That doesn't make sense... why would they tell you to use premium, if they didn't design the car to run on premium? They don't make money off gas prices.

All turbocharged cars run on premium. Most turbo'd people carry octane booster in their trunks, just in case they are forced to fill up with a lesser grade fuel.

You bought a damned audi, maybe you shoulda bought a Chevy -- if cheaping out is your style.

Forget non-synthetic oil -- try recycled!

 

on the b6 1.8t 91 or higher is recommended, you can use 87 in it, it'll burn it like a champ....it might not be awesome for the motor - but doesnt make an enormous difference.

 

Exactly. It will run it... but why do it? These are the types of people who come and bi*ch when their car doesnt run perfect 5 years down the road... and start ragging about how it's a hasn't been a great car -- maybe not up to the premium brands expectation -- off to molest a BMW in the future, maybe.

I for one, will do everything in my power to keep my car running in pristine order. 91 or 94 only, synthetic every 3500, things are fixed when they are noticed broken.

 

Maybe its just me, or a psychological effect, but I noticed the difference in performance when I filled up with 87 once.

 

You shouldn't... unless you drive it hard.

 

Theres seriously no reason not to pay the extra money for premium. Generally it is 10 cents per gallon more than 89 octane. Meaning, on a full tank (lets round to 15 gallons, but Ithink its less) thats a difference of 1.50 per fillup. Its nothing. Its well worth it to keep your engine running better, longer, and stronger. Not to mention cleaner.

 

Everyone told me I was stupid for buying a car that needs premium. Obviously their math isn't very good, let's review. 15 gallons multiplied (X) by $.20 is (=) $3.00 What a large sum of money that guarantees engine protection for your car. These aren't $35K cars just for the hell of it. You know, for my next oil change I'm thinking about switching over to cooking oil, it's alot cheaper than a Castrol Syntec blend. Good lord.

 

Yep I agree. The engine has to retart timing and performance to keep the engine from knocking when using 89 or lower octane. Using lower octane results in lower fuel economy.

 

I am gonna get flamed but .......

T H I S T H E T R U T H
I find when I run 87 in my 2.8 I get about 24.5 miles per gallon. Average week to week driving (well tank to tank, because I do about two tanks a week) for a few weeks I ran 93, I averaged 22.0 miles per gallon.

This boggles me too, my talon I would run 94 and get 18miles per gallon if I tried even 89 it would drop to like 11....

So for me 87 for the win... I meen **** it is a wagon anyways, I ain't racing it, or beating on it... just taking me to my work and to the gun range.... and occasionally the strip club.


so in turn

$2.36 for regular 300/24.5(avg mpg) = 12.244 *price = $28.895
vs
$2.79 for 93 300/22(avg mpg) = 13.63 * price = $38.02


Thus per fill up, regular, dunno why in my 30v 2.8, saves me about $10 two or three times a week at the pump. So monthly I am saving a good $120+ by using regular.


Tech Notes :
MPG Determind by actual use :

Fill up, reset trip gauge, divide miles covered by gallons taken to fill. = Log into book
Driving patterns from week to week of the study data, were simlar in nature, no excessive ammounts of highway or excessive bumper to bumper in either study.

Both were conducted for multiple weeks.


Conclusion :
NA = regular for the win
FI = premium for the win

(naturally asperated, forced induction (turbo dumbasses)).

 

I would cry if I had to put 87 or 89 in my car
Sometimes I wish all the gas stations had better then 91 here