114 days; Part II

Remav · Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:12 pm

golftango wrote:I'm curious, why premium? There's no benefit, MPG or performance wise. I drive mine like I stole it and see 29-30 mpg average constantly on 87. Granted I use top tier fuel only (Valero), but there really is no need for premium unlead for our na 2.4s. I bet you'd see better MPG numbers with 87.

My experience too, only on the other end of the scale (sane & no fun). I've filled with premium (91) 3 times out of about 12 fillings since I purchased in April & regular (85) here at altitude in Colorado Springs (usually @ Costco). Neither long trips nor my normal 4 mi commute show any signs of a significant difference in power or mpg between the two. I've been trying to eke out the most MPG that I can for almost every mile. I trust Weshoot2 on his numbers because (I assume) his long commute allows for much better apples to apples opportunity on one tank vs another. I used to hit the Mobil Premium in my former life in NJ and other vehicles for the same reason he mentioned, but it's not available anywhere near me & the Kizzy seems to burn whatever I throw at it just fine... will let you know if I ever have to replace the Cat ;o)

WESHOOT2 · Mon Aug 31, 2015 6:58 pm

...and I keep testing....

Mon Aug 31, 2015 7:25 pm

Given the car was designed to run on 87 octane fuel, I really don't think catalytic converter life is significantly compromised from fuel grade. If anything, the real risk is overfilled oil in damaging a cat. However, Premium fuel does contain higher levels of additives that keep fuel systems cleaner.
I personally don't use anything but 87 octane given my driving conditions are regrettably the opposite of Weshoot2's. I'm often in stop-and-go traffic, banging my head on the steering wheel in 3 pedal agony. Plus, if I'm going to pay for Premium, I'd like to own a car with performance worthy of the extra cost. Something with a turbo is what comes to mind. Just my opinion.

WESHOOT2 · Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:27 pm

2012 Kizashi 5,xxx
2011 Kizashi AWD S 164,370
2007 Impreza 2.5i 118,382
1995 Toyota Tercel Coupe 22,xxx
2001 Impeza 2.5R Coupe 117,xxx
1995 Impreza 2.2 Coupe 147,xxx
1987 XT Turbo 30,xxx
1991 Legacy Turbo 134,xxx

These are just the cars I've bought for Vermont since November 1991; I haven't included any of the company vehicles I got as a Kodak Field Engineer (approximately 65,xxx per year, from 1992 until 1998).
Listed are the miles I drove them.
This list doesn't include the wife's cars. Or rentals.
It also doesn't include the vehicles I drove starting in 1971. Or in the Army.

Know what I mean?

burning premium reducing knock since 1991

DesRado · Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:55 pm

65k miles a year O_O wow

ehart814 · Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:57 pm

KuroNekko wrote:Given the car was designed to run on 87 octane fuel, I really don't think catalytic converter life is significantly compromised from fuel grade. If anything, the real risk is overfilled oil in damaging a cat. However, Premium fuel does contain higher levels of additives that keep fuel systems cleaner.
I personally don't use anything but 87 octane given my driving conditions are regrettably the opposite of Weshoot2's. I'm often in stop-and-go traffic, banging my head on the steering wheel in 3 pedal agony. Plus, if I'm going to pay for Premium, I'd like to own a car with performance worthy of the extra cost. Something with a turbo is what comes to mind. Just my opinion.

Regardless of driving conditions, you're right to use 87 octane, unless you want to pay an extra 30 or 40 cents for gas in exchange for absolutely no tangible benefit.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

FrankoLaMoya · Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:40 pm

KuroNekko wrote:Given the car was designed to run on 87 octane fuel, I really don't think catalytic converter life is significantly compromised from fuel grade. If anything, the real risk is overfilled oil in damaging a cat. However, Premium fuel does contain higher levels of additives that keep fuel systems cleaner.
I personally don't use anything but 87 octane given my driving conditions are regrettably the opposite of Weshoot2's. I'm often in stop-and-go traffic, banging my head on the steering wheel in 3 pedal agony. Plus, if I'm going to pay for Premium, I'd like to own a car with performance worthy of the extra cost. Something with a turbo is what comes to mind. Just my opinion.

X2

Wed Sep 02, 2015 1:47 pm

I find the 87 octane fuel quality up in CT to be less than stellar. I've fill up at various Exxon and Mobile stations for the trips back to PA and my fuel economy goes waaay down compared to the trips from PA to CT. All on 87 octane. Multiple trips in the past year through all four seasons and two different vehicles (Kiz & Jeep). Many times loaded with cargo on the way up and empty on the way home to boot. Same story every time, MPG normal going up to CT w/ PA gas from Turkey Hill...crap on the way back w/ CT gas from Exxon/Mobile. If the same holds true for VT, I can easily see why WESHOOT runs the premium, regardless of what the car is designed for. Who's checking the octane value and ethanol content at the pump? You the consumer certainly can't. How much water is being sucked up out of the tanks (residual condensation) and run through your fuel system? You'll never know. But I can tell you for a fact it's more than you think, or would want.

WESHOOT2 · Wed Sep 02, 2015 2:45 pm

Last tank Mobil premium/bit-o-regular blend 28.3 MPG.

I've currently decided that the car sticks better than I can sanely explore on public roads.
I'm not done learning, though, either

24,205

DesRado · Wed Sep 02, 2015 3:00 pm

Weshoot, I wished the roads were as open as you have them down here in VA. Not nearly as much "freedom" to drive. Most excitement I get is taking a curved on ramp at 60, sometimes...

Edit: the car does stick though, even makes every loose thing in the car fly to the other side of the vehicle ahaha.