I ran regular gas for 4111 miles, I averaged 15.52 mpg.
I ran 2 tanks of Exxon Premium, 1st tank: 15.64 mpg, 2nd tank 15.42 mpg, for an average of 15.53.
I ran regular gas for 4111 miles, I averaged 15.52 mph.
I ran 2 tanks of Exxon Premium, 1st tank: 15.64 mph, 2nd tank 15.42 mph, for an average of 15.53.
I drove back to washington from florida a month or so ago and got 19.6 on the first leg with regularand this is my expected mpg with the air on. I then filled up with mid-grade and ran 400 miles to home and got 20.6. I had the air on and it was basically an uphill climb from 150 feet above sea level to 450 ft above.
In another test, I used a ACTRON III scan tool to monitor my timing advance. I was able to see that the ECU would advance timing more with the equivalent of 89-91 octane.
I am 99 percent convinced that at least 89 will give better mileage and power. 91 may not give any more power and it may give less because some of each stroke will not be burned unless timing can be advanced more and a greater part of the fuel is made up of additives and anti-knock components. this was exactly my experience with a '96 chevy caprice LT1. It did have the fuel tables to take advantage of 89 but not 91.
I'm driving up to canada at the end of september and plan to test mileage again with 89 and 91.
87 AKI, I am in North East Texas, with alt. of around 400 ft.
All my driving has been city and country roads.
I think that the premium might have made a little extra HP.
I drove back to washington from florida a month or so ago and got 19.6 on the first leg with regularand this is my expected mpg with the air on. I then filled up with mid-grade and ran 400 miles to home and got 20.6. I had the air on and it was basically an uphill climb from 150 feet above sea level to 450 ft above.
In another test, I used a ACTRON III scan tool to monitor my timing advance. I was able to see that the ECU would advance timing more with the equivalent of 89-91 octane.
I am 99 percent convinced that at least 89 will give better mileage and power. 91 may not give any more power and it may give less because some of each stroke will not be burned unless timing can be advanced more and a greater part of the fuel is made up of additives and anti-knock components. this was exactly my experience with a '96 chevy caprice LT1. It did have the fuel tables to take advantage of 89 but not 91.
I'm driving up to canada at the end of september and plan to test mileage again with 89 and 91.
Thanks Juma, that's some interesting testing you've done. I assume you're sticking with a single fuel manufacturer on these trips. I wonder if the blends will vary much in additives along the way to Canada even at the same octane rating. You can always download the manufacturer's material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the fuel types you're using if you want more detailed blending info.
Thanks Juma, that's some interesting testing you've done. I assume you're sticking with a single fuel manufacturer on these trips. I wonder if the blends will vary much in additives along the way to Canada even at the same octane rating. You can always download the manufacturer's material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the fuel types you're using if you want more detailed blending info.
I didn't stick with one kind of gas. the 20.6 mpg was Racetrack 89. i do think gas you buy in the country will do better than big city bought fuel. and, that may explain the 20.6 as well, as I bought the racetrack at a stop in rural georgia off I-95.
When I try it again, I will stick with city gas probably exon or mobil.
I drove back to washington from florida a month or so ago and got 19.6 on the first leg with regularand this is my expected mpg with the air on. I then filled up with mid-grade and ran 400 miles to home and got 20.6. I had the air on and it was basically an uphill climb from 150 feet above sea level to 450 ft above.
In another test, I used a ACTRON III scan tool to monitor my timing advance. I was able to see that the ECU would advance timing more with the equivalent of 89-91 octane.
I am 99 percent convinced that at least 89 will give better mileage and power. 91 may not give any more power and it may give less because some of each stroke will not be burned unless timing can be advanced more and a greater part of the fuel is made up of additives and anti-knock components. this was exactly my experience with a '96 chevy caprice LT1. It did have the fuel tables to take advantage of 89 but not 91.
I'm driving up to canada at the end of september and plan to test mileage again with 89 and 91.
No offense Juma, but I climb that far in my 11 mile drive home from work each day. 4300 to 4650' (Of course, it's downhill on the way there) :jester:
Now, If I want to go fishing...I climb two or three passes that start at 5000 - 6000 ft, and they top out at 8800-9800 ft. Best part: Titan climbs them just fine. :cheers:
No offense Juma, but I climb that far in my 11 mile drive home from work each day. 4300 to 4650' (Of course, it's downhill on the way there) :jester:
Now, If I want to go fishing...I climb two or three passes that start at 5000 - 6000 ft, and they top out at 8800-9800 ft. Best part: Titan climbs them just fine. :cheers:
YEah...I'm not bragging about climbing, just trying to indicate the general direction uphill or downhill to perhaps account for or explain gas mileage results. juma
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Nissan Titan Forum
3.9M posts
142.8K members
Since 2003
Nissan Titan Talk Forum is a community for truck owners to discuss the Titan Cummins, Warrior, Midnight Edition and more!