[darbowmach1]

I found a Autoweek article about the PT turbo (same engine gang) only needing 87 octane (Feb 3, 2003 page 21). Every article i have read so far is stating my future car will need 91 octane not 87 . It would be nice saving $ everytime i hit the pump, but i will probably use 94 Sunoco anyway(American gas supplier by the way - No fn Iraq oil for me thanks) . Just thought all you lucky SRT-4 owners would like to know.

 

[440sixpack]

I dunno, the dealer put 87 in mine when I bought it, and it sounded like it had spark knock at idle when I got home. Put 91 in it and the noise isn't there anymore.

 

[cali]

same engine, but i'm damn sure not same ECU program....Ill stick to manufacturer recommended. :roll:

 

[mrmixitup]

Tru dat. I didn't buy a car like this to put 87 octane in it.

My Spec-V (which recommended 91 or higher octane in the owner's manual) had the same exact engine as the 2.5 Altima (which recommends 87 octane). Common belief is that the different requirement is due to ECU programming.

Anything less than 91 octane would create a noticeable performance loss in the car when driven.

 

[darbowmach1]

Sorry i forgot about the high performance set up with the ECU program. It also could be the article was possibly wrong in stating 87 not premium. I will use premium anyway. We all saved money on this car from the start not paying 5k more for the WUSS, i mean WRX or 10K more for the Mitsu Prancer, oops i mean Lancer EVO.

 

[ebbtide]

DO NOT RUN LESS THAN 91!

The ECU will force the engine to compsate for your extra cash. You could damage the engine, and at least you will be making less power.

 

[Slow5OH]

Sorry i forgot about the high performance set up with the ECU program. It also could be the article was possibly wrong in stating 87 not premium. I will use premium anyway. We all saved money on this car from the start not paying 5k more for the WUSS, i mean WRX or 10K more for the Mitsu Prancer, oops i mean Lancer EVO.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
Guess what buddy, you get not one, not two, not three eye rolls, you get 4! Plus you'd get the monkey if this were NASIOC but it's not. FYI, WRX's can be had for 23k and EVO's can be had for 27, neither of which are slower than the SRT.

-faast

 

[meddle]

Unless Im mistaken couldnt you spend the extra $3k saved by not getting the WRX and make the SRT-4 quite a bit faster than the WRX or the EVO?

 

[darbowmach1]

Wow, did not mean to get some folks upset. I dont know about you, but when i think of Subaru, i think of some anal retentive, 50ish woman at the helm. The WRX is a machine, but i just dont like the looks. And good luck buying one for 23k (most dealers like profit) the same with the EVO (27k??) every mag i read has it starting at around 29k, and when the dealer gets the sticker ...

 

[ebbtide]

Unless Im mistaken couldnt you spend the extra $3k saved by not getting the WRX and make the SRT-4 quite a bit faster than the WRX or the EVO?

Com'n guys, walk away this time..... we don't need this again......

 

[Slow5OH]

Unless Im mistaken couldnt you spend the extra $3k saved by not getting the WRX and make the SRT-4 quite a bit faster than the WRX or the EVO?

There's a few things that extra 3k gets you. You know small things like build quality, style, and AWD. But seriously this is my last post in this thread, I don't want this thread to regress into another WRX vs SRT argument.

-faast

 

[SpitterGuy]

Anything has to be better than the 89 Caddy DeVille (v8) I'm driving right now. It's only getting 9-10 mpg, and it's eating away at my wallet! I wish we had the car come out up here alrdy, I hate big luxury cars.

 

[lifeisdeath]

just so everyone knows, you know, in case you forgot... the srt-4 is faster than a wrx.

 

[drizze99]

Unless Im mistaken couldnt you spend the extra $3k saved by not getting the WRX and make the SRT-4 quite a bit faster than the WRX or the EVO?

IT'S ALREADY FASTER THAN THE WRX, BUDDY!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Gary C]

uh i own a GT cruiser and *EVERYWHERE* in the manual it says to run 91 octane or it'll pull timing and cut power and to *never* run 87.
89 only if you can't put in 93 for some reason.

 

[darbowmach1]

Darn Autoweek magazine. I thought something was up when i read the specs for the Turbo. At least Dodge got it right!

 

[Slow5OH]

Unless Im mistaken couldnt you spend the extra $3k saved by not getting the WRX and make the SRT-4 quite a bit faster than the WRX or the EVO?

IT'S ALREADY FASTER THAN THE WRX, BUDDY!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Alright, I'll bite......I've seen 14.1-14.0's done with stock WRX's, real world experience-no magazine racing there, and as far as I know SRT's haven't broken 14 ticks so I fail to see where the SRT is faster? The 0-60 and the 1/4 mile times don't suggest the SRT is faster. Maybe it's the "I own one so it is the best" syndrome coming into play?

-faast

 

[RUgoinUp]

[Alright, I'll bite......I've seen 14.1-14.0's done with stock WRX's, real world experience-no magazine racing there, and as far as I know SRT's haven't broken 14 ticks so I fail to see where the SRT is faster? The 0-60 and the 1/4 mile times don't suggest the SRT is faster. Maybe it's the "I own one so it is the best" syndrome coming into play?
-faast

Um, how many SRT's have been to the track yet? 2 maybe 3!

 

[lifeisdeath]

Alright, I'll bite......I've seen 14.1-14.0's done with stock WRX's, real world experience-no magazine racing there, and as far as I know SRT's haven't broken 14 ticks so I fail to see where the SRT is faster? The 0-60 and the 1/4 mile times don't suggest the SRT is faster. Maybe it's the "I own one so it is the best" syndrome coming into play?

-faast

well, it has been to 13.9. are you seeing 14's on a wrx with stock tires? i would have to see that to believe it.

and the 0-60 times are magazine racing by the way... :wink: but they are both about the same 0-60 times depending on which magazine you read.

i own one so its the best? :roll:

 

[drizze99]

Maybe it's the "I own one so it is the best" syndrome coming into play?

No, it's faster. I'll kill one just for you!!