06-18-2009, 02:06 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: olympia washington
Posts: 155
|
|
|
octane rating
would it be harmful to use a midgrade gas of like 89 octane in a 91 164 B? im just wondering if this is a bad idea or not with prices being what they are and i dont use the car that much and dont really push it either unless om on the highway which isnt very often or should i just stick with a premium gas?
__________________
http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3309280
|
|
Sponsored Links
|
Advertisement
| |
|
06-18-2009, 05:22 AM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The City of Southern Hospitality
Posts: 3,823
|
|
 Quote:
Originally Posted by david varpness
would it be harmful to use a midgrade gas of like 89 octane in a 91 164 B? im just wondering if this is a bad idea or not with prices being what they are and i dont use the car that much and dont really push it either unless om on the highway which isnt very often or should i just stick with a premium gas?
|
David
There is a recent thread on this already. Please use search for your question, then post if you can't find a solution.
Alfisto Steve said in a previous post that he runs 87 octane in his 164B with no problems. I'd say try the regular gas, and if it knocks and / or pings on you, step up to the midgrade.
__________________
Larry
Waco, TX
Director, Alabama Branch, Scuderia Non Originale for the time being
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Help for the Confused and Incorrect since 2009
Legion President of The Confused and Incorrect
|
06-18-2009, 08:10 AM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Flagstaff, Arizona-US
Posts: 6,959
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by david varpness
would it be harmful to use a midgrade gas of like 89 octane in a 91 164 B? im just wondering if this is a bad idea or not with prices being what they are and i dont use the car that much and dont really push it either unless om on the highway which isnt very often or should i just stick with a premium gas?
|
Short answer: YES it would be harmful. Another short answer, do you think you save that much by running 89?
Calculate it. Not much difference in money but the result if used would cause mucho money for repairs or replacement of engine.
I can't understand why some people search for gas stations with 1,2 3 cents lower a gallon, makes no sense.
Your choice, save a few cents or spend thousands later.
Or run 91 like the manual says, the gas lid says, the gauge says, many posts say and what most modern performance cars need to run.
In San Diego for example 91 is $3.05 (lowest prices) and 89 is $2.98 (lowest prices)
Using 89 would cost you: $44.77 to fill the tank with 15 gallons (assuming you have a couple gallons in the tank).
Using 91 (the proper fuel): $45.75 to fill the tank.
Don't grip over a buck!!
If your going to be cheap, buy a honda you can run 87 in. You will not last long in this car being cheap or neglecting proper maintenance/fluids etc.... Sorry to say.
Hate to see another 164 bite the dust due to neglect, improper use. 
One last thing, if your stuck somewhere and all they have is 89 and you need to fill up, go for it but use 91 next fill up.
Last edited by Alfissimo Int.; 06-19-2009 at 07:23 AM.
|
06-19-2009, 04:18 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bethel, CT
Posts: 576
|
|
|
Last year I put in 1 step down, here that's from 93 to 89... BIG mistake! it was pinging like crazy, without even much load. I tried some octane booster to remedy that fill up which did nothing to help the pinging. Once I refilled with 93, it went completely away. I know the compression is higher in the S engines, but I was surprised just how much of an effect that had.
__________________
1970 Alfa Romeo 1750 GT Veloce (105.44)
|
06-19-2009, 07:50 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: 592 Browns Trace Jericho, Vermont
Posts: 1,164
|
|
|
I've been using 89 for 2 years now and My 164 run fine. I have just a regular 164. It seems to get better millage using 89 rather than 91+.
|
06-19-2009, 08:20 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 162
|
|
|
My current 91L runs on 89 with just a slight ping on warm days. I am thinking of running 91 during the summer and 89 in winter. My previous 91L had to have premium and even then pinged like crazy on hot days. Go figure.
__________________
Randy
91 164L Auto
69 Spyder
|
06-19-2009, 08:46 AM
|
 |
Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: VB, VA
Posts: 17,747
|
|
|
Really depends on attitude and altitude me thinks!
This is my story and I am sticking to it - 87 octane works fine in all my 9.5:1 compression ratio 164B/L 12v V6 engines here at sea level. Would I do it in a 164S with 10:1 CR probably not. Myron runs 89 in his 95LS and it still runs like a scalded *ss dog.
My son runs 91 in his 164S.
Higher elevations and summer temps maybe you should run 89 or 91 if needed.
We all have opinions and this one is mine.
__________________
Ciao, Alfisto Steve
Virginia Beach, VA
AROC 164 Tech Advisor
s.patchin@aroc-usa.org
http://www.aroc-usa.org/
Daily drivers: USA models - 91 164L w/AT "Black Beauty I" ALFA4ME; 91 164S Black Beauty II ALFALFA
In 230,000 mile Rehab MY91 "Bianco" 164B 5-speed [My Originale], ALFISTO
Daughter's current ride: Her Granddads 2002 Ford Taurus
Current Car hauler and Parts chaser : 2000 Dodge Ram PU 5.2L V-8
"A day without an Alfa whine is like a day without sunshine"
|
06-19-2009, 12:54 PM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: May 2005
Location: seattle
Posts: 5,054
|
|
|
High altitude driving is usually not a problem, as the engine doesn't require as high an octane rating gasoline there. That's why when you travel through the Rockies (at +4000 feet), etc, the octane ratings at the pumps are lower by a couple of counts.
My 91S engine doesn't seem to like (making rattly sounds) anything less than 91 on many of the steep hills in the Seattle area. Flat lands might be ok.
The LS, with it's knock sensors, can handle 89 ok, but I put few miles on it, so I run 91, what the heck.
Our Milano, though, doesn't like 87, also making rattly sounds on hills, so we run 89 in it to quiet it down.
__________________
Del
Seattle
89 Milano
91 164S
94 164LS (Q)
72 Morgan 27
|
06-19-2009, 03:14 PM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Birmingham, England
Posts: 242
|
|
|
would i see any benefit from using 99ron shell v power instead of 95ron std fuel. specifically a increase in fuel economy to justify the outlay?
The 99ron currently sells for £1.08 a litre as opposed to the std juice at £1.01
__________________
Driving a September 1996 super like i stole it 
|
06-20-2009, 05:35 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bethel, CT
Posts: 576
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by treborblack
would i see any benefit from using 99ron shell v power instead of 95ron std fuel. specifically a increase in fuel economy to justify the outlay?
|
If anything, I would expect a decrease in fuel economy.
__________________
1970 Alfa Romeo 1750 GT Veloce (105.44)
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
