premium versus regular

[stefan]

Most guys probably know this anyways, but some info on running premium in a car not spec'd for it:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...s.html?cmp=rss

[Bucky]

Re: premium versus regular

I heard this on cbc radio this morning. Really neat article . I've heard the cars that require premium and run regular , run like crap. Anxious to see what some people think.

[idlandk]

Re: premium versus regular

You burn less fuel using premium. That's more environmentally friendly to me than what's coming out the pipe.

[stefan]

Re: premium versus regular

You burn less fuel using premium. That's more environmentally friendly to me than what's coming out the pipe.

I've run premium in each my gas cars a few times (have had 4 gassers). Engine responds differently for sure, but can't say I every got much farther on a tank.

Not sure what comes out the pipe can be completely ignored. My last TDI likely burned half the fuel quantity as many gassers on the road, but it sure didn't look very friendly in the rear view when I floored it and cars disappeared . If you are burning rich (or lean), you are pumping a lot of crap in to the air. Whether this bothers you or not is your call, but I wouldn't call it environmentally friendly. Most of the tuner types on here are not too worried.

Sure there is damage being done to produce the fuels, but I'm fairly confident there is more toxic crap produced burning it. A little more fuel volume burnt properly will create less pollutants than less fuel burned inefficiently.

Unfortunately, I drive more for enjoyment and probably don't worry about the environmental side enough, so I'm definitely not one to pass judgement, but if you are worried about it enough to pay extra for the premium, I would not say burning less of it on its own makes it more friendly. For one, you are not getting the most out of the fuel and what you don't burn shoots out the back end, and for another, that fuel was likely more heavily refined, so conceivably there is more damage done on the production side too. At any rate, if I felt that I was getting more enjoyment from the premium fuel either through performance, or mileage, I'd probably do the same - but not because of the environment....

[MechEngg]

Re: premium versus regular

You burn less fuel using premium. That's more environmentally friendly to me than what's coming out the pipe.

I believe that this is where a myth lies. What solid facts and evidence do you have to support that for every type of engine being more efficient and burning less fuel with premium gasoline?
And you do realize that what is coming out the tail end is the deciding factor in deciding what is environmentally friendly right? Regulatory bodies don't care about what goes in or what the internals look like, as long as there is small numbers coming out the tailpipe

[stuvy]

Re: premium versus regular

The S4 running on anything less then 94 spells misfire under boost and way poor perfomance, although I never noticed a difference in mileage. I've run regular in everything I've owned that wasn't turbocharged, and plan to continue this way. I do with they would get rid of the ethanol though.

[idlandk]

Re: premium versus regular

Well back when I actually put gas in my car it was night and day as far as how responsive the car was, which you seem to agree on. I was also getting about 30km better out of premium. Obviously I can't prove that 100% but that combined with a happy car made me use premium. Your right though I'm not as worried about the environment as much as my pocketbook and personal satisfaction. That's why I drive a tdi. A properly tuned diesel that burns almost half what it's gas cousin does doesn't seem like it's producing as many emissions in the long run. But yes I know they go by what comes out the pipe. That's why diesels are being killed

[Ur0Drivr]

Re: premium versus regular

The S4 running on anything less then 94 spells misfire under boost and way poor perfomance, although I never noticed a difference in mileage.

Most people I know run 91 daily in their S4, never an issue. With 94 I've noticed a large drop off in fuel efficiency. 13.8 L/100km on Petro Can 94 and 12.2 L/100km on shell 91.

[stuvy]

Re: premium versus regular

Most people I know run 91 daily in their S4, never an issue. With 94 I've noticed a large drop off in fuel efficiency. 13.8 L/100km on Petro Can 94 and 12.2 L/100km on shell 91.

I have it running on a GIAC tune that really doesn't like the 91. We also don't have petro 94 in Lethbridge so I am stuck at mohawk, I noticed it really liked the race fuel. Fuel economy is the shits though. Once I get the new turbos and clutch and stuff on I'll be doing some proper dyno time to hopefully fix my 94 dependency.

[P Arkus]

Re: premium versus regular

Canada is too cold to not support global warming. Premium all day err-day!

[boostedmk4]

Re: premium versus regular

When I run premium in the jeep I see a drop in mileage. That's for sure


So I don't bother. Also I have no need for premium as I have the aerodynamics of a garden shed

[100%VAGitarian]

Re: premium versus regular

they left out the most important factor in fuel economy. the driver and his right foot.

[RONDAL]

Re: premium versus regular

what most people fail to understand is what exactly the octane rating is, and what it does.

i could have run my stock s4 on 87 here in calgary and it would have run. the timing would have just been pulled by the ECU to avoid knocking and i could drive it fine. Not the case now with a custom tune in there.
While i have to run 94 at sea level, i dont need to at elevation here in calgary as it is one of the big factors and can get away with 91.

people that believe it gives them better fuel economy, i say show us the scientific data. not just your "butt dyno" results.

[Ur0Drivr]

Re: premium versus regular

what most people fail to understand is what exactly the octane rating is, and what it does.

i could have run my stock s4 on 87 here in calgary and it would have run. the timing would have just been pulled by the ECU to avoid knocking and i could drive it fine. Not the case now with a custom tune in there.
While i have to run 94 at sea level, i dont need to at elevation here in calgary as it is one of the big factors and can get away with 91.

people that believe it gives them better fuel economy, i say show us the scientific data. not just your "butt dyno" results.

I've kept stats of my fuel mileage since October 2010 religiously, in that time I've filled the car 118 times. When I've used 94 on 23 occasions I've had an average gas mileage of 13.65 L/100km and the other 95 with Shell 91 with an average of 12.26 L/100km. These include highway and city. That is my "scientific" proof.

[bart]

Re: premium versus regular

i like pollution haha