G
Guest2019C20
It's about dayum time! THANK YOU!
Wait!!!!
You *didn't* kick unobtainium out????
Bye.
It's about dayum time! THANK YOU!
Wait!!!!
You *didn't* kick unobtainium out????
Bye.
I dont think Honda has fixed the fuel dilution issue yet and I wouldnt buy one until they do.
IMHO the CX-5 is still up at the top of the heap. I dont understand all this 0-60 obsession. The CR-V is going to be slow to respond and downshift so in traffic the CX-5 is always going to feel quicker. Are you guys really traffic light drag racing your kid movers?
Also completely not surprised by the RAV 4. Looks great on paper but still tuned by Toyota. Mazda isnt about having the best numbers on paper. Its about how its dialed in.
Yep, i admit to it. Sometimes you just dont want to get ghettolaned, and raw 0-60 is whats up.
Eh, you give me too much credit for creativity. I was just flattered that someone created a satire account solely to troll me (and the rest of the board, but obviously me, primarily.)
This will undoubtedly cause debate but I've started running premium in my CX-5.... I don't really notice mileage difference so far but feels slightly quicker and engine seems somewhat smoother. I'm on 3rd tank now.
Unobtanium...if you want to sell drive it up to WA state for a sale and fly home
My '15 GT w/46K miles shows up $18.6-20.9K via KBB and private party sale...I don't do trade in... what I have found is that KBB is usually on low end here in WA state. Used cars prices are never discount here.
I ran your touring '15 here and it $12.2-$14.1 private party sale
Out of curiosity ran a '15 RAV4 XLE (mid trim) with 98K miles here... those go for $15.1-$16.7
So yes..not as good as Toyota but more than what they sell for in your area
I don't doubt you feel that, but I'd wonder how much is the placebo effect.
My understanding has always been that higher octane affects preignition ONLY. Premium used to have more additives, but don't think that's true anymore. Maybe your brand DOES have different additives, enough to clean the plugs slightly?? Seems unlikely. Other ideas why it might make a difference?
Do you think the improvement is worth the extra $.25/gal [7-8%] around here?
At idle though? I think it*s placebo. They mechanically lowered the compression ratio for markets with 87.
Did he mention idle?
Agreed. 2.5L Skyactiv in our market was designed for 87. I've tried running 91 before for a few tanks and honestly didn't notice a damn thing.I thought he said smoother idle. At any rate dyno tests havent found an advantage so I still think its placebo. In order for there to be an advantage the engine has to be designed to take advantage of the higher octane.
This will undoubtedly cause debate but I've started running premium in my CX-5.... I don't really notice mileage difference so far but feels slightly quicker and engine seems somewhat smoother. I'm on 3rd tank now.
What they said. You're just pissing money away using anything over 87. There's nothing to debate. It's been proven and is a selling point of this engine.
But isn't it true that the benefits of using a higher octane are only really seen with a tune like what you got?That's 100% wrong according to ICE theory.. using 87 is the guaranteed way to get minimum performance under less than ideal operating conditions, and the ECU will see to it.
But isn't it true that the benefits of using a higher octane are only really seen with a tune like what you got?