- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Anyone compared the Turbo with regular vs. premium fuel? Any noticeable difference?
No difference with 93 vs 91, but dunno about 87 vs 93.
Anyone compared the Turbo with regular vs. premium fuel? Any noticeable difference?
IMO the history of inconsistency on reliability is why Mazda can't build up a bigger market share. People usually blame it on Ford, but you simply can't blame the rotary engine, and the recent CX-7 on Ford. When I purchased our 2016 CX-5, one reason was the reliability rating on Mazda from Consumer Report at the time is no. 4. Then next year it dropped to no. 6, and no. 12 the following year. It does come back up to no. 3 this year, but the inconsistency of reliability is the problem.
For a while I always recommended CX-5 to friends and family. A couple of them bought 2016 CX-5's were mad at me due to expensive LED DRL failure. Others who refused to get a Mazda mainly are questioning its reliability, some of them have had Mazda before and they all had bad experience on reliability issues from their previous Mazda's.
I don't recommend Mazda to friends and family anymore mainly because newly added cylinder deactivation and turbo, which to me are not good features for long-term reliability based on history record.
Anyone compared the Turbo with regular vs. premium fuel? Any noticeable difference?
After 3 tanks of each, I consistently get an extra 2 MPG out of 93 versus 87. This narrows the price gap, and others have said that premium fuel helps reduce the risk of oil dilution (because the engine changes the timing with octane). I cannot say that I notice a performance difference, as I rarely wind it out to 4,000+ RPMs.
Depending on the per-gallon price spread (which varies a lot from week to week), 300 miles worth of 93 runs between $3 and $6 higher than 300 miles worth of 87 at their respective mileage.
Of course, this is a small dataset, but so far my worse mileage with 93 is still better than my best mileage with 87.
Also keep in mind that I've switched back & forth, so there is always some mixing of the two since I don't go below 1/4 tank.
It makes some sense. The lower the octane, the more volatile the fuel is.Oddly, when I fill up with a mix of 93 and 98 octane, I notice a bit of a DROP in mpg...but that's not taking into account the humanistic aspect, whereupon I am now driving #RaceCar and want to floor it everywhere, rofl!
+2
I love my NA, but would never choose it over the turbo.
But if you don't care about acceleration, the NA will suit you just fine.
And remember, the 18 has cylinder deactivation....
It makes some sense. The lower the octane, the more volatile the fuel is.
At some stations, 93 octane does not have any Ethanol added. Lower grades all have 10% Ethanol. My MPG is better using non-ethanol. This is in my current car - 2015 Mini JCW. (Picking up CX-5 Sig Monday)
Man, I need to move. All you folks with access to ethanol-free gas.
I'll bet your MPG is better without ethanol.
I do like all the ethanol-free fuel here, and a TON of other aspects about where I live. I considered VA and TN and so forth, but the proximity to the eastern seaboard required for stable low unemployment numbers and sound economy turned me off to it.
It stinks that employment is not more equally spread. It seems that we make a forced choice between job security and lifestyle.
Couldnt agree more. Im stuck in NoVA hell just for work.
I have friends in the N Va/DC area and my impression is that it's harder to get away.
Toyota sold over 43,000 Rav4*s in May for a record month. Is it that good or are people drinking Toyota Kool-Aid?
To me, the new RAV4 looks like a child*s plastic Tonka toy. No thx.
To me, the new RAV4 looks like a child*s plastic Tonka toy. No thx.