|
Post by white96aurora on Sept 19, 2005 23:13:01 GMT -6
ok, heres the story. I got my aurora from my grandpa and he tokk good care of if but recently i found out that since he had owned the car he never put premium fuel in there!!!!!! But since i have owned it has only seen premium, but with gas priced so high does the car really need premium or can i get away with regular. thanks matt
|
|
|
Post by TheLoveThatNeverDies on Sept 19, 2005 23:34:02 GMT -6
I can recall some pretty lengthy discussions on this in the past. Use the search feature and you should find some pretty helpful info. Good luck -Shawn
|
|
|
Post by 97abrora on Sept 20, 2005 4:39:32 GMT -6
I remember that post to.. it stated something along these lines: "premium gas will retain your current performance, and regular unleaded can actually hurt your performance".. so I stick to 93 premium.. Shell V-Power actually..
|
|
|
Post by stevensolds on Sept 20, 2005 6:12:14 GMT -6
Yeah i use 93 octane as well. I know most people wouldnt put it in this car. But folks who actually know what they are driving and know something about the Aurora V8 will use it.
|
|
scottydl
Super Moderator
There's nothin' like an American V-8...
Posts: 7,373
Staff Member
|
Post by scottydl on Sept 20, 2005 8:55:05 GMT -6
I can recall some pretty lengthy discussions on this in the past. Use the search feature and you should find some pretty helpful info. Ditto. But to summarize, most of our owner's manuals say 87 is fine as long as you don't mind the potential for decreased acceleration/performance. 91+ is recommended for maximum performance due to the high compression ratio in our 4.0 engines. I generally use 89-90 to get the best of both worlds (lower price, higher than standard octane) with no problems.
|
|
|
Post by Tortured Soul on Sept 20, 2005 11:55:04 GMT -6
I believe my owners manual says to use a minimum of 91 octane. I try to always use 93.
I thought V-Power was 92 octane?
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 20, 2005 12:15:39 GMT -6
All years' Auroras run best on premium.
|
|
|
Post by macadamiaman on Sept 20, 2005 13:26:24 GMT -6
With the exception of the 3.5L I think, right?
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 20, 2005 13:55:22 GMT -6
With the exception of the 3.5L I think, right? According to page 6-3 in the 2001 owners' manual, "If you have the 3.5 Liter V-6 engine (VIN code H), use regular unleaded gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher. If you have the 4.0 Liter V-8 engine (VIN code C), use regular unleaded gasoline rated at 87 octane or higher. However, for best performance or trailer towing, you may wish to use middle grade or premium level gasoline." So I guess that the 3.5 won't benefit from the use of premium.
|
|
|
Post by 97abrora on Sept 20, 2005 16:27:17 GMT -6
Tortured Soul, Shell V-Power by me is 93 octane.. not sure if its different in various places... but I only go to two different Shell stations. Both have 93..
|
|
|
Post by kobalt on Sept 20, 2005 21:31:27 GMT -6
Using premium fuel in a high compression motor returns the optimal gas mileage as well. Purchasing more "regular" than "premium" gasoline to travel the same distance negates the financial reasoning behind such a decision. In the end by using 87 octane gasoline one ends up paying the same for less performance.
|
|
|
Post by macadamiaman on Sept 21, 2005 0:33:43 GMT -6
Are you sure the difference is that great? Let's say there's a 20 cent difference, per gallon, between the two grades. So premium is $2.75 while regular is $2.55.
Let's say you go 25 miles in a gallon of premium. (quite the overestimate for an 8-cylinder 2-ton beast but fine, it's a highway trip downhill)... so a 20 gallon tank would get you 500 miles, at a cost of $55.
Anyway spending $55 on regular fuel (let's say you can fit more than 20 gallons here), would get you 21.56 gallons rather than just 20. You'd have to get 23mpg (a 2mpg difference) to go the same distance on the lower grade gas...
Does the lower grade gas really bring mileage down 2mpg (in this situation)? That's an 8% drop...
|
|
scottydl
Super Moderator
There's nothin' like an American V-8...
Posts: 7,373
Staff Member
|
Post by scottydl on Sept 21, 2005 9:53:13 GMT -6
Does the lower grade gas really bring mileage down 2mpg (in this situation)? That's an 8% drop... Based on my own studies, I say no... that's why I stick with 89/90 to save some money. When I tried several consecutive tanks of 93 premium last summer as a test run, I experienced NO increase in gas mileage and little to no noticable increase in performance.
|
|
|
Post by kobalt on Sept 21, 2005 15:16:34 GMT -6
Using lower than recommended octane fuel will cause detonation. To compensate the ECM will pull back the timing and reduce the engine's overall effeciency. Stick with the recommended fuel grade for optimal gas mileage and to avoid possibly costly repairs caused by excessive detonation. There is a logical reason why Oldsmobile recommends 91 octane in the Aurora.
|
|
scottydl
Super Moderator
There's nothin' like an American V-8...
Posts: 7,373
Staff Member
|
Post by scottydl on Sept 21, 2005 15:38:17 GMT -6
There is a logical reason why Oldsmobile recommends 91 octane in the Aurora. I don't doubt that at all... I just like to cut corners and save money when prudent. A recommendation is just that, it's not a requirement... heck, the speed limits are law and nobody ever obeys those!
|
|
|
Post by kobalt on Sept 21, 2005 17:07:24 GMT -6
no argument there Scotty
|
|
|
Post by Letitroll98 on Sept 22, 2005 21:16:37 GMT -6
There is a logical reason why Oldsmobile recommends 91 octane in the Aurora. I don't doubt that at all... I just like to cut corners and save money when prudent. A recommendation is just that, it's not a requirement... heck, the speed limits are law and nobody ever obeys those! Yes, but you do turn the wheel when the road curves.
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Sept 23, 2005 8:35:27 GMT -6
A recommendation is just that, it's not a requirement... heck, the speed limits are law and nobody ever obeys those! To go with that analogy, would you drive 80mph on your donut spare? Is that 55mph recommendation just a starting point? Is there a difference between a manufacturer recommendation and a law? I'm not saying you have to put in premium gas, just that that analogy is pretty weak. Personally, I'd go with what the manual says. Mine says the car can run on 87, so I would put it in if I were so inclined. I'm not so inclined, so I go with the recommendation in the manual that premium should be used for full power, plus I know that the gasoline has more additives to help keep my fuel system working properly for longer. Kobalt, I can't say for sure, but I'd guess when cruising and at light throttle that very little if any timing is pulled on 87 vs 93 octane gas. Especially on the newer motor.
|
|
|
Post by oldsauroraman1 on Sept 23, 2005 8:50:36 GMT -6
Didn't think Scotty was saying to go 80, was he?
Anyhow, the engine will run on cheap gas but we all know it runs its best at 91+ octane.
More additives? Hmm. There's been a lot of information out that states all grades are equal with their additives due to stricter requirements by the Fed. The dif today is in the companies producing the gasolines. All of Shell gas is "Top Tier" as well as other companies for their additives. Years ago it would be so, but not today. And like Letitroll has pointed out in other threads, don't use the same formulation all the time, alternate between say, Shell and Mobil, etc.
|
|
scottydl
Super Moderator
There's nothin' like an American V-8...
Posts: 7,373
Staff Member
|
Post by scottydl on Sept 23, 2005 11:09:16 GMT -6
A recommendation is just that, it's not a requirement... heck, the speed limits are law and nobody ever obeys those! To go with that analogy, would you drive 80mph on your donut spare? Is that 55mph recommendation just a starting point? I certainly wouldn't go 80... but people do, and of course they are risking complete tire failure if any evasive maneuvers are required. But to use your analogy against you , in that particular case the donut spare isn't marked "55 mph recommended, but no faster than 80". It says "55mph max speed." However my Aurora's owner's manual DOES essentially read "91 is recommended, but no lower than 87". So usually using 90 and sometimes 89 (like I do) seems more than acceptable. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Sept 23, 2005 11:33:52 GMT -6
But to use your analogy against you , in that particular case the donut spare isn't marked "55 mph recommended, but no faster than 80". It says "55mph max speed." However my Aurora's owner's manual DOES essentially read "91 is recommended, but no lower than 87". So usually using 90 and sometimes 89 (like I do) seems more than acceptable. ;D Actually, you aren't using anything against me. I said exactly that in the same post. Personally, I'd go with what the manual says. Mine says the car can run on 87, so I would put it in if I were so inclined. The impression given from classic owners was that their manual says premium is the lowest fuel that can be used. What's the actual wording in yours, if you don't mind?
|
|
scottydl
Super Moderator
There's nothin' like an American V-8...
Posts: 7,373
Staff Member
|
Post by scottydl on Sept 23, 2005 12:40:58 GMT -6
The impression given from classic owners was that their manual says premium is the lowest fuel that can be used. What's the actual wording in yours, if you don't mind? Not at all! Here's what my '99 manual states verbatim under the "Fuel" section: Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by Aurora40 on Sept 23, 2005 13:30:21 GMT -6
Here's what mine says. It's not so in-depth about ping:
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Sept 23, 2005 14:32:34 GMT -6
I am in a position to compare the performance of the 2001 4.0 when it comes to premium vs. regular. Back in the late fall of 2000, when I first looked at the 2001s, I drove a 2001 4.0 demo. It felt so-so. I asked the saleslady if she knew what fuel it had. Much to my surprise, she knew that it was running on 87 octane. I have been using premium (93 or 94) in my own 2001 4.0 for close to 5 years now, and my own Aurora feels much better than that demo.
|
|
|
Post by oldsauroraman1 on Sept 23, 2005 15:44:49 GMT -6
This "Horse" was beat to death a long time ago on several other threads, wasn't it???
|
|
|
Post by Letitroll98 on Sept 23, 2005 21:19:58 GMT -6
This "Horse" was beat to death a long time ago on several other threads, wasn't it??? Quite right OAman, thanks for pointing it out. Another forsaken example of violations of the Thread Control Policy. Have they no decency? Think of the poor horse....
|
|
|
Post by oldsauroraman1 on Sept 23, 2005 21:24:55 GMT -6
Yeah. This poor old swayback is so beat that it wouldn't even sell for dog food!
|
|
scottydl
Super Moderator
There's nothin' like an American V-8...
Posts: 7,373
Staff Member
|
Post by scottydl on Sept 24, 2005 11:58:39 GMT -6
This "Horse" was beat to death a long time ago on several other threads, wasn't it??? Quite right OAman, thanks for pointing it out. Another forsaken example of violations of the Thread Control Policy. Have they no decency? Think of the poor horse.... Hey I tried to stop this thread before it got rolling, but NO everyone had to chime in yet *again* and turn it into a multi-page rerun. Of course I was one of those people. ;D
|
|
|
Post by oldsauroraman1 on Sept 26, 2005 15:40:05 GMT -6
Is that a Werewolf beating that horse???
|
|
|
Post by kobalt on Sept 30, 2005 18:41:55 GMT -6
...Kobalt, I can't say for sure, but I'd guess when cruising and at light throttle that very little if any timing is pulled on 87 vs 93 octane gas. Especially on the newer motor. Agreed, timing would probably not be pulled under cruising conditions. How about stop & go city driving?
|
|