The lit review stated that in the findings of that particular Shell article the Octane Requirement for the engines was not stated.

 

Gee is that more quote mining and creative guest license analysis?

"Most" is the operative word we are sticking with. With the qualifier that local conditions.. price for instance.. being what may make those negligible for some.

This is entirely consistent with what I have been telling you the whole time, so I'm not sure why you would trim that down and attempt to make it a gotcha moment.

But way to consistently be a petulant child instead of furthering your understanding of the topic.

 

Nice catch.

I require a moment of petulance.

DSM have you got a single published article to back up the smoke you're blowing? When you've got something besides anecdote and doubletalk I'll listen.

Even in this study the results were not astounding. Merely significant.

When put in context it's not even significant.

 

As complex as this topic is and as much time in man hours that has been used in argument and searching for links that support one side or the other, there is still only one way to know if you will benefit from using higher octane or not... I know that I got better performance and fuel mileage when using higher octane fuel in my Fit when it was perfectly stock... I doubt that everyone drives the same way that I do or would have the same results I do but there are some people that would....

 

*ding* *ding* *ding* *ding*

We have a winner!!!

Seriously folks... I know plenty of you swear by it... plenty swear against it. And still even a few that just don't know/care.

I PERCEIVE a benefit for myself (in multiple vehicles), good enough for me.

 

Except for the fact that, as pointed out earlier, the findings in that shell article did not have any octane "ratings" included for the engines in the study. But apparently you didn't read it as usual and instead saw something you liked and ran with it.

Your slipping again steve, is premium merely about the money and there is no difference again all of the sudden? 4% isn't significant now? Boy you go through some mental gymnastics all the while never having bothered to get any hands on experience with the stuff.

Also, you don't seem to know what an anecdote is if you think what I have shared with you are anecdotes. Being able to give you actual data on multiple platforms, including the Fit its self, is not anecdotal.

I'm not posting for your benefit as I mentioned earlier, so I could care less if you are listening.

But I will continue to eviscerate your nonsense

 

That about sums it up folks!

 

Then put me back on your ignore list. Unless you really do care.

 

4% was the conclusion of Shell Europe in a press release. In another Shell Asia press release this was negated as these results were obtained by using lower octane than required by the cars' manufacturers. In addition Shell did not specify the type of engines/aspiration the used to obtain the results. These tidbits were uncovered by others (thanks others!).

Pay attention. I'm not the only one posting here; you seem a bit obsessed. Believe me, it takes one to know one.

If you could come up with one small sound-bite echoing your feeling that economy cars will perform better on higher octane than required by the manufacturers it'd be nice. Unexpected and nice.

In the mean time please continue to amuse us with ad hominem attacks (your term) that have little substance.

 

 

Ha I feel that way too sometimes. But the GD is a great drivers car, even if it is FWD and I've had the opportunity to meet and work with a lot of really cool folks.

Take the good with the bad I suppose, and for those with weak stomachs.. these probably arent the threads for you.

It very much turns into one of these: