I have a 95 Volvo 850, the manual says to use a fuel with an octane of 91 or above and it says the minimum to use is 87. Iv been using regular 87 so far (I am the second owner) should I switch to the premium gas? Will it benefit me? My friend says that it will mess up my computer if I start using premium?
What fuel to use in volvo 850?
- Thread starter omegaman
- Start date
- Status
You don't have to but it will run & idle better slightly & mpg will improve little with the higher. The engine controls can handle either octane.
Try a couple of tanks of the 91 and see if it makes a difference. If it doesn't, and I don't think it will, other than a little more power at full throttle, all, you're out is a few bucks.
It will probably make a diff if it recommends premium... I did a mpg and cost per mile comparison on my 99 300m and it was cheaper per mile to use premium because the mpg increased and overcame the cost difference.
always use the lowest octane you can that does not make it ping higher octane builds carbon in the cylinders and valves
I have a 96 850 turbo. Running swifty ( no name brand that uses whatever they can get their hands on) 87 octane, I averaged 22.779 mpg. Running shell v-power 93 octane, I averaged 22.773 mpg. I'm working on 93 octane BP now.
Thats pretty much no difference. I think forced air tolerates low octane better.
Originally Posted By: iunderpressure
I have a 96 850 turbo. Running swifty ( no name brand that uses whatever they can get their hands on) 87 octane, I averaged 22.779 mpg. Running shell v-power 93 octane, I averaged 22.773 mpg. I'm working on 93 octane BP now.
if you drive like a down right grandma in any turbo powered cars, there is no point in buying 93 octane, i agree.
But to me it sounds as if he has a naturally aspirated 850.(Read: constant high compression..not like a turbo motor where it varies based on your foot input).
I would suggest filling half a tank with 93 and half a tank with 89 and alternate it out so you end up with a ~91 octane fuel.
I have a 96 850 turbo. Running swifty ( no name brand that uses whatever they can get their hands on) 87 octane, I averaged 22.779 mpg. Running shell v-power 93 octane, I averaged 22.773 mpg. I'm working on 93 octane BP now.
if you drive like a down right grandma in any turbo powered cars, there is no point in buying 93 octane, i agree.
But to me it sounds as if he has a naturally aspirated 850.(Read: constant high compression..not like a turbo motor where it varies based on your foot input).
I would suggest filling half a tank with 93 and half a tank with 89 and alternate it out so you end up with a ~91 octane fuel.
In my 1995 N/A Volvo 850, I ran 87 octane fuel ('regular gas') and 91+ octane ('premium gas') and tracked mileage over 20+ tanks on each.
I went from 24.7 to 26.3 MPG overall by going with 87 octane gas. Part of it may have been that the car was more responsive with higher octane fuel, so I used that extra power more often.
For the last 20k miles I owned the car, I splash-blended to about E50 with no ill effects. For BITOG sake, I used Mobil 1, Meijer or whatever store-brand 5w30 synthetic oil was cheapest at 5k OCI with an OEM Mann filter for the 120k miles I owned the car. Redline MTL went into the gearbox at 130k when I had the clutch replaced and was a vast improvement over the stock fluid.
Fortunately, it was traded in on my Golf TDI when it had 160k miles. Now I don't have to worry about that silly 'octane' rating.
If I were you, try both ratings of fuel for many, many tanks. Plot your fuel economy for both and see which one makes the most economic sense to run.
I went from 24.7 to 26.3 MPG overall by going with 87 octane gas. Part of it may have been that the car was more responsive with higher octane fuel, so I used that extra power more often.
For the last 20k miles I owned the car, I splash-blended to about E50 with no ill effects. For BITOG sake, I used Mobil 1, Meijer or whatever store-brand 5w30 synthetic oil was cheapest at 5k OCI with an OEM Mann filter for the 120k miles I owned the car. Redline MTL went into the gearbox at 130k when I had the clutch replaced and was a vast improvement over the stock fluid.
Fortunately, it was traded in on my Golf TDI when it had 160k miles. Now I don't have to worry about that silly 'octane' rating.
If I were you, try both ratings of fuel for many, many tanks. Plot your fuel economy for both and see which one makes the most economic sense to run.
Originally Posted By: Unearthed
Originally Posted By: matt922
I would suggest filling half a tank with 93 and half a tank with 89 and alternate it out so you end up with a ~91 octane fuel.
Or you could just be like a normal person and fill up with 91!
normal people dont live in CA
Originally Posted By: matt922
I would suggest filling half a tank with 93 and half a tank with 89 and alternate it out so you end up with a ~91 octane fuel.
Or you could just be like a normal person and fill up with 91!
normal people dont live in CA
Originally Posted By: matt922
Originally Posted By: Unearthed
Originally Posted By: matt922
I would suggest filling half a tank with 93 and half a tank with 89 and alternate it out so you end up with a ~91 octane fuel.
Or you could just be like a normal person and fill up with 91!
normal people dont live in CA
Oh no,you didnt just say that??
Originally Posted By: Unearthed
Originally Posted By: matt922
I would suggest filling half a tank with 93 and half a tank with 89 and alternate it out so you end up with a ~91 octane fuel.
Or you could just be like a normal person and fill up with 91!
normal people dont live in CA
Oh no,you didnt just say that??
Originally Posted By: crazyoildude
always use the lowest octane you can that does not make it ping higher octane builds carbon in the cylinders and valves
1--Post-1986 engines with modern electronic controls do not ping due to the fuel octane. They'll ping if carbon is built up or if the controls are malfunctioning.
2--Higher octane gas does not cause carbon build up. It merely has more resistance to pre-ignition. Carbon build up is due to poor engine design.
always use the lowest octane you can that does not make it ping higher octane builds carbon in the cylinders and valves
1--Post-1986 engines with modern electronic controls do not ping due to the fuel octane. They'll ping if carbon is built up or if the controls are malfunctioning.
2--Higher octane gas does not cause carbon build up. It merely has more resistance to pre-ignition. Carbon build up is due to poor engine design.
Originally Posted By: Ken2
Carbon build up is due to poor engine design.
Speaking of poor engine design and the inline 5 cylinder Volvo engine in the 850, I hope the OP has removed the flame trap from the PCV system (near the throttle body). The later cars (and turbos) did away with that clog-prone silly design. If you insist on keeping it, remove & clean it with carb cleaner every 20 - 30k minimum.
Carbon build up is due to poor engine design.
Speaking of poor engine design and the inline 5 cylinder Volvo engine in the 850, I hope the OP has removed the flame trap from the PCV system (near the throttle body). The later cars (and turbos) did away with that clog-prone silly design. If you insist on keeping it, remove & clean it with carb cleaner every 20 - 30k minimum.
Originally Posted By: Ken2
Carbon build up is due to poor engine design.
Even though fuel injection produces much less waste fuel from overly rich mixtures engines are still carboning up so engine design doesn't have that much to do with it. Carbon is due to fuel not properly matched with environmental conditions. In the southern US detergent levels are sufficient for the warm weather that many engines can stay clean until lax maintenance starts the downward spiral. Up north the same engines even when new can get a new layer of carbon every winter. More detergents seems to solve the problem everywhere for all engines. IMHO gasoline is made just good enough to not totally suck.
Originally Posted By: scurvy
'+1' is the most worthless reply ever. State your own opinion!
+0
Carbon build up is due to poor engine design.
Even though fuel injection produces much less waste fuel from overly rich mixtures engines are still carboning up so engine design doesn't have that much to do with it. Carbon is due to fuel not properly matched with environmental conditions. In the southern US detergent levels are sufficient for the warm weather that many engines can stay clean until lax maintenance starts the downward spiral. Up north the same engines even when new can get a new layer of carbon every winter. More detergents seems to solve the problem everywhere for all engines. IMHO gasoline is made just good enough to not totally suck.
Originally Posted By: scurvy
'+1' is the most worthless reply ever. State your own opinion!
+0
Originally Posted By: matt922
Originally Posted By: Unearthed
Originally Posted By: matt922
I would suggest filling half a tank with 93 and half a tank with 89 and alternate it out so you end up with a ~91 octane fuel.
Or you could just be like a normal person and fill up with 91!
normal people dont live in CA
I used to be stationed at Keesler AFB in Biloxi. I've been to Gulfport. Yes sir ee, lots of NORMAL people there--AB NORMAL!
Originally Posted By: Unearthed
Originally Posted By: matt922
I would suggest filling half a tank with 93 and half a tank with 89 and alternate it out so you end up with a ~91 octane fuel.
Or you could just be like a normal person and fill up with 91!
normal people dont live in CA
I used to be stationed at Keesler AFB in Biloxi. I've been to Gulfport. Yes sir ee, lots of NORMAL people there--AB NORMAL!
If its been running ok,
low octane = low $$
low octane = low $$
Originally Posted By: axjohn
I used to be stationed at Keesler AFB in Biloxi. I've been to Gulfport. Yes sir ee, lots of NORMAL people there--AB NORMAL!
i guess you missed that sarcasm more or less referring to pee sold as gas in california.
different strokes for different folks i guess. And just in case you rode the bus like many people that stay on keesler do, i'd hate the place too.
But for the most part i'll agree and say it is a [censored] place to be if you are 18-26(or act that age).
I live in Mobile, AL now.
I used to be stationed at Keesler AFB in Biloxi. I've been to Gulfport. Yes sir ee, lots of NORMAL people there--AB NORMAL!
i guess you missed that sarcasm more or less referring to pee sold as gas in california.
different strokes for different folks i guess. And just in case you rode the bus like many people that stay on keesler do, i'd hate the place too.
But for the most part i'll agree and say it is a [censored] place to be if you are 18-26(or act that age).
I live in Mobile, AL now.
Last edited:
IS that a 850 turbo?
Use the best premium you can get.
Use the best premium you can get.
- Status
Similar threads
