09-15-2008, 01:19 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 3,726
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by RConrad
PW: This was an interesting question with a load of OPENIONS. Here is some facts, help yourself, OK. I have three vehicles, all say use 93. A Volvo S-90, a 96 S-320, a 97 SL-320. I've been runing REGULAR sense NEW. VOLVO 80K, S-320 103K, and SL 78K.I use Mobile 1, 10w30 all year round. Volvo=23mpg, S=26 @ 75mph, SL=24 @ 65mph. PW, these are facts, not my openion. Have fun, the older S's are god ole sherman tanks, and the 320's get great milage for such a large car. Mine is the long wheel base model, love it. Ron
|
Thanks for those facts, but those are some pretty loose facts. The two MBs require 91 octane, not 93, and the Volvo claim seems suspect as well. Here's my personal experience - which I would characterize as anecdotal rather than factual - in a car that requires premium fuel the additional cost of premium fuel is justifiable in better mileage. I have always found this to be true. Try running a 6.3 on regular. You may be proud of your 24-26 highway numbers but those are not good numbers for a 104 motor on the highway. I get 29+ in an S320 on premium which easily justifies the approximately 5 percent premium price premium.
|