At an average mileage of 24 MPG, and an average difference of $0.20 per gallon between regular and premium fuel, you didn't save "$1000's of dollars."


If you didn't yet do the math, you save under $1,000 over five years. That's one decent dinner a year and not exactly a budget breaker.

 

The only modern engines that should really need premium are those with superchargers, which force-feed fuel into the cylinders. "You're driving along and just tramp the gas and the knock sensor cannot sense the knock fast enough in some cases," because the supercharger boosts pressure so fast, says Bob Furey, chemist and fuels specialist at General Motors.

I wont touch anything under 93. Also won't use those one nozzle pumps.

 

I wasn't arguing for using regular over premium. After the original thread, I have only been putting Premium into the S2000. That is beside the point.

The whole reason I posted the article was to say, "Why would a reputable news source such as USA Today post something that goes against what the majority of owners believe?"

I'm not advocating we all fill our S2000s with 87 octane. I just wanted to know what you guys thought of the article, especially since USA Today isn't exactly a tabloid.

Can't you guys just have a decent discussion without resorting to insulting each other?

Btw, yogi and a few others, thanks for understanding the point of this thread.

 

[QUOTE=Intrepid175,Sep 10 2004, 11:46 AM] Is somebody holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read it?

 

I'm sorry you feel that way. I thought it would be nice to have a nice discussion where facts are provided instead of insults.

I'll go ahead and close this thread, since I'm not getting the intellectual response I was hoping to get.