OCTANE

[Gundo]

Just curious...

Could you all post what level octane you run your XC on and what your city/highway mileage is?

Thanks,
Brendan

http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Not my car, but one of my favorite pictures:
http://my.autoworks.lycosasia.com/art22/Dsc00050.jpg

[Aemsn]

Hi!

I'm using 98 octane (mostly shell optimax, should be the same stuff than other brands), I need 11,5 l per 100km.

So lets calculate, 11,5l are 3,03 gallons, so with 1 gallon I can drive 33 km. 33km are 20,5 miles, so this is 20,5 mpg.

Pretty fast driving, good mixture between city, highway, autobahn and some small offroad excursions :-))

[mastiha]

I use Optimax as well.

[Len]

I use premium which is 93 of octane here in USA and have 21.8 mpg (city/highway). I've noticed that mileage on my XC was improved after about five months and 5000 mi.

[coastal]

94. As good as we get here in Canada. http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

I've heard legend of a couple '76 stations in Washington where you can load up with 100.. any truth to this? http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

In terms of consumption, I'm in around the 11-11.2 l/100k, which is between 24 and 25 MPG.

According to this handy calculator form Imperial Oil (http://www.imperialoil.com/products/automotive/service_stations/mn_fuel_convert_2.html), Armin, you're getting 24.563478260869566.  http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[XC TOM]

I use ARCO gas and there best grade is 92 USA octane rating. Over all average so far is 20.1. That is mostly city driving.

There are also 76(brand name)stations here in California that sell what they call racing/high performance gas at 100 octane, but price is in the $5 per gallon range. I think 76 used to be a NASCAR sponsor and you would see adds for there gas on TV saying 76 racing fuel was the gas used by NASCAR. Only a few of the larger 76 stations carry it though.  I've never try it.  Tom

[Aemsn]

Hi!

Back to my calculation. I checked this conversion site - and you are right. But what is the fault with my calculation?

Checking some other sites the conversion from mpg to l/100km is done by dividing 235.215 with the mpg value.

So using my 20,5 mpg with this = 235.215/20.5 = 11.47 liters / 100km - what I expected.

And I think driving in germany costs more fuel than driving in the states - my XC drinks a lot of on the german autobahn.

So who is right?  http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[tzunuum]

Hi All

I use 95 and everything is fine.

During the past 1500 km my average mileage was 28 mgp (10.1-9.9 l/100km) http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif. But it depends very much on how fast you go on the highway as pointed out by Armin. Above 180 km/h mileage is reduced considerably .

The worst was 17.22 mpg (16.4l/100km) driving a long way with a horse trailer at 110 km/h.

Best Thomas

[Gundo]

AEMSN,

What is your top speed on the Autobahn?  What tires are you running?  

Not sure about the mileage calculations, but yours sounds correct.

Just curious, Brendan

[Aemsn]

Hi!

Top speed here is 210km/h, with this you can see a little bit more than 220km/h in your dashboard.

Calculating this correclty it is about 132mph.

[DanishXCViking]

To Aemsn.

You asked what is wrong with your calculation?
Well One gallon does not equal 3.03 L, but 3,79

[DanishXCViking]

Sorry Aemsn.

What I meant to say was, 11,5 L = 2,86 Gallons not 3,03

[Gundo]

AEMSN - how does 132mph feel?  

Car still stable?  

Confident handling, or a bit shaky?

What tires are you running?

Do you think it would go faster?

[Aemsn]

Hi!

Well - feeling is absolutly OK. The problem is that the car could be faster with the 200hp, but volvo reduced the speed electronically to 210km/h. Should be an issue with the AWD system (dealer information don't know if this is true).

Car runs smooth - and really not loud in the inner. I'm using the standard scorpions, and I have pirellis for the winter.

Handling is OK with the speed. Not as good as my Audi before, but the clearance if this car was 10cm less :-)). When you are beginning to heavily use the steering at this speed, the DSTC system would immidiatly help you because it should not be so easy to hold the car (at least I hope so :-)) )

BTW, Mr Daenish .. I thought 1 US gallon is 3,79 liter, so 11,5 liters should be 3,03 gallons. ??  http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif  http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif  http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[Len]

Hi guys,

This site seems pretty accurate for conversions
Shows 11.5 Liters equals 3.03798 Gallons (US)  

http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/conversions.html

[Ron3KL]

I used to use Shell Optimax (98 octane). However I have switched to BP Ultimate which is also 98 octane because it has only 1/10th the amount of sulphur and 1/5th the amount of benzene (a known carcinogen) of its competitors.

The performance increase over regular unleaded (91 octane) is quite noticeable, usually by the second tank fill.

The cost is an extra AU 7c/litre over regular unleaded. However, around town I am getting 12.5 L/100km compared with 13.5 L/100km for the regular unleaded. This makes it just cheaper to use the BP Ultimate i.e each fill costs more but lasts longer.

BP Ultimate FAQ page (http://www.bp.com.au/products/fuels/bp_ultimate/faq.asp)

[downunder]

Hi Folks

Thought I'd add my bit to the octane posts.  We doing mostly highway work and get 9.9-10.1 litres per 100km running standard unleaded fuel (93 octane I think).  Have tried Shell and BP high octane fuels (98 octane?) and these don't seem to make a difference for the kind of driving we do.  That's why we stick with the 93 octane. http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Craig]

We use 89 octane.  Recommended by dealer.  Here at high altitude (Colorado), extra octane doesn't provide any benefit.

Haven't measured city milage, but normally get 24 to 25 mpg on highway trips.


       ... Craig

[Gundo]

Thanks for all the replies...I don't quite understand something though.

Why are so many people running 93, 94 and even 98 octane?  

Do you notice a difference?

Octane 91 or higher is only "recommended" by Volvo.  Higher is certainly not required  Few stations even sell 94 octane, much less 98.

I just have trouble imagining the extra cost of 98 octane would be justified.

Thanks in advance,
Brendan

[marcbloch]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">
I&#39;ve heard legend of a couple &#39;76 stations in Washington where you can load up with 100.. any truth to this?[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I&#39;ve seen 110 octane leaded and 104 unleaded near Seattle International Raceway in Auburn, WA. It ain&#39;t cheap, though&#33;

My car will be here in about a month (just left Gothenburg a few days ago), but i&#39;ll put 95 octane here (my &#39;91 745T also gets 95).

3000 miles of driving through Europe on a variety of different gasolines, and I averaged 22MPG. That includes city traffic, though.

[Ron3KL]

[Gundo] I certainly noticed a performance difference between the 91 and 98, although not immediately. The car adapts.

As for cost, the 98 is only just ahead because of better economy.

My manual says the car will take 91, 95 or 98 and that 98 is recommended while 91 is not (says something about only using it if you have too; can&#39;t remember the exact wording).

It may depend on the market and the quality of the fuel too.

Running 87 - lots of different brands in Colorado - Car is running well and averaging 22.5-23 mpg overall. &nbsp;87 was recommended by my dealer.

[Art]

Here&#39;s an interesting article comparing both regular and premium grades of fuel. Something to think about during your next visit to the pump.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp....ds=fuel (http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/features/2001/november/200111_feature_gasoline.xml?keywords=fuel)

[Ron3KL]

I&#39;m not very impressed by that article. When you read it carefully, its not very thorough.

For example there are absolutely no statistics for the efficiency/consumption side of things.

And I believe that the results that they obtained for the SAAB Turbo and BMW M3 clearly show the benefits of using higher octane rather than supporting their conclusion that there is little benefit.

Furthermore with the two cars designed to use mid range premium, instead of testing them with high range premium they tested them with low range octane fuel that they were not designed for&#33;

The SAAB and the BMW lost performance of roughly 7- 10 % which roughly matches the additional expense of the fuel.

However, when I take into account the increased fuel economy (which they didn&#39;t) the cost remains about the same for me. Therefore, I am getting 7 - 10% (their figures, I know, but it feels about right) extra performance for NO extra cost.

We now have 20K miles on our 2001XC and have run nothing but 87 octane regular unleaded per the owners manual. &nbsp;This is a low pressure boost turbo and modest compression ratio so high octane fuel is not needed. &nbsp;Highway MPG = 25 at 75 mph 600 mile trips. &nbsp;City MPG = 19-21 depending.

[Ron3KL]

Interesting. My owners manual states to only run the LPT engine on 91 RON or lower if you are forced to.

Also interesting is the difference in fuel consumption.

My car only has 4K on it so far and is still fairly tight. Running it on 98 RON I get 11.5-12.5 L/100Km in the city while on the highway (1 long trip) I got 9.6 L/100km. Using 91 RON I get 13.5 L/100km in the city.

IMO the evidence is building that higher octane equates to better economy. Better value depends on the relative pricing in your area of course.

In my old 850 GLT (i.e. not turbo) the difference between the octanes was not great. However I got 11.0 L/100Km around town and 8.3-9.0 L/100Km on the highway in that on 91 octane.

------------------------
Conversion: Imperial mpg = 282.481 / (litres per 100km)
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;US mpg = 235.4 / ( litres per 100km)
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;US mpg = Imp mpg / 1.2
IMP. US
MPG MPG L/100 km
18 15.0 &nbsp; 15.7
19 &nbsp; 15.8 &nbsp; 14.9
20 &nbsp; 16.7 &nbsp; 14.1
21 17.5 &nbsp; 13.5
22 18.3 &nbsp; 12.8
23 19.2 &nbsp; 12.3
24 20.0 &nbsp; 11.8
25 20.8 &nbsp; 11.3
26 21.7 &nbsp; 10.9
27 22.5 &nbsp; 10.5
28 23.3 &nbsp; 10.1
29 24.2 &nbsp; 9.7
30 25.0 &nbsp; 9.4
31 25.8 &nbsp; 9.1
32 26.7 &nbsp; 8.8
33 27.5 &nbsp; 8.6
34 28.3 &nbsp; 8.3

--edit # 1-- Changed octane to RON and added prefix imperial to gallons.
--edit # 2-- Added US MPG numbers to table.

I think there is a difference between US and &#39;foreign&#39; octane ratings. &nbsp;Here in the USA you normally can&#39;t buy anything above 93 octane. &nbsp;We use the so called &#39;R+M&#39;/2 method to calculate pump labeling for octane. &nbsp;My 87 octane could be a higher number in other countries for the same fuel. &nbsp;Anyone know the details here?

[cbob]

Very interesting discussion of octane vs mileage. &nbsp;

Question : are you calculating based on the miles indicated on the OD/fuel added to the tank (difficult to measure within a few litres) or going by the trip computer.
My test vehicle ( just over 3000 km on the clock) averaged 9.3 l/100 km on mostly highway, and that seemed a bit &quot;too good&quot;, even for 92 octane fuel. I&#39;m normally a light-footed driver, but since this was a test, I had to open it up a few times to see what the turbo felt like under hard acceleration.
Can I trust the computer? &nbsp; http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Ron3KL]

No, I don&#39;t trust the trip computer. All data is taken at fill up time and is entered into some special software I have on my PDA or an Excel spreadsheet. That way I can do averages based on trip type, fuel type etc etc.

The trip computer on my 850 was always optimistic about consumption. The one in the V70XC seems pessimistic, which is preferrable IMO.

http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif Blinding flash of inspiration&#33;&#33; North American gallons are not the same as the rest of the world. They are smaller. So that would explain the disrepancy in mileages in the discussion&#33; &nbsp;I&#39;ll do some calculations and edit the table above. &nbsp; http://xc70.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

The octane ratings I refer to are using the RON standard. I hadn&#39;t realised that the US quoted in (R+M)/2, or AKI. I should have replied using 98 RON, but my wife was looking over my shoulder and said that it didn&#39;t make sense...

Briefly:
MON = Motor Octane Number
RON = Research Octane Number
AKI = Antiknock Index of Gasoline = (RON+MON)/2

One sight I researched says &quot;95-99 RON is roughly equivalent to 91-94 R+M/2&quot;. So yes our octane numbers here in OZ are higher than the US.

[1Lieutenant]

Just 600 miles on the XC.

I have been averaging 22.7mpg with a mixture of city/highway. These are US gallons. &nbsp;I use 91 octane only. &nbsp;

Steve

[nickbw]

I use 99 RON but not so much to get better performance or speed, rather because the fuel has the best adatives for fuel lines, injectors and seals. That said the adaptive engine management certaily leads to the perception of more performance and on long runs 200 or 300 miles I do get better consumption. Ultimately I am looking to preserve my ride not swap to something else in a year or two.