I just picked up a 2006 Crossfire Coupe yesterday with less than 30,000 miles and immediately noticed when I went to put fuel in that it said "Use Premium Fuel Only"! I happened to be down in southern Illinois and they had premium so I did pay the price and used it. I downloaded the manual and it stated to use an octane of 91. My problem, except for the price, is that in my area (SE Iowa) I have never seen premium for sale. They used to sell 87 and 89 (the 89 was the common 10% ethanol) but now both fuels (regular and ethanol) are labeled 87 so this Crossfire is going to have to use an octane of 87.

What do most of you use and can I expect any problems with 87 octane?

 

It will survive, although it won't be a happy camper.
I always use 93.

 

thanks for posting this as i will now NEVER travel through or into (SE Iowa) in fact maybe the whole state.

if my car ever got anything below 93 oct. it would stop running forever. lol
if i were u, I would buy the highest octane i could find and i would put a bottle of octane booster in every tank. refill the tank at the last notch just before the fuel light comes on,, the car will thank you. it will run better,, it will get better mileage,, and it will last longer. also it will have the power you bought it to have. jim

 

Is it because you are in a corn state ? At least in Des Moines, all three grades are shown.

I usually alternate 89 and 93 at the half tank level (Sam's does not have 89 so filled 93 at $2.539/gal yesterday) to stay as close to 91 as possible..

Personally would not use 87 except if nothing else available and then only a few gallons primarily because I doubt that the stock fuel maps in the XF computer can dial in enough advance for 87 PON (any tuner care to comment).

But then IMNSHO the whole drivetrain is a kludge (the Pentastar in my Jeep GC is a superior engine technologically) and needing two spark plugs per cyl is part of the kludge (in good company, the old iron Hemi also needs two pugs per cyl).

Could go into the flame propagation advantages to a four valve, plug in center design compared to a three valve with plugs pushed to the sides so need 2). Won't.

Real future is boosted direct injection but only know of one production car under $25k that has. 125 hp/liter on 87 PON.

Meanwhile is like a GF who doesn't like cats. Is worth it despite the flaws.

 

SRT has always used 91 non-ethanol. N/A 05 Limited gets 93 Shell V-Power w/ Nitrogen.

 

I always use Premium 93 octane here near Chicago
Although when running around other parts of the country had to settle for 89 and 91 octane
The car doesn't seem to run any differently with any of these fuels over the past 7 years.

 

[/SIZE]

Could go into the flame propagation advantages to a four valve, plug in center design compared to a three valve with plugs pushed to the sides so need 2). Won't.

Thank you for not expounding on this subject. However you are a little misguided here, that engine was designed to use 2 not that it had to, they do not fire at the same time and it varies which one fires first. It is certainly not an archaic engine technology, to compare it to the old iron hemi is a travesty. And speaking of hemis, almost all engines today are hemis, they just cant advertise that as Chrysler has the rights to the term HEMI

 

You want a girl friend that DOES like cats ?

Try this : https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=573247289483784

 

When I first bought my XF NA I made the mistake of putting 87 in & the check engine light came on the next day. I added 91, since then I always use 91, reset the CE light & haven't had any problems since.

 

You didn't look the car over very carefully, did you? It is a SPORTS car. If you have an issue with premium fuel, just wait until you find out that tires are going to run you $600 to $900 a set and if you get 35,000 miles out of them, you are getting more than I EVER have. When I first got my FIRST Crossfire, I drove it like you grandmother would. The most I got out of a set of Hankooks was 33,000 miles. My last set lasted 11,300 miles. Yes, the Contis, from what I hear, can deliver over 40,000 miles - but most of us don't see that kind of tread life.

Again, you bought a sports car, and you bought the WRONG car.

You didn't do the math here, did you?

You have a problem with 40 cents a gallon? You will put the wrong fuel in the car for a 15.6% savings? That is like telling me that you can't afford it if the car gets 26.5 mpg but you can if it gets 30mpg. You should have bought a subcompact car designed for cheap gas and high mileage.


Admit it, You can get premium:
Some of these stations appear to be near you. And if so, then OTHERS must exist that also sell Premium.
Premium Prices at BP Gas Stations in Iowa, Iowa

I HOPE you got the car for a steal, because soon, you will want to sell it. And you will find that its resale value is dreadful.
Not that I care, I'm gonna have mine until it's wheels fall off. (And the way I drive, that may happen this weekend at the Dragon.)

 

I love the 'octane' arguments. Well said the post about 89 octane. The 93 octane post reminds me of the story of the little old lady from long ago, that thought she was doing her car good by using high octane when it was designed for 87. In fact it probably was doing harm. Nowadays, with all the sensors (and computer fuel/air adjustments from the mapping tables) you most likely are not doing any damage or having more than a very slight performance degradation (if at all) using 89 octane (don't know about anywhere else but 87, 89, and 93 is available here as a rule). This is given nothing is defective or not nominal within the parts installed. Now, I have a tune, and am not sure if the extended mapping tables for the tune cropped into the memory space in the ECU, or not (if memory capacity wasn't exceeded or if the lower table adjustments were left out/replaced for the extended tables in that tune). This unknown could be hurting my logic about being able to SAFELY use 89 vs 91. My point of view is that if the ECU can adjust two points down from 93, it can adjust two points up from 89 (or vice-versa depending on your point of view). I don't race, or challenge anyone (much) so I just enjoy the less expensive gas. Like I said, I think it is more about preferences and less about damaging this robust motor. This discussion reminds me of another controversy, actually two, the oil filter one and the engine oil one. IMHO

 

Yea, and you are WRONG about those arguments as well.


Because..............


Because?


Dragon. - You ain't gonna be there?

 

Been (that weird word you have ^ there) before, will probably be (that word you have ^ there) again in the future. Your pointing fingers again..... Anyway, not this time (spring dragon) maybe the fall. I miss the fun and companionship, and the whole line of one of the all time best cars designed and built. BTW, if you do not have the brake flashy thing yet, get one, they are super nice, easy to install, and I have heard they annoy some drivers on the road following too closely. Peace out!




BTW, if two points below the required octane rating is so bad, just please tell me what two points ABOVE that same required octane rating is? I am sure some inquiring minds would like to know.

 

He loves the car.. just hates the engine.. oh and transmission.. umm.. and rear end.. but other than that..

 

What is really funny (or poetic) is the dictionary definition of the word 'Hemi'.


Merriam Webster;
hemi-


Definition of HEMI-

: half <hemihedral>


Of greek origin


So, am I to infer Chrysler like identifying their engines as 'half'? Half of what? Aww I know, its just mental masturbation at this point...

 

Yea, well, going to marital counseling alone when my wife would NOT go, now THAT was mental masturbation!

 

Hmm.. guess she was a good looking counselor?

 

OMG another thread gone off topic......ROTFLMAO

 

No woman in her 50's looked as good as LaRita - that is why I lost my head over her.

*Smartass*

See you Thursday?

 

Topics ? We don need no stinkin topics.