 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Nissan / Nissan Cars / April 20062006 Murano requires 91 Octane fuel?
I am thinking of purchasing a 2006 Nissan Murano SL. However after researching information on this sporty SUV, Nissan is recommending 91 octane of all Muranos. Because of the ever increasing fuel cost, is it okay to use 87 octane fuel in the Murano SL? Will it hurt my engine by using the lower octane? Please send your answers to Smlsaimin@aol.com Thank you > I am thinking of purchasing a 2006 Nissan Murano SL. However after > researching information on this sporty SUV, Nissan is recommending 91 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you Please answer here as well. I have the 2001 Pathfinder and premium fuel is recommended but I've also heard that you'll only not get the advertised 0-60 times using lower grade fuel. I've been using 89 octane and I'm no speed demon. Performance has been fine so far.  SignatureTFM® > I am thinking of purchasing a 2006 Nissan Murano SL. However after > researching information on this sporty SUV, Nissan is recommending 91 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you I am thinking to get one without SunRoof, Leather is preferred. How much it costs? It has a knock sensor and will take advantage of the high octane rating for more power and efficiency. The difference in efficiency probably makes up for the difference in fuel cost. >I am thinking of purchasing a 2006 Nissan Murano SL. However after > researching information on this sporty SUV, Nissan is recommending 91 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you > It has a knock sensor and will take advantage of the high octane rating > for more power and efficiency. The difference in efficiency probably > makes up for the difference in fuel cost. And overheats the exhaust side of the engine causing other problems. It's why the recomend using 91. DO a search this question comes up ALL the time. And if he can't be bothered to look for the answers here (wants them emailed to him?) I guess he won't see these answers. SignatureSteve http://www.atlantaracing.com A Knock sensor?? What your saying is that if I used less than 91 Octane fuel, I'll be able to hear knocking in my engine. With the naked ear, I don't think anyone with car knowledge would recognize it. Am I correct? So its okay for me to use 87 Octane in my 2006 Murano that Nissan says they recommend 91 octane? >A Knock sensor?? What your saying is that if I used less than 91 Octane >fuel, I'll be able to hear knocking in my engine. With the naked ear, I >don't think anyone with car knowledge would recognize it. Am I correct? No. It detects knock under conditions that you can't. Once knock is detected it switches to a low octane fuel and ignition map and stays on that until you switch off and on again. If the fuel grade is again too low it will detect knock and switch to the low octane maps again. > So its okay for me to use 87 Octane in my 2006 Murano that Nissan says >they recommend 91 octane? Sure but it will cost more as the low octane maps are rich and reduce efficiency, so you will use more fuel. The cost of that extra fuel will be more than you save by not using the correct grade of fuel. What other shortcuts are you planning to use to reduce the cost of ownership? -- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets! He will over inflate his tires, and start running the lights and stop signs. This will save fuel!!! Just being funny here... SignatureJANA _____ On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 00:49:07 -0500, "Paniolo" <smlsaimin@aol.com> wrote: >A Knock sensor?? What your saying is that if I used less than 91 Octane >fuel, I'll be able to hear knocking in my engine. With the naked ear, I >don't think anyone with car knowledge would recognize it. Am I correct? No. It detects knock under conditions that you can't. Once knock is detected it switches to a low octane fuel and ignition map and stays on that until you switch off and on again. If the fuel grade is again too low it will detect knock and switch to the low octane maps again. > So its okay for me to use 87 Octane in my 2006 Murano that Nissan says >they recommend 91 octane? Sure but it will cost more as the low octane maps are rich and reduce efficiency, so you will use more fuel. The cost of that extra fuel will be more than you save by not using the correct grade of fuel. What other shortcuts are you planning to use to reduce the cost of ownership? -- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets! > So its okay for me to use 87 Octane in my 2006 Murano that Nissan says >they recommend 91 octane? How can you justify (in your mind) paying $30,000+ for a vehicle and scrimping a couple of pennies a gallon for gas to run it as it should be run? Signature<<<SgtRich>>> Chicago, Illinois, USA >> So its okay for me to use 87 Octane in my 2006 Murano that Nissan says >>they recommend 91 octane? > > How can you justify (in your mind) paying $30,000+ for a vehicle and > scrimping a couple of pennies a gallon for gas to run it as it should > be run? Well, since I drive around 50K a year, the savings becomes appreciable. Secondly, there is a slight drop in gas mileage when using 87 vs 91 or 93, but not enough to offset the difference. In the cold months this works great. However, in hot weather, I generally switch back to premium as I notice a occasional valve clatter on 87 when it's above 85 degrees. Willy > A Knock sensor?? What your saying is that if I used less than 91 Octane > fuel, I'll be able to hear knocking in my engine. With the naked ear, I > don't think anyone with car knowledge would recognize it. Am I correct? > > So its okay for me to use 87 Octane in my 2006 Murano that Nissan says > they recommend 91 octane? Is there a problem finding 91 octane gas in your area? The 2006 Murano has a 21.7 gal. gas tank. 91 octane gas is usually 10 cents more than 89 octane (in my area, anyway) Using 92 octane would cost $2.17 more than 89 octane (if you filled an empty tank) Do what Nissan says, and save the $2.17 on something else. SignatureBill In Hamptonburgh, NY >> A Knock sensor?? What your saying is that if I used less than 91 Octane >> fuel, I'll be able to hear knocking in my engine. With the naked ear, I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > empty tank) > Do what Nissan says, and save the $2.17 on something else. I like your point. I did the math and with current prices here (Tampa, Fl) I'm saving $2 a tankful by not using 91 octane. I'd rather have what they want in the tank and get the performance and mileage. Consider me convinced, and thank you for making it more realistic. (you spoke of dollars and cents.) SignatureTFM® > > A Knock sensor?? What your saying is that if I used less than 91 Octane > > fuel, I'll be able to hear knocking in my engine. With the naked ear, I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > empty tank) > Do what Nissan says, and save the $2.17 on something else. Unless you live at high elevation, like I do. The only thing I've noticed when running my '05 Murano on 91 octane fuel is that my mileage drops about 2 MPG. (And on top of that, premium is never less than $0.20 more per gallon, and often $0.25 more in my area.) But since I live and drive it at 6000 feet above sea level, it runs just as well on 85 octane as 91 octane. That's because there's approximately 20% less oxygen at this elevation than there is at sea level, so there's 20% less oxygen in the cylinder to burn with the gas. That also means 20% less power, which sucks. So if you live a mile or more above sea level, go ahead and stick with the cheaper gas. At least until Nissan comes out with a turbocharged Murano! (I'd buy that! ;-) -Scott Signature"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --spaf (1992) >>>A Knock sensor?? What your saying is that if I used less than 91 Octane >>>fuel, I'll be able to hear knocking in my engine. With the naked ear, I [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > -Scott I live in Zephyrhills, Florida. 11 feet above sea level. I think I'll stick with the premium. <G> SignatureTFM® >So if you live a mile or more above sea level, go ahead and stick with >the cheaper gas. At least until Nissan comes out with a turbocharged >Murano! (I'd buy that! ;-) Won't happen. It's well known that the US market doesn't like small efficient turbocharged engines. Something to do with a perception of top gear cruise reserve performance and a dislike of changing down a gear. That's why you got stuck with a 2.4L 155bhp truck engine in the 240SX while everyone else had 1.8L 170bhp and 2L 200bhp turbos in the same bodyshell. The fact that the 170bhp RS13 1.8L turbo's top gear acceleration between 55mph and 125mph is better than a BMW 330Ci, Corvette C5 6 speed, and '97 Mustang Cobra 6 speed is something that few people can comprehend. Owners of them will say that every 1.8 180SX/200SX turbo they have tried it on with has been modified. 8's and 6's with 6 speed gearboxes get very high overdrives for gas economy (330Ci hits top speed in 4th not 5th or 6th). They all make about the same number of bangs per mile in top gear, 1.8 turbo 5620, 330Ci 6138, C5 Vette 5173, Cobra 6880. Without a rev counter you would find it hard to tell a difference - clearly the little 4 pot is not actually "buzzy" but the Cobra is. Even sadder is that they are all well beaten on top gear acceleration between 45 and 100mph by a Ford Mondeo 2.2TDCi. Nasty vile smoker. Between 60 and 70mph it has nearly twice the top gear acceleration of the C5 or Cobra and 25% more than the 1.8 turbo. Have to change down to 4th to match it's peak top gear acceleration. -- Peter Hill Spamtrap reply domain as per NNTP-Posting-Host in header Can of worms - what every fisherman wants. Can of worms - what every PC owner gets! > >So if you live a mile or more above sea level, go ahead and stick with > >the cheaper gas. At least until Nissan comes out with a turbocharged [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > the C5 or Cobra and 25% more than the 1.8 turbo. Have to change down > to 4th to match it's peak top gear acceleration. I'm constantly amazed at how people seem to be unable to think rationally about cars. I agree with you completely about turbochargers (and all the more at my Colorado elevation, where the turbo gives you back all the power lost because of the elevation). I previously had an Audi A4 1.8T and it was a sweet ride. I'd still have it if it were big enough for our growing family, but it was simply too small. And there just aren't any turbocharged vehicles the size of the Murano, with the exception of the Subaru Legacy/Outback, which is a nice vehicle but has some serious flaws. A friend of mine had been driving V8-powered vehicles all his life (Camero, Jeep Grand Cherokee, etc.) and was just convinced that he *HAD* to have a big V8 in his next vehicle. He drove all kinds of SUVs with big engines, but finally got a Subaru Forester 2.5XT. A mere 4 cylinders, but faster than any SUV out there, except maybe the Porsche turbo SUV (at 4x the price). It took a lot of persuading him that a turbocharged engine could be as fast or faster than a big V8, but he finally saw the light. But I see the same lack of thought happening all the time when it comes to peoples' cars. Hell, the only reason anybody would buy an H2 is because they've completely shut off their brain and simply "want" it. And, of course, the car manufacturers are happy to oblige. -Scott Signature"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --spaf (1992) > And there > just aren't any turbocharged vehicles the size of the Murano, with the > exception of the Subaru Legacy/Outback, which is a nice vehicle but has > some serious flaws. Flaws? Care to elaborate? > > And there > > just aren't any turbocharged vehicles the size of the Murano, with the > > exception of the Subaru Legacy/Outback, which is a nice vehicle but has > > some serious flaws. > > Flaws? Care to elaborate? Sure. Keep in mind that I'm a huge fan of Subaru--we sold a 2000 Outback to my brother to buy the new car, and we also had a 1998 Outback, which I sold to buy the 2000. And I think the new Outbacks and Legacys look fantastic. I was *REALLY* excited when the 2005s first came out and thought for sure that would be our next new vehicle. These are the reasons why we bought a Murano over an Outback: 1) Stopping distance. Several tests rated the new Outback's stopping distance on par with the Hummer H2! Motorweek tested it 60 to 0 at 155 feet (compare the Murano at 125 feet, or nearly two car lengths). Car & Driver tested 70 to 0 at something like 210 feet. 160-170 is more in the expected range for a good performance here. http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2343a.shtml Now I realize that tires can make a difference here, but 30 feet (or about 25%) seems a bit much for just tires. But then there's... 2) IIHS side impact crash test. The 2005 Legacy only scored a "Marginal" for in IIHS's side impact test. I was hugely disappointed with this. The Forester managed to get a "Good Best Pick", their highest rating. Since this test is *NOT* a function of vehicle weight/size, it's fair to compare them and the Legacy simply underperformed. It's interesting to see that the IIHS site now shows 2006 crash test results, and the 2006 got a "Good" rating. So apparently Subaru paid attention to this and fixed it for the 2006s. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=358 (Unfortunately, the IIHS didn't do a side impact test on the Murano, so I don't know how it performs. I just had to weigh this vs. all the other things it did offer.) The above two are issues that any buyer should care about. The rest are more competitiveness issues and are more subjects of individual circumstance. 3) No telescoping steering wheel/adjustable pedals. This one I also can't explain--so many vehicles these days have this, and at significantly lower price points than the Outback/Legacy. My wife is 5'2" and without a telescoping steering wheel or adjustable pedals sits too close to the steering wheel for the airbag to be fully effective. (She had about 3-4" between her chest and the wheel on our 2000 Outback.) Every other vehicle we looked* at had one of these features and she fit so much better. 4) No memory seats (not even on the B9 Tribeca) When you start talking about a vehicle > $30K, there's really no excuse for no having this feature. Not everybody cares about this, and I can understand that. But the new car was going to be our *ONLY* car for a while, so memory seats and mirrors was fairly important for us. Now any one of these might not have been a deal-breaker for us, but all four together most definitely was. And when I spoke with a couple different salesmen at the local Subaru dealer, they woefully acknowledged each of these issues. In fact, they mentioned that they regularly get dinged for not having a telescoping steering wheel. One guy said it was their #1 complaint at a regional meeting they had. -Scott * Other vehicles we looked at seriously: Audi A4 Avant, Volvo V50 (both too small but otherwise fantastic vehicles), Toyota Sienna, Ford Freestyle, Subaru B9 Tribeca (which can't hold a candle to the Murano, even at $2000 more) Signature"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --spaf (1992) The knock sensor works to some degree, but when the Murano is run on low octane fuel it pings. I had that problem with mine. I also found that because it gave better gas mileage with the high octane fuel, the end result actually worked out cheaper. SignatureJANA _____ It has a knock sensor and will take advantage of the high octane rating for more power and efficiency. The difference in efficiency probably makes up for the difference in fuel cost. >I am thinking of purchasing a 2006 Nissan Murano SL. However after > researching information on this sporty SUV, Nissan is recommending 91 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you Thanks guys for the answer. This is the first time I'm using this forum. Next time I'll do a search to see if my question has already been submitted I have the 2005 Murano. I was told to use premium fuel. I tried regular octane, and it started to ping with some loss of power. When going back to the high octane, it ran better, and the pinging disappeared. The pinging can cause damage to the engine. I also found that when on the low octane fuel, the gas consumption was higher than the difference of the cost ratio. This means that it worked out to be cheaper to run the Murano on the high octane fuel. I keep very close track of the fuel mileage, and the operational costs of my cars. What puzzles me is how someone can buy a 30K+ vehical, and be critical about the fuel cost. This is especially when buying a 4000+ lbs SUV. On a full tank of gas, the difference of cost is somewhere around $2.10 to about $2.30. The Murano goes a very fair distance on a full tank of gas. SignatureJANA _____ I am thinking of purchasing a 2006 Nissan Murano SL. However after researching information on this sporty SUV, Nissan is recommending 91 octane of all Muranos. Because of the ever increasing fuel cost, is it okay to use 87 octane fuel in the Murano SL? Will it hurt my engine by using the lower octane? Please send your answers to Smlsaimin@aol.com Thank you >I am thinking of purchasing a 2006 Nissan Murano SL. However after > researching information on this sporty SUV, Nissan is recommending 91 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you I run 87 all the time without a problem. Once the prices switched up, I switched "down"... without any noticeable side affects. Willy >>I am thinking of purchasing a 2006 Nissan Murano SL. However after >>researching information on this sporty SUV, Nissan is recommending 91 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Willy Odds are you lost more in MPG that the few cents per gallon you saved. >>>I am thinking of purchasing a 2006 Nissan Murano SL. However after >>>researching information on this sporty SUV, Nissan is recommending 91 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > Odds are you lost more in MPG that the few cents per gallon you saved. Actually there IS a difference, but oddly enough, it shows up more in hot weather. During winter months, when mileage tends to drop a little anyhow, I find I'm getting about 1mpg less on 87 than on 93. For a long time, I made the same claim as you - that the difference offset the cost, however, after keeping truly accurate records for a couple of months (I drive a LOT) it became clear that this is not the case. Willy why would u wanna buy a milti of tens of thousand of dollars of a car, then try to saves a few penny from the gas? it doesnt make sense? moranno? 36Kdollars. if your so cheap get a cheap car. like a corola. i know that car takes 87 octain and it can go for 35 miles per gallon. so forget the morano!! if your so uptight about 20 cent per gallon xtra. think of it again. if your morally breaks down due worng type of gas or complication. how much would u save ? lets sett new engine 3000 dollars? 2000? = 20,000 in miles had u added the xtra 20 cent into your 91 octain gas. i learned my lesson from buying a SUV, a pathfinder. next car will be a sport car that can go 35 miles per gal. ill even settle for a 29miles on a 350Z >I am thinking of purchasing a 2006 Nissan Murano SL. However after > researching information on this sporty SUV, Nissan is recommending 91 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you >why would u wanna buy a milti of tens of thousand of dollars of a car, then >try to saves a few penny from the gas? it doesnt make sense? moranno? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >how much would u save ? lets sett new engine 3000 dollars? 2000? = 20,000 in >miles had u added the xtra 20 cent into your 91 octain gas. Can some one translate this to something remotely readable? >i learned my lesson from buying a SUV, a pathfinder. next car will be a >sport car that can go 35 miles per gal. ill even settle for a 29miles on a >350Z I think you missed the lesson on spelling and grammar too... > why would u wanna buy a milti of tens of thousand of dollars of a car, > then [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> Thank you Using 87 octane in a Murano does NOT damage the engine, but does slightly reduce mpg and performance. Willy - 03 Murano 101K miles |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.