Volvo AWD V70-XC70 Forum

INDEX FOR 10/2025(CURRENT) INDEX FOR 5/2017 V70-XC70 INDEX

[<<]  [>>]


THREADED THREADED EXPANDED FLAT PRINT ALL
MESSAGES IN THIS THREAD




  REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 V70-XC70 all

posted by  someone claiming to be Brandon on  Mon Oct 23 22:18 CST 2000 [RELATED]

Hi All,

Rember a few months ago we had an argument on difference of gasoline, brands and octane. Well, I have the results for 92 and 89 octane. All tests done on a 96 964 in warm temperatures, mostly highway driving. Max speed on FWY was 100 MPH

Chevron 92 High grade MI Traveled

Tank 1 <2.10/gal> 18.235 gal = 38.29 450.9 24.7 MPG {11.775 MPD}

Tank 2 <2.05/Gal> 17.953 gal = 36.80 429.8 23.9 MPG {11.679 MPD}

Tank 3 <2.03/Gal> 19.105 gal = 38.78 469.6 24.6 MPG {12.109 MPD}

Tank 4 <1.97/Gal> 18.756 gal = 36.95 459.7 25.4 MPG {12.441 MPD}

MPD= miles for each dollar spent

MPG= miles for every gallon

Chevron 89 Middle grade

Tank 1 <1.83/Gal> 17.532 gal = 32.08 392.7 22.4 MPG {12.241 MPD}

Tank 2 <1.95/gal> 17.353 gal = 33.83 374.8 21.6 MPG {11.078 MPD}

Tank 3 <1.90/Gal> 18.642 gal = 35.41 425.0 22.8 MPG {12.002 MPD}

Tank 4 <1.88/Gal> 19.203 gal = 36.15 399.4 20.8 MPG {11.049 MPD}

I did not start on the first tank, as I felt it necessary to flush out the cars system with the new fuel. For the second stage I did the same to ensure even results. When I did change fuels the MPG went down considerably because the lower octane has a harder time at High RPM’s. The MPD (Miles per dollar)changes with the price of gas and with the car’s gas mileage. The average for 92 octane is 12.001 miles per dollar spent and for 98 octane the average is 11.5925 miles per dollar. The average MPG (miles to the gallon) for 92 octane is 24.65, and the average for 89 is 21.9. Wel, Dave all your BS knowledge on gasoline proves that you are ignorant when it comes to gasoline. As I continue with my experiment I will post back in about two months or so with the results of Chevrons 87 octane, then with Arco’s 92,89,87 octane. Please feel free to post Questions and comments. If you want me to further explain a part of the experiment in detail l I will.

Brandon







  •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

    Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 V70-XC70 all

    posted by  someone claiming to be MAT on  Tue Oct 24 12:42 CST 2000 [RELATED]

    Thank you for taking the time and effort to put together this study - please continue to follow through on your test sample brand to brand!

    Bravo!

    MAT







    •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

      Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 V70-XC70 all

      posted by  someone claiming to be dave on  Wed Oct 25 19:26 CST 2000 [RELATED]

      I second that.

      If I'd have known the 'test' involved 100mph speed(s), I think I might have

      'bet' on the higher octane fuel...

      When you're done I'd like to pit a non-top-octane fuel + DurAlt Fuel

      Conditioner (~ 1 oz / 16 gal) if Brandon's willing.

      I'm about to post a new msg thread about an article that talks about the

      benefits of adding polyisobutylene to gasoline -- it sounds very much like

      DurAlt.

      - Dave; '95 854T, 101K mi







      •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

        Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 V70-XC70 all

        posted by  someone claiming to be Brandon on  Wed Oct 25 19:36 CST 2000 [RELATED]

        Dave,

        When conducting this expariment I tried to keep from using (WOT) and kick down. For the most part I kept the RPM's Below 4,500. When accelerating to 100 I kept a small amount of pressure on the accelerator. If non-top-octane fuel + DurAlt Fuel Conditioner (~ 1 oz / 16 gal) wont hurt my engine then Im willing to do it. I noticed that since I started using Chevron gasoline my car sounds better, maybe its just physiological.

        Brandon







  •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

    Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 850 95

    posted by  someone claiming to be Mr. Yuk on  Tue Oct 24 07:03 CST 2000 [RELATED]

    I got 28+ mpg on my daily commute (30 miles highway 7 miles local/city), on 87 octane. So, MPD is over 19!

    But my top speed is no where close to 100 mph.







    •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

      Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 850 95

      posted by  someone claiming to be Brandon on  Tue Oct 24 08:22 CST 2000 [RELATED]

      Brandon,

      I travel 40 miles on Highway and 25 Stop n' go trafic. I noticed that at 100 MPH gas mileage is actually good because the engine is sacrificing more fuel but your covering more ground. In the S80 the MPG reader reads around 27 MPG for 100 mile an hour and 26 for 60 mph crusing.

      Brandon







      •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

        Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 850 95

        posted by  someone claiming to be Ken96 on  Wed Oct 25 00:00 CST 2000 [RELATED]

        Your trip computer is wrong. There is no way possible that you could get better gas mileage travelling at 100 mph than you would at 65 mph. The areodynamic drag on your car is a square function of speed. The wind drag on your car is four times greater at 100 mph than it is at 50 mph. For an extreme example: I had a van that would get 10 mpg at 90 + mph and get 18 mpg at 60 mph.







        •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

          Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 850 95

          posted by  someone claiming to be Brandon on  Wed Oct 25 19:28 CST 2000 [RELATED]

          Ken,

          For an extreme example: I had a van that would get 10 mpg

          > at 90 + mph and get 18 mpg at 60 mph.

          That is a Van = Non aerodynamic, V8, gas guzzler. The S80 has a better O/D plus max torque is at 1800 RPM's due to turbo thus higher speeds can be achieved at lower RMP's.

          Your using the old higway myth of the faster you go the worse gasmileage you get. That is not true espicially with a drag coeficent .28. The gas has to barely be pressed to keep the speed of 100 MPH.

          Your statement should be it takes more gas to hit 100 MPH not to keep this speed for an hour. I know my Trip computer can't be wrong because the loaner cars read aproxamently the same.

          Brandon







          •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

            Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 850 95

            posted by  someone claiming to be Ken on  Wed Oct 25 23:36 CST 2000 [RELATED]

            Your using the old higway myth of the faster you go the worse

            > gasmileage you get. That is not true espicially with a drag coeficent

            > .28. The gas has to barely be pressed to keep the speed of 100 MPH.

            The laws of physics still apply to your car even with a .28 drag coeficent. The Van was an extreme example but your car will still use more gas a 100 mph. Your trip computer is very unreliable. How does the trip computer even work, does it take instantaneouse gas useage measurements. I don't think so. The computer must use some algorithum using engine RMP and vehicle speed.







            •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

              Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 850 95

              posted by  someone claiming to be MAT on  Thu Oct 26 17:40 CST 2000 [RELATED]

              I'm curious to know WHY the trip comuper is not making instantaneous fuel mileage calculations...the ECU has rate and duration info on each fuel injector - regulated fuel pressure - injector orfice size - vehicle speed - wouldn't take too much of a whiz to make a correlation from the instantaneous measurements vs the fuel level variance and introduce a dynamic correction factor for the exact fuel consumption (to help bury the accumulated error).

              My mileage meter reacts (to what I percieve as) instanteneously if in the L/100km mode - to hills/wind/temperature etc.

              I do not know for sure - just can't imagine why not.

              MAT







              •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

                Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 850 95

                posted by  someone claiming to be Brandon on  Thu Oct 26 18:21 CST 2000 [RELATED]

                MAT,

                I am puzzled because the S80 T-6's I have had for loaners show the same at 90-100 MPH. The fuel economy is better at the higher speed. When I do a (WOT) move the fuel economy thing drops way down. But when a constant speed is hit the fuel computer levels off. I think that Ken is a little confused. When accelerating to 100 MPH the fuel consumption goes way up, but once at speed the fuel consumption levels off.

                Brandon







            •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

              Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 850 96

              posted by  someone claiming to be Manuel Fortin on  Thu Oct 26 10:21 CST 2000 [RELATED]

              > more gas a 100 mph. Your trip computer is very unreliable. How does

              > the trip computer even work, does it take instantaneouse gas useage

              > measurements. I don't think so. The computer must use some algorithum

              > using engine RMP and vehicle speed.

              At least in my 96 855 it doesn't. I don't know how fuel consuption is measured, but going the same speed with a strong tail or a strong head wind produces significantly different readings (someting like 8 vs 13 L/100 km at 130 km/h). Now, I don't argue that the trip computer is a very crude instrument, but it must measure something. Likewise, with a manual trany, if I try going 120 km/h in 3nd vs 5th I see a very significant difference.

              On the other hand, I agree that, at least for my car, fuel consumption at constant speed shows a very small increase with increasing speed.







        •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

          Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 850 95

          posted by  someone claiming to be Mr. Yuk on  Wed Oct 25 03:35 CST 2000 [RELATED]

          I agree with you!

          Maybe he's going DOWNHILL when he was travelling at 100 mph and UPHILL when at 65 mph.

          On a long trip--such as 2,000 miles trip where I averaged over 70 mph, I got only 27 mpg. That is 1 mpg worse than my daily commute where the car is around 50 to 65 mph on the highway and with 0 to 40 mph in city driving. But of course, on the long trip the car is pretty much fully loaded...

          Anyway, I'll happily keep using the 87 octane gas.







          •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

            Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 850 95

            posted by  someone claiming to be Brandon on  Wed Oct 25 19:55 CST 2000 [RELATED]

            Mr. Yuk,

            I don't know what type of mileage I was getting in the 964 at 100 mph. In the S80 however I recieved a higher MPG because of the low RMP's at 100 mph also the engine has to stress less due to the max torque being at 1800 RPM's. if you look at the other post there is more detail.

            I don't car about gas prices 1.93 for 92 octane Chevron gas is fine for the S80 and will works well with my 960 After the expariment I will definetly stay with the 92.

            Brandon







  •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

    Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 V70-XC70 all

    posted by  someone claiming to be Long on  Tue Oct 24 05:49 CST 2000 [RELATED]

    Well, first of all you tested it on a 964 which is probably more appropriate in RWD, and the milage difference between the grades is probably less significant in a FWD simply because the driveline layouts (power loss) are different. The 964 is programmed to run optimal at higher octane, that's why the owner's manual said that 91 octane recommended, 87 octane minimum. That means that the car will run on 87 octane, but it's knock sensors will retard the timing, making it sluggish, and you compensate by giving it more gas....so your mpg goes down. No big surprise there. Mercedes takes this a step further, in my 2000 E320, premium unleaded only, it says so on the gas door, but for a 3.2 V6 with 220 hp and 28 mpg...its worth it.







  •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

    Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 V70-XC70 all

    posted by  someone claiming to be Doug on  Tue Oct 24 03:54 CST 2000 [RELATED]

    Interesting observations. Of course there is no control, no blinding, etc, but the data suggests a trend.

    What is the Volvo recommended octane for your car?







    •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

      Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 V70-XC70 all

      posted by  someone claiming to be Brandon on  Tue Oct 24 07:46 CST 2000 [RELATED]

      Doug,

      Volvo recomends that I use any octane above 91.

      Brandon







  •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE Replies to this message will be emailed.    PRINT   SAVE 

    Re: Results for first 8 Tanks of GAS 92&89 V70-XC70 all

    posted by  someone claiming to be Bill Bradstreet on  Tue Oct 24 02:03 CST 2000 [RELATED]

    Excellent analysis. I was wondering the same thing myself... now I don't need to do it! ;-)

    Oh, looks like you have one typo. I think you meant Octane 89 instead of Octane 98 in one piece of the analysis? "for 98 octane the average is 11.5925 miles per"






<< < > >>



©Jarrod Stenberg 1997-2022. All material except where indicated.


All participants agree to these terms.

Brickboard.com is not affiliated with nor sponsored by AB Volvo, Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. or Ford Motor Company. Brickboard.com is a Volvo owner/enthusiast site, similar to a club, and does not intend to pose as an official Volvo site. The official Volvo site can be found here.