NYT article Sun 8/3/08 "Premium Required? Not Necessarily"

[Sam Soltan]

According to an article published this past Sunday.

Motoring
Premium Required? Not Necessarily

By DEXTER FORD
Published: August 3, 2008
Some relief may be as close as their next fill-up. Switching from
premium-grade to regular unleaded can save several dollars on each tankful,
given an average price difference of about 30 cents a gallon, according to
end-of-July figures compiled by AAA.

While using gasoline that carried a lower octane rating than the engine
required was once a sure path to disaster, that is no longer the case.
Nearly all automobiles sold in the United States since the 1990s will
happily run on regular-grade 87-octane gasoline without causing engine
damage, a benefit of the electronic controls that now manage all engine
functions.

Before the switch to fuel injection and computerized controls, engines were
subject to damage from prolonged knocking. But today's engine management
systems incorporate electronic knock sensors, which detect the condition and
adjust the ignition to stop the problem. As a result, it is almost
impossible to hurt a current engine by using 87-octane fuel, industry
experts say.

"Modern engines prevent the damage from happening before it starts," said
Patrick Kelly, a fuels analyst with the American Petroleum Institute. "It
wouldn't impact fuel economy. And it wouldn't impact the emissions. What it
would impact is the performance."

Of course, owners who do not heed the automakers' recommendations may face
consequences - the potential voiding of warranties, for instance. But for
the most part, manufacturers' fuel recommendations include some wiggle room.

Porsche, for example, acknowledges that any of its modern production cars
can be run on regular fuel without the risk of damage.

A spokesman for Porsche North America, Tony Fouladpour, added a caveat. "If
you want the car to perform at its maximum capability, the best choice would
not be 87," he said. "But we do not forbid it."

Specifying premium fuel lets a car manufacturer squeeze out more horsepower.
BMW, for example, recommends that all the cars it sells in the United States
use premium fuel, but they will run on regular.

"There generally isn't any harm done to the engine by using lower-octane
fuel," said a BMW spokesman, Thomas Plucinsky. "Because our engines do have
very good forms of knock sensing and are able to deal with lower-octane
fuels, you will not have any drivability issues. You will, however, lose
some of the performance."

How much of a loss? Some indication can be found in the peak horsepower
numbers Hyundai recently released for its new Genesis sedan. On premium, the
4.6-liter V-8 engine is rated at 375 horsepower. On 87-octane regular, it is
368.

That seven-horsepower difference - less than 2 percent - seems a small
penalty for saving 30 cents a gallon, especially when you can regain that
performance simply by filling up with premium.

Does using lower-octane fuel reduce mileage or increase emissions, as some
drivers believe? Not according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
"E.P.A. fuels engineers say that there isn't a meaningful difference between
regular and premium gasoline," said Dale Kemery, a spokesman for the agency.

 

[bigjimpack]

I've been saying that for years. NO damage occurs from lower octane
gas. Performance MAY suffer a little but not enough for most of us to
notice. If one can run a $100k+ porsche 911 on 87 octane, a subary,
toyota etc will be fine. Premium gas is all hype.

 

[Guest]

According to an article published this past Sunday.

Motoring
Premium Required? Not Necessarily

By DEXTER FORD
Published: August 3, 2008
Some relief may be as close as their next fill-up. Switching from
premium-grade to regular unleaded can save several dollars on each tankful,
given an average price difference of about 30 cents a gallon, according to
end-of-July figures compiled by AAA.

While using gasoline that carried a lower octane rating than the engine
required was once a sure path to disaster, that is no longer the case.
Nearly all automobiles sold in the United States since the 1990s will
happily run on regular-grade 87-octane gasoline without causing engine
damage, a benefit of the electronic controls that now manage all engine
functions.

Before the switch to fuel injection and computerized controls, engines were
subject to damage from prolonged knocking. But today's engine management
systems incorporate electronic knock sensors, which detect the condition and
adjust the ignition to stop the problem. As a result, it is almost
impossible to hurt a current engine by using 87-octane fuel, industry
experts say.

"Modern engines prevent the damage from happening before it starts," said
Patrick Kelly, a fuels analyst with the American Petroleum Institute. "It
wouldn't impact fuel economy. And it wouldn't impact the emissions. What it
would impact is the performance."

Of course, owners who do not heed the automakers' recommendations may face
consequences - the potential voiding of warranties, for instance. But for
the most part, manufacturers' fuel recommendations include some wiggle room.

Porsche, for example, acknowledges that any of its modern production cars
can be run on regular fuel without the risk of damage.

A spokesman for Porsche North America, Tony Fouladpour, added a caveat. "If
you want the car to perform at its maximum capability, the best choice would
not be 87," he said. "But we do not forbid it."

Specifying premium fuel lets a car manufacturer squeeze out more horsepower.
BMW, for example, recommends that all the cars it sells in the United States
use premium fuel, but they will run on regular.

"There generally isn't any harm done to the engine by using lower-octane
fuel," said a BMW spokesman, Thomas Plucinsky. "Because our engines do have
very good forms of knock sensing and are able to deal with lower-octane
fuels, you will not have any drivability issues. You will, however, lose
some of the performance."

How much of a loss? Some indication can be found in the peak horsepower
numbers Hyundai recently released for its new Genesis sedan. On premium, the
4.6-liter V-8 engine is rated at 375 horsepower. On 87-octane regular, it is
368.

That seven-horsepower difference - less than 2 percent - seems a small
penalty for saving 30 cents a gallon, especially when you can regain that
performance simply by filling up with premium.

Does using lower-octane fuel reduce mileage or increase emissions, as some
drivers believe? Not according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
"E.P.A. fuels engineers say that there isn't a meaningful difference between
regular and premium gasoline," said Dale Kemery, a spokesman for the agency.

There is indeed a small hit in mileage, as the retarded ignition
timing is not optimal for the way a 'premium preferred' engine is
tuned, but after some testing I can't convince myself that using
premium or 89 ends up saving any money.

Dave

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in @f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

I've been saying that for years. NO damage occurs from lower octane
gas. Performance MAY suffer a little but not enough for most of us to
notice. If one can run a $100k+ porsche 911 on 87 octane, a subary,
toyota etc will be fine. Premium gas is all hype.

It's hardly hype as there is a difference. What I don't understand is why
pay extra for a high performance engine and then not put in premium fuel to
get the performance that you paid for? If you don't care about performance
don't get a car that 'requires' premium fuel.

[stuff deleted for brevity]

 

[Steve Daniels]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in @f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:


It's hardly hype as there is a difference. What I don't understand is why
pay extra for a high performance engine and then not put in premium fuel to
get the performance that you paid for? If you don't care about performance
don't get a car that 'requires' premium fuel.

For me, it's an extra six bucks a tank. I spend more than that
on wine.

 

[bigjimpack]

NO damage will result . Many of those who buy the must use premium BS
always spout the damage line. You dont get much more high tech and
performance than Porsche and they admit no damage will result.

 

[Carl 1 Lucky Texan]

According to an article published this past Sunday.

Motoring
Premium Required? Not Necessarily

By DEXTER FORD
Published: August 3, 2008
Some relief may be as close as their next fill-up. Switching from
premium-grade to regular unleaded can save several dollars on each tankful,
given an average price difference of about 30 cents a gallon, according to
end-of-July figures compiled by AAA.

While using gasoline that carried a lower octane rating than the engine
required was once a sure path to disaster, that is no longer the case.
Nearly all automobiles sold in the United States since the 1990s will
happily run on regular-grade 87-octane gasoline without causing engine
damage, a benefit of the electronic controls that now manage all engine
functions.

Before the switch to fuel injection and computerized controls, engines were
subject to damage from prolonged knocking. But today's engine management
systems incorporate electronic knock sensors, which detect the condition and
adjust the ignition to stop the problem. As a result, it is almost
impossible to hurt a current engine by using 87-octane fuel, industry
experts say.

"Modern engines prevent the damage from happening before it starts," said
Patrick Kelly, a fuels analyst with the American Petroleum Institute. "It
wouldn't impact fuel economy. And it wouldn't impact the emissions. What it
would impact is the performance."

Of course, owners who do not heed the automakers' recommendations may face
consequences - the potential voiding of warranties, for instance. But for
the most part, manufacturers' fuel recommendations include some wiggle room.

Porsche, for example, acknowledges that any of its modern production cars
can be run on regular fuel without the risk of damage.

A spokesman for Porsche North America, Tony Fouladpour, added a caveat. "If
you want the car to perform at its maximum capability, the best choice would
not be 87," he said. "But we do not forbid it."

Specifying premium fuel lets a car manufacturer squeeze out more horsepower.
BMW, for example, recommends that all the cars it sells in the United States
use premium fuel, but they will run on regular.

"There generally isn't any harm done to the engine by using lower-octane
fuel," said a BMW spokesman, Thomas Plucinsky. "Because our engines do have
very good forms of knock sensing and are able to deal with lower-octane
fuels, you will not have any drivability issues. You will, however, lose
some of the performance."

How much of a loss? Some indication can be found in the peak horsepower
numbers Hyundai recently released for its new Genesis sedan. On premium, the
4.6-liter V-8 engine is rated at 375 horsepower. On 87-octane regular, it is
368.

That seven-horsepower difference - less than 2 percent - seems a small
penalty for saving 30 cents a gallon, especially when you can regain that
performance simply by filling up with premium.

Does using lower-octane fuel reduce mileage or increase emissions, as some
drivers believe? Not according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
"E.P.A. fuels engineers say that there isn't a meaningful difference between
regular and premium gasoline," said Dale Kemery, a spokesman for the agency.

As a PERCENTAGE difference, I don't think it's ever been cheaper to use
premium over regular. It's about 8% difference around here (plus or
minus). I looked at some pics of gas price signs from the past and it
has been 15%-20% before.

I'm not gonna switch.

Porsche won't pay for cracked ring lands in my WRX!

lol!

Carl

 

[bigjimpack]

If you have subaru engine damage it wont be due to gas- it will be
another poor design like the headgasket issues of prior years.

 

[Dee]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in
@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

I tried this out 2 years ago with my '96 Integra GS-R. My personal
experience with this is it's a false savings.

On premium I got 30 mpg. If I paid $3.70/gal and bought 10 gallons,
that would translate to $1.23/mile.

On regular gas I got 20 mpg (a 30% decrease in mileage!). If I paid
$3.50/gal and bought 10 gallons, that would be $1.75/mile.

So my mileage went down by a third and my price per mile went up,
even though I paid less for a fill-up of regular. I consider that to
be a false savings.

As for "Performance MAY suffer a little...", my car was sluggish and
pinged like crazy on regular. I couldn't wait to burn up the regular
so I could put premium back in the tank.

It's hardly hype as there is a difference. What I don't understand
is why pay extra for a high performance engine and then not put in
premium fuel to get the performance that you paid for? If you
don't care about performance don't get a car that 'requires'
premium fuel.

[stuff deleted for brevity]

I agree. I didn't buy an STi just to save on gasoline ;-D

Dee

 

[Ingo Wechsung]

According to an article published this past Sunday.

Motoring
Premium Required? Not Necessarily

This is very funny.
Here in germany, the regular gas (89 octane, I think, called "Normal")
almost disappeared, after it's price rose faster than that of
"Super" (95 octane) and finally the price for both sorts was equal.
Gas stations post notices that they ran out of "Normal" and people are
supposed to switch to "Super" as it's the same price anyway.

People explain this phenomenon by saying that the US is buying lots of
gas, especially regular gas, as their aged motor technology doesn't
need high octane fuels.
If this is true and people are switching from premium to regular,
regular will get even more expensive, and you'll soon have the same
situation: regular and premium cost the same.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in (e-mail address removed):

NO damage will result . Many of those who buy the must use premium BS
always spout the damage line. You dont get much more high tech and
performance than Porsche and they admit no damage will result.

While true, in most situations, why would you get a Porsche and then run it
on regular if it performs better on premium? You are talking a few dollars
difference on a fillup. It's a bit like spending thousands of dollars for a
high performance computer and then only using it for email.

It's hardly hype as there is a difference. What I don't understand is why
pay extra for a high performance engine and then not put in premium fuel to
get the performance that you paid for? If you don't care about performanc e
don't get a car that 'requires' premium fuel.

[stuff deleted for brevity]

 

[Ingo Menger]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in (e-mail address removed):


While true, in most situations, why would you get a Porsche and then run it
on regular if it performs better on premium? You are talking a few dollars
difference on a fillup. It's a bit like spending thousands of dollars fora
high performance computer and then only using it for email.

There is also a flaw in logic in "Fuzzy Logic"s argument (sic!).
Porsches don't break on regular precisely because they are high tech.
I love my Outback, but I doubt Subaru's motor technology is anywhere
near Porsche's.

 

[Ingo Menger]

There is also a flaw in logic in "Fuzzy Logic"s argument (sic!).

Sorry, I confused "Fuzzy Logic" and "bigimp...". It was bigimps
argument.

 

[Bob Bailin]

I tried this out 2 years ago with my '96 Integra GS-R. My personal
experience with this is it's a false savings.

On premium I got 30 mpg. If I paid $3.70/gal and bought 10 gallons,
that would translate to $1.23/mile.

On regular gas I got 20 mpg (a 30% decrease in mileage!). If I paid
$3.50/gal and bought 10 gallons, that would be $1.75/mile.

So my mileage went down by a third and my price per mile went up,
even though I paid less for a fill-up of regular. I consider that to
be a false savings.

As for "Performance MAY suffer a little...", my car was sluggish and
pinged like crazy on regular. I couldn't wait to burn up the regular
so I could put premium back in the tank.

You're talking about a 96 Integra. It probably doesn't have a knock
sensor, so the ECU can't deal with regular gas. More recent cars
with knock sensors and more capable ECU's can.

It's hardly hype as there is a difference. What I don't understand
is why pay extra for a high performance engine and then not put in
premium fuel to get the performance that you paid for? If you
don't care about performance don't get a car that 'requires'
premium fuel.

[stuff deleted for brevity]

I agree. I didn't buy an STi just to save on gasoline ;-D

Dee

 

[JD]

What the article is really referring to is that it is a waste of money to
put premium in a car designed for 87. There is no performance improvement,
no measureable gain, and won't make your engine last longer. You may also
actually get less performance. But that is ONLY for cars tuned for 87.

Cars that have a requirement for premium (as opposed to a recommendation)
can be damaged on 87. They cannot compensate for the lower grade fuel.

You're talking about a 96 Integra. It probably doesn't have a knock
sensor, so the ECU can't deal with regular gas. More recent cars
with knock sensors and more capable ECU's can.

SOME can. However, if premium fuel is recommended, then you will take a
performance hit, but likely no damage except in extreme conditions. If
premium fuel is required, it is because the ECU cannot compensate for lower
grades of fuel; it can only pull timing to a certain point. Turbocharged
engines in high temps is one example. An STi owner's manual, for example,
says "91 minimum, 93 recommended". That means you can get away with 91 but
if you go below that, you risk damage; the ECU simply cannot compensate
unless you change the software to reduce the wastegate duty cycle. But,
then again, why?

I have software that will do that. However, you still get boost pressures
in the 7-9 PSI range, and the ECU cannot compensate when the air temp is
about 30C (about 85 degrees F), and the thing knocks like a bugger even on
89, drives as if it is missing on one cyclinder and gas mileage is really
bad. After a little while, it starts throwing MIL codes.

So you get crappy mileage, poor performance, run the risk of damage, and it
actually costs you more.

 

[Bruce Armstrong]

What the article is really referring to is that it is a waste of money to
put premium in a car designed for 87. There is no performance
improvement, no measureable gain, and won't make your engine last longer.
You may also actually get less performance. But that is ONLY for cars
tuned for 87.

Cars that have a requirement for premium (as opposed to a recommendation)
can be damaged on 87. They cannot compensate for the lower grade fuel.


SOME can. However, if premium fuel is recommended, then you will take a
performance hit, but likely no damage except in extreme conditions. If
premium fuel is required, it is because the ECU cannot compensate for
lower grades of fuel; it can only pull timing to a certain point.
Turbocharged engines in high temps is one example. An STi owner's manual,
for example, says "91 minimum, 93 recommended". That means you can get
away with 91 but if you go below that, you risk damage; the ECU simply
cannot compensate unless you change the software to reduce the wastegate
duty cycle. But, then again, why?

I have software that will do that. However, you still get boost pressures
in the 7-9 PSI range, and the ECU cannot compensate when the air temp is
about 30C (about 85 degrees F), and the thing knocks like a bugger even on
89, drives as if it is missing on one cyclinder and gas mileage is really
bad. After a little while, it starts throwing MIL codes.

So you get crappy mileage, poor performance, run the risk of damage, and
it actually costs you more.

Exactly, JD. This is a Subie newsgroup, so the Naturally Aspirated crowd can
go back to being armchair theorists. I have a Legacy GT and Subaru does not
"wiggle" on the octane required. For the terminally enervated, the fuel
flap sign says: "Unleaded premium fuel only". How clear is that? The
manual also says minimum 91 octane.

Meanwhile, think about how you get maximum performance from any given
engine. Hint: it involves advancing timing to the point of knock. Done it
many times on a dyno back at university on various engines in my IC engines
course.

Put in lower octane gas on an engine/ECU that will tolerate it, and the
knock sensor will retard timing. This does NOT improve efficiency. It does
the opposite.

Now there are more btu per pound in regular gas, about 19000 compared to
18300 for premium. So the heavyweight regular may, if you're lucky with
your particular engine, come out even on the economy front. But probably
not.

Saving $3 on a fillup if your engine is rated for premium is not a bright
idea. On the other hand, if your engine is rated for regular, then sure,
putting premium in is a complete waste of money.

Before I put in regular on an engine rated for premium, I'd ask the
manufacturer for a WRITTEN statement that it's OK. Dexter Ford, the NYT and
the PR types he contacted mean zilch to me. If you can get it in writing
from Subaru or whoever, fine. I bet you won't get it. Then it's on your
head if you decide to believe an article in a newspaper.

Of course, I also know from reading this newsgroup for 10 years that there
are several posters who know more than the engineers back at Subaru, and
have obviously wasted their talents and careers on more mundane endeavors.
For those folks, I'd recommend regular or E85 all the time!

Bruce Armstrong

 

[bigjimpack]

They can recommend any grade they want. Think about this scenario.
Youre cruising on a road trip in your STi and gas light comes on in
Inbred, Arkansas. You find a little gas station in the center of town
and there's only 87 octane. Do you honestly believe your engine will
destruct by using this gas? Not likely. It's all hype.

 

[JD]

Its not recommended in the STi; it is required. I was forced to use 88.5
(Montana). I put in a couple of gallons, put in the fuel map to reduce the
wastegate duty cycle and drove to the next gas station that had premium.
The car threw an MIL code nearly immediately and would not rev above 3000;
it just cut out. Presumably, that is to protect the engine when the ECU
cannot retard it any further. Filled it up with premium and cleared the
code. The car was fine after that.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

They can recommend any grade they want. Think about this scenario.
Youre cruising on a road trip in your STi and gas light comes on in
Inbred, Arkansas. You find a little gas station in the center of town
and there's only 87 octane. Do you honestly believe your engine will
destruct by using this gas? Not likely. It's all hype.

 

[bigjimpack]

Sure I dont. Put gas in car starts and runs . ANY car. If a 100k
porsche will run on regular your rice burner will too. I've run every
car owned on regular - one "required " premium but somehow lasted 140
k with no fuel issues. It's hype. You may be brainwashed . You
admitted messing with settings of vehicle. Thats like the momos who
put in performance chips etc and have problems. If someone filled
your car in a blind test with regular youd hardly notice.

 

[JD]

Yeah I would definitely notice; as would many on here who do have
performance cars because, dare we say it, they like performance. The only
settings I messed with was to set the thing so it could supposedly run a
lower grade of fuel. It still couldn't. Its not hype. If you wish to risk
your car by being that stupid and cheap, go for it. I won't. I have seen
the results. Putting regular gas in a car that recommends premium is the
same economy as putting Q-rated tires from Walmart on your Porche; its
stupid and self-defeating. Putting regular in a car that REQUIRES premium
is the same as putting vegetable oil in the crankcase; after all, it is oil
isn't it?

Sure I dont. Put gas in car starts and runs . ANY car. If a 100k
porsche will run on regular your rice burner will too. I've run every
car owned on regular - one "required " premium but somehow lasted 140
k with no fuel issues. It's hype. You may be brainwashed . You
admitted messing with settings of vehicle. Thats like the momos who
put in performance chips etc and have problems. If someone filled
your car in a blind test with regular youd hardly notice.