>> I just bought a 2002 Passat GLX wagon. Woohoo! I've owned cars since
>> 1987 and this is my first V6.
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> bought a high performance car, right?) and you loose mileage. So you also
> don't save all that money you think you are saving.
My .95 VR6 has the miles per gallon computer on board. My work also
has a fairly regular routine, with about 75% of the miles on
interstate, and 25% in town to suburban.
I ran 1000 miles on premium, and100 miles on regular, similar outside
temps, similar driving routine. Nothing significantly different. I
found only about 1 MPG difference.
It may not hold true for you on your driving style and on the V6, but
for me, it wasn't worth it.
>>> I just bought a 2002 Passat GLX wagon. Woohoo! I've owned cars since
>>> 1987 and this is my first V6.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>Well, considering the price difference between regular and premium (in
>the US, anyway - 15% or more) it probably still saves some money.
Ron/Champ 6
1963 8E5 Champ (Champ 6)
1995 VW Passat (Vanilla..yuk)
1994 Volvo 850 (Tilley)
1973 Volvo 1800 ES (Hyacinth Bucket)
noglider.usenet.1124@spambob.net - 28 Dec 2006 17:05 GMT
> My .95 VR6 has the miles per gallon computer on board. My work also
> has a fairly regular routine, with about 75% of the miles on
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> It may not hold true for you on your driving style and on the V6, but
> for me, it wasn't worth it.
This is the type of response I was hoping to get. The efficiency can't
justify the price difference in fuel grades.
Joseph, actually, I didn't want the V6. It is a side benefit for me. I
am more energy concsious than performance conscious. I got this car
because a neighbor offered to sell it to me and I trusted that he kept
good care of it. I would have preferred the 1.8L turbo. But this saved
me the trouble of shopping for a car and dealing with whatever problems
come from buying a car from a stranger. I do enjoy the added power but
I try to drive light-footedly to save fuel.
I got 23 mpg on my last fillup. If I tell my wife, she might be pissed,
because we were talking about getting more fuel efficient cars. This
Passat replaces a 2000 Subaru Legacy L wagon which gets about the same
mileage but isn't as quick.
I will try premium for a couple of tankfuls out of curiosity. Chances
are that I won't notice the performance difference, because I don't
usually step on it.
Oh, this is a manual transmission, for whatever that's worth.
As another aside, I'd adore this car even if it didn't have a powerful
engine.
Tom
Lost In Space/Woodchuck - 29 Dec 2006 13:04 GMT
go to mid grade and it will only cost about $2 per tank fill-up. Beer costs
more than that per draft! I use mid for my 99 GLX Passat.
>> My .95 VR6 has the miles per gallon computer on board. My work also
>> has a fairly regular routine, with about 75% of the miles on
[quoted text clipped - 33 lines]
>
> Tom
noglider.usenet.1124@spambob.net - 29 Dec 2006 22:53 GMT
> go to mid grade and it will only cost about $2 per tank fill-up. Beer costs
> more than that per draft! I use mid for my 99 GLX Passat.
What you you suppose will happen with midgrade? Midgrade is 89, whereas
the manual recommends 91.
Tom Reingold
Noo Joizy
noglider.usenet.1124@spambob.net - 16 Jan 2007 20:30 GMT
It's been a few weeks and a few tankfuls since I asked this question.
To remind you, I just got a 2002 Passat GLX wagon with the V6 engine. I
am in the US. I ran 87 octane (US calibration) until three tankfuls
ago. I am on my third tank of 93 octane, which costs a good bit more. I
notice no performance increase. My fuel efficiency seems to be
correlated not to the grade of the gas but with my average speed.
Mileage goes up with average speed because higher average speed means
I'm spending more time on the highway. More time on the highway means
less acceleration, which is the real fuel waster.
So I think I'll switch back to low grade gas. I gather I'm not going to
do any damage.
Thanks, folks. I hope this is interesting to you.
Tom Reingold
Noo Joizy