2008 and Premium Gas

On 18 Feb 2008 04:59:46 GMT, Carbon >
wrote:

>On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 15:44:36 +1100, OzOne wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 09:55:56 -0800 (PST), socamb >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>I am considering purchasing a 2008 miata. O have a 1997 and love it. I
>>>noticed the 2008 miata required premium gas. Is this true. The dealer
>>>said it does not really require it.
>>>
>>>I will have a hard time purchasing a car that required premium gas these
>>>days.
>>>
>>>any thoughts the group has would be appreciated.
>>
>> You can use regular but performance will be lowered and running will
>> become rough.
>> Fuel consumption will rise noticeably unless you pussyfoot around.
>>
>> My 2005 runs like a hairy goat on regular and with such a tiny amount of
>> fuel used each mile/kilometre, I prefer to use premium and often super
>> premium which gives better consumption figures again.
>
>What octane rating does super premium have? I use 93 octane in my car.

Premium here in Oz is 95
Super Premium, 98 octane
http://www.bp.com/genericsection.do?...ntId=702 9242




OzOne of the three twins

I welcome you to Crackerbox Palace.

Lanny Chambers > wrote:

> I wonder if it throws an OBDII code?

I don't think it does, it's probably considered as normal operation.



--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

"socamb" > wrote in message
...
>I am considering purchasing a 2008 miata. O have a 1997 and love it. I
> noticed the 2008 miata required premium gas. Is this true. The dealer
> said it does not really require it.
>
> I will have a hard time purchasing a car that required premium gas
> these days.
>
> any thoughts the group has would be appreciated.
The best way would be to try it as the ECU would compensate.
In my case in a 2000 with 1600 engine my distance per tank is fairly
consistant on a trip and seems to move down from 525k (328 miles) to under
500k (312 miles) with lower octane fuel.
Of course this may have changed with the current model and my tests of low
octane where on a lot smaller sample.

* J Brockley wrote in rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata:

> "socamb" > wrote in message
> .
> ..
>>I am considering purchasing a 2008 miata. O have a 1997 and love it. I
>> noticed the 2008 miata required premium gas. Is this true. The dealer
>> said it does not really require it.
>>
>> I will have a hard time purchasing a car that required premium gas
>> these days.
>>
>> any thoughts the group has would be appreciated.
> The best way would be to try it as the ECU would compensate.
> In my case in a 2000 with 1600 engine my distance per tank is fairly
> consistant on a trip and seems to move down from 525k (328 miles) to
> under 500k (312 miles) with lower octane fuel.
> Of course this may have changed with the current model and my tests of
> low octane where on a lot smaller sample.
>
>
>
>

DAMN! If I tried to get even 312 out of my 2007 PRHT I would be using my
AAA membership quite a bit to bring me free gas. I have a 12 gallon tank
and on my best runs I get 26 MPG which would bring me to exactly 312
miles.

--
David

J Brockley wrote:
> "socamb" > wrote in message
> ...
>> I am considering purchasing a 2008 miata. O have a 1997 and love it. I
>> noticed the 2008 miata required premium gas. Is this true. The dealer
>> said it does not really require it.
>>
>> I will have a hard time purchasing a car that required premium gas
>> these days.
>>
>> any thoughts the group has would be appreciated.
> The best way would be to try it as the ECU would compensate.
> In my case in a 2000 with 1600 engine my distance per tank is fairly
> consistant on a trip and seems to move down from 525k (328 miles) to under
> 500k (312 miles) with lower octane fuel.
> Of course this may have changed with the current model and my tests of low
> octane where on a lot smaller sample.
>
>
>

Well, driving down the interstate at 75 with cruise control on I can
detect no difference in mileage which correlates with fuel octane. The
outside air temperature, wind conditions, and minor fluctuations in tire
pressure seem to have a stronger effect on overall mileage. I routinely
record (and I keep meticulous records to satisfy my own curiosity)
mileage in the 32-34mpg range under the given conditions and have seen
verifiable numbers at and above 36. This is, of course, a limited data
set (just under 100 samples) I'm working with and my mean mileage has
settled down to 26.8 with a low just above 20. Most of the time I drive
around town with plus grade fuel unless I am absolutely sure that I'm
going to be on a purely "fun" drive when I'll put in premium or that I'm
going to be slogging down the interstate when I'll put regular if I'm
thinking that far ahead. Overall I'd say that I am definitely not a
gentle driver and am not prone to pussyfoot anywhere -- the number of
sets of tires I've gone through in my two Miatas would tend to back up
that assertion.

--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]
http://johnmcgaw.com

On Feb 18, 7:08 am, SINNER > wrote:
> * J Brockley wrote in rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata:
>
>
>
> > "socamb" > wrote in message
> .
> > ..
> >>I am considering purchasing a 2008 miata. O have a 1997 and love it. I
> >> noticed the 2008 miata required premium gas. Is this true. The dealer
> >> said it does not really require it.
>
> >> I will have a hard time purchasing a car that required premium gas
> >> these days.
>
> >> any thoughts the group has would be appreciated.
> > The best way would be to try it as the ECU would compensate.
> > In my case in a 2000 with 1600 engine my distance per tank is fairly
> > consistant on a trip and seems to move down from 525k (328 miles) to
> > under 500k (312 miles) with lower octane fuel.
> > Of course this may have changed with the current model and my tests of
> > low octane where on a lot smaller sample.
>
> DAMN! If I tried to get even 312 out of my 2007 PRHT I would be using my
> AAA membership quite a bit to bring me free gas. I have a 12 gallon tank
> and on my best runs I get 26 MPG which would bring me to exactly 312
> miles.
>
> --
> David

My manual says that my 2000 MX5 has nearly a 13 gal tank (12.8). And
on highway trips, the last getting around 32 gal/mi, I usually look to
get nearly 390 MPG, near empty. I never let it get that low, but I
start planning on a gas stop getting close to that. Maybe I am just
great on the gas pedal :-).

In article
>,
Jazz_Azz > wrote:

> And
> on highway trips, the last getting around 32 gal/mi, I usually look to
> get nearly 390 MPG, near empty.

Wow! I realize you're hauling less weight around with a nearly-empty
tank, but a twelve-fold increase in mileage is truly impressive.

Sorry, I had to jump on this before Leon could. :-)

--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C

Lanny Chambers wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Jazz_Azz > wrote:
>
>> And
>> on highway trips, the last getting around 32 gal/mi, I usually look to
>> get nearly 390 MPG, near empty.
>
> Wow! I realize you're hauling less weight around with a nearly-empty
> tank, but a twelve-fold increase in mileage is truly impressive.
>
> Sorry, I had to jump on this before Leon could. :-)
>

I was just waiting for someone to claim that the mileage was due to the
white paint job...

--
John McGaw
[Knoxville, TN, USA]
http://johnmcgaw.com

John McGaw > wrote:

> Lanny Chambers wrote:
>> In article
>>
>> >,
>> Jazz_Azz > wrote:
>>
>>> And
>>> on highway trips, the last getting around 32 gal/mi, I usually
>>> look to get nearly 390 MPG, near empty.
>>
>> Wow! I realize you're hauling less weight around with a
>> nearly-empty tank, but a twelve-fold increase in mileage is truly
>> impressive.
>>
>> Sorry, I had to jump on this before Leon could. :-)
>>
>
> I was just waiting for someone to claim that the mileage was due
> to the white paint job...

What else could it be? You'll never get 390 MPG in a red Miata or a
blue Miata or a silver Miata or.... <BSEG>




--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 04:46:09 +0000, Lanny Chambers wrote:

> In article > ,
> XS11E > wrote:
>
>> Only if the knock sensor detects "pinging", otherwise the timing will
>> remain the same as it would with premium gasoline.
>
> I'm not sure exactly how the NC's knock sensor functions,

I would assume it listens for the characteristic sound frequencies
like others?

> but such
> devices typically retard timing FAR more than necessary at the first
> ping, and don't recover quickly.

I do not know about that. The point is that if you discover unacceptable
knock, you already have red-hot carbon deposits on your solid surfaces.
The device *must* retard the ignition much more than would be needed
if it was advanced earlier to prevent knock and the resulting red-hot
deposits in the first place. And the device must stick to retarding
large amounts until they are cooled down enough.

> It's not an efficient way to control
> the ignition on a routine basis, it's an emergency safeguard to prevent
> engine damage.

I would agree completely there. But I would think designing optimized
controls against knock is complicated by the fact that these devices have
no clue about how big carbon build-ups are in the engine. And how bad
their geometry is. And the equation is further complicated by the fact
that a moderate amount of knock is perfectly acceptable.

I would guess Mazda would take the conservative view and assume that
people may have squeezed a piece of coal in their cylinders.

> I wonder if it throws an OBDII code?

I would hope it would at least make a note if the maximum retard did not
manage to get knock within acceptable parameters, but I do not know.

Leon
--
Leon Bess Bozo .)