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.”

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.

So how many of you are using 87 in your Boxster?

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.

Let's make this official:
http://www.986forum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17789

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.

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 :p
Go with 93 octane :cheers:

actually you should consider yourself lucky to have access to 93 and at low prices compared to the rest of the world. Just drive a little smarter and you'll get more value for those four bucks. The Porsche is the practical every day sports car. There's nothing wrong with driving it at speed limit at low revs when conditions allow it.

That $80-100 is assuming you get the same mileage with either octane level. You don't. Mileage is typically better with higher octane fuel (in a car that's meant to use it). So it's actually even less savings than that.

I am NOT going to run the test in my Boxster, but I have run it to my satisfaction in my DD ( Mazda CX7 2.3 Turbo - 93 octane suggested)and I lose 10% mileage to a 2.5% cost savings. It was so bad on 87 octane, I refilled at 1/2 tank and never tried it again. It is LOSING MONEY to go to lower octane.
My wife's Civic is a regular gas car, but she gets 11% better mileage using mid-grade and pays only 2.5% more. Going to 93 did not show a significant increase from mid-grade. We are not total geeks for gas mileage, but we commute heavy distances every day. I average over 40k per year on my DD and she averages almost 50k, so fuel consumption is a big deal on a monthly basis.
The object here is not some mystical savings of the planet's energy supply, it is cost per mile driven, and I am THOROUGHLY convinced using mid-grade is a losing proposition.
Run the test yourself, but be honest with yourself while doing it. 20 to 30 miles difference on a tankful IS a big deal when you only save $3.20 per tankfull, on 4.00 per gallon gas.