I'm going to make some assumptions here:
1. The BMW, Acura, and Lexus vehicles you were filling up weren't using forced induction (no turbo or supercharging).
2. The models you were driving were not the top-end performance variants.
3. You drove largely in areas with elevations similar to or higher than Calgary's.
Naturally-aspirated engines -- as a result of our higher elevations here -- do end up having a lower actual compression ratio as a result of the thinner atmosphere here. Because of the lower compression ratio, you can get away with using a lower grade fuel than required/recommended by the manufacturer in high altitudes. This is why you can find 85 octane fuel as the 'regular' in Colorado, for example, whereas we have 87 octane as the standard across Canada.
So yeah, it's not uncommon especially here to get away with using lower grade fuel with no ill-effects for regular applications, but anyone running a high performance application should probably avoid it just to be safe.
Supercharged engines also see a similar drop due to their belt-drive system being tied directly to RPM and not the boost itself, and thus are unable to accommodate for this change in atmospheric pressure. Turbocharged applications don't have this limitation as they're free-spinning compressors and will bleed off excessive PSI once the target boost is reached. A S/C'd car designed for 8 PSI at sea level won't reach peak boost in Calgary, but a turbo'd car will no matter what elevation you operate in.
Now that said, yeah I was filling a high-end sports car (Aston Martin), so I'm not going to try and save a few with cheaper fuel in a 7,500 RPM V8.
Yup, exactly the point I was making above; putting premium grade fuel in a car that doesn't require it won't give you any benefits, but not using it for an engine that is designed for it (by way of compression ratio or forced induction) is detrimental to its expected factory performance.
I think there's a few facets to the premium fuel issue that are better argued in the practical sense rather than theoretical IMO:
1. If your car doesn't need it because the engine is rated for regular. It's a waste of money because you lget no additional benefit. TRUE.
2. If your car is rated for premium, there are benefits long term in terms of slightly better performance/fuel economy and potentially less long term build up. TRUE.
3. If your car is rated for premium and you don't know cars at all/drive conservatively, you probably aren't really doing significant damage to your car by using regular nor noticing a huge difference. TRUE.
4. It costs a lot of money to fill premium over regular. Assume the the cost of premium (91) is approx $0.25 more per litre. Assume we use a 70 litre tank (I know most are <65L unless you're a truck), it's about $17.50 more per tank. If you refuel every 2 weeks, that's 26 times a year. $17.50 x 26 times = $455 more per year. That's barely a buck a day and because of certain innate benefits of using premium fuel over regular in a engine rated for premium, it's probably less than that raw cost difference and actually close to break even if you factor in the extra performance and fuel economy. Unless your vehicle doubles in value when you fill up (in which case it likely is rated for regular anyways) I'm leaning towards FALSE on this.
I used to own a vehicle that was rated for premium and was so high mileage, that I would literally get engine knocking issues if I put in regular over premium. But that's rare and not everyone's situation.
But after doing the ball park math, the difference is basically less than $500 per year. That's IMO in the same category of people complaining that 5-10 cents for a plastic bag is larceny.
If your vehicle recommends premium, you will probably get a bit better fuel mileage than if you use regular. It's not going to be a lot, but it's a bit of a factor.
Modern BMWs register poor quality fuel in the DME, if you are filling with regular and you grenade the engine under warranty, there's a chance they could test the fuel and deny the warranty claim. I see these buffoons on the forums buying the sporty high performance model then asking if they can fill regular, you bought an $80k SUV and you're worried about $15 a tank.
Literally every modern petrol-powered BMW is turbocharged, so premium fuel is already a must, even in base models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleF
4. It costs a lot of money to fill premium over regular. Assume the the cost of premium (91) is approx $0.25 more per litre. Assume we use a 70 litre tank (I know most are <65L unless you're a truck), it's about $17.50 more per tank. If you refuel every 2 weeks, that's 26 times a year. $17.50 x 26 times = $455 more per year. That's barely a buck a day and because of certain innate benefits of using premium fuel over regular in a engine rated for premium, it's probably less than that raw cost difference and actually close to break even if you factor in the extra performance and fuel economy. Unless your vehicle doubles in value when you fill up (in which case it likely is rated for regular anyways) I'm leaning towards FALSE on this.
I used to own a vehicle that was rated for premium and was so high mileage, that I would literally get engine knocking issues if I put in regular over premium. But that's rare and not everyone's situation.
But after doing the ball park math, the difference is basically less than $500 per year. That's IMO in the same category of people complaining that 5-10 cents for a plastic bag is larceny.
At our incomes, it is probably pretty tone deaf to act as though that isn't a genuine consideration for some people -- however they arrived at their current predicament -- so I'll refrain from doing so.
Also, who wants to spend more money than they have to? I'm not going to drive 20 minutes to get 10 cents/litre cheaper, but hell yeah I'll have a small victory dance in my own head if I luck out and fill my tank then fuel jumps 10 cents/litre before a long weekend. It's the little things in life, y'know.
At our incomes, it is probably pretty tone deaf to act as though that isn't a genuine consideration for some people -- however they arrived at their current predicament -- so I'll refrain from doing so.
Also, who wants to spend more money than they have to? I'm not going to drive 20 minutes to get 10 cents/litre cheaper, but hell yeah I'll have a small victory dance in my own head if I luck out and fill my tank then fuel jumps 10 cents/litre before a long weekend. It's the little things in life, y'know.
In isolation maybe? I don't think I implied that there aren't those with those budget considerations which is also why I said I was leaning towards false. If I did though, sorry. I tried to put it in a way for the average car owner and that goes back to my point 3 which is kinda intertwined with point 4. It's supposed to go back and forth based on circumstances where either stance shouldn't really criticize each other. That was what I was trying to say.
Would someone prefer to pocket $500 ish per year? Sure. But I can't imagine it being tone deaf to suggest that the average person who owns a car that even qualifies for the regular vs premium debate might be able to consider that a little over a dollar a day could be considered negligible.
But I think that goes back to the concept that it's fine to let people do things their way in terms of gasoline consumption and not have to get all bent out of shape about it. I'm not saying anyone in this thread. I am just saying in general because in real life, I've seen these regular vs premium gas in cars arguments get pretty heated (especially kids vs parents at times).
Hell, over the years I've even seen the occasional situation where random strangers are swearing at people at gas stations for putting regular gasoline in a nice car. You'd think these random strangers were angry at someone who had recently slept with their spouse and were also in the process of putting diesel in their gasoline vehicle or something. The reaction just isn't seemingly congruent. It's bizarre.
I mean, maybe. A lot of "premium fuel only" cars are squarely in the realm of 'affordable' these days thanks to the second-hand market. You can easily buy a used 3-Series for under $10k, and if people are going to spend $10k or less on basic transportation, it's not hard to imagine some of them picking something a little nicer for themselves without stopping to consider the premium fuel aspect (or the potential for maintenance, etc.).
Huh, yeah, that is just bizarre behavior. I can't imagine actually telling someone else at the gas station what type of fuel to put in their car unless they are literally filling a diesel car with petrol or vice versa and at serious risk of f--king up their car if they don't stop.
But this is the automotive thread. It's fine to let people pick whatever fuel they want, but we got on the subject because someone suggested premium fuel was a myth.
__________________
-James
GO FLAMES GO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure
Typical dumb take.
The Following User Says Thank You to TorqueDog For This Useful Post:
Practice your airbrushing skills and make something cool for the garage wall. Bonus if you incorporate a reverse C, post a pic and cause a CP meltdown.
It’s happening! I convinced my wife we need a van. Pumped. Trading in the station wagon.
Looking for a few years old, nothing fancy, low price and cheap maintenance are my top items. Anyone have any great suggestions? I’m eyeing the Toyotas.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Scroopy Noopers For This Useful Post:
It’s happening! I convinced my wife we need a van. Pumped. Trading in the station wagon.
Looking for a few years old, nothing fancy, low price and cheap maintenance are my top items. Anyone have any great suggestions? I’m eyeing the Toyotas.
I've been happy with my '16 Sedona...it's probably the sweet spot for value if you want to avoid going older/higher mileage. Not a big issue for an inherently ugly vehicle-type, but I prefer its straightforward styling to the others.
I've never driven a Sienna, but I can make another observation from test driving a comparable Honda:
- Odyssey drives stiffer and 'heavier' - feels more planted and needs a bit more muscle on the steering wheel and you feel the bumps a bit more
- Sedona drives lighter...feels more maneuverable in parking lots/slower speeds, absorbs bumps beautifully, but you feel a bit more body roll on exit ramps (which I actually find helpful to mellow my driving compared to pre-kid days).
Toyota Sienna was the same generation from 2011-2020 model years (with a few facelifts).
Odyssey 2011-2017 (2014 facelift)
Sedona 2015-21
Middle row isn't removable in either Toyota or Kia (at least without removing bolts) - I thought I would find that annoying, but so far the forward fold has been quite convenient and I can't really see myself needing that extra foot or so. Odyssey mid-row is heavy and clumsy to move in/out (I have to do it a few times a year for my parents on theirs). I think in the last few years Odyssey added a 'magic-slide' system that lets you reconfigure the mid row a few different ways side to side (depending on 8th seat or not)...Sienna may have something similar; my 7 seater Sedona doesn't.
In a few years I'm hoping to upgrade to a Carnival for some fun rear-facing nostalgia:
Memory seats are a must for us, but they're only available on the top trim in Canada which comes with a fancier but less versatile mid-row that I'm undecided on. (US model has mem seats on top 2 trims).
As an aside, has anyone had luck installing aftermarket memory seats in a vehicle...most of my googling indicates it's difficult/expensive, but there are some vids out there suggesting otherwise. I'm 10 inches taller than wife so it's a pain to adjust power seats every time, and we're in the market for a small CUV soon, but mem seats are rare in that class. Kia Niro is the clubhouse leader at the moment, but it would be nice to have more options.
The Following User Says Thank You to powderjunkie For This Useful Post:
soon, but mem seats are rare in that class. Kia Niro is the clubhouse leader at the moment, but it would be nice to have more options.
