Does the 2.5L NA engine benefit from premium fuel?

[clownshoes2]

Mod edit: Posts from a different thread specific to the 2.5 turbo engine have been moved to this new thread, which is specific to the 2.5 naturally aspirated engine. You may see references to the 2.5 turbo engine - this is just because these posts were copied from the original 2.5 turbo thread.

I don't care what anyone says, My CX-5 loves high test. It runs smoother and I get a few more kms per tank. It's not amazing gains but it's noticeable. Especially the 94 Octane. It runs very well.

 

[clownshoes2]

Did you replace your 2017 with a 2019+ CX-5 with the turbo?

Nope, Haters gonna hate. I get that. But my CX-5 runs noticeably better with higher Octane gasoline.

 

[clownshoes2]

Well, you're in the wrong thread then.

As I said, Haters gonna hate.

 

[sm1ke]

As I said, Haters gonna hate.

He's not being a "hater", he's just pointing out that the OP is looking for feedback from those with a CX-5 turbo.

 

[clownshoes2]

He's not being a "hater", he's just pointing out that the OP is looking for feedback from those with a CX-5 turbo.

No, the question was asked if people noticed a difference with High Test. Yes, I do notice a difference, both in how the engine idles, runs at high revs and kms/per tank. Sig cx-5 just cannot handle that myself and many others see noticeable differences using high test gas in our vehicles. He's essentially running around screaming "no no no no, prove it, prove it." Again with my comment, Haters gonna hate. If you don't understand that reference, or what it means there are many websites dedicated to mainstream western cultural humor you can check out.

 

[7eregrine]

No, the question was asked if people noticed a difference with High Test.

The very title of the thread references the Turbo engine. Which is why I haven't commented.

Sig cx-5 just cannot handle that myself and many others see noticeable differences using high test gas in our vehicles.

I've never noticed a difference. We have the same engine.

there are many websites dedicated to mainstream western cultural humor you can check out.

There are many websites that also talk about using high octane in a car not designed for it.

https://www.cars.com/articles/if-my-car-recommends-regular-gas-is-it-good-to-use-premium-occasionally-1420684149356/

"The only guaranteed result of using premium gasoline in an engine designed for regular-grade fuel is that you will spend more money on gas. As far as any tangible benefits to filling up with pricier gasoline, the chances are slim to none."

Find me ONE website that disagrees with that one.
The engine in my car, and in yours, has been around for a long time. It's not anything fancy. It's excellent and it absolutely is reliable. But there is nothing it does better on high octane then it does on lower. This is a placebo and it's all in your head.
You are just wasting money, my friend. My car has 55K miles and other then some testing i did when I first got it, gets nothing but 87. It idles perfectly. It has the exact same amount of power it has always had. Doesn't knock or ping. Smooth as silk. Punchy as ever.

I'm not a hater. I have your engine. I've tested both. I know cars. You are wasting money...

 

[sm1ke]

No, the question was asked if people noticed a difference with High Test. Yes, I do notice a difference, both in how the engine idles, runs at high revs and kms/per tank. Sig cx-5 just cannot handle that myself and many others see noticeable differences using high test gas in our vehicles. He's essentially running around screaming "no no no no, prove it, prove it." Again with my comment, Haters gonna hate. If you don't understand that reference, or what it means there are many websites dedicated to mainstream western cultural humor you can check out.

The title specifically references the CX-5 turbo. Your 2017 does not have a turbo engine. You're entitled to your opinion about using higher octane fuel in your vehicle, but the fact is that your comment doesn't have any relevance to the thread topic because your engine variant is not the one that is being discussed.

Further, asking for proof to support your claim is not "being a hater". A continued discussion of whether or not the NA 2.5L benefits from premium fuel would stray from the topic of this thread, so if you would like to continue this conversation with Sig CX-5, you can use the private messaging feature or start a new thread. Just keep it civil please.


EDIT: New thread created. Carry on..

 

[Sig cx-5]

... Sig cx-5 just cannot handle that myself and many others see noticeable differences using high test gas in our vehicles. He's essentially running around screaming "no no no no, prove it, prove it." ...

Sorry, but I need to address this.

Please point out where I argued about your use of high octane gas. All my comments to you have been regarding your inability to understand the topic of the discussion. It seems you are looking for a fight with the person in your head.

 

[hal2]

If someone is so concerned about the difference, why won't don't you pay for 2 half-hours of dyno time and put this to rest rather than rely on our speculation. Besides, you drive/feel torque, more than you will HP

 

[clownshoes2]

The very title of the thread references the Turbo engine. Which is why I haven't commented.

I've never noticed a difference. We have the same engine.

There are many websites that also talk about using high octane in a car not designed for it.

https://www.cars.com/articles/if-my-car-recommends-regular-gas-is-it-good-to-use-premium-occasionally-1420684149356/

"The only guaranteed result of using premium gasoline in an engine designed for regular-grade fuel is that you will spend more money on gas. As far as any tangible benefits to filling up with pricier gasoline, the chances are slim to none."

Find me ONE website that disagrees with that one.
The engine in my car, and in yours, has been around for a long time. It's not anything fancy. It's excellent and it absolutely is reliable. But there is nothing it does better on high octane then it does on lower. This is a placebo and it's all in your head.
You are just wasting money, my friend. My car has 55K miles and other then some testing i did when I first got it, gets nothing but 87. It idles perfectly. It has the exact same amount of power it has always had. Doesn't knock or ping. Smooth as silk. Punchy as ever.

I'm not a hater. I have your engine. I've tested both. I know cars. You are wasting money...

I'm literally relaying my experience. I've used both fuels too. I guess agree to disagree.

 

[clownshoes2]

Sorry, but I need to address this.

Please point out where I argued about your use of high octane gas. All my comments to you have been regarding your inability to understand the topic of the discussion. It seems you are looking for a fight with the person in your head.

Too many people in my head to argue with, it's just noise.

 

[hal2]

Too many people in my head to argue with, it's just noise.

Generally, I don't mind if people disagree with me if they don't mind being wrong. In the end, I can't force them to be right.

 

[7eregrine]

I'm literally relaying my experience. I've used both fuels too. I guess agree to disagree.

There's no scientific or reasonable explanation for why this would be the case that I have ever been able to find. And I've Googled the hell out of this many years ago.
Your experience may be tainted by what you want to believe.

 

[dougal]

There's no scientific or reasonable explanation for why this would be the case that I have ever been able to find. And I've Googled the hell out of this many years ago.
Your experience may be tainted by what you want to believe.

The only thing I have ever read that showed any HP gain (with a normally aspirated engine) from a vehicle that was designed to run on "regular" fuel was this (https://newsroom.aaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Premium-Fuel-REPORT-FINAL3.pdf). That report showed either no difference - or a very small difference - in HP. And the increase in HP (on a Mazda 3 no less) was so little, I doubt anybody could or would ever notice.

 

[clownshoes2]

There's no scientific or reasonable explanation for why this would be the case that I have ever been able to find. And I've Googled the hell out of this many years ago.
Your experience may be tainted by what you want to believe.

You can google all you want, but my tripometer that shows an additional ±50kms a tank doesn't lie.

 

[7eregrine]

You can google all you want, but my tripometer that shows an additional ±50kms a tank doesn't lie.

So if this is true, you are paying roughly $9-$12 more per tank... to save about a gallon, maybe 1.5, of fuel. Do ya' see where you're not really saving any money?!?

 

[chickdr]

Plus, there is no information anywhere stating premium gas gives any advantage to the N/A 2.5l motor. Mazda themselves don't recommend premium anywhere that I have seen. My '19 GT ran exclusively on 87 octane for 20k miles with no drivability issues.

 

[clownshoes2]

So if this is true, you are paying roughly $9-$12 more per tank... to save about a gallon, maybe 1.5, of fuel. Do ya' see where you're not really saving any money?!?

Never not once did I mention saving money. If the vehicle runs better, gets more kms per tank, prevents detonation in 4 cyl motors that run hot, then the long term maintenance benefits outweigh any increase in cost. I've never seen a debate about using high test that argues that it saves money. Typically you spend money to have a better running vehicle that lasts longer.

 

[chickdr]

But the benefits you mention are fictional. There isn't any detonation in your 2.5 motor when using 87 octane as it is the octane specified by Mazda for your car (there isn't any detonation in my 2.5T running 87 octane either since the engine adjusts to the lower octane). What long term maintenance benefits are you referring to? And please document any of the benefits you list as I certainly have never heard of any.

 

[stickerbush]

@clownshoes2 Does the regular and premium gas you use have the same percentage of ethanol?