LOTS of plastic cans in the trunk. I guess it lessens suspicion not to fill everything at one stop.
Topical - didn't find out if he drove an Opel.
Tlong - you know there are some people who do just that! (I think they call some of them "lessees").
Opel is an interesting issue with that weird partnership by the Canadian parts supplier and Russian bank. Talk about an odd couple. The company should stick around though...probably has GMs best engineering staff.
Both bankers I've known (including the bank VP who sold me my Subaru) were very generous people. But it's fun to pick on them anyway. Come to think of it, the engineer always did love getting something for nothing, so it's no wonder he went along for the ride.
Odd couples. Ok, how about Detroit and Bangalore making a G-Wiz model? That would be GM and Reva tweaking the Spark.
I still have one of those packed away somewhere. I think it was originally designed for a TRS80 home computer, but a friend of mine re-wired it to work with my Texas Instruments 99/4a computer. I still have that thing, too. It had a pretty awesome home version of Donkey Kong. :P
Amazing. Someone who knows the TRS III home computers. The door module in my Buick driver's door controlling windows, mirrors, and locks probably has more computing power than my TRS Model III did.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
But of course the octane is different, and the blend necessary to get the octane. (More ethanol can make more octane, for example. I prefer my gasoline with less ethanol, personally. There's another selling/save-the-planet point for 87 octane - it may tend to have less ethanol since ethanol is an octane-boost. btw, ethanol in gasoline is a fuel-wasting scam from the cornbelt lobbyists, had to mention that too!)
I "recommend" that folks review the difference between RECOMMENDED and REQUIRED and take a look at your owners manual and see which word is used with regard to fuel type.
A *recommendation* can be ignored as you see fit and you can be sure that the manufacturer will still support the warranty and their product.
As for Ferrari voiding warranties due to 87 octane gasoline being used, there was an ancient USA today article that stated the opposite more than a decade ago. Maybe I'll find it again and post it - but either way,
perhaps the capabilities of Ferrari engineers have somehow decreased since then, in that they forgot how/why to use a knock-sensor to back off timing . I'm pretty sure the folks at Bosch know how to do that - maybe Ferrari engineers can get some remedial/refresher instruction from the Bosch engineers.
most of it with 87 octane. With no problemo. Looks like the GM engineers have figured out what allegedly eludes the Ferrari engineers?!
Next I'd like to try 87 octane in a 2010 Z06 or GS... or CTS-V.
85 Z28
89 IROC-Z
94 Z28 (LT1)
96 Z28 (LT1)
Y2K Z28 (LS1)
05 GTO (LS2)
That little green box sure is overstyled. Yikes.
I think you've put you finger on the problem with a lot of cars these days. But I'm a functional box kind of guy too....
I'd be willing to pay MSRP if it was a car I really wanted and like I said, it was a fair price.
Whoa whoa whoa...
First off an A3 is more VW then Audi and while VWs are expensive to fix they aren't nearly as expensive as Audis. Which A3 do you have 2.0T or 3.2?
You just think the Audi is more reliable. You are just exiting your factory warranty period so just wait till your first major out of warranty repair.
:sick:
Audi's have the most inflated parts prices of any non-exotic brand. Even more so when a particular model goes out of production.
I have told my story about my wife's Audi many times. It had a crack in the coolant expansion tank. No biggie just a crack I will order another one charge it to my shops wholesale account to get the wholesale discount then just pay myself back.
I call up the Audi dealer tell him the VIN and what part I need. Sure no problem that will be 780 dollars. :surprise: What I wanted the wholesale price. He says that is wholesale retail is 1,100 bucks. I fixed the tank with the highest temp epoxy I could find and a two inch section of PCV pipe that was just a little smaller then the outflow tube in the bottom of the tank.
At a 100,000 miles if that A3 needs an engine or transmission it is basically totalled. A 2.0T engine installed probably runs 7,000 to 8,000 plus installation so figure close to 10,000 dollars. A neon at 100,000 miles that needs an engine isn't that big a deal. Any garage can put a motor in one and you can get used or rebuilt engines for less then a grand.
I'm not sure what kind of car you drive, but a lot of domestics only recommends 89 or above octane fuel, true. OTOH they make less power than import engines of the same size.
And if you think it's technological, let's take Dodge Intrepid for example. It's engine can run on 87, but a switch to 89 increase engine response noticeably, and at the same time fuel mileage improves by about 10%. How's that?
It's intended to produce between ~360 & 400 hp & ftlbs with 87 octane,
and to produce at least 400 hp & ftlbs with 91+ octane.
I have selected the 87 octane performance level for much of my driving, especially in cold weather and for highway-commutes. (During winter there is rarely enough traction or a proper situation to ever apply 400 ftlbs, even if the road is 100% dry.)
m4dcow, sounds like you are doing exactly as I *recommend*. You tried your car with the various octane levels, noted any performance & mpg effects, and chose according to your preference. Cool.
My tests years ago in CA with 1992 & 93 honda civics with their "87 octane recommended" showed they got >10% mpg improvement from switching to 87 octane to 89 octane, on my 52 mile 70 mph commute over highway 17 -> 880 -> 85 -> 101 .
Also I could repeatedly show a slight mpg improvement with the civics running with MTBE-oxygenated fuel compared to ethanol-oxygenated fuel. And the other driver in the household could say with 100% accuracy whether the civic had 89 or 87 in it, based on the seat-of-the-pants throttle-response. All this on a car which was designed for 87 octane!
I have a 2000 Intrepid, and have never run anything other than 87 octane in it. And it gets more or less its EPA ratings...~20 city/29 highway. I just filled it up this morning, and mpg on that tank was around 20.4. And that was mostly short-trip driving, probably no more than 4-5 miles at a time. And it's not too hard to break 30 mpg on the highway.
Would a higher octane fuel seriously do anything for it? I know some vehicles are designed to run on a higher grade, but are "smart enough" to retard the spark automatically if you use too low of a grade. You lose a little performance and economy, but at least don't get the valvetrain clatter like back in the old days. But the Intrepid, as far as I know, is designed to run on 87, so I'd think any higher grade would be useless, unless it was getting to the age your valves and such were getting carboned up.
I'm actually kinda curious to try some hi-test in the car next time around, to see if it makes a difference. I guess it might take a few fill-ups before I notice anything though?
I want to say the owners manual in my old car recommends 98 octane, or something like this. Has the calculation method changed over the past 50 years? When I was in school I would run it on mid-grade (89) as I was a cheapskate, but now it gets premium. I have to believe that number isn't necessary, as the car was sold in many places where such high octane simply couldn't have existed.
It's intended to produce between ~360 & 400 hp & ftlbs with 87 octane,
and to produce at least 400 hp & ftlbs with 91+ octane.
Actually, it's far more than a 10% loss in actual driving since the thing will ping at more than about half throttle with 87. So you'll instinctively back off the throttle when it hits 3K or so and starts doing it. And for good reason - they test the engines with 87 in it but don't care if the engine thrashes itself in the process to hit redline and get that high HP figure. The same is true for how they normally test 0-60 times in the Corvette as well - it's transmission is only designed for 50 full-power launches. The flog it to death and get a good 0-60 time. But sane people don't (or shouldn't) abuse their vehicles. So while you CAN run 87 in it, you can't let it ping, which means 1/2 throttle at best. That means a practical 2/3 the rated torque and HP.
I know this because my truck's engine has been heavily modified and will only run properly with premium(and about 5 degrees advanced timing). Goes like stink as a result but sounds like a Mercedes diesel without premium in it.(as well as ZERO extra power over 4K).
As to the Fintail needing 98 octane there are several different ways to calculate octane but higher octane fuel was available back in the 60s then there is now. I would find it hard to believe that Mercedes would design what was essentially their bread and butter sedan to operate on 98 octane as it is measured now. You are probably just seeing the difference in how octane is measured in the US vs. Europe.
My old 69 Volvo 142 not only required premium but was pretty fussy about what premium it got. It ran best on Shell and Texaco, tolerated a lot of brands and just cough and gasp if you put Gulf in it. Back then premium was about 98 octane. CAn't imagine trying to run that car now.
I ran it on 89 for some time, the car didn't seem to mind, no pinging or anything. It now gets 91-92 or whatever premium is here.
Also my leadfoot instincts might be different than yours since
I do use 100% throttle, no matter what octane fuel is in the tank.
One warm night I ran my 94 Z28 at the dragstrip with 87 octane.
3 runs at full throttle - best was 14.1 seconds, 101 mph. no problemo...
Possibly the car was easier to launch thanks to the possible timing-backoff!
You say corvette only designed for 50 fullpower launches? If you are serious please cite a reference for that? It sure sounds like hogwash, but may no more than any of my unattributed points, eh?
Also to be clear: I tend to avoid 87 octane when temps are too "hot" (above 70F),
but have used 87 octane in all temperatures. 87 octane worked great on my summer bostonflorida roundtrip - with an astounding 26 mpg on southern 87 octane fuel - about 20% better mpg than I ever get with northeast 91 octane on highway cruises.
cheers!
I remember working on mid 80s to 90s Mercs that listed the Euro octane requirements on the inside of the fuel door along with tire pressure specs for different load configurations and for high speed 100+ mph driving.
My E55 has those tire pressure recommendations for "high speed" driving - which is counted as 130mph +. I am surprised the feds even allowed that to be printed.
And why not, since it could be printed in some other country like Germany, and simply posted on every auto enthusiast website. Thank God the feds don't sensor the web. If the feds were serious about preventing high-speeds they would simply have the manufacturers use the engine control CPU's to limit speed to the highest speed limit in the country.
The web isn't censored - not here anyway, and not yet...
The thing with octane is you get small incremental improvements but the cost for better octane is hardly worth it for commuting.
Then again, you could have run 12ve's with NO2 but could have scattered engine parts at the traps.
Regards,
OW