You read correctly. That's per the manual.
Based on my experience, I get slightly better mileage with 89. Nothing substantial, but a little better.
FWIW, I tried 93 to be thorough, but it didn't do any better than the 89.
Besides, 89 is the recommended fuel so I'll spend the extra $0.10/gal for it. Even at a full tank (19 gallons) it cost $1.90 more to fill with the recommended octane.
How much money is spent on mods that are not proven, but claim to provide better performance? Is this not the same thing? If you average 25 mpg over 100,000 miles (4,000 gallons), that extra $0.10 will cost a total of $400. I'm willing to spend $400 to try to get the best performance and longevity from my engine. Judging by how many people have spent that much (or close to it) on a CAI, which are arguably only good for looks/sound, I'll bet most of people would spend $400 for 100K miles of ideal performance. No? Just trying to put it in perspective.
You want the lowest octane fuel without detonation. There are so many variables to that equation with temperature, compression ratio, actual motor octane value in the fuel....which is the M in the R+M/2 octane method.
However, octane doesn't give you better longevity. 87 or 93 and anything in between will have the same issues since there is no longer any sulfur, lead, or lubricity in the fuels. The only way to get real increased longevity is to provide the fuels with the ignition improving and lubricity that they lack.
This is part of the ACES IV introduction into the fuels.
Considering your example of 100,000 miles and 25 miles per gallon the difference between 89 and 93 is .22 cents per gallon around here. .22 x 4000 gallons is $880.00 more over that time period. Yet it doesn't impart any of the things necessary to really increase longevity.
Spend .31 per gallon with ACES IV x 4000 gallons and you end up with $1,240.00 over that 100,000 miles. But this time you get 6 times less ring and bore wear, 4 times less stem and guide wear and 5 times less valve recession. Yea, I know that hardened valves and hardened seats don't really have valve recession as such but do over time distort the edges of the exhaust valve because it is hammering on the seat without ANY cushion at all. So keeping the exhaust valve and seat long with the stem and guide will make a signficant difference.
That is truly worth the extra. But the other part is the increase in fuel economy using the 89 and ACES IV. With the extra 10% you get with the product you would save 400 gallons of that 4,000 gallons which would be $844.00 at $2.11 for the premium. So spend $1,240.00 and save $844.00 back from that and you end up spending $396.00 where you originally said isn't a problem extra to spend but are now getting the benefit of ACES IV.:beerchug:
Regards,
Brian
BND Automotive LLC:driving:
440-821-9040
www.bndautomotive.com
