I did a 2000 mile test on my 2008 Passion Coupe, 4 tanks running 92 octane and 4 tanks running 87 octane. I got significantly better mileage with premium (41.0 mpg) than with regular grade gasoline (36.8 mpg). The mileage was enough better with premium that, even with the higher cost of premium, I got a slightly lower cost per mile with premium ($0.10) than with regular grade gasoline ($0.11).
You mean like this?^^^toussi1 said:Has anyone done side by side comparison HI OCT vs 87 on Fuel economy?
Yup, could be. Burning less than specified octane gas results in retarded ignition; retarded ignition results in higher exhaust gas temperatures. The cat is very close to the engine so may be easily affected by high EGT.Book says that regular could cause the cataletic converter to overheat and cause a fire.
In the NYC and northeast areas premium gas can cost averagely $.30 to $.60 more per gallon than regular. That is a big difference in gasoline cost per tankful over the period of a year. I will buy a new Smart ForTwo when Mercedes designs the car to run on regular, and only regular gas.
The main reason I got rid of my 2009 Smart ForTwo was I got tired of having to spring for premium gas while my sister put recommended regular gas at much lower cost in her 2013 turbocharged (boosted) Kia Sportage.
To look at the Smart ForTwo, one would think it was capable of getting 50 mpg on the highway. It does not. The best mpg I ever got with my 2009 was 47.7 mpg doing an excruciatingly slow 40 to 45 miles per hour on the highway for the duration of one week, without cruse control I should mention. The Smart's diminutive size is hardly a good reason to buy it over cars that offer as good or better gas mileage and performance with a usable back seat and more cargo room.
I had a 2013 Chevy Spark at the same time I had my 2009 Smart. The Chevy road much better, preformed much better and got just as good or better gas mileage all on regular gas. It was also not more difficult to park in almost every situation, even in the five boroughs of NYC.
My 2009 Smart had an awful transmission, though in manual mode it was not so bad. Quite frankly, I though the transmission and engine, pretty decent, were the least of its short comings; I did not think the engine was a short coming at all because with the transmission in manual mode, the car was actually pretty zippy and easily merged on to the highway with no problem.
What were actually pretty significant shortcomings with the Smart ForTwo, on the other hand, were, one, its flexible body: For all the touting Smart did of its Trident safety cage, the car flexed and shuttered to the point where its frame less windows when rolled fully up would separate from their rubber seals during spirited maneuvers or going over rough roads. Moreover, the rolled up windows would momentarily separate from their rubber window seals when driving on the highway at higher speeds. Usually this happened if it was a bit windy and one was driving into the wind; there would be a gust of wind while driving at highway speeds, and one would hear the wind momentarily whistle during a gust, then stop as the gust subsided.
Another of these significant shortcomings were its terrible front suspension and wheel positions. While the rear of the car was usually fairly supple over rough surfaces, the front suspension was not; on roads that were a bit rough, though I am not necessarily talking about roads that had deep pot holes, but just rough broken surfaces, the front suspension would literally bang and boom. At times when it did this, it scared the heck out of me, and several times I was sure I had damaged something. Further, with regard to the front end of the car, because the front wheels were spaced so closely apart the car became a handful to keep straight when there were rutted groves in the road; if one was driving on a smooth surface at highway speeds and then came onto a rutted grooved surface at speed, it could be very disconcerting as the car pulled left and right with a mind of its own. Even the surfaces of draw bridges could greatly perturb the directional stability of my 2009 Smart ForTwo.
Now I know that for 2016 Smart has addressed most of the short comings of the Fortwo. For example, they have widened the car and the front track, and have made a dual clutch automatic and true, three pedal manual available. They have also improved the quality of materials used in the interior, and made the suspension more compliant with more travel, ect. What they have not addressed, however, is that for its size and weight the car only gets average gas mileage (30-40mpg, city/highway), and it still requires.....and take note, not recommended, but requires.....premium gas.
So, like I said earlier, I will buy a new Smart ForTwo when Mercedes designs the car to run on "required" regular gas.
You know, I went to see the 2016 at the Javits center in Manhattan during the auto show this year, and I liked it very much. I was doing a lot of reading about it and learned that in Europe different engines are available that would allow the car to get better than 50 mpg and run on regular gas. But Mercedes Benz in it wisdom thought Americans would only go for the version that is turbocharged, the lowest mpg version. Well I will reward Mercedes by not buying one: Like I said, the old Mitsubishi engine was never a problem for me with regard to its zip power, just the premium gas.
The reason I asked if you have owned any 1.0-liter 3 cylinder cars before, is because in order for them to be appreciated, you generally have to have an understanding of how engine technology works. I have yet to see one 3-cylinder car with 1.0-liter engine, from any manufacturer, that hasn't been criticized for power, air conditioning, idle quality, hill climbing, acceleration, etc,. There's always *something* folks will complain about.Computers don't work harder to keep up if one uses regular when premium gas is required. The engine works harder. The internet consensus is, from many different sources, that if one uses regular gas when premium is REQUIRED, gas mileage will suffer, and at the least overtime some components will ware out faster even if outright engine damage does not occur; engine damage in the long run does remain a possibility.