I've never noticed a difference running midgrade or premium in any of my vehicles and I used to track fuel economy on Fuelly with every tank. I don't do it anymore because with three jobs and three cars it's too much work. Then again, I've never had anything besides lazy naturally-aspirated vehicles.
47% of New Vehicles Require Premium Gas?
- Thread starter SubLGT
- Start date
- Status
I don't mind premium recommended but I also want to see the fuel economy ratings when the motor is run on regular. On the Outlander forums, most people ran regular in the v6, and didn't notice a significant difference in mileage compared to premium in regular use. But when towing, premium was worth buying as the fuel consumption on regular went way up.
Anyone have any idea how much more high octane gas costs to make? I suspect its only 2-3% more so its a profit generator for the refiners.
Anyone have any idea how much more high octane gas costs to make? I suspect its only 2-3% more so its a profit generator for the refiners.
I don't care what the manual tells you, if you own a late model, turbocharged engine you better be running premium fuel or you are asking for trouble down the line!
Sure Ford says 87 octane is "fine" for the Eco-Boost but is it good for it, NO!! Forced induction on todays high compression engines creates ridiculous cylinder pressures!!! How are they avoiding the PI/Detonation? Engine management and heavy use of knock sensors! They are pulling ALL the timing out... If you pony up for a high HP/L turbocharged engine, please be smart and put premium fuel in it!!
Sure Ford says 87 octane is "fine" for the Eco-Boost but is it good for it, NO!! Forced induction on todays high compression engines creates ridiculous cylinder pressures!!! How are they avoiding the PI/Detonation? Engine management and heavy use of knock sensors! They are pulling ALL the timing out... If you pony up for a high HP/L turbocharged engine, please be smart and put premium fuel in it!!
I use premium in my Mazda 6 now. Supposedly they were built for 87 in the US but I have noticed that I get significant ping with 87. With 93 it’s almost gone and I have to listen for it. I also use premium in my pickup as I have advanced the timing. It sucks to have to use premium fuel as I feel to am being gouged but it is what it is.
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
In addition to high compression , if it has a turbo , that makes a difference , also .
Exactly!
Everything that has a turbo (most new gasoline engines being sold today) should have premium.
But so many of them recommend 87, mine included. We use it all... 87, 89, 91 and 93.
Originally Posted By: WyrTwister
In addition to high compression , if it has a turbo , that makes a difference , also .
Exactly!
Everything that has a turbo (most new gasoline engines being sold today) should have premium.
But so many of them recommend 87, mine included. We use it all... 87, 89, 91 and 93.
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
I don't care what the manual tells you, if you own a late model, turbocharged engine you better be running premium fuel or you are asking for trouble down the line!
Sure Ford says 87 octane is "fine" for the Eco-Boost but is it good for it, NO!!
Would love to see the mountain of reports of Ecoboosts blowing up from using 87 octane if this were true...
Ford provides the power figures for these motors using 87 octane (at least in the F150). Not missing on any advertised power and my wallet is a little heavier. Monitoring with Torque, the OAR (Octane adjustment ratio) hovers right around 0.1 to -0.2 using regular 87 octane (ranges from 1 (bad fuel) to -1 (good stuff) - pretty much right where intended, so not "pulling ALL the timing" as you report.
I don't care what the manual tells you, if you own a late model, turbocharged engine you better be running premium fuel or you are asking for trouble down the line!
Sure Ford says 87 octane is "fine" for the Eco-Boost but is it good for it, NO!!
Would love to see the mountain of reports of Ecoboosts blowing up from using 87 octane if this were true...
Ford provides the power figures for these motors using 87 octane (at least in the F150). Not missing on any advertised power and my wallet is a little heavier. Monitoring with Torque, the OAR (Octane adjustment ratio) hovers right around 0.1 to -0.2 using regular 87 octane (ranges from 1 (bad fuel) to -1 (good stuff) - pretty much right where intended, so not "pulling ALL the timing" as you report.
recommended is NOT required!!! with .60 + in my area + even more in other places higher octane does NOT give back a proper return in mpg's. even though DI has issues as engine ages its the big difference allowing higher cylinder pressures that make more power on regular. my 2001 TT 225Q required premium stock + with enhancements i run nothing but!!
Last edited:
wemay
Site Donor 2023
Originally Posted By: benjy
recommended is NOT required!!! with .60 + in my area + even more in other places higher octane does NOT give back a proper return in mpg's. even though DI has issues as engine ages its the big difference allowing higher cylinder pressures that make more power on regular. my 2001 TT 225Q required premium stock + with enhancements i run nothing but!!
No one said it was.
recommended is NOT required!!! with .60 + in my area + even more in other places higher octane does NOT give back a proper return in mpg's. even though DI has issues as engine ages its the big difference allowing higher cylinder pressures that make more power on regular. my 2001 TT 225Q required premium stock + with enhancements i run nothing but!!
No one said it was.
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
To me it is a big deal. It's one thing to have a premium vehicle require more expensive fuel and quite another to have an economy vehicle require the same.
The fuel efficiency bump will not justify the increase in cost.
To me it is a big deal. It's one thing to have a premium vehicle require more expensive fuel and quite another to have an economy vehicle require the same.
The fuel efficiency bump will not justify the increase in cost.
Personally not fan of premium fuel vehicles anymore. I looked at our total fuel bill last year and spent an extra $900 in the year.
I wish my 07 MDX got the same MPG using regular, but not only a power loss noticable but a MPG loss that equalizes out the "savings" of using regular.
A requirement of replacement for wife's car was using regular, our 2018 Tiguan requires just 87 however does have a turbo. I will never buy a daily driver car that needs premium. We do 35k miles/year between two vehicles. Paying an extra $0.35/gallon is crazy currently.
I wish my 07 MDX got the same MPG using regular, but not only a power loss noticable but a MPG loss that equalizes out the "savings" of using regular.
A requirement of replacement for wife's car was using regular, our 2018 Tiguan requires just 87 however does have a turbo. I will never buy a daily driver car that needs premium. We do 35k miles/year between two vehicles. Paying an extra $0.35/gallon is crazy currently.
Originally Posted By: E150GT
I use premium in my Mazda 6 now. Supposedly they were built for 87 in the US but I have noticed that I get significant ping with 87. With 93 it’s almost gone and I have to listen for it. I also use premium in my pickup as I have advanced the timing. It sucks to have to use premium fuel as I feel to am being gouged but it is what it is.
If you are getting ping in a 2016 visit your dealer and have them fix it under warranty.
I use premium in my Mazda 6 now. Supposedly they were built for 87 in the US but I have noticed that I get significant ping with 87. With 93 it’s almost gone and I have to listen for it. I also use premium in my pickup as I have advanced the timing. It sucks to have to use premium fuel as I feel to am being gouged but it is what it is.
If you are getting ping in a 2016 visit your dealer and have them fix it under warranty.
Originally Posted By: bbhero
^^^^^^^^
Exactly right skyactiv.
Higher compression motors above 10.4 :1 and well above that in more and more motors make it necessary to run higher octane gasoline.
Yep. My Mazda with 13:1 compression runs very nicely on 91 compared to the 87 it came with off the showroom.
^^^^^^^^
Exactly right skyactiv.
Higher compression motors above 10.4 :1 and well above that in more and more motors make it necessary to run higher octane gasoline.
Yep. My Mazda with 13:1 compression runs very nicely on 91 compared to the 87 it came with off the showroom.
FWIW: I've been using regular 87 octane gas in my 2004 BMW 530i (e60) for over 10 years now and it has 214,000 miles and runs perfectly, and has more than sufficient power. When I first owned the car, I used 93 premium in it , but then experimented a bit, and now for almost 10 years have been running only 87 and, again, absolutely fine. I have been driving primarily in Pennsylvania and NJ with mixed highway, suburban and a little urban driving.
I don't see the benefit in this case to run premium for maybe a tiny improvement in power and fuel economy. The economic equation has tilted more severely toward the use of lower octane a couple years ago when the spread between 87 and 93 rose from ~20 cents to ~60 cents per gallon.
I don't see the benefit in this case to run premium for maybe a tiny improvement in power and fuel economy. The economic equation has tilted more severely toward the use of lower octane a couple years ago when the spread between 87 and 93 rose from ~20 cents to ~60 cents per gallon.
Originally Posted By: MNgopher
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
I don't care what the manual tells you, if you own a late model, turbocharged engine you better be running premium fuel or you are asking for trouble down the line!
Sure Ford says 87 octane is "fine" for the Eco-Boost but is it good for it, NO!!
Would love to see the mountain of reports of Ecoboosts blowing up from using 87 octane if this were true...
Ford provides the power figures for these motors using 87 octane (at least in the F150). Not missing on any advertised power and my wallet is a little heavier. Monitoring with Torque, the OAR (Octane adjustment ratio) hovers right around 0.1 to -0.2 using regular 87 octane (ranges from 1 (bad fuel) to -1 (good stuff) - pretty much right where intended, so not "pulling ALL the timing" as you report.
+3 I may be a sample of 1 (or 3) but....
Ecoboost 3.5 #1 - 2010 Taurus SHO with 125k fed almost exclusively regular octane. Still runs great.
Ecoboost 3.5 #2 - 2011 F150 with 86k fed almost exclusively regular octane. Tows a 9000lb+ camper. Still runs great and toes great.
Ecoboost 2.0 #3 - 2016 Escape (wife), 34k of regular - fine there too.
Originally Posted By: racin4ds
I don't care what the manual tells you, if you own a late model, turbocharged engine you better be running premium fuel or you are asking for trouble down the line!
Sure Ford says 87 octane is "fine" for the Eco-Boost but is it good for it, NO!!
Would love to see the mountain of reports of Ecoboosts blowing up from using 87 octane if this were true...
Ford provides the power figures for these motors using 87 octane (at least in the F150). Not missing on any advertised power and my wallet is a little heavier. Monitoring with Torque, the OAR (Octane adjustment ratio) hovers right around 0.1 to -0.2 using regular 87 octane (ranges from 1 (bad fuel) to -1 (good stuff) - pretty much right where intended, so not "pulling ALL the timing" as you report.
+3 I may be a sample of 1 (or 3) but....
Ecoboost 3.5 #1 - 2010 Taurus SHO with 125k fed almost exclusively regular octane. Still runs great.
Ecoboost 3.5 #2 - 2011 F150 with 86k fed almost exclusively regular octane. Tows a 9000lb+ camper. Still runs great and toes great.
Ecoboost 2.0 #3 - 2016 Escape (wife), 34k of regular - fine there too.
Last edited:
Kestas
Staff member
Thank you for posting the 47% usage rate for premium. This should quell a lot of arguments I've read in the past, where people attribute the higher cost of premium to the trouble of carrying it for only a few users. Also people have posted to stay away from premium because it sits in the tanks longer than regular and gets stale.
Originally Posted By: Kestas
Thank you for posting the 47% usage rate for premium. This should quell a lot of arguments I've read in the past, where people attribute the higher cost of premium to the trouble of carrying it for only a few users.
Yup. Not only has consumption of premium fuel gone up, but the price spread between regular and premium has increased significantly in recent years. Pure cash cow, driven by the assumption that if you require premium fuel, it must mean you own a premium car, which must mean you're rich, which must mean you can easily afford it, so shut up and pay the premium.
Thank you for posting the 47% usage rate for premium. This should quell a lot of arguments I've read in the past, where people attribute the higher cost of premium to the trouble of carrying it for only a few users.
Yup. Not only has consumption of premium fuel gone up, but the price spread between regular and premium has increased significantly in recent years. Pure cash cow, driven by the assumption that if you require premium fuel, it must mean you own a premium car, which must mean you're rich, which must mean you can easily afford it, so shut up and pay the premium.
Kestas
Staff member
Yes Pete -that's exactly what the journalists have reported once they dug into the story.
I used to buy premium fuel but now I use regular. No loss of economy or any other adverse problems.
I used to buy premium fuel but now I use regular. No loss of economy or any other adverse problems.
Originally Posted By: PimTac
Originally Posted By: bbhero
^^^^^^^^
Exactly right skyactiv.
Higher compression motors above 10.4 :1 and well above that in more and more motors make it necessary to run higher octane gasoline.
Yep. My Mazda with 13:1 compression runs very nicely on 91 compared to the 87 it came with off the showroom.
If only the US was more willing to use premium, we would have the 14:1 compression motor used Japan and Europe with an extra couple MPG and an extra I believe 10% horsepower.
Originally Posted By: bbhero
^^^^^^^^
Exactly right skyactiv.
Higher compression motors above 10.4 :1 and well above that in more and more motors make it necessary to run higher octane gasoline.
Yep. My Mazda with 13:1 compression runs very nicely on 91 compared to the 87 it came with off the showroom.
If only the US was more willing to use premium, we would have the 14:1 compression motor used Japan and Europe with an extra couple MPG and an extra I believe 10% horsepower.
One of the reasons I went with the Chevy 1.5T in our Equinox over the 2.0T was the 93 octane requirement (manual says you 'could' use lower octane but MPG may suffer). I think the the 1.5T does pretty well on 87.
- Status
Similar threads
