Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Sponsored Editorial Content
None
Joined
·
159 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

Luxury is the antithesis of austerity. If you want the finest, fastest or most feature laden you’re going to have to fork over cash and usually lots of it.

This is especially true in the automotive world where high-end vehicles often cost an arm, a leg and a sizable chunk of your torso. But it’s not just the purchase price of a premium car or truck that will savage your budget, maintenance and fuel costs can add up faster than the national debt.

In fact, nearly every luxury automobile on the market today recommends premium-grade gasoline, but not all. Mercifully some will run just fine on the dregs of a filling station’s fuel cistern.

Broadly speaking there are three categories of octane requirement. In some vehicles it’s a-OK to run good ol’ regular-grade petrol. However, in others manufacturers recommend premium for optimum performance. And finally in the third group high-octane gasoline is required for proper operation.

As always it’s best to follow the manufacturer’s advice. Remember, octane is a measure of gasoline’s resistance to igniting while squeezed. Engines with higher compression ratios are specifically designed to run on fuel with greater octane. Using less than the spec can cause internal damage, though modern, computer-controlled powerplants are quite adaptable to varying fuel quality.

Accordingly, here’s a list of luxury vehicles that will happily run on regular-grade gasoline. On the following page is a list of other models that are recommended premium and others that require it ...
For all of this story, Luxury Cars That Don’t Need Premium please head on over to AutoGuide.com.
 

·
Registered
1992 Fleetwood S&S Hearse, 1993 Buick Roadmaster
Joined
·
567 Posts
Of the cars pictured in this article, I personally found the Cadillac sedans and the Hyundai cars the most attractive (though I know that this isn't the focus of the article at all.) I'm glad some of the newer Caddy's will run lower octane fuels - and I wish my 92 Fleetwood could too! I've tried running mid-grade through her, and she seems to burn it much more quickly.

Off topic, but I gotta ask, does anyone else think the Lexus cars and SUV's listed in this article are ugly as sin?
 

·
Registered
chevy 350 powered 86 FWB, 00 safari h.t. 66 toro, 83 lesabre
Joined
·
6,397 Posts
I haven't worried about being able to afford premium since I was a broke student with no job (who had a car I couldn't afford).
 

·
Registered
Cadillac CT6 (2019)
Joined
·
2,280 Posts
It's nice not to have to (put in mid or premium); not every Caddy owner buys new, and since some gasolines are 20 (and more cents) for each octane upgrade, it can add up to substantial saving (for us frugal owners). Now if the manual says premium, I shall put in premium (but I'm not wasting money thinking a rated 89 octane engine is going to run better with higher octane).
 

·
Registered
02 Escalade | 02 Corvette "Goldilocks" | 03 Blazer 4x4 | 92 Caprice Wagon LS1/T56
Joined
·
19,718 Posts
20 cents per gallon, times say, a 25 gallon tank (larger than probably 90% of the cars here) is $5 per tank.

It's reeeeeeeeally not enough money to lose sleep over.
 

·
Registered
Past: 95 Fleetwood, 91 Brougham. Now: 92 Lexus SC300
Joined
·
5,418 Posts
20 cents per gallon, times say, a 25 gallon tank (larger than probably 90% of the cars here) is $5 per tank.

It's reeeeeeeeally not enough money to lose sleep over.
Try more like 35 to 50 cents a gallon more, just depending. The Lexus guzzles the 93 octane at alarming rates for a 3.0 liter straight six, 17-19 in mixed driving, 22 on the highway. Car really needs a tall 6th gear. But you are right about the cost thing not being a big deal. Considering I drive the Lexus 10,000 miles a year, getting 18mpg, premium gas costs me about $200-250 more a year vs if it took regular.
 

·
Registered
1999 DeVille, 2002 DeVille
Joined
·
4,175 Posts
Around here, premium gas runs anywhere from 25 to 50 cents more per gallon. Depends on the station. Some go crazy. A few stations around here have ethanol-free 93 octane stuff and it's usually 10 cents above premium.
 

·
Registered
Cadillac CT6 (2019)
Joined
·
2,280 Posts
20 cents per gallon, times say, a 25 gallon tank (larger than probably 90% of the cars here) is $5 per tank.

It's reeeeeeeeally not enough money to lose sleep over.
Not losing any sleep (if I had to pay, but hell the oil companies raise the price more often to change my gas bill more than five dollars, per tank), however, if I find a five dollar bill on the ground, I'm going to pick it up.
 

·
Registered
'14 ATS Premium with 3 pedals | Past: '13 ATS Performance & '99 Seville STS
Joined
·
5,847 Posts
"Luxury cars that do not need premium!"
This is an incorrect argument and there is a fault in its logic. Virtually, any engine can be tuned, or better to say detuned, to run on cheap gas. Even modern turbo engines can run on cheap gas too. My ATS owner's manual says I can use 87 gas, even though premium is "recommended", not required! However, using cheap gas results in lower, reduced performance and HP. The manufacturer might permanently detune the engine to run on default cheap gas, or engine mangement can be adaptive, to detect knock and then use the lower performance version of the tune. There is nothing intrinsically valuable in being able to run cheap gas, other than saving money. But the cost is performance reduction. I would say this entire thing of "no need for premium gas" and "it runs on cheap gas" in luxury car segment is nothing more than a marketing strategy, and it is entirely pointless.

So if saving money is the main goal of the customer, then the customer wouldn't be buying a luxury car in the first place. There is nothing economical in buying a luxury car. It is expensive to buy, it is expensive to insure, it is expensive to repair, it is expensive to maintain, and in many states it is more expensive to register. Even if some buys a used luxury car, maintenance will be still crazy expensive. For example, you can buy a 2001 S class AMG for less than $10k, but maintenance and repair costs will be still very expensive.
 

·
Registered
1992 DeVille
Joined
·
2,339 Posts
Stingroo said:
20 cents per gallon, times say, a 25 gallon tank (larger than probably 90% of the cars here) is $5 per tank. It's reeeeeeeeally not enough money to lose sleep over.
This.

----------

Not trying to instigate but...


ben.gators said:
"using cheap gas results in lower, reduced performance and HP.
This is just flat out not true.

ben.gators said:
"Even if some buys a used luxury car, maintenance will be still crazy expensive. For example, you can buy a 2001 S class AMG for less than $10k, but maintenance and repair costs will be still very expensive.
Apples and oranges.

Also, older cads are way cheaper to fix than the similar year high end sauerkraut burners. Just price some parts on rock auto. Bmw vs cad suspension prices will make you flip.
 

·
Registered
'14 ATS Premium with 3 pedals | Past: '13 ATS Performance & '99 Seville STS
Joined
·
5,847 Posts
This.

----------

Not trying to instigate but...




This is just flat out not true.



Apples and oranges.

Also, older cads are way cheaper to fix than the similar year high end sauerkraut burners. Just price some parts on rock auto. Bmw vs cad suspension prices will make you flip.
What is not flat out not true? You selected one part of my post and commenting on it. My comment is "My ATS owner's manual says I can use 87 gas, even though premium is "recommended", not required! However, using cheap gas results in lower, reduced performance and HP."
For your information, modern engines, including my 2.0 liter turbo in my ATS, are equipped with knock sensor. When you use cheap gas, and you start to have knock in your engine, the knock sensor detects it and ECU pulls the timing, and the result is reduced performance and HP. The difference is so obvious that you even don't need to dyno the car. You can feel it even by driving around the block.

This is an interesting read about new ecoboost Mustang, and how much it loses HP when you use cheap gas:
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/05/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-loses-big-power-on-87-octane/
http://www.carscoops.com/2015/01/2015-mustang-ecoboost-will-lose-35hp.html

My ATS, and the Mustang have turbo engine. However, this is even the case for modern naturally aspirated engines as well. Moderns engines have adaptive engine management systems that monitor the fuel and fuel combustion and when they detect cheap gas and knock, they retard the ignition timing to prevent engine damage which lessens performance.
 

·
Registered
1992 DeVille
Joined
·
2,339 Posts
ben.gators said:
What is not flat out not true? You selected one part of my post and commenting on it. My comment is "My ATS owner's manual says I can use 87 gas, even though premium is "recommended", not required! However, using cheap gas results in lower, reduced performance and HP." For your information, modern engines, including my 2.0 liter turbo in my ATS, are equipped with knock sensor. When you use cheap gas, and you start to have knock in your engine, the knock sensor detects it and ECU pulls the timing, and the result is reduced performance and HP. The difference is so obvious that you even don't need to dyno the car. You can feel it even by driving around the block. This is an interesting read about new ecoboost Mustang, and how much it loses HP when you use cheap gas: http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/05/2015-ford-mustang-ecoboost-loses-big-power-on-87-octane/ http://www.carscoops.com/2015/01/2015-mustang-ecoboost-will-lose-35hp.html My ATS, and the Mustang have turbo engine. However, this is even the case for modern naturally aspirated engines as well. Moderns engines have adaptive engine management systems that monitor the fuel and fuel combustion and when they detect cheap gas and knock, they retard the ignition timing to prevent engine damage which lessens performance.
I stand corrected. Didn't know that kind of timing retardation occurs for you turbo guys. That's a good safety feature for the engine for sure.
 

·
Registered
02 Escalade | 02 Corvette "Goldilocks" | 03 Blazer 4x4 | 92 Caprice Wagon LS1/T56
Joined
·
19,718 Posts
It's not just turbo cars.

Basically anything from like, this century, has that feature.
 

·
Super Moderator
2013 ATS Performance 2.0T M6, 2016 Mustang GT Performance Pack, M6
Joined
·
6,631 Posts
I stand corrected. Didn't know that kind of timing retardation occurs for you turbo guys. That's a good safety feature for the engine for sure.
As Sting says, it's not a turbo thing. Its a a matter of tuning an engine to allow lower octane use, primarily for marketing reasons. It applies to as many NA engines as FI. Example: In 2011 Ford came out with all new engines for Mustangs. The V6 engine however made the same power as the previous year's V8, so Ford advertised the low octane HP numbers to avoid backlash and were then also able to also play up the fuel cost savings. Many if not most modern engines can be tuned to run on regular or premium with different HP produced. Then marketing decides which is more important (HP numbers or fuel costs) and then chooses the HP ratings to publish. All kind of games. Ford introduced turbo 4s in Mustangs this year and immediately downrated the HP in the V6 to ensure the turbo max HP rating was higher. Even with the previous rated power, the 4 would run circles around the v6 because of the huge differences in torque at low and mid range but consumers fixate on max power ratings and wouldn't understand why a lower HP rated engine was faster in the real world than a higher rated one. I have no idea if Ford actually did reduce power in the V6.
 

·
Registered
1992 DeVille
Joined
·
2,339 Posts
Hoosier Daddy said:
As Sting says, it's not a turbo thing. Its a a matter of tuning an engine to allow lower octane use, primarily for marketing reasons. It applies to as many NA engines as FI. Example: In 2011 Ford came out with all new engines for Mustangs. The V6 engine however made the same power as the previous year's V8, so Ford advertised the low octane HP numbers to avoid backlash and were then also able to also play up the fuel cost savings. Many if not most modern engines can be tuned to run on regular or premium with different HP produced. Then marketing decides which is more important (HP numbers or fuel costs) and then chooses the HP ratings to publish. All kind of games. Ford introduced turbo 4s in Mustangs this year and immediately downrated the HP in the V6 to ensure the turbo max HP rating was higher. Even with the previous rated power, the 4 would run circles around the v6 because of the huge differences in torque at low and mid range but consumers fixate on max power ratings and wouldn't understand why a lower HP rated engine was faster in the real world than a higher rated one. I have no idea if Ford actually did reduce power in the V6.


Wow...very interesting. I guess everyone wants fuel economy (with power) and we are there. For me the sound is important so it's too bad they don't make the v8 stomp on the 6 and 4 (without having getting a Hennessy, roush or shelby of course)
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Top