Escapist
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Alex
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2020
- Threads
- 9
- Messages
- 564
- Reaction score
- 698
- Location
- Pensacola, FL
- Car(s)
- 2020 GR Supra, 2016 Yamaha R1
93 ftw!
Sponsored
Snorlax27
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- JR
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2020
- Threads
- 10
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 178
- Location
- California
- Car(s)
- 2020 GR Supra, 1995 E36 M3
A gas thread- a sure fire way of instigating a futile debate 
So, in conclusion: put whatever gas makes you sleep better at night. Save the debating for things that actually matter like Coke vs Pepsi, IOS vs Android, or if a pound of bricks falls quicker than a pound of feathers.
So, in conclusion: put whatever gas makes you sleep better at night. Save the debating for things that actually matter like Coke vs Pepsi, IOS vs Android, or if a pound of bricks falls quicker than a pound of feathers.
Shay
Well-Known Member
diablo2112 I want to thank you for your post. Looking at your boost pressure of 29.69 it looks like you are not giving up much performance due to your altitude.
I understand your argument that lower octane actually has more energy than higher octane gas. Obviously a certain level of octane is required for a given engine to produce max horsepower, but I don't believe that a higher octane than is necessary will make additional power or better millage.
I use my car as a daily driver and drive it on a trip of 900 miles about once a month. For daily driving and on trips I use lower octane gas. On days I am driving for fun I run 93. I can afford to spent many times more per gallon than I do, but just cant see the logic in wasting money.
Shay
I understand your argument that lower octane actually has more energy than higher octane gas. Obviously a certain level of octane is required for a given engine to produce max horsepower, but I don't believe that a higher octane than is necessary will make additional power or better millage.
I use my car as a daily driver and drive it on a trip of 900 miles about once a month. For daily driving and on trips I use lower octane gas. On days I am driving for fun I run 93. I can afford to spent many times more per gallon than I do, but just cant see the logic in wasting money.
Shay
nibble
Well-Known Member
I use 93.
here's why from my experience. I used to own nissan maxima '03 /w manual transmission. great car. had more than 300 hp and /w manual I used to burn the tires like no tomorrow. But didn't take care too much and used regular (87) all the time. A bit less power and a bit less fuel economy but I thought it was worth the saving from fuel price. still burns the tire. however, after using regular for 2 years (about 35k miles), under the load, car started to develop knocking. on higher RPM was ok but on a lower RPM and uphill on 3rd gear on 30 or so MPH, I could clearly hear knocking which wasn't happening before even with regular gas. I assume higher volatile fuel like 87 was causing the issue by using over the long period of time. Perhaps you may not experience this in automatic. - car may shift gear to lower gear automatically. So in my opinion, using 87 for once or twice just to get to next station that has 91 or 93 would be ok but using it primarily and prolonged time, will damage the engine. Also, unless you have 100 octane tuned map, using 100 octane would be senseless.
So my advise is use 91 or above if you plan to keep it for long time. But if you are using 87 and plan to sell it, please let next buyer/owner know that you've been using 87.
here's why from my experience. I used to own nissan maxima '03 /w manual transmission. great car. had more than 300 hp and /w manual I used to burn the tires like no tomorrow. But didn't take care too much and used regular (87) all the time. A bit less power and a bit less fuel economy but I thought it was worth the saving from fuel price. still burns the tire. however, after using regular for 2 years (about 35k miles), under the load, car started to develop knocking. on higher RPM was ok but on a lower RPM and uphill on 3rd gear on 30 or so MPH, I could clearly hear knocking which wasn't happening before even with regular gas. I assume higher volatile fuel like 87 was causing the issue by using over the long period of time. Perhaps you may not experience this in automatic. - car may shift gear to lower gear automatically. So in my opinion, using 87 for once or twice just to get to next station that has 91 or 93 would be ok but using it primarily and prolonged time, will damage the engine. Also, unless you have 100 octane tuned map, using 100 octane would be senseless.
So my advise is use 91 or above if you plan to keep it for long time. But if you are using 87 and plan to sell it, please let next buyer/owner know that you've been using 87.
Neo1967
Well-Known Member
Engine knock..rings and valves..pre-detonation..stick with what the manufacturer reommends as a few extra cents per gallon will save you money in the long term.A gas thread- a sure fire way of instigating a futile debate
So, in conclusion: put whatever gas makes you sleep better at night. Save the debating for things that actually matter like Coke vs Pepsi, IOS vs Android, or if a pound of bricks falls quicker than a pound of feathers.
Bflood
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2020
- Threads
- 11
- Messages
- 389
- Reaction score
- 332
- Location
- Columbus OH
- Car(s)
- 3.0 Premium
The Supra can handle e50 with just a tune but you'll need to pick up Pi and added lpfp if you want the full potential of e85. Totally worth it though.
SupraGR21
Well-Known Member
my .02:
Turbo motors= 91 octane or better
Gas stations= Chevron or at least Shell all others are crap
I have done extensive testing personally on many different plat forms and regardless of what people say higher octane does produce a smoother engine(when its a high performance engine or turbo'd car). For the gas stations, Chevron really does use additives which keep your engine clean and have a better cleaning fuel mixture. Only data I have is my own personal experiences from decades to see the effects of type of gas and what octane with different engines.
Turbo motors= 91 octane or better
Gas stations= Chevron or at least Shell all others are crap
I have done extensive testing personally on many different plat forms and regardless of what people say higher octane does produce a smoother engine(when its a high performance engine or turbo'd car). For the gas stations, Chevron really does use additives which keep your engine clean and have a better cleaning fuel mixture. Only data I have is my own personal experiences from decades to see the effects of type of gas and what octane with different engines.
diablo2112
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2020
- Threads
- 8
- Messages
- 176
- Reaction score
- 292
- Location
- Southwest USA
- Car(s)
- 2022 BMW M3 Competition
No big deal. Many people have deeply held opinions, obviously. Doesn't bother me in the least.
Snorlax27
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- JR
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2020
- Threads
- 10
- Messages
- 183
- Reaction score
- 178
- Location
- California
- Car(s)
- 2020 GR Supra, 1995 E36 M3
Here was a little snippet from a car and driver’s article that tested various octane gas in multiple vehicles.
Not entirely shocking. Settling for lower octane fuel for a vehicle calling for higher octane leaves performance on the table. This is not a moot point. Likewise, putting higher octane in a vehicle that doesn’t call for it is essentially “burning money”- hehe.
There are other considerations to take into account like fuel economy or gas savings buying lower grade fuel. All things considered, it’s your vehicle and it’s your decision what fuel you dump in it. You can find the entire article here:
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a28565486/honda-cr-v-vs-bmw-m5-ford-f-150-dodge-charger/
Not entirely shocking. Settling for lower octane fuel for a vehicle calling for higher octane leaves performance on the table. This is not a moot point. Likewise, putting higher octane in a vehicle that doesn’t call for it is essentially “burning money”- hehe.
There are other considerations to take into account like fuel economy or gas savings buying lower grade fuel. All things considered, it’s your vehicle and it’s your decision what fuel you dump in it. You can find the entire article here:
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a28565486/honda-cr-v-vs-bmw-m5-ford-f-150-dodge-charger/
piper1
Well-Known Member
Like many others already have said, why buy an expensive sports car just to cheap out on gas and affect performance, even if it's daily and not pushing it. I always would want my car to perform at it's best, else why buy it? One back and forth that is the debate is fuel economy/performance. The mustang ecoboost I leased stated can use 87 but all fuel/performance ratings are based with 93. So in terms of the mustang they boast the best fuel economy/hp/tq on 93. Why would they put a lower rating on fuel economy with 87 being used? Part of marketing, you put your best numbers in the best situation to sell, not the mediocre. Hence why BHP not WHP is listed to sell sell sell.
I know different industries, but look at it like this.
In a previous life I was very heavy into archery. Bows are rated in IBO (international bow hunters organization) and AMO (archery manufactures organization). IBO is based at higher draw length than average, no string accessories, 70lbs draw weight and the lightest arrow without doing harm to the bow. In these specs the bow will shoot an arrow at it's absolute fastest in controlled environment. AMO is more real world average joe setting. Shorter draw length 60lbs draw weight heavier hunting class arrow. In honesty the average person gets in the middle between ibo and amp typically, but plenty don't get why at 5'8" the same bow shoots faster for the 6'3" guy next to them.
Take that into account when a car company recommends what fuel to use to give you the optimal out of the car as what IBO specs are for archery. Will either amo or ibo hurt a bow, no it's just how they base archery industry standards unlike what we're talking about here.
But if using higher grade fuel will prevent "possible" knock for a car I'd hope to keep for a long time to come, then I'm going to do my best to not only "hopefully" prevent issues down the road, but also take full advantage of the full potential of the performance of my car 100% of the time.
What surprises me is the company is telling you using lower will "possibly" produce knock, why on earth with all the problems that are to potentially come up in the cars life time of your ownership would you ever want to put it into the "possible" situation in the first place? Not a jab to anyone here as I do understand the differences in elevations and so forth but still, You know it's a possibility to happen, and if it happens a lot you know there ultimately will be a stress point if it continues and something will break, as they always say the weakest link is the first to break. Why not do what you can to prevent more headaches down the road? Best problem solvers are always the best problem preventers.
I know different industries, but look at it like this.
In a previous life I was very heavy into archery. Bows are rated in IBO (international bow hunters organization) and AMO (archery manufactures organization). IBO is based at higher draw length than average, no string accessories, 70lbs draw weight and the lightest arrow without doing harm to the bow. In these specs the bow will shoot an arrow at it's absolute fastest in controlled environment. AMO is more real world average joe setting. Shorter draw length 60lbs draw weight heavier hunting class arrow. In honesty the average person gets in the middle between ibo and amp typically, but plenty don't get why at 5'8" the same bow shoots faster for the 6'3" guy next to them.
Take that into account when a car company recommends what fuel to use to give you the optimal out of the car as what IBO specs are for archery. Will either amo or ibo hurt a bow, no it's just how they base archery industry standards unlike what we're talking about here.
But if using higher grade fuel will prevent "possible" knock for a car I'd hope to keep for a long time to come, then I'm going to do my best to not only "hopefully" prevent issues down the road, but also take full advantage of the full potential of the performance of my car 100% of the time.
What surprises me is the company is telling you using lower will "possibly" produce knock, why on earth with all the problems that are to potentially come up in the cars life time of your ownership would you ever want to put it into the "possible" situation in the first place? Not a jab to anyone here as I do understand the differences in elevations and so forth but still, You know it's a possibility to happen, and if it happens a lot you know there ultimately will be a stress point if it continues and something will break, as they always say the weakest link is the first to break. Why not do what you can to prevent more headaches down the road? Best problem solvers are always the best problem preventers.
SupraGR21
Well-Known Member
This was just purely amazing! I had to go back and look at the detailed transition on the car from scene to scene. Thanks for sharing this!
Supraboi7
Well-Known Member
Revisiting this thread due to NC gas shortage...how bad am I screwing my car if put a few gallons of regular in? There's no premium gas anywhere to be found and it hurts my soul to pump this garbage juice down my cars throat lol. I'm driving like granny and sport mode off to go easy on her
Sponsored
Similar threads
