SugarRushAudi

<ul><li><a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/business/news2003/07/31/biz-3-gas31-4431.html">click here for article.</a></li></ul>

fastdream

I think the anecdotal testimony was from ppl that don't see RPM past 4k...

no1hustller

If you car doesn't ask for it then you are wasting your money. I thought that was common sense?

A4QuattroVT

my car goes farther, faster, and smoother with 94 which is what i put in rather then 87

Greyhound Guy

you really can't then its ok. I have heard of a few people that run stock A4s on 87, not my idea of a good thing but it will work.

jprice@CPS

If you don't care how your car runs (98% of Americans), then it doesn't matter. For the remaining 2% (which most of us here are in), it's a huge deal. They said 5% performance difference on average. That's ~10 HP for me (by those numbers). I would venture and say that it makes more of a difference on turbo cars than NA cars. But, more than just horsepower.. there's throttle response, smooth acceleration, etc. You don't get that with low craptane gas, where your engine sensor are working overtime making your timing go crazy. But, remember 98% of americans don't care.. so long as their engine starts, they can put their auto tranny into "D", and the pedals work.

Sourdough Josh

He says it'll save us money.

SugarRushAudi

Then you elect Arnold as next gov! He will make Terminator 3 Fussion Batery Cell legal :P

bhvrdr

Look at what the article really states...an estimated 5% power loss and possibility of knocking...hm

jprice@CPS

If they want to save money, get rid of all the government workers that are sitting on their duffs all day doing nothing. (Yes, there are TONS of them)