|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 119
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 119 |
I've had the car up here for a few months, and I know it says to put 87 octane gas in, which is the low grade in Texas, but the low grade in the Springs is 85. Will that work just as well in my car, or should I keep putting the 87 midgrade in? I'm not sure if it makes any difference at all, but I don't want to mess anything up by being cheap!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 265
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 265 |
Keep putting the 87 in. The engine was designed to run on that and that is the best fuel for it.
Andrew
1992 Toyota Celica GT
Formerly Mines SVT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 50
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 50 |
Wrong, 85 is just fine. were above 6k feet here. The reason for the lower octane is for knock because of the way the engine is tuned. The air is thinner here which allows you to go to a lower octane. You won't hurt the engine by going with 85 and you won't see benefits by going to 87 or 89. Notice you'll never really see 91 or 93.
Trust this other Air Force guy.
John
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 254
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 254 |
Well said, John. Because of the lower altitude, you can definitely run a lower octane.
Ben
TROLL BECAUSE I SOLD MY 1998 T-Red SVT #4406/6535
Last E0 Made? 1/13/98
SOLD THE SVT TO BUY A 2002 Audi S4
STILL ENJOY MY 1999 Silver Mazda Miata MX-5
Email Me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 50
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 50 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 119
CEG\'er
|
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 119 |
jc --- you're a cadet? or are you stationed at Peterson or something?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,025
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,025 |
Originally posted by jc-aimhigher:
Wrong, 85 is just fine. were above 6k feet here. The reason for the lower octane is for knock because of the way the engine is tuned. The air is thinner here which allows you to go to a lower octane. You won't hurt the engine by going with 85 and you won't see benefits by going to 87 or 89. Notice you'll never really see 91 or 93.
Trust this other Air Force guy.
John
John what altitude do you recommend following the octane recommendation?
-Colter
My Old Car
Current Cars-
1999 Ford Taurus SE 3.0 Duratec
1999 Ford Explorer XLT, my Geocaching car. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713 |
Originally posted by Wallace487:
jc --- you're a cadet? or are you stationed at Peterson or something?
Peterson it is (IIRC  ) Hmmm...Colter, I'd say around 3K and below (maybe 2K) is where I'd follow the octane recommendations. However, I still put 91 in my car. 
Derek
Scion xB 5-spd
Previous: 2000 Silver Frost SVT
Please share the road with cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713 |
BTW, who here has the "High Altitude Primary Use" package/doo-whap? IIRC, it pulls timing so engine no knocky knocky. Anyway, I do. Just thought it'd be interesting to see how many of us SW folk have it.
Derek
Scion xB 5-spd
Previous: 2000 Silver Frost SVT
Please share the road with cyclists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,025
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 1,025 |
I don't think I do. My car was originally purchased in Texas. I use 87-88 octane in mine. I use what is recommended.
-Colter
My Old Car
Current Cars-
1999 Ford Taurus SE 3.0 Duratec
1999 Ford Explorer XLT, my Geocaching car.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
