Notices

Fuel Economy Study (89 vs 91)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 03-29-2014, 05:22 PM
  #21  
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
 
bgpa4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB
Posts: 7
bgpa4 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Fuel Economy Study (89 vs 91)

Originally Posted by boeing777yul
I have researched and read many articles regarding octane and I'm still puzzle by the fact that people think octane increase mileage. If it is not recommend by your manufacturer then it becomes none relevant. Also people need to take in account the price increased between both fuel. The ratio of price at the pump and the supposed milage increased, I did say supposed milage increased.

I also have done many comparison of my milage. My trip odometer has never been above 7.8l/100km since I got my car. I do 80% highway on the 401, so sometime there is a lot of stop and go.
By the way the milage I get is with 89 octane. My A4 2009, manual has been filed with 89 since I got it. The manual recommend 91 as a standard but there is also a not that 89 octane is the minimum octane rating. I have 63000km and I have no problem. The car has adjusted its timing due to the lower octane.
So in my opinion if you wish to save some money and you are driving in an economical way 89 octane should save you some money.
until I ear otherwise, my trip meter has been my best judge so far. 7.2L/100 on Highway to 7.8L/100 average with 63,000km logged on.
Ah, yes. Let me just state that i'm not upset with the "cost" of my perceived high consumption. If the point of this would be cost reduction then I would be in a Toyota or something. No, what upsets me, is that I keep reading posts like yours where guys are running 7~8L/100km driving "normally" with a mix of hwy/city. That makes me think there is something wrong with my car only getting 12-13L/100km. I'm trying to see if anyone has ever come across a setting, part or combination of which would have caused their high consumption. Seeing as I have no cel or codes, i'm doing research on the possible causes.

With regards to the fuel octane; if manufacturers bother labeling requirements on their cars, I think fuel resellers should have a number posted at the point of sale, no? What the hell is "clean" "super clean" and "supreme clean"?! I run the latter which I assume is 91 and the car pulls timing at anything over closed throttle! So, is it 91 or not? I will try regular next time to see what kind of logs I get.

You see, I just have an unfortunate OCD thing that won't let me live until an engine runs how it should...

Last edited by bgpa4; 03-29-2014 at 05:28 PM.
bgpa4 is offline  
Old 03-29-2014, 05:26 PM
  #22  
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
 
bgpa4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Moncton, NB
Posts: 7
bgpa4 is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Fuel Economy Study (89 vs 91)

Originally Posted by veriwide
Don't forget that the MM reading is probably low.. you will need to do an actual check to see what it really is. Mine reads about 10% low so that even though it shows 9.1 average it really us more like 10.1 which I still consider very good for a 3700 lb performance car!

The other person having a low gas millage must have something out of whack somewhere. I have no idea how to figure that one out.

As for octane.. well, the engineers who designed the car would prefer you use a higher octane fuel so that engine knock is not a problem. You may also have cleaner plugs and all due to better and more complete combustion. I know, the engine will adjust for it but in my opinion the extra $5.00 pr fill up for peace of mind is worth it.. besides, who buys an Audi Turbo for fuel economy?

Drive on!
Absolutely! I just want to know that when I floor it, it's getting full boost, full timing and not messing around holding power back because of bad fuel, iffy sensors, and leaking connections causing it to run ghetto rich.
bgpa4 is offline  
Old 03-30-2014, 11:25 AM
  #23  
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
 
veriwide's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Montreal
Posts: 9
veriwide is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Fuel Economy Study (89 vs 91)

Originally Posted by bgpa4
Absolutely! I just want to know that when I floor it, it's getting full boost, full timing and not messing around holding power back because of bad fuel, iffy sensors, and leaking connections causing it to run ghetto rich.
Have you thought about a ECU flash? The reason I ask is that when I bought my 2 yr old Avant I had a issue with engine surge under light throttle application at low RPM's on the hi way. Unrelatedly when I had a stage 1 oil consumption test done - cured the problem totally BTW - part of the test was a ECU re flash. That fixed my surge problem totally as well.... so, who knows?
veriwide is offline  
Old 05-14-2014, 09:56 PM
  #24  
Audi Forum - Posts like an A1
 
boeing777yul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Montreal
Posts: 39
boeing777yul is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Fuel Economy Study (89 vs 91)

Originally Posted by veriwide
Don't forget that the MM reading is probably low.. you will need to do an actual check to see what it really is. Mine reads about 10% low so that even though it shows 9.1 average it really us more like 10.1 which I still consider very good for a 3700 lb performance car!

The other person having a low gas millage must have something out of whack somewhere. I have no idea how to figure that one out.

As for octane.. well, the engineers who designed the car would prefer you use a higher octane fuel so that engine knock is not a problem. You may also have cleaner plugs and all due to better and more complete combustion. I know, the engine will adjust for it but in my opinion the extra $5.00 pr fill up for peace of mind is worth it.. besides, who buys an Audi Turbo for fuel economy?

Drive on!
I have taken your advise and ran a test on my last trip to Montreal and my MMI and the fuel pump filled up versus millage are so closed that I will reiterate my last statement. I am still at 7.6-7.8 fuel consumption. I have been very diligent when fuelling and highway rating on 401 at 120 km gives me 7.6 average the same as MMI. One thing I will give you, I did not tried with 91 octane or higher. The performance for highway driving does not require high octane performance so I did stick to 89 octane.
I can't explain why some people have much higher rating, does it have to do with the way they drive, accelerate, etc...
And Yes saving money should be a goal to everyone if the performance is not a requirement I don't see why you should make the petroleum company richer. Also all fuel are much cleaner today than they used to be, they also all contains clean up agent.

After reading some post, I have to say that I am really happy about this car and even though I was contemplating to changed to a newer model I think I will stick to it a bit longer because it is giving a very good millage.
boeing777yul is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mark
Audi Mailing List
39
03-25-2006 04:22 PM
Noisy bacon
Audi Mailing List
36
11-12-2005 05:48 PM
quattroA4cars
Audi Mailing List
48
04-06-2005 01:10 AM
Robert
Audi Mailing List
14
08-07-2004 05:52 AM
quattroA4cars
Audi Mailing List
0
03-31-2004 09:06 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: Fuel Economy Study (89 vs 91)



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:45 AM.