Unfortunately, that is "most cars" except for two of my cars which "require"
92 octane according to the owners manual (one is a Lexus GS430, the other is a
4.6L Cobra powered Panoz). Sounds like somewhere between (b) and (c) for these
cars.
Thanks,
-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Lane [mailto:firstcard@hotmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 19:21
To: mrclem@telocity.com; Giles Douglas; Elmoizme@aol.com;
ba-autox@autox.team.net
Subject: Re: 91 octane gas
I think it would be more of a "barely noticeable." Most if not all cars
that use Premium have a suggested requirement of 91 or more.
Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael R. Clements" <mrclem@telocity.com>
To: "Giles Douglas" <giles@vy.com>; <Elmoizme@aol.com>;
<ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 7:06 PM
Subject: RE: 91 octane gas
> Hmmm. . .
>
> And the effect on efficiency & performance for engines designed for 92
octane
> is:
>
> (a) drastic
>
> (b) significant
>
> (b) barely noticeable
>
> (c) nonexistant
>
> ????
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Giles Douglas
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 18:49
> To: Elmoizme@aol.com; ba-autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: RE: 91 octane gas
>
>
> its gas - mtbe + ethanol = lower octane rating.
>
> I'm afraid that all the major gas stations will switch over to 91 in the
> next few weeks. Some of them may even sell 88.5 instead of 89 in the
> meantime.
>
> Even the ones that are still labelled 92 are likely selling 91.
>
> Giles
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Elmoizme@aol.com
> Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 6:18 PM
> To: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: 91 octane gas
>
>
> I only noticed 91 at 76 stations for a few weeks now. Ever since I have
been
> going only to Chevron.
>
> I thought I heard somewhere that because they are adding more ethanol, it
> lowers the octane rating. Someone care to comment?
>
> Elton
> SM #68
|