- #6 of 25
-
Re: The Maxx Seems Great [blumaxx]
by tothemaxx2
-
Oct 09, 2006 (2:35 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: blumaxx (Oct 09, 2006 9:09 am)
On the Malibu rentals I've had I always have used just regular, and never heard any knocking (which is the functional test). I use Premium in my Volvo, but it is a turbo (low pressure). I have noticed a performance difference in the Volvo the few times I have tried regular in it. So far we have been sticking to mid-grade in the Maxx. Has plenty of power with it.
|
- #7 of 25
-
Re: The Maxx Seems Great [pao]
by rferd43
-
Oct 09, 2006 (6:10 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: pao (Oct 09, 2006 10:40 am)
My high mileage is on flat terrain and going no faster than 70 mpg. I like the challenge of trying to get the most out of a tank of gas. Maybe I am cheap? 
|
- #8 of 25
-
Re: The Maxx Seems Great [tothemaxx2]
by mr_bots
-
Oct 09, 2006 (7:51 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: tothemaxx2 (Oct 09, 2006 2:35 pm)
Little off-topic, but thought I'd post. The difference between octanes is how much it can be compressed before igniting. In the past the higher octanes had better detergents but that is no longer the case as the detergents in today's 91 isn't any better than the detergent in 87. So putting premium or mid-grade in an engine designed for 87 does not improve performance or reliability, such as most non-performance engines. However, running regular in a car that "recommends" premium fuel will decrease performance. If premium fuel is "required" putting a lower grade fuel in it could damage the engine. So, putting 89 or 91 octane in a Malibu is doing nothing but costing more money.
|
- #9 of 25
-
Re: The Maxx Seems Great [mr_bots]
by csandste
-
Oct 09, 2006 (10:57 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: mr_bots (Oct 09, 2006 7:51 pm)
There is no advantage in premium as long as you use a top tier gas. In St. Louis where I live that means QuikTrip, Conoco/Phillips or Shell. Don't think Mobil or BP makes the cut, primarily because they've (because of marketing decisions) have tied high detergency to premium fuels.
http://www.toptiergas.com/retailers.html
TOP TIER Gasoline Retailers:
QuikTrip
Chevron
Conoco
Phillips
76
Shell
Entec Stations
MFA Oil Company
Kwik Trip/Kwik Star
The Somerset Refinery, Inc.
Chevron-Canada
Aloha Petroleum
Tri-Par Oil Company
Shell-Canada
Texaco
|
- #10 of 25
-
Re: The Maxx Seems Great [csandste]
by kurtamaxxxguy
-
Oct 10, 2006 (11:49 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: csandste (Oct 09, 2006 10:57 pm)
I've never encountered knocking or pinging in my Maxx, using 87 octane fuel, throughout my long trips including up and down mountains.
If I have a __lot__ of mountain climbing on a trip, I might mix in some 89 with the 87 just to be safe.
My Prism and Camry (toyotas) did occasionally have problems with 87, though. they were "designed" for 87.
|
- #11 of 25
-
Re: The Maxx Seems Great [kurtamaxxxguy]
by csandste
-
Oct 10, 2006 (5:25 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 10, 2006 11:49 am)
I think need for octane goes down as altitude goes up. It's been a while since I've been in the Rockies or Black Hills but if memory serves me right, I thought the octane rating for regular was somewhere around 84. I didn't think you could get 89 or if you could it would be super premium. Of course that was ten years ago and maybe things have changed.
|
- #12 of 25
-
Re: The Maxx Seems Great [csandste]
by kurtamaxxxguy
-
Oct 11, 2006 (10:29 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: csandste (Oct 10, 2006 5:25 pm)
not sure. 87 is lowest octane I have seen in Calif. and Oregon. 91 is usually premium.
|
- #13 of 25
-
Re: The Maxx Seems Great [kurtamaxxxguy]
by mr_bots
-
Oct 11, 2006 (11:02 am)
-
|
|
Replying to: kurtamaxxxguy (Oct 11, 2006 10:29 am)
Elevation is related to octane rating. Lower the elevation, lower the octane. The octane ratings here are 86/88/90.
|
- #14 of 25
-
Re: The Maxx Seems Great [mr_bots]
by tothemaxx2
-
Oct 11, 2006 (4:48 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: mr_bots (Oct 11, 2006 11:02 am)
I guess I started a good thread with my initial reply on octane. I agree pretty much with all the threads, and will probably go to regular instead of mid-grade on our Malibu. However, there is still a detergent difference between grades on at least SOME gasoline. I do not know for sure on Top Tier, and the earlier post may be correct that all Top Tier has the same. I will investigate further with those I know in the oil industry. I do know something from my own experience. With my Volvo turbo, if I do not use premium, I get carbon deposits on the valves which cause a problem. And the car does lose power. Engineers I knew at Shell years ago had told me to watch for excess carbon build-up with lower grades on some engines. With that in mind I used nothing but premium on my 1971 Pinto (yes the exploding car) for over twenty years. Got 325,000 miles on it and only did one valve job, at 190,000 miles. So there is evidence that still leads me to higher grade gas. Also, it has been shown in many tests that you do get better gas mileage with higher grades.
|
- #15 of 25
-
Re: The Maxx Seems Great [mr_bots]
by csandste
-
Oct 11, 2006 (9:17 pm)
-
|
|
Replying to: mr_bots (Oct 11, 2006 11:02 am)
"For each 1000 feet of altitude the atmospheric pressure will drop by a little less than 1 inHg (11 kPa/km). An engine that might require 93 octane at sea level may perform at maximum on a fuel rated at 91 octane if the elevation is over, say, 1000 feet. See also the APC article."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octane_rating
|
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Hatchbacks 
