Go Back   986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners > Porsche Boxster & Cayman Forums > Boxster General Discussions

Post Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-04-2008, 06:24 PM   #1
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 207
Good news for our gas mileage !

Quoted from the NY Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/automobiles/03OCTANE.html?_r=1&no_interstitial&oref=slogin

Porsche, for example, acknowledges that any of its modern production cars can be run on regular fuel without the risk of damage.

A spokesman for Porsche North America, Tony Fouladpour, added a caveat. “If you want the car to perform at its maximum capability, the best choice would not be 87,” he said. “But we do not forbid it.”
nefarious986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 06:34 PM   #2
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: 104
For the extra $5 a tank, I'd rather have better performance and less risk of damage. My car performs bad enough as it is with the 10% Ethanol they have added to gasoline in the past year or two. I've noticed a significant drop in mileage and "seat of your pants pull" since this change as well.
releese78 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 08:27 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BC
Posts: 1,336
So how many of you are using 87 in your Boxster?
__________________
2001 Boxster, 5 spd, Seal Grey
clickman is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 09:52 PM   #4
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by clickman
So how many of you are using 87 in your Boxster?
Let's make this official:
http://www.986forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17789
__________________
.
1997 Honda Accord | V6
2004 BMW 330i | ZHP | SOLD
2000 Porsche Boxster | SOLD | http://www.986forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9114

http://www.kryzak.com/storage/986sig12.jpg

http://kryzak.tumblr.com
Jeph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 12:03 AM   #5
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 207
I m not gonna do it. I open her up way too often to go a full tank on 87. I always run 91 from 76 or Chevron.

This is just an FYI just in case other members have been feeling the premium pinch.
nefarious986 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2008, 05:29 AM   #6
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 230
I just did the calculation and its like $3.20 to put 93 verse 87 a tank extra. thats roughly 80-100 bucks a year, most you guys make that in a few hours
Go with 93 octane
BoxsterLewis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2008, 09:41 PM   #7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: West Coast
Posts: 5
12,000 miles annually and an average of 20 mpg, a car will consume 600 gallons of gas in a year. Even at 30 cents difference a gallon as quoted, the annual saving of using 87 octane gas is only $180. I think most car enthusiasts will not mind to pay that to gain extra 7 HP.

Fast and sophisticated as modern knock sensors, it is still a reactive process. It retards the timing only after a knock/ping has occurred. It is a “protective” feature like PSM. I am not sure it is meant to be activated regularly. The car’s computer should be re-programmed for 87 gas instead.

It comes down to just a sale pitch to bait those penny pinchers that like to drive premium cars but don’t like to pay for premium gas.
psng is offline   Reply With Quote
Post Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On




All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:24 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website -    DMCA Registered Agent Contact Page