Slowest car that requires premium

[P86RAVES]

I feel like it's a running joke every time I put 93 in the car, but I do so because it's required. I also feel like this is the slowest car that's required premium since my KA24E powered 240SX.

Maybe someone knows something I don't, so does anyone know the slowest car of the current decade that requires premium feel; not that just recommends it?

[adamg]

any turbo'd suv that has 200hp and weighs 3500+ pounds

[P86RAVES]

Originally Posted by adamg

any turbo'd suv that has 200hp and weighs 3500+ pounds

I should have specified "any car marketed as a sports car."

I looked at the Ecobost crossovers from Ford and whatever Chevy calls their turbocharged engines. Both recommend premium, but are fine to run regular unleaded. So no go on that.

[Takumi788]

Originally Posted by P86RAVES

I feel like it's a running joke every time I put 93 in the car, but I do so because it's required. I also feel like this is the slowest car that's required premium since my KA24E powered 240SX.

240sx required premium? With the compression ratio of the KA24E being as low as it is and with regular timing, there should be no reason why it should require anything but the lowest octane gas. Not to mention the KA's were never meant to be a high performance engine. Nissan couldn't pass USA emissions with the CA18DET or the SR20DET so they used the engines out of 80's Nissan pickups.

If it really does, oops. I never did.

To keep with the topic, my girls Nissan Juke requires 93. It is fun to drive but its no rocket.

[DarkSunrise]

Ford Fiesta ST
Mazda RX-8
Mazda MX-5/Miata
Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice
Honda Civic SI

That's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.

[Tcoat]

High compression engines needs high octane fuel regardless of how fast or "slow" the car goes.
End of story.

[adamg]

mini cooper S
VW GTI/GLI/GOLF R

[hmong337]

Originally Posted by P86RAVES

I feel like it's a running joke every time I put 93 in the car, but I do so because it's required. I also feel like this is the slowest car that's required premium since my KA24E powered 240SX.

Maybe someone knows something I don't, so does anyone know the slowest car of the current decade that requires premium feel; not that just recommends it?

I feel the same lol. Filling 94 in my mr2 is way worth it compared to filling 94 in my FRS. They both get near the same gas mileage but the mr2 is 100hp more. The FRS is definitely one of the slowest 93 octane drinking cars I have known next to the older Honda stuff. Tis a shame but I didn't buy this car for speed. Bought it for its world class handing.

After owning the car coming on two years, I now keep thinking that they should've put more displacement into the car like a 2.5L and have the compression dropped down to 11.5:1 so it would be more boost friendlier than 12.5:1. They easily could've hit their 200hp goal with a bunch more torque and only with 91 Oct. Everything about our current motor is severely limited. Sucks that I had to find this stuff out AFTER I bought the car. Oh well... At least it handles great!

[MokSpeed]

Originally Posted by hmong337

After owning the car coming on two years, I now keep thinking that they should've put more displacement into the car like a 2.5L and have the compression dropped down to 11.5:1 so it would be more boost friendlier than 12.5:1. They easily could've hit their 200hp goal with a bunch more torque and only with 91 Oct. Everything about our current motor is severely limited. Sucks that I had to find this stuff out AFTER I bought the car. Oh well...

They could have easily put the FA20DIT in our cars. In terms of the car lacking actual power, I blame everything on Subaru. They put the WRX on a pedestal during development of this car and Heaven forbid anything ever come close to it in terms of specs and numbers! No; the WRX is almighty. Praise the WRX. We can't lose sales for it.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

High compression engines needs high octane fuel regardless of how fast or "slow" the car goes.
End of story.

Not true. Some of the Mazda engines can run on regular fuel at 13:1.

[totopo]

Originally Posted by MokSpeed

They could have easily put the FA20DIT in our cars. In terms of the car lacking actual power, I blame everything on Subaru. They put the WRX on a pedestal during development of this car and Heaven forbid anything ever come close to it in terms of specs and numbers! No; the WRX is almighty. Praise the WRX. We can't lose sales for it.

Then they don't have a transmission and drivetrain. it would probably end up a lot heavier and a lot more expensive

[tahdizzle]

Umm.

well many turbo cars like the Hyundai Veloster turbo and the Gen coupes do not require premium fuel so I guess they don't qualify :p

[GhostRai]

Most Lexuses require premium now. I know the NX200t uses premium and is pretty slow with it's 2.0L turbo

[P86RAVES]

Originally Posted by Takumi788

240sx required premium? With the compression ratio of the KA24E being as low as it is and with regular timing, there should be no reason why it should require anything but the lowest octane gas. Not to mention the KA's were never meant to be a high performance engine. Nissan couldn't pass USA emissions with the CA18DET or the SR20DET so they used the engines out of 80's Nissan pickups.

If it really does, oops. I never did.

To keep with the topic, my girls Nissan Juke requires 93. It is fun to drive but its no rocket.

The KA24E only recommended it.

The Juke RS gets put on the list.

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Ford Fiesta ST
Mazda RX-8
Mazda MX-5/Miata
Saturn Sky/Pontiac Solstice
Honda Civic SI

The MX-5 and Fiesta ST are 93 recommended

Saturn Sky / Pontiac Solstice was last decade

The RX-8 and Civic Si get put on the list.

Originally Posted by Tcoat

High compression engines needs high octane fuel regardless of how fast or "slow" the car goes.
End of story.

The Skyactive is a version high compression engine that doesn't require high octane fuel.

Originally Posted by adamg

mini cooper S
VW GTI/GLI/GOLF R

Cooper S added to the list, but all the Golfs are 93 recommended.

Originally Posted by totopo

Then they don't have a transmission and drivetrain. it would probably end up a lot heavier and a lot more expensive

They could have used a modified FA20F tranmission, but it definitely would more expensive. I'm not sure if it would have been significantly heavier.



Here is what I have: (Car / 0-60 / 1/4 ET)

Juke RS 6.8 / 15.5

Mini S 6.1 / 14.7

FRS 6.2 / 14.8

RX-8 6.3 / 14.9

Civic Si 6.1 / 14.6