SwedeSpeed - Volvo Performance Forum banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,732 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Since our first Volvo in 2011 (S60 T6) we've always just run 89. In my wife's XC60 T6 P* she only runs 89 and I've been running the same in my XC40 RD P*.

The car still feels fine and fast enough.

What are you guys running?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,212 Posts

93 in my XC60
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
93 octane top tier from Costco.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
440 Posts
We have aleays put 93 in our XC40 because 91 is not readily available.

91 is the minimum according to what I read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
879 Posts
Jesus christ this has been talked about 1000 times and I will say it yet again.... 87 is acceptable but is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED!!!!

Forced induction and high compression engines should ALWAYS use high octane fuel to prevent detonation.... and yes your car does detonate on 87 but your ECM retards your car and backs off the boost (Horsepower) to stop it.

THUS.... you loose horsepower and fuel mileage in order to save $3 at the gas pump. Stop being cheap and treat your car properly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
Costco's 91 (we don't have 93 at Costco in Canada)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
111 Posts
Jesus christ this has been talked about 1000 times and I will say it yet again.... 87 is acceptable but is STRONGLY DISCOURAGED!!!!

Forced induction and high compression engines should ALWAYS use high octane fuel to prevent detonation.... and yes your car does detonate on 87 but your ECM retards your car and backs off the boost (Horsepower) to stop it.

THUS.... you loose horsepower and fuel mileage in order to save $3 at the gas pump. Stop being cheap and treat your car properly.
Maybe this thread should be made a sticky.

Kris :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
In other vehicles I've found that the loss of mileage running a lower octane offest the "savings" of the cheaper gas. This and the synthetic versus dino oil threads on car forums should be banned, with stickies of the manual pages and the required fuels and fluids prominently displayed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,762 Posts
In other vehicles I've found that the loss of mileage running a lower octane offest the "savings" of the cheaper gas. This and the synthetic versus dino oil threads on car forums should be banned, with stickies of the manual pages and the required fuels and fluids prominently displayed.
Because running 91 in a car that requires only 87 won't give a noticeable difference in fuel economy. Any minor difference people think they see could easily be attributed to different driving conditions during their sample.

Totally agree these threads should be banned. The proper fuel and fluids are outlined in the manual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Because running 91 in a car that requires only 87 won't give a noticeable difference in fuel economy. Any minor difference people think they see could easily be attributed to different driving conditions during their sample.

Totally agree these threads should be banned. The proper fuel and fluids are outlined in the manual.
My point was that running 87 in a vehicle that required 91 resulted in a reduction in miles per gallon, so much so that it negated the "savings" of the lower per gallon price of the gas. It was actually cheaper per mile to use the 91 octane gas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,762 Posts
We were talking about two different things then. Running 87 in a car that requires 91 and running 91 in a car that requires only 87.

If it requires 91, run 91.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,415 Posts
I run 93 in all mine and they aren't even mine... they are dealer loaner cars. Fuel is maybe $5-$6 a week more. That's not even a breakfast at Sheetz.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31 Posts
I have the T5 engine in my C30 and I've run all levels of octane as an experiment. I maintained the same octane level for three full tankfuls. I keep a contemporaneous logbook for all my cars, logging EVERY single gas fill-up and maintenance item. What I've noticed is, the car seems to perform better on 93 than 87, AND it gets about 2 mpg better mileage on 93, at least on the highway, which helps offset the higher cost of 93 (which I usually get at Sam's Club). I noticed no perceptible difference between 87 and 89. I'm told that the 93 also burns cleaner than the 87, so that's a plus as well. The good new is, in a pinch, I know the computer will compensate for any fuel available.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,762 Posts
I have the T5 engine in my C30 and I've run all levels of octane as an experiment. I maintained the same octane level for three full tankfuls. I keep a contemporaneous logbook for all my cars, logging EVERY single gas fill-up and maintenance item. What I've noticed is, the car seems to perform better on 93 than 87, AND it gets about 2 mpg better mileage on 93, at least on the highway, which helps offset the higher cost of 93 (which I usually get at Sam's Club). I noticed no perceptible difference between 87 and 89. I'm told that the 93 also burns cleaner than the 87, so that's a plus as well. The good new is, in a pinch, I know the computer will compensate for any fuel available.
93 does not burn cleaner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,004 Posts
93 does not burn cleaner.
Without derailing the convo, certain gasoline brands (Shell, Exxon, etc) add significantly more detergents to their premium grade gas than their regular grade gas. So, for those brands, you could argue it burns "cleaner" because it prevents/removes more deposits.

https://www.exxon.com/en/synergy-supreme-plus
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,762 Posts
It isn't a result of octane. I also have serious doubts on the 2 MPG claim but I'm not going down that hole.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top