outback legolas Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 just recently bought a 2000 outback limited. great car. just wanted to know which gas works best and is best for the engine. is it 87, 89 , or 93 octane. i know some of you out there are hardcore outbackers and would probably know the best answers to this.also which brand is best for it? shell? bp? amoco? etc... thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlevyn Posted June 21, 2004 Share Posted June 21, 2004 i have a 2000 outback (manual) in which i use 89. 89 seems to give me a good balance between performance and gas mileage, however i do plan to use 91 in the next tank to see what difference it makes (will post results). as for brand, i used to use 76 but found i'm getting better mileage off shell (one note about this is that i think it might be this specific shell station - need to do a bit more research). hope this helps some =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hohieu Posted June 22, 2004 Share Posted June 22, 2004 Hi there, Your car shares the same phase II 2.5 L engine that is in my forester. If you can run 87 without compromising performance or, more importantly, without causing predetonation (pinging or knocking), its the best thing for your car. How your car performs will depend greatly on environmental factors such as temperature and altitude. 87 is more volatile than the higher octanes, which is why it may cause predetonation in older engines or certain engine designs such as the first 2.5 L Subaru engines (pre-Phase I). However, if you can run 87 without any adverse effects, it is the best way to go. Using a higher octane than necessary only increases carbon deposits in your engine and risks contamination of expensive emissions components. Generally, low elevations and high temperatures increase the likelihood of predetonation so if you hear pinging during during the summer months, bump up to 89 (or higher, if absolutely necessary). Congratulations and good luck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hlevyn Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 just had a tank of 91 in, so, as promised, here are hte results: performance went up quite a bit. the engine had a really good solid feel to it, especially in the high rpm ranges (for the first time i didn't hesitate to get her close to red line). in addition, susan also had a lot of pep and could accelerate like a bat outta hell when i needed her to now, for the bad part. fuel economy did drop as expected, but i'm not sure how much of it is due to the gas and how much is due to me playing with the new power . i also noticed that i felt uncomfortable letting the rpms drop below 2500 (with 89 i get uncomfortable when they approach 2000). if i could afford it, i'd use 91 a lot more. but, alas, college student, so i'll be running a tank of 91 once a month or every 2 months. one other note about this: i live in boulder creek, california, so the elevation i was driving at ranged from <10ft to ~500ft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rik Posted June 28, 2004 Share Posted June 28, 2004 Ah, the fuel debate. I love this one almost as much as the oil debate. Here, read this. http://www.chevron.com/prodserv/fuels/gas_qanda/api_octane.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.