The problem with that is higher octane fuels are more resistant to burning. They tend to burn slowely and evenly which is why they are greta for resisting detonation and are used in high compression engines and boosted applications.

The so called "cheap gas" 87 octane burns more readily and has the greatest potential for power and fuel milage.

Your car makes the most power when it can sucessfully run the lowest octane grade without detonating.

Of course tuning and modification plays a role here. If you retune with increased timing, or run a power adder or nitrous, the higher octane is a safety net against detonation which can ruin a motor.

But of you take an average car which runs on 87 octane, and put some 93 octane in it (without any sort of tuning modification to require it), the only thing that will happen is your wallet will be lighter.

The reason you are seeing better milage has more to due with the lower ethanol content vs the other grades. Ethanol has 35% less energy than a similar amount of gasoline. So if you replace the ethanol with gas, you have increased your fuel milage no matter what octane it is.

 

What do you mean? Hydrogen is safe!! They used to fly people around in airships filled with that stuff!!

 

^^^^funny^^^^

 

So for $5 difference you put in the "cheap gas".When the premium is cleaner and better for your car in the long term.Sheesh.

 

Our cars are tuned for premium though, and can take advantage of the higher octane by running more aggressive timing. Put that 94 in a civic, and you will see no difference because its tuned for regular, that is the point being made

 

I agree,but were off topic.

 

This topic is always a fun one to revisit.

Nitrogen in tires is a good thing, but hardly the "magic" gas some were lead to believe. There are only two valid reasons for buying into nitrogen filled: long term gas retention and operating pressure stability. Beyond those, the reasons are either insignificant or inconsequential - otherwise known as marketing hype.

As previously mentioned the "regular air" already consists of ~78% nitrogen, that alone should have been enough to dispelled most of the myths.

There is NO intrinsic value in nitrogen towards tire performance. There is however a benefit for running and maintaining the correct tire pressure. For that matter “regular air” performs no worse (or better) than nitrogen. Dry “regular air” that is.

You see the problem is air compressors accumulate water inside the reservoir tank. The relative humidity of the air the ingest determines the severity of this accumulation. The bottom line is there could be a good amount of water vapor in the “regular air” that is pumped into your tires as the result. Water vapor expands/condenses greatly with respect to temperature. Introduce the same amount of water vapor into nitrogen filled tires and you’d find the same dilemma with heat related rapid expansion. The sought after “dry” air is to better control that problem. Nitrogen happens to be the “cheapest” source of *safe* “dry” air available. It is as simple as that. That is precisely why it is used for race cars as well as aircrafts.

The only other benefit left for nitrogen is for its better gas retention property. The larger nitrogen molecules don't escape through the tire as rapidly as oxygen. Still one might ask how much difference can there be, when 78% of the regular air already contains nitrogen. Indeed I have never had issues w. "regular air" escaping in significant quantities on a regular basis. I may fill it up a wee bit from time to time.

Oxidation/corrosion from “regular air” is marketing at its best.

It is true oxygen is a highly reactive element, but let’s not confuse O2 for O++ (elemental) or O3 (ozone). The latter two do not occur in relative abundance to induce significant oxidation. You’re likely to wear out tires/seals long before the thin air eat them away.

Nitrogen = good? yes
Nitrogen = magic? no!

 

What makes you say that premium is any cleaner or "better" for your car than 87 octane??



I'm talking just in general, not anything specific to any make or model vehicle. If the car was designed to run on 91 or better that's one thing, but i'm talking about a car designed for 87

 

True you only have to please yourself and hope you still feel that way after learning more about nitrogen. However, you can call it more than skepticism on my part when it comes to the original claim you made.

Now you say it rides a "little nicer" and before you said the handling was "shockingly different" with the nitrogen. We know there are some very small benefits with nitrogen but handling isn't one of them.

 

Wow... you are drinking a lot of Marketing Kool-Aid.

Premium = higher octane

If you believe that premium = cleaner/better/zoomier gas, then you've been watching too many TV commercials.

Obviously, my point was wasted on you, so let me spell it out.

You are wasting good money on negligible gains because of good advertising.

 

Exactly. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evindence.

 

Some of your posts are just like this on my350z.com. Pretty sad.

If the car says it needs 91 octane in the manual, then you need to use 91 or better to have it perform better but also last longer. The car can run on less but it retards the timing back.

A while while back, a VQ was tested with 87 octane, then 93 octane. It saw a 30 hp different in power. So yes octane definitely changes the way the car performs. Now that is only IF the ECU was designed for it. On some cars its hard to tell. For example. The Titan. It takes 87 octane. But the Infiniti QX56 takes 91+ for 315 hp instead of 305. The ECU is the same and you get the same benefit from using 91 on the Titan as you would on the Infiniti.

 

Again, you missed my point.

Let me dumb it down.

Putting nitrogen in your non-racing tires is like putting premium gas in a car tuned for regular--i.e., a waste of money.

It was an analogy.

Now do you get it? Sheesh...

 

 

I think this thread has been beaten up from every angle now