Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Volvo Cars / May 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Regular gas for Volvo?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
ms111660@comcast.net - 25 Apr 2006 17:55 GMT
With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
medium-grade (89) or high-test grades (93) that I have been using and
are recommended for use in my '98 Volvo V70. If I use regular gas, will
I do any long-term damage to engine, notice poor performance ...?
Marvin - 25 Apr 2006 20:54 GMT
> With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
> implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
> medium-grade (89) or high-test grades (93) that I have been using and
> are recommended for use in my '98 Volvo V70. If I use regular gas, will
> I do any long-term damage to engine, notice poor performance ...?

MY 2000 S40 is supposed to use medium octane gas, but I
always use regular.  It runs fine.  The computer adjusts the
engine for the difference.  I occasionally notice aslight
improvement in performance after filling the gas tank, and I
figure there was a surplus of the higher octane gas, so it
was being sold as regular -which is perfecly legal.  The
difference in performance is barely noticable.

I once car pooled with someone who used regular gas in a car
that really did need higher octane.  The car knocked
terribly, which does put a strain on the engine.
jbincyberia@cox.nospam.net - 25 Apr 2006 22:01 GMT
> With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
> implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
> medium-grade (89) or high-test grades (93) that I have been using and
> are recommended for use in my '98 Volvo V70. If I use regular gas, will
> I do any long-term damage to engine, notice poor performance ...?

Here in Nevada our fuel is a point lower than in Cali.
I can get away with using mid-grade when it's cold here in Las Vegas but
when the temps start to increase I have to go back to premium.  One
thing that I did notice a couple of years ago is that if I use regular
or mid grade during the Summer and hold the transmission in gear with
Geartronic at about 3,500 rpm the engine developes a definite surge that
disappears with going back to Premium.  My XC70 was a European order, if
that makes a difference.  The dealer looked at everything and said that
therre were no codes.  Although, my history with the dealer would
indicate to me that there might be something wrong and they just want it
to break so that they can replace it.
Chuck Fiedler - 25 Apr 2006 23:41 GMT
>With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
>implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
>medium-grade (89) or high-test grades (93) that I have been using and
>are recommended for use in my '98 Volvo V70. If I use regular gas, will
>I do any long-term damage to engine, notice poor performance ...?

I have used regular grade in all my Volvos since the 544s. Of course,
back then fuel was leaded. When unleaded came in, I was concerned for
my then 145 but nothing bad happened. With modern cars, the computer
that controls engine function adjusts to the fuel used to control the
timing appropriately. Some argue that they get higher MPG with higher
grade fuel but studies have shown the trade-off isn't worth it for the
price difference.

There is no good reason to buy more than 87 octane.

Chuck Fiedler
Nothing but Volvo since 1974
Lloyd Wells - 26 Apr 2006 03:13 GMT
> timing appropriately. Some argue that they get higher MPG with higher
> grade fuel but studies have shown the trade-off isn't worth it for the
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Chuck Fiedler
> Nothing but Volvo since 1974

Well, I did my own study comparing 93 with 89 octane in my S-40 and S-60.
Mileage was down using 89 so it turned out that the price difference was
only 2 to 3 cents per gallon.
zencraps@comcast.net - 26 Apr 2006 06:26 GMT
I'd be nervous about running anything other than premium in my '82 244
Turbo.

Aftermarket "built" turbo, "built" head, rebuilt engine.
jbincyberia@cox.nospam.net - 26 Apr 2006 09:40 GMT
> I'd be nervous about running anything other than premium in my '82 244
> Turbo.
>
> Aftermarket "built" turbo, "built" head, rebuilt engine.

Just what do you mean by a "Built Head"?
Usually when they build a head, it means that the chambers are polished,
or even dimpled all around like a golf ball, which causes the "swirl" in
the chanber to slow down and burn more efficiently by eliminating the
cold spots.
What are you exactly talking about as far as the head is concerned?  If
it concernes milling, that can do nothing but cause more detonation,
particularly with a 240 and no computerized retard.
zencraps@comcast.net - 27 Apr 2006 05:39 GMT
"Just what do you mean by a "Built Head"?"

Three angle valve grind

Upgraded springs / hardware

Polished

Basically, the head was built by a friend of mine at Aluminum Cylinder
Head Rebuilders in PDX; he rebuilds aluminum heads day in, day out,
many are modified and beefed up for racing.

He said he did some trick stuff, some race stuff, and the few I
referred to are what I recall.

He didn't match the head to the manifolds, alas...

roll dem bones
Andrew McKenna - 26 Apr 2006 06:51 GMT
> With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
> implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
> medium-grade (89) or high-test grades (93) that I have been using and
> are recommended for use in my '98 Volvo V70. If I use regular gas, will
> I do any long-term damage to engine, notice poor performance ...?

That engine was originally designed for European conditions, where the
most common fuel is (and was in 1998) 94 - 95 octane. Most European
manufacturers continue to recommend the target fuel in other markets for
liability reasons. You will see a performance drop if you use 89 octane,
but it sounds like you're using it anyway; dropping again to 87 might be
too far adrift from Volvo's expectations.

Signature

Cheers

Andrew

jbincyberia@cox.nospam.net - 26 Apr 2006 09:51 GMT
>> With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
>> implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> but it sounds like you're using it anyway; dropping again to 87 might be
> too far adrift from Volvo's expectations.

My '84 Two Door Turbo runs fine on Mid-Grade, here in Las Vegas.
The head has never been off, and I'm sure that there's a lot of carbon
built up there.  Only 134K, but some of the sensors are going,
especially that heat sensitive, vacuum powered sensor under the manifold
that has a cracked vacuum port.  Hey, what do you want for 22 years old?
I wish that I could say that for my '03 XC70.  f.ck that piece of crap!
My XC is the absolute WORST car that I have ever purchased...and I have
had 12 NEW Volvos since 1967...When I had to have my parents co-sign for
me because I had no credit.

OK, So I'm off my soap box, alright?
Stephen Henning - 27 Apr 2006 04:50 GMT
ms111660@comcast.net wrote:
> With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
> implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
> medium-grade (89) or high-test grades (93) that I have been using and
> are recommended for use in my '98 Volvo V70. If I use regular gas, will
> I do any long-term damage to engine, notice poor performance ...?

I have never used premium gas in any of my 10 Volvos and never had any
problems.
Signature

Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
   Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
   The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
 http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

Peter (Remove one i and theRemove) - 27 Apr 2006 14:42 GMT
I have used regular in my '98 V70 with the regular non-turbo engine for
almost 100k miles. However I recently switched my '99 XC (low-pressure
Turbo) from high test to regular and the gas mileage has gone down a little
bit, enough to offset the savings. Anyone else notice this with their
Volvo's?

Pete

> ms111660@comcast.net wrote:
>> With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I have never used premium gas in any of my 10 Volvos and never had any
> problems.
Steve - 26 Apr 2006 16:22 GMT
I see a big MPG difference with our 850 and 940 when I use regular.  They
run better on premium too...YMMV (in more ways then one) :)

> With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
> implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
> medium-grade (89) or high-test grades (93) that I have been using and
> are recommended for use in my '98 Volvo V70. If I use regular gas, will
> I do any long-term damage to engine, notice poor performance ...?
Robert - 29 Apr 2006 20:59 GMT
> With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
> implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
> medium-grade (89) or high-test grades (93) that I have been using and
> are recommended for use in my '98 Volvo V70. If I use regular gas, will
> I do any long-term damage to engine, notice poor performance ...?

doesn't the V70 use regular?  (unless it's a turbo?!?)

I thought the 850/70s used regular on the base engines.

I'd check the manual, my 760 runs 87, RM, not RO method.. (I forget which is
which, but the manual explains both, and gives fuel recommendations for
both)

I could have sworn that I read in my 'sis V70 manual that it runs regular.
James Sweet - 29 Apr 2006 22:53 GMT
> With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
> implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
> medium-grade (89) or high-test grades (93) that I have been using and
> are recommended for use in my '98 Volvo V70. If I use regular gas, will
> I do any long-term damage to engine, notice poor performance ...?

It'll work fine, you may get slightly poorer fuel economy but
experimentation will be needed to see if it's poor enough to not save
you money. Just get it from a decent station that doesn't have old
contaminated tanks.
Michael Cerkowski - 30 Apr 2006 11:23 GMT
> > With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
> > implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> you money. Just get it from a decent station that doesn't have old
> contaminated tanks.

   If he drives mainly on level ground and doesn't need all the power
the engine can give with premium, he should get better fuel economy on
regular, not worse. Regular vaporizes more completely, which can cause
knocking if the knock sensor isn't working, but under normal driving
conditions fuel economy should go up about 2mpg. Regular grade is also
better for cold starting in Winter, for the same reason.
Signature


             
                   http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

Stephen Henning - 30 Apr 2006 12:46 GMT
>     If he drives mainly on level ground and doesn't need all the power
> the engine can give with premium, he should get better fuel economy on
> regular, not worse. Regular vaporizes more completely, which can cause
> knocking if the knock sensor isn't working, but under normal driving
> conditions fuel economy should go up about 2mpg. Regular grade is also
> better for cold starting in Winter, for the same reason.

You are saying the level ground bit because you are expecting the
regular fuel to knock or ping.  It doesn't. I have used regular gas in
all my Volvos for 41 years with no ping or knock.  They go up hills and
accelerate great on regular.

The fuel economy is better with premium in cars that are tuned for
premium, but usually it is a complete wash as to how much you pay in
$/mile in such vehicles.

What you are trying to say is that regular fuel is more explosive, not
vaporized more completely. The explosive nature can cause a knock or
ping if the timing is not right and the piston has not yet started its
down stroke.  Premium fuel burns more uniformly and less explosively and
will tolerate being detonated before the piston has started its down
stroke.

There are not nearly as many different fuels as their are different
brands.  They fill up a just a couple of different fuel terminals and
then add their own additives.  So most of the gasoline is the same and
the only difference is the additives.

Both premium and regular fuel are both more volatile in the winter and
less in the summer to prevent vapour lock.  Most brands use the same
fuel for both regular and premium and just change the additives.  The
most popular additives include aromatic hydrocarbons, ethers and alcohol
(usually ethanol or methanol).

Oxygenate blending adds oxygen to the fuel in oxygen-bearing compounds
such as MTBE, ethanol and ETBE, and so reduces the amount of carbon
monoxide and unburned fuel in the exhaust gas, thus reducing smog.

Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) has been used for
many years in Canada and recently in Australia to boost octane. It also
helps old cars designed for leaded fuel run on unleaded fuel without
need for additives to prevent valve problems.  However, US Federal
sources state that MMT is suspected to be a powerful neurotoxin and
respiratory toxin.
Signature

Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
   Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
   The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
 http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

Michael Pardee - 30 Apr 2006 14:49 GMT
I think it still comes under the heading of "try it and see." I've seen
reports that fuel economy improvements were enough to offset the cost of
premium, and others that they saw no difference at all. Sometimes the type
of driving is important, too - cruising on reasonably flat highways might
favor the cheaper grade.

Mike
Michael Cerkowski - 30 Apr 2006 20:18 GMT
> >     If he drives mainly on level ground and doesn't need all the power
> > the engine can give with premium, he should get better fuel economy on
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> all my Volvos for 41 years with no ping or knock.  They go up hills and
> accelerate great on regular.

  No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you climb hills
using regular grade, the lower HP the engine produces will require
more throttle opening, and you'll use more gas.

> The fuel economy is better with premium in cars that are tuned for
> premium, but usually it is a complete wash as to how much you pay in
> $/mile in such vehicles.

  It's better only in exotic vehicles, or in cases where the engine
is getting a workout. In vehicles with knock sensors, driven gently,
regular should give better fuel economy. You don't see this said much
because most people have a lead foot.

> What you are trying to say is that regular fuel is more explosive, not
> vaporized more completely. The explosive nature can cause a knock or
> ping if the timing is not right and the piston has not yet started its
> down stroke.  Premium fuel burns more uniformly and less explosively and
> will tolerate being detonated before the piston has started its down
> stroke.

  It's "more explosive" precisely because it vaporizes more completely.
The same characteristic of Premium that makes it 'burn more uniformly
and less explosively' also makes it yield somewhat less energy per
ounce.

> There are not nearly as many different fuels as their are different
> brands.  They fill up a just a couple of different fuel terminals and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> most popular additives include aromatic hydrocarbons, ethers and alcohol
> (usually ethanol or methanol).

  Even if premium is made more volatile in the Winter, it is still
*relatively* less volatile than regular. So you will still get the best
cold starts in Winter with regular.

> Oxygenate blending adds oxygen to the fuel in oxygen-bearing compounds
> such as MTBE, ethanol and ETBE, and so reduces the amount of carbon
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>     The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
>   http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

  Fortunately, we have switched from MTBE to ethanol.

Signature

             
                   http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

Stephen Henning - 01 May 2006 13:23 GMT
>    No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you climb hills
> using regular grade, the lower HP the engine produces will require
> more throttle opening, and you'll use more gas.

And I am saying that you may use more gas but not more dollars.

> > The fuel economy is better with premium in cars that are tuned for
> > premium, but usually it is a complete wash as to how much you pay in
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> regular should give better fuel economy. You don't see this said much
> because most people have a lead foot.

You are just conflicting with yourself since normal driving has hills.
What is true is that very unsophisticated cars which usually don't have
knock sensors such as my Austin-Healey Sprite which just had an SU
carburetor got over 10% higher gas mileage with premium in both flat
steady speed driving and in all out hill climbs, but it had a high
compression engine that couldn't take advantage of cheaper fuel.  
Unfortunately premium fuel is almost 10% more expensive.

>    It's "more explosive" precisely because it vaporizes more completely.
> The same characteristic of Premium that makes it 'burn more uniformly
> and less explosively' also makes it yield somewhat less energy per
> ounce.

It is exactly the same gas with different additives.  The additives
don't change the volatility, they change the chemistry.
Signature

Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
   Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
   The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
 http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

Michael Cerkowski - 01 May 2006 21:06 GMT
> >    No, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying that if you climb hills
> > using regular grade, the lower HP the engine produces will require
> > more throttle opening, and you'll use more gas.
>
> And I am saying that you may use more gas but not more dollars.

  It would depend on the terrain and the cost of gas.

> > > The fuel economy is better with premium in cars that are tuned for
> > > premium, but usually it is a complete wash as to how much you pay in
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> You are just conflicting with yourself since normal driving has hills.

  I'm talking about driving in mountainous country, or on a route with
many smaller hills. I'mm jot "conflicting with myself".

(...)

> >    It's "more explosive" precisely because it vaporizes more completely.
> > The same characteristic of Premium that makes it 'burn more uniformly
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> It is exactly the same gas with different additives.  The additives
> don't change the volatility, they change the chemistry.

  You're mistaken. Octane is a measure of how volatile the gasoline
is, and higher octane gas is less volatile - less explosive. That's
why it lets the engine run with more advanced timing without knocking.

Signature

             
                   http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

Stephen Henning - 02 May 2006 01:19 GMT
>    You're mistaken. Octane is a measure of how volatile the gasoline
> is, and higher octane gas is less volatile - less explosive. That's
> why it lets the engine run with more advanced timing without knocking.

Octane is a flammable gas.  Octane rating is an inverse measure of the
rate of autoignition or more precisely:

"The octane rating is a measure of the autoignition resistance of
gasoline (petrol) and other fuels used in spark-ignition internal
combustion engines.

Octane is measured relative to a mixture of isooctane
(2,2,4-trimethylpentane, an isomer of octane) and n-heptane. An
87-octane gasoline, for example, has the same knock resistance as a
mixture of 87 vol-% isooctane and 13 vol-% n-heptane. This does not
mean, however, that the gasoline actually should contain these chemicals
in these proportions. It simply means that it has the same autoignition
resistance as the described mixture.

The octane ratings of n-heptane and iso-octane are exactly 0 and 100, by
definition.

A high tendency to autoignite, or low octane rating, is undesirable in a
gasoline engine but desirable in a diesel engine. The standard for the
combustion quality of diesel fuel is the cetane number. A diesel fuel
with a high cetane number has a high tendency to autoignite, as is
preferred.  [Diesel fuel is not very volatile and very low octane.]

Typical "octane booster" additives include tetra-ethyl lead and toluene.
Tetra-ethyl lead is easily decomposed to its component radicals, which
react with the radicals from the fuel and oxygen that would start the
combustion, thereby delaying ignition.

It might seem odd that fuels with higher octane ratings burn less
easily, yet are popularly thought of as more powerful. The
misunderstanding is caused by confusing the ability of the fuel to
resist compression detonation (pre-ignition = engine knock) as opposed
to the ability of the fuel to burn (combustion). However, premium grades
of petrol often contain more energy per litre due to the composition of
the fuel as well as increased octane.

Using a fuel with a higher octane lets an engine run at a higher
compression without having problems with knock. Actual compression in
the combustion chamber is determined by the compression ratio as well as
the amount of air restriction in the intake manifold (manifold vacuum)
as well as the barometric pressure which is a function of elevation and
weather conditions.

Compression is directly related to power (see engine tuning), so engines
that require higher octane usually deliver more power. Engine power is a
function of the fuel as well as the engine design and is related to
Octane ratings of the fuel... power is limited by the maximum amount of
fuel-air mixture that can be stuffed into the combustion chamber.
Furthermore, most gasoline vehicles today are variable compression. At
partial load, only a small fraction of the total available power is
produced because the manifold is operating at pressures far below
atmospheric. In this case, the octane requirement is far lower than what
is available. It is only when the throttle is opened fully and the
manifold pressure increases to atmospheric (or higher in the case of
supercharged or turbocharged engines) that the full octane requirement
is achieved.

Many high-performance engines are designed to operate with a high
maximum compression and thus need a high quality (high energy) fuel
usually associated with high octane numbers, and thus demand high-octane
premium gasoline.

The power output of an engine depends on the energy content of its fuel,
and this bears no simple relationship to the octane rating. A common
myth amongst petrol consumers is that adding a higher octane fuel to a
vehicle's engine will increase its performance and/or lessen its fuel
consumption; this is mostly falseengines perform best when using fuel
with the octane rating they were designed for and any increase in
performance by using a fuel with a different octane rating is minimal."

See:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating

Signature

Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

Michael Cerkowski - 02 May 2006 05:04 GMT
Michael Cerkowski <mjc1@albany.net> wrote:

>    You're mistaken. Octane is a measure of how volatile the gasoline
> is, and higher octane gas is less volatile - less explosive. That's
> why it lets the engine run with more advanced timing without knocking.

Octane is a flammable gas.  Octane rating is an inverse measure of the
rate of autoignition or more precisely:

"The octane rating is a measure of the autoignition resistance of
gasoline (petrol) and other fuels used in spark-ignition internal
combustion engines.

<snip long explanation of octane rating, which I already understand>

  I'm not sure why you are so vociferous in agreeing with me, but, um,
thanks.
Signature


             
                   http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

Stephen Henning - 02 May 2006 22:06 GMT
> Michael Cerkowski <mjc1@albany.net> wrote:
>
> >    You're mistaken. Octane is a measure of how volatile the gasoline
> > is, and higher octane gas is less volatile - less explosive. That's
> > why it lets the engine run with more advanced timing without knocking.

I wrote:

> Octane is a flammable gas.  Octane rating is an inverse measure of the
> rate of autoignition or more precisely:
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>    I'm not sure why you are so vociferous in agreeing with me, but, um,
> thanks.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of volatile.  Volitility is:

"n 1: the property of changing readily from a solid or liquid to a vapor"

Some gasses have zero octane.  They are nonflammable but they are always
a vapor.  Other gasses such as octane are 100 octane.  No correlation.
Zero.  Kleine.  Nichts.  Geen.  Rien.  Nadie.  Ingen.  Nenhum.  Gjinien.  
Nikdo.  Neniom.  Nullus.
Signature

Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA, USA
   Owned '67,'68,'71,'74,'79,'81,'87,'93,'95 & '01 Volvos.
   The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
 http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

Michael Cerkowski - 03 May 2006 05:15 GMT
> > Michael Cerkowski <mjc1@albany.net> wrote:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
>     The '67,'74,'79,'87,'95 and '01 through European Delivery.
>   http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman/volvo.html

  Only on usenet....

   I am talking about G.A.S.O.L.I.N.E. "Gas" is a commonly used
term for "gasoline", and in this context that was quite clear. If
you meant to waste my time, congrats. If you still think that what
I write isn't what you read, that's your problem. Carry on.
Signature


             
                   http://freevision.org/michael/index.html

Stephen Henning - 03 May 2006 13:38 GMT
> > > Michael Cerkowski <mjc1@albany.net> wrote:
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> you meant to waste my time, congrats. If you still think that what
> I write isn't what you read, that's your problem. Carry on.

And adding antiknock additives to GASOLINE doesn't change the
volatility, just the octane.  They are active chemical additives that
work by slowing down the reaction, not physical chemical additives that
change the vapor pressure. I quoted literature that shows this.

Find just one credible reference that shows there is a relationship
between volatility and octane.  There isn't one.  Waving hands and cute
chatter doesn't create one.

I am being persistent because many urban legends start by such
misconceptions being posted as fact on USENET.

Signature

Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA
http://home.earthlink.net/~rhodyman

James Sweet - 04 May 2006 06:40 GMT
>>    If he drives mainly on level ground and doesn't need all the power
>>the engine can give with premium, he should get better fuel economy on
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> sources state that MMT is suspected to be a powerful neurotoxin and
> respiratory toxin.

It won't knock because the computer will retard the timing. I use
regular in non-turbos and mid or premium in turbos depending on how high
the boost is turned up, works fine. A slightly overboosted 240 Turbo (no
knock control) does ping on regular.
Steve - 30 Apr 2006 18:18 GMT
> > > With gas prices getting so high in the U.S., I am wondering about the
> > > implications of using regular gas (octane 87) rather than the
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> conditions fuel economy should go up about 2mpg. Regular grade is also
> better for cold starting in Winter, for the same reason.

Also there are more moles of hydrocarbon in a given amount of regular the
premium b/c of the additives that raise the octane level in high test
displacing some of the stuff that goes boom...but at least in my experence
the furthe advanced timing ond whatever else the computer does when the
knock senso does not go off makes both our 97 850 w/o turbo and the 94 940
with turbo get better MPG in real world conditions with premium...Go figure!

>                     http://freevision.org/michael/index.html
 
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.