Topic: What Does “Premium Fuel Recommended” Mean?

[ktm525]

So here is an actual video of a guy who did some research including dyno runs.  Running premium makes negligible/no difference in all the vehicles they tested, he tested timing and power.   

Tested:
F150 3.5EB
Escalade 6.2L V8
MX-5
Audi A3 1.8T
Mustang 5.0L
Renegade 1.4T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxAQmj3P8xs

Huh what? ALL?

The Escalade (7%) and F-150 had (5%) measurable gains.

[greengs]

So here is an actual video of a guy who did some research including dyno runs.  Running premium makes negligible/no difference in all the vehicles they tested, he tested timing and power.   

Tested:
F150 3.5EB
Escalade 6.2L V8
MX-5
Audi A3 1.8T
Mustang 5.0L
Renegade 1.4T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxAQmj3P8xs

Huh what? ALL?

The Escalade (7%) and F-150 had (5%) measurable gains.

To me 5-7% is negligible improvement when you pay 10-20% more for gasoline to go from regular to premium. 

[ktm525]

So here is an actual video of a guy who did some research including dyno runs.  Running premium makes negligible/no difference in all the vehicles they tested, he tested timing and power.   

Tested:
F150 3.5EB
Escalade 6.2L V8
MX-5
Audi A3 1.8T
Mustang 5.0L
Renegade 1.4T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxAQmj3P8xs

Huh what? ALL?

The Escalade (7%) and F-150 had (5%) measurable gains.

To me 5-7% is negligible improvement when you pay 10-20% more for gasoline to go from regular to premium.

1) Emissions. So you would rather burn more and create more emissions? This is like feeding your dog cheap dog food.

2) Engine longevity. What are the negative effects on an engine that can adjust but is constantly operating in this type of burn condition?

3) Power. 7% power increase. Thats some cheap horses baby!

[greengs]

So here is an actual video of a guy who did some research including dyno runs.  Running premium makes negligible/no difference in all the vehicles they tested, he tested timing and power.   

Tested:
F150 3.5EB
Escalade 6.2L V8
MX-5
Audi A3 1.8T
Mustang 5.0L
Renegade 1.4T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxAQmj3P8xs

Huh what? ALL?

The Escalade (7%) and F-150 had (5%) measurable gains.

To me 5-7% is negligible improvement when you pay 10-20% more for gasoline to go from regular to premium.

1) Emissions. So you would rather burn more and create more emissions? This is like feeding your dog cheap dog food.

2) Engine longevity. What are the negative effects on an engine that can adjust but is constantly operating in this type of burn condition?

3) Power. 7% power increase. Thats some cheap horses baby!

Power increased only 2.0% for the Escalade and 3.9% for F-150.  The 7% for fuel econ increase.  I don't know if anyone could really even feel that increase, you'd have to have a very fine butt dyno to feel 10 hp in most vehicles. 
As far as longevity goes, I haven't seen any research that shows the effects of timing pull on engines.  I think Mazda is the only manufacturer to clearly state power on 87 and premium octane on their turbo 2.5 engine.  In both cases warranty is the same so I assume there are no ill effects in their minds of running one or the other.  Interestingly their difference is shown to be 23hp on paper.

[dirtyjeffer]

So here is an actual video of a guy who did some research including dyno runs.  Running premium makes negligible/no difference in all the vehicles they tested, he tested timing and power.   

Tested:
F150 3.5EB
Escalade 6.2L V8
MX-5
Audi A3 1.8T
Mustang 5.0L
Renegade 1.4T

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxAQmj3P8xs

Huh what? ALL?

The Escalade (7%) and F-150 had (5%) measurable gains.

To me 5-7% is negligible improvement when you pay 10-20% more for gasoline to go from regular to premium.

1) Emissions. So you would rather burn more and create more emissions? This is like feeding your dog cheap dog food.

2) Engine longevity. What are the negative effects on an engine that can adjust but is constantly operating in this type of burn condition?

3) Power. 7% power increase. Thats some cheap horses baby!

Power increased only 2.0% for the Escalade and 3.9% for F-150.  The 7% for fuel econ increase.  I don't know if anyone could really even feel that increase, you'd have to have a very fine butt dyno to feel 10 hp in most vehicles. 
As far as longevity goes, I haven't seen any research that shows the effects of timing pull on engines.  I think Mazda is the only manufacturer to clearly state power on 87 and premium octane on their turbo 2.5 engine.  In both cases warranty is the same so I assume there are no ill effects in their minds of running one or the other.  Interestingly their difference is shown to be 23hp on paper.

increased power, more efficient engine operation, lower emissions, improved fuel economy...the sum of these benefits is worth it, IMO...for fun, i did some simple math.

1000 mile trip
Escalade gets 20 mpg on regular gas (90c/L)...21.4 mpg on premium ($1/L).
Escalade needs 50 gallons of regular gas to go 1000 miles...total cost: $170
Escalade needs 46.7 gallons of premium gas to go 1000 miles...total cost: $177

now, i realize an Escalade doesn't have a 50 gallon tank, but the cost difference shown here is only $7...depending on where you live, etc, that gap may widen a bit, but the reality is, there really isn't that much of cost difference to give your vehicle the best fuels.

[tooscoops]

the bigger thing to me isn't the fuel savings... it is that the car is meant for that fuel... that fact that fuel economy was ALSO improved is just a bonus. i'll pay 9% (my average I've noticed at my Costco) more for fuel that does what the engine is meant to do and hopefully prevents early catastrophic failure.... as a bonus, slightly better power and economy? hell yes! those two alone would be almost worth it!

people can be so cheap and so short sighted sometimes.

[tortoise]

I've never had a vehicle where premium was recommended, let along required.  So it's always been regular.

now, i realize an Escalade doesn't have a 50 gallon tank, but the cost difference shown here is only $7...depending on where you live, etc, that gap may widen a bit, but the reality is, there really isn't that much of cost difference to give your vehicle the best fuels.

That's some wonky math.

For my Highlander it would cost $12 more per tank. I've been getting 400 km to a tank.  So that's $30 per 1000 km.  Not exactly chump change (but nor does it break the bank).

[PJungnitsch]

Funny how the Audi actually got worse mileage on premium

Wonder if the (in general) mileage gain is just from not having ethanol, the E10 blend in Canadian regular fuel is said to drop mileage 3 to 4% all by itself

[rrocket]

Funny how the Audi actually got worse mileage on premium

Wonder if the (in general) mileage gain is just from not having ethanol, the E10 blend in Canadian regular fuel is said to drop mileage 3 to 4% all by itself

Try the Audi with ethanol free premium and see...

[dkaz]

I've never had a vehicle where premium was recommended, let along required.  So it's always been regular.

now, i realize an Escalade doesn't have a 50 gallon tank, but the cost difference shown here is only $7...depending on where you live, etc, that gap may widen a bit, but the reality is, there really isn't that much of cost difference to give your vehicle the best fuels.

That's some wonky math.

For my Highlander it would cost $12 more per tank. I've been getting 400 km to a tank.  So that's $30 per 1000 km.  Not exactly chump change (but nor does it break the bank).

If John got 10.9 L/100km on regular gas and 10.5 L/100km on premium gas (+50% for you) at 10 cents more per litre at Costco, the cost difference every 600km is only $3.78. It's not that bad. Kelowna didn't have Costco gas bars so the premium premium was 20 to 25 cents a litre.

[greengs]

the bigger thing to me isn't the fuel savings... it is that the car is meant for that fuel... that fact that fuel economy was ALSO improved is just a bonus. i'll pay 9% (my average I've noticed at my Costco) more for fuel that does what the engine is meant to do and hopefully prevents early catastrophic failure.... as a bonus, slightly better power and economy? hell yes! those two alone would be almost worth it!

people can be so cheap and so short sighted sometimes.

I am guessing majority of general driving population put regular gas in their "premium recommended" cars.  If engineers are confident their engines will last 100k kms on regular gas with warranty in place that tells me that regular fuel doesn't have much to do with any failures. 

[johngenx]

When I said that premium fuel is not inherently better, I meant it. Just because a tuned turbo car needs 94 doesn’t mean all cars will run better on it. Depends completely on the application.

All my German cars required premium fuel so I used it. Why on earth would a 150hp C230 need premium fuel?  Who knows. But somewhere along the way engineers decided that given the parameters of the engine management system and so on, 91 was needed. So 91 it got.

Our Corolla?  Calls for 87.  Would 91 be better for the car? Highly doubtful.

Premium fuel is not better in all cases. Some, yes, not all.

[PJungnitsch]

It does let them advertise a higher horsepower and/or higher mpg, with no cost to themselves

That being said, Consumer Reports tested out an Acura and a Nissan and found no benefit, either in mileage or in power. They talk about the reliability thing here:

It’s okay to use regular even if the manufacturer recommends using premium gas. But owners should check their owner’s manual before making the switch, and remember that some automakers say premium is required.

Wondering about the long-term effects of switching to regular fuel? Here’s what we know: In conversations with manufacturers, a connection was never made between using premium fuel and reliability. The manufacturers talk about higher octane only in terms of a car’s performance.

What’s more, in the Acura owner’s manual the automaker only recommends using “top-tier detergent gasoline”—which can be of any octane grade, regular or premium—for performance and reliability reasons. But there is nothing in the manual that equates premium gas with improved reliability.

That said, if owners make the switch and think their car is performing sluggishly, or they hear knocking or pinging, they should go back to premium fuel.

Beyond these test findings, it is key to note that our car reliability data consistently show that the most dependable cars tend to be those running on regular fuel.

https://www.consumerreports.org/fuel-economy-efficiency/why-you-might-not-actually-need-premium-gas/

[ChaosphereIX]

that is all crap

more dependable cars run regular fuel because they are more dependable cars...not because of the fuel. They just happen to run on regular because typically they are NA Toyotas, which run on 87.

If a car is meant to run on 87, then no frickin duh premium makes little if any difference. Those two points should not even come up in the conversation because they are too obvious.

Now get a car that can run 87, but says premium recommended...like my old Saab. Running premium means usually a Euro vehicle where they dont have the twigs and moss 87 over there, 91 is their minimum. Also usually means forced induction, which should never be run at anything less than its recommended octane rating. My Saab got better power, mileage, everything running premium. On its regular tune. Tuned for 91? It gained 70 horsepower. Running 87 even on its regular tune you can tell it was pulling timing and the car felt real sluggish as the ECU basically put in REAL SAFE values as to not blow up the engine.

This thread can go in circles. In the end, if it says required premium - fracking put it in. If it says recommended premium...stop being a cheapskate and get it anyways...it is better for everything.

Honestly, 87 should just go away and 91 should be the minimum.

[rrocket]

Honestly, 87 should just go away and 91 should be the minimum.

I disagree with that statement....

[Seafoam]

Honestly, 87 should just go away and 91 should be the minimum.

Now who is being silly ?

[ChaosphereIX]

Honestly, 87 should just go away and 91 should be the minimum.

I disagree with that statement....

[bridgecity]

This is ridiculous you cheap whores. Just put in premium fuel FFS.

 

Calm your  

[Davep]

Does anyone know, (and have validation,) that premium fuel has increased (effective) cleaning agents? My car is turbo port injected. Realistically, is there an improvement decreasing carbon buildup by using premium in a port injected engine?

That said, I do find a slight mileage improvement by using 91 over 87 during the hot summer months, particularly cruising at highway speed. But the mileage boost is minor, and does not cover the increased fuel cost. It may be imagination on my part, but engine stumble from a stop seems reduced as well.

[rrocket]

Does anyone know, (and have validation,) that premium fuel has increased (effective) cleaning agents? My car is turbo port injected. Realistically, is there an improvement decreasing carbon buildup by using premium in a port injected engine?

That said, I do find a slight mileage improvement by using 91 over 87 during the hot summer months, particularly cruising at highway speed. But the mileage boost is minor, and does not cover the increased fuel cost. It may be imagination on my part, but engine stumble from a stop seems reduced as well.

Of more interest to you is using Top Tier certified fuel.  That will help lessen deposits.  And on a turbo engine in hot weather...91 is the way to go.