Agreed. Any car with a knock sensor will likely provide better performance and/or fuel economy when higher octane fuel is used and the engine is at normal operating temperature. The OP pointed out that in his location the price difference among the grades was increasing and was asking what octane is required so as not to damage his engine. Regular fuel meets that requirement "generally speaking". He also was concerned about the 91 RON octane requirement listed in his owners manual (which neglected to inform him that 91 RON is equal to 87 AKI regular grade fuel sold in North America).
In North America, the Top Tier initiative
formatting link
and government regulations have nearly eliminated the difference in cleaning agents among the various grades of fuel for a particular brand.
Or looking at in from another direction: The gasoline you use, from any supplier, of any grade, is likely identical. The only difference is the additive package and the octane level. For example, in the Northeastern USA there are two supply lines that bring all gasoline to the region and all vendors share them. The additive package they use is the only differentiator.
The Top Tier site makes no documented claims that any fuel supplier is actually using different levels of additives between grades, but only that some fuels have lower levels of "detergent" agents. I would expect that the levels are probably lower, or higher across the line for a given manufacturer. In fact, the US Govt sued (and won) the major suppliers a couple years ago to stop them from inferring that higher octane gas was in any way better for your engine - aside from the advantages of higher octane.
It's an interesting list:
formatting link
Ifthis was published more, we might see more suppliers on it.
Oh, I dunno... when 999/1000 scientists not employed by polluters (or their protectors) who have a financial stake in delaying and/or preventing action agree, I think it's a safe bet they know what they are talking about.
I'll skip the modern political issue - but the dated one is that the
*scientists* of the day were actually somewhat comfortable with the notion that the Earth was round. It was the religious leaders that adamantly refused to accept good science in place of religion... and mostly because it was in their own self interest to perpetuate a view not supported by science.
Oh... wait... that *is* the modern political problem. :-)
FWIW - Columbus might have been a follower, not a leader, but that's a whole 'nuther discussion.
Octane is a measure of stable combustion. Ethanol has an octane raing of 105, so when added to gasoline helps to increase the octane rating of the mixed fuel.
"- Bob -" tried to fester up some reasoning with this gem:
of course when 999/1000 of those same 'scientists' have a financial stake in the business of proving/regulating/continued research funding.... oh, never mind, not the right forum for that. Sorry....... please accept my apology.......
Yes, there is a difference in the different octane fuels - IMHO. and no, I am not employed by any oil company, at least not that I know of, but since they do own the entire word perhaps I do!
Don't let Leif Erikson, evidence of explorations in New Foundland and possibly ME, USA, the Norse tower at RI shown on the first maps of North America drawn in the early 1500's, voyages accounted for by Venetian bothers Zeno in the late 1300's, or the fact that crops that only grow in North America were carved in stone in Rosslyn Chapel in the 1440's get in your way of that "Columbus had no knowledge" thing.
ACtually, finding a reason for global warming will put most of those researchers out of a job. If their goal was continued funding, they'd go with the GWB theory of "we don't know why, we'd better keep looking at the problem".
There is no difference in gasoline of a higher octane for a particular supplier except the higher octane. The US Gov't sued and prevailed against the oil companies to stop them from making these claims just a couple years ago.
You realize several of those are pretty shaky arguments:
The Zeno map was "found" by a descendent of the Zeno brothers, and is widely regarded as a fraud. See
formatting link
The "Norse tower" at Newport RI has been archaeologically investigated. The mortar was C14 dated to roughly 1680, and only 17th-century artifacts were found in the soil when they excavated around it. I don't know what Verrazano's and Mercator's maps were talking about, but according to the evidence it couldn't have been the tower.
formatting link
The Rosslyn Chapel carvings are very stylized, and have been interpreted by various specialists as wheat, strawberries or lilies. (I grew up on a farm in Iowa and it doesn't look like corn to me. :-)
First, wikipedia is not an authoritative or accurate source for anything. It's an interesting starting point to stimulate real research.
If you trace the arguments "disproving" the Zenos, you find that, as with most matters of historical discussion, the arguments of the later researchers are all based on the work of earlier researchers. With the Zenos, the key definable issue ends up back at a dating question concerning the original document's production date. An examination of that argument shows that the original researchers work is flawed and the earlier date is correct. I confess to not recalling the specifics of the dating issue. I can dig out my notes some time.
I do agree that there is no conclusive evidence that the voyage they speak of can be shown to be to the "new world" and it may in fact be voyages to Greenland or Iceland . However, it does demonstrate Venetian knowledge (Southern Europe) of Norse journeys. Most historians agree the vikings at least reached New Foundland. Southern European knowledge of that makes it highly unlikely that Columbus would not have known of these voyages.
Well, the argument is that the mortar that was tested was mortar used in repairs in the late 1600's - the building is acknowledged of having been used during those times. Regardless, if that is not the Norse tower, we still have the verified issue of the maps to deal with. Most historians have chosen to ignore that issue since it does not fit with their accepted theories of who was in the new world and when.
Again, wikipedia. There are several carvings (three plants as I recall) commonly concluded as coming from North America and nowhere else. There's more to it that you will see at wiki.
The bottom line is that most people continually discount any suggestion that Christopher Columbus first "discovered America" - even though few even know that he never even saw North America. They recount this religiously since they've been told over and over that it is so. They discount facts that don't fit and choose to ignore them, simply because they don't fit.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.