Gas question
ORIGINAL: Heinzanova
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 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)).
Draggin chit up from 3 pages back.. but that is me.
In my 01 tahoe i get the same kinds of results.
14 with 92, 18-19 with 87.
Now with my new 05 4.5 week old b6 3.0 It's a diffrent story.
I get about 26.5 ish with 92.
and about 23 with 89.
Your gunna say 4.5 weeks your motor is not even broke in you can't base the gas milage yet.
Using your same method i can. I now have 7000 miles in 4.5 weeks of ownership. I put in up to 4 tanks a week.
I watch my milage like a hawk sqeezing every drop i can.
to much octain can actualy have the same effect. Looking at is from a phisics and chemistry point of veiw, High octain, burns slower/hoter/longer, same spark timing = burn continuing after power stroke is finnished. just a waste. of energy.
No one even mentioned this yet, but sometimes the reason we don't want to pay more for something is not simply because we're trying to be cheap. At times, the incremental cost of better quality doesn't match the improvement to a service. It's the principle of not going along with something that's a rip-off. We feel that paying more for an Audi, we get commensurately higher value, but that's not the case with types of gas.
For decades, the "high-test" has been a lucrative bender for the gas stations. Ever since gas stations have been required to post their prices in big characters, their "come-on price" has been that of the regular gas. Why do you think Sunoco had their “Economy†(octane 86) gas? Once they got you in the door, they’d figure you’ll pay 10% extra for the other octane, to make it 87 octane gas!
The point is, my impression is we get something like 5% better performance (from premium gas), by paying 10% more! This is like paying 100% more for a Cadillac, to get a 50% better ride! Okay, okay, I know what you're going to say... "if you want to play the Scotsman, why don't you just buy a cheap Ford???"
For decades, the "high-test" has been a lucrative bender for the gas stations. Ever since gas stations have been required to post their prices in big characters, their "come-on price" has been that of the regular gas. Why do you think Sunoco had their “Economy†(octane 86) gas? Once they got you in the door, they’d figure you’ll pay 10% extra for the other octane, to make it 87 octane gas!
The point is, my impression is we get something like 5% better performance (from premium gas), by paying 10% more! This is like paying 100% more for a Cadillac, to get a 50% better ride! Okay, okay, I know what you're going to say... "if you want to play the Scotsman, why don't you just buy a cheap Ford???"
For those that say it's ok to run 87 on a 1.8T because it's 9.0:1 compression, you need to remember that the turbocharger increases the effective compression of the engine. Turbo gasoline engines are low compression internally, because the turbocharger has a multiplicative effect on the effective compression of the engine.
The bottom line is, and it's been said before, you spent the extra money to buy an Audi; TREAT IT LIKE ONE. While the ECU will pull timing and cut boost, it will increase carbon build-up and decrease the life of the engine internals and turbocharger. The engine is designed to run on 91, why put anything else in? You wouldn't feed yourself dogfood
The bottom line is, and it's been said before, you spent the extra money to buy an Audi; TREAT IT LIKE ONE. While the ECU will pull timing and cut boost, it will increase carbon build-up and decrease the life of the engine internals and turbocharger. The engine is designed to run on 91, why put anything else in? You wouldn't feed yourself dogfood
ORIGINAL: elphkotm
You wouldn't feed yourself dogfood
You wouldn't feed yourself dogfood

It's your car; you feed it whatever you want. If you really feel special for saving 3.00 on a tank of gas because it wasn't absolutely critical that you pay it, then I'm happy for you.
ORIGINAL: russianari
thanks, i was obviously joking...wait, you mean to tell me oil goes into the turbo, i always thought that the k03 gerbil just need food and water to run...
thanks, i was obviously joking...wait, you mean to tell me oil goes into the turbo, i always thought that the k03 gerbil just need food and water to run...
ORIGINAL: Yuikio
Even though you just know you're getting ripped off paying 30% more for normal food.
Even though you just know you're getting ripped off paying 30% more for normal food.
Your argument is that people put premium gas in their cars because of some kind of conspiracy. Well, you're wrong. The highest performance and SAFEST gas you can put in your 1.8T or 3.0 A4 is premium gasoline. It's not just some kind of conspiracy, it's fact. If you like your engine to not give you all the performance you purchased, than that's fine. If you want to decrease the life of your turbocharger and engine components, be my guest. It's your choice.
ORIGINAL: Yuikio
Different measurements of detonation resistance. There's the Research Octane test (RON) which generally yields higher numbers, and the MON (Motor Octane test) which generally yields lower numbers. America uses it's own special octane measurement, (RON+MON)/2 or PON, Pump Octane Number. What you're putting in your car is 98 RON, which is between 90-93 PON, so you're no different than us, you just think you are. 
I don't understand why people are defending the lower octane arguement. Except for Heinz, who obviously knows his **** and has empirical data to back up his reasoning, why in the fvck are you guys bragging about saving $2.50 a tank and risking holes in your cylinder walls when the weather gets hot or you get rev-happy in your car? I guess you'd be OK with 89 or 87 if it wasn't really hot outside or you were driving like your mom, but why? If you think you're cheating the system or sticking it to the man by not paying two extra bucks per tank, you aren't. You are a self-important, deluded douche. There's no advantage to running lower octane than recommended, especially on a FI engine.
ORIGINAL: petermcA4
anyway,
89, 91, 93 octane!? Does the US really have such **** fuel!?. I use 98 Octane
then again, petrol in Australia is about twice the price
anyway,
89, 91, 93 octane!? Does the US really have such **** fuel!?. I use 98 Octane

then again, petrol in Australia is about twice the price

I don't understand why people are defending the lower octane arguement. Except for Heinz, who obviously knows his **** and has empirical data to back up his reasoning, why in the fvck are you guys bragging about saving $2.50 a tank and risking holes in your cylinder walls when the weather gets hot or you get rev-happy in your car? I guess you'd be OK with 89 or 87 if it wasn't really hot outside or you were driving like your mom, but why? If you think you're cheating the system or sticking it to the man by not paying two extra bucks per tank, you aren't. You are a self-important, deluded douche. There's no advantage to running lower octane than recommended, especially on a FI engine.
then logical conclusion is that USA 89 is Europe 95
Well for my V6 its recomended and desined for europe 95 or USA 89.
In my taste:
I fuel when cold like 0C i use regular (87). engine warms up faster and performce beter in my taste. also I drive usually alone and unloaded w/max tire pressure. And No ditonation
when becomes hotter like 0-15C I switch to 89 octate same as when cold on 87
Then during summer I switch fully to premium 91 or 93 whuch ever I will find. same as before
On the Millage part I suck, I get 11MPG all year long. but only do city driving.
Under load it detonates with all fuel that are lower that premium.
On the note of fuels:
higher the octane number more energy it has. meaning 87 octane has less energy that 93 octane. but it depends on the desine of the engine to unlock the energy. Meaning if engine is desinged for 87 octane then if you put 93 octane the car will have less power and less MPG. but if you put low octane in high octane designed engine then you will have less performence and MPG.
That changes with outside temperature, just a bit. if its cold outside then fuel is a bit denser meaning has a bit more energy. air is denser meaning when its compresed, the Max heat of compresion will be less. its all adds up when you compare cold day to summer day. less heat + low octane equals to hot air + high octane.
dont get confused. also there is big diference between non oxydized fuel and oxydized fuel. I prefer non oxydized fuel, more power and less carbon build up. it burns cleaner and faster. thats why oil companies love to add etanol to it. they have to make lower octane fuel = cheap and just add magical orange/yellow "water" that looks like pie and voila they have high octane fuel. but the big diference is in how much energy each of them stores. obiously non oxydized fuel has a lot more.
so enjoy some info. :-)
I always run sunoco super 94. Its usually only a few pennies more than 91 so why not. Take care of your investment. Audi didnt tell you to run 91 in it for the f*ck of it, im sure they have engineers that make those type of decisions for good reason.



