I know 93 octane post. But, hear me out.

I’ll just leave this here...

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2016/09/u-s-drivers-waste-2-1-billion-annually-premium-gasoline/

There is also a 41 page report linked there, in case you want more depth on the topic.

 

True with a port injected or carbed engine, but not true with a DI engine. DI allows for much higher static compression without the need for higher octane because of the 'cooling' effect of the DI on cylinder temperatures. Read up on it.

 

Octane 101...

 

This is not about octane it is about engine wanting more timing while using 93 octane. More timing enables engine to breath a little better.

 

Please just stop... this is getting embarrassing

 

Ok, some understand some don't. consider it done.

 

Mazda 3 has 13.0 : 1 compression. It's designed for regular gas.

 

i work for Subaru and I have seen engines town down that have used nothing but 87 octane and some that have used 93 octane and the top of the pistons were black as night running 87 and really clean with the 93 octane so I would like my engine to be clean after numerous miles and it runs better.

 

yeah that has nothing to due with the gas there cochise...more than likely has more to due with driving habits and general upkeep of the vehicles.

how the hell would you know what grade of fuel they were running anyways?

 

Leaded or unleaded?

 

Let's just be thankful for those that waste their money on 'premium' gas. That is where the gas companies make their money with higher margins. Where it not for them, we would all be paying higher for regular. I encourage the silly behavior. Let them keep thinking they are unleashing a race car at .40 more a gallon.

 

I'm getting a lot more power with my BSM turned off. I can feel in my right foot. Especially barefoot.

SB

 

I've run everything I could get my hands on... E10 87, E10 89, E10 91, E10 93, pure 91 and pure 93. Everything except E10 87 runs about the same. Of course get better MPG with the pure. I ran E10 89 for awhile because it was the cheapest that still ran well. Went back to 87 few weeks ago to see if I was full of shit and sure enough it was sub-par. I mean it still runs fine and I'm sure it's not damaging anything but there's no doubt it likes a bit more octane for whatever reason.

 

maybe you should talk to our shop foreman who has been working on cars longer than you have been alive and get the facts straight.

 

When you say that it ran sub par is there a way that you measure that? The reason I ask is because if you are going by feel or sound, that isn't exactly scientific. I know that when I get a new pair of shoes that it feels like I can faster, but the reality is I am just as slow no matter the shoes.

 

let me know when he has a few degrees in engineering then well talk

 

For me the difference is smoothness in low RPMs (sub 3000). It's always been all over the place down there but it's noticeably smoother with 89+. In particular there is a hesitation/stumble/misfire around 2400 rpms. This has been discussed many times here. Some chalk it up to the dyno which no doubt shows a lull in power there. Some reported actual misfires recorded by the ECU. Some have blamed the tune. I don't know specifically what my truck is doing but with 89+ a constant throttle acceleration from 1500-3000 RPM is much smoother. Most notably in 2nd gear. The stumble is more noticeable with 87.

That's pretty much it really. It's definitely not faster and it doesn't sound any different, lol.

 

This is the "my uncle works at Nintendo" of cars

 

I'm beginning to think that threads about what octane to use should be treated the same as politics, religion, etc.

J/k

Sort of.

At the end of the day, run the octane you want as long as it's equal to the recommendation from the manufacturer. If indeed the only benefit is personal reassurance to the owner at the expense of a few cents per gallon, or a few dollars per tank, then ultimately that sense of reassurance is all that matters.

From a personal perspective, I run 91/93 octane in all my vehicles which include four motorcycles, two Tacomas (one of which is F/I), and a Honda lawnmower. Never had an issue, and the delta of cost between 91/93 and lower octane gasoline is negligible. If I wanted to pinch pennies, there are plenty of other things in my lifestyle that I could eliminate or modify that will have a greater impact. But as I said before, at the end of the day this is a reflection of my own philosophy, education, and background in finished fuels.

It's not your vehicle, it's theirs, and as long as they aren't actively destroying it, embrace the differences amongst us and let them be.

 

I haven't tested this on my new Tacoma, but on my wifes new Grand Cherokee, she gets better mileage with Shell 93 vs Shell 89. We have tried it multiple times with the same result. 89 octane yields 21.5MPG in town consistently and the 93 octane yields 23.5MPG in town consistently. I dont know the science behind it, but it works for her Jeep. I will try it on the new Tacoma at some point but I want to get a baseline with 89 first. I only have 600 miles on it so far. Kevin.