use regular gas?

[Lonewolf]

Originally Posted by steeloyangster

To speak on behalf of the sales person/persons who do and or have done this they are obligated to their dealerships to fill up with regular gas. They receive a gas card when the car needs gas from their Sales Manager. They are always instructed to get the lowest/cheapest gas at their designated "Fill Up" station where they are only supposed to put anywhere from 5-10 dollars at most. Things might change once the car is sold, you might be able to convince them for a full tank of Premium gas but that's because the car is sold.

Myself personally, I felt like a shitbag when I took a Corolla XRS out for a drive with a customer and when we stopped to fill up, I saw the gas cap read "PREMIUM ONLY" and I reached for the regular because I know I'd have issues with the gas station clerk and my boss if I didn't.

I remember another time when a customer purchased a use Jetta TDI and when the salesperson went to fill it up since it wasn't just regular gas the card got rejected. He had to call me since he was broke and I had to pay 15 bucks to fill up the car. When I returned with the receipt my sales manager was gritting his teeth and mumbling under his breath about reimbursing me 15 for it.

Talk about a cheap-ass, the guy can't afford to swing an extra $3 for a premium fill-up?!

...dealership managers like this shouldn't sell sports cars.

It's a wash once you consider the trade-off in performance and mileage anyway...why risk a sale because the car seems anemic and has no throttle response due to the 87 pisswater in the tank?

[RYU]

It's funny that so many guys here would consider flogging a brand new car. I guess if you have no intentions of owning it and putting it thru the break-in procedures I can understand...

I do not want to buy any cars you guys have test driven

[Draco-REX]

Originally Posted by Leonardo

13.2 gallon tank. I have never put more than 12 in. 12 X $0.20 (avg. increase for premium) = $2.40 per fill up.

100,000 divided 25 avg mpg = 4000 gallons divided by 12 gallon fill = 333.33 X $2.40 = $799.99 Total savings for using regular gas for 100,000 miles. my math could be off some / also the price of gas will flux.

Spread over 8 years.......

You're really going to cheap out on $2.40 per tank? Really?

[Xanatos]

Originally Posted by Leonardo

13.2 gallon tank. I have never put more than 12 in. 12 X $0.20 (avg. increase for premium) = $2.40 per fill up.

100,000 divided 25 avg mpg = 4000 gallons divided by 12 gallon fill = 333.33 X $2.40 = $799.99 Total savings for using regular gas for 100,000 miles. my math could be off some / also the price of gas will flux.

Simply multiply total gallons by savings per gallon = $800.

In most cases where I live regular and premium differ by up to $.30

Originally Posted by avp1

FA20 engine won't survive 100000 miles on regular gas. So add cost of 2-3 new engines in the equation.

That statement is false. It has not been tested. And your saying you need a new engine every 25K for regular?

[artizhay]

Your calculations assume you will get the same fuel efficiency when using a lower octane, which is false.

Redoing your calculations, let's assume:

• 93 octange MPG: 28.4
• 93 to 87 price difference per gallon: $0.30
• Efficiency loss from 93 to 87: 2 MPG

With a tank size of 13.2, the miles traveled on one tank at 28.4 MPG (if you went to completely empty) is 374.88.

Local pricing puts 93 octane at about $3.869. This is $0.136232 per mile.

With a $0.30 difference in fuel cost, it appears to be a $3.96 savings per fuel-up (again assuming a 13.2 fuel up) at first glance. This would be a $1056 savings per 100,000 miles.

However, we have not factored in efficiency loss. When you drop down to 26.4 MPG you can only travel 348.48 miles on a tank, down from our 374.88. And what do you know, this also costs roughly $0.135189 per mile.

So to travel our original 374.88 at 28.4 MPG, it costs $51.071.
To travel 374.88 at 26.4, it costs $50.680.

You save only $0.39 traveling the same distance by switching to 87 octane.

Converting this to 100,000 miles:
93 octane ($51.071 fill up for 13.2) costs $13,623.293.
87 octane ($47.111 fill up for 13.2) costs $13,518.997.

You save $104 in 100,000 miles when adjusting for fuel efficiency loss. This assumes 2 MPG loss. You can recalculate for 1 MPG, which equates to $236 savings and is still nowhere near the claimed $800 savings, or the previously calculated $1056 savings.

So if you were to travel 11,000 miles per year like I do, you would save roughly $11-25 per year...not exactly tempting enough to possibly hurt my car.

And depending your location, gas prices could be high enough that you actually lose money by buying 87 instead of 93.

[zoomzoomers]

Originally Posted by WingsofWar

OUCH! that sucks, i completely understand that its common practice to fill up using the lowest grade fuel. To no fault of the sales reps, its what they are told to do.

But its also unwise if the car in question was a performance car. Would you put 87 octane in a Rx7..or a 458 Italia, maybe, but to ignore the implications could be pretty disastrous. (i wonder if Nissan puts 87 octane in their GT-Rs)

Lets say the FR-S has been running on 87octane for awhile now, the ECU has detected knock, and has adjusted the timing appropriately. But at 12.5:1 compression and retarded timing, EGTs have increased, NoX levels have increased, Allowing o2 sensors to build up quicker, cats to foul quicker, EGRs to foul quicker. Even if the pistons are in no more danger, the combustion environment has changed to a level not suitable for normal wear are tear of engine components. With DI, carbon buildup is becomes worry some also.

I dunno, but if you ask me, i think Scion might need to rethink their policy on certain models they have on stock.

Scion or Toyota of America doesn't pay to fill up the cars. Each individual dealership does. America is a different animal than most of the world, in that we have a very strong dealership network. In most of the world, manufacturers have small outlet showrooms where customers purchase cars made to order. It's because we here, in America, have such a system we have such terrible/negative experiences when it comes to purchasing a car. There is practically no set standard to the purchasing experience, because the manufacturers don't really have a say in anything that happens in a showroom floor. The owners of the franchises set their own standards and pretty much do whatever they want.

I'm not surprised at all that dealerships are filling everything up with regular gas. It goes to prove show shaddy/corrupt the America dealership system is. Also, if using regular gas hurts the cars in the long run, you might say it even benefits the dealerships. As the manufacturers will be paying for any warranty work. That means the service dept of the dealerships will benefit as everyone knows they charge the maximums when doing any warranty work to the manufacturers. It's a shitty system and I hope that one day we will get out of it, but I'm not holding my breath.

[HunterGreene]

Huh, guess I am at one of the only dealerships that has a separate pump with 93 in it. I saw them fill my car up with it.

[Leonardo]

Your right Artizhay, I made a few assumptions that are incorrect.

I was trying to show how little you could save by feeding your car regular. Your calculations look better.

[artizhay]

Originally Posted by Leonardo

Your right Artizhay, I made a few assumptions that are incorrect.

I was trying to show how little you could save by feeding your car regular. Your calculations look better.

Ah, I thought you were trying to say it was a good idea to use 87 since you'll save $800. My bad. Still fun to calculate though lol.

[Xanatos]

I was just showing the other guy how to do a simple calculation without having to venture into per fuel up calculations and risk rounding errors.

But since you brought it up. Those calculations seem right. Based on a 2MPG loss. But how did you determine that?

2MPG loss equates to ~7% loss in fuel efficiency.

[artizhay]

Originally Posted by Xanatos

I was just showing the other guy how to do a simple calculation without having to venture into per fuel up calculations and risk rounding errors.

But since you brought it up. Those calculations seem right. Based on a 2MPG loss. But how did you determine that?

2MPG loss equates to ~7% loss in fuel efficiency.

Wasn't referring to your post. I thought the other post regarding $800 savings was advocating 87 rather than saying it was a bad idea. My bad lol.

Anyway, I didn't know how to assume the MPG loss so I found an article that says the performance loss is about equal to the percentage difference between the two fuel prices. I dunno how plausible that is or if the same ratio applied to fuel efficiency since the article used the blanket term "performance." $3.569 compared to $3.869 results in about a 2 MPG loss using the ratio though, but I still calculated 1 MPG as well since it seems more reasonable.

[Chad]

Yeah at least 91 without ethanol... This reminds me I should ensure my toyota dealer puts premium when my car arrives and my salesman goes to fill the tank for me.

[davesrave]

Originally Posted by artizhay

Wasn't referring to your post. I thought the other post regarding $800 savings was advocating 87 rather than saying it was a bad idea. My bad lol.

Anyway, I didn't know how to assume the MPG loss so I found an article that says the performance loss is about equal to the percentage difference between the two fuel prices. I dunno how plausible that is or if the same ratio applied to fuel efficiency since the article used the blanket term "performance." $3.569 compared to $3.869 results in about a 2 MPG loss using the ratio though, but I still calculated 1 MPG as well since it seems more reasonable.

I kinda agree. I owned a 2001 Mitsubishi Diamante that "required" premium fuel. I used premium, middle, and regular, pretty much the longer I owned the car, I slid down the octane level. What I found is that the cost per mile always came out roughly the same because the MPG decreased. So, for the BRZ I plan to always put in 93 Octane (Massachusetts) because it doesn't cost more in the long run, and I plan to keep it for a long time.

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by RYU

Again, would I do it? No. If it was half the price as 91 I might because i'm not at redline on my commute to work and will not benefit from the added octane as much.

Higher octane rated gas does NOT contain more octane. That's not how it works. Just like 5w-30 does not contain more oil than 0w-30.

I have a pretty good feeling that you already knew this, but the info is there for anyone else reading.