Mazda 6 Forums banner

41 - 60 of 71 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
mi
Regardless of symantics, I swear it idles better and a rough idle at a stop light drives me crazy. Not saying everyone should run premium. It'll run just fine on regular, I ran 500 miles on it. But for those that see the value in it, it's something to consider. Remember it's just my humble opinion.
I have noticed the same idling benefit after filling up with premium a few days ago. Being a brand new car the idle on reg was pretty damn smooth most of the time, but I noticed occasional subtle hiccups that nudged the rpm somewhere between 1/16 to 1/8 of an rpm sitting around 3/4 of an rpm when idling. These past 4 days since filling up with 93, the idle has been perfectly smooth at all times, regardless of how long the red light is. I too don't drive a lot, about 10,000 miles per yr, and went through my first tank in 2 weeks, about 450 miles for me as I do a lot of city & rush hour hwy driving. Gas prices aren't as bad now as they can be, 93 was $4 per gallon, I am used to that being the 87 price (down to $3.50s now). It is worth it for me, even if the idling perfection is the only noticeable difference to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
After filling in with 92RON premium for 12+yrs (20V 1.8T), I nearly filled it up with it (old habit, on very first fuel fill)...until I remembered the gas filler of the M6 is at the opposite side (driver side; the Passat was at passenger side). Using Costco gas 87RON.

I'll try premium on the next fill...just for kicks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
I really think 87 or 92 would make no difference...with that said, I just follow what the manufacturer recommends in the manual. Regular 87RON in this case, by Mazda.

Not to hijack this thread, but what I'm more concerned of..is the bulk motor oil dealers use (dino or "synthetic") in your Sky-Activ (while in warranty period).

If you had your dealer change your M6 oil and chose "regular" (dino/non-synthetic), I highly doubt that viscosity is 0W20. It is very likely a non-spec 5w30 (bottom line profit). If they claim they put "0W20 bulk", it must be a syn blend (there is no such thing as 0W20 dino oil) and not even true synthetic (and then charges you at "synthetic" prices)...so beware.

That is why I'm buying myself qts of the OEM Mazda/Idemitsu 0W20 with Moly (original factory fill, special oil for Sky-Activ engines) and just bring it in at every 7.5K OC intervals..not some cheapo, non-OEM Mazda dealer bulk oil crap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,026 Posts
I really think 87 or 92 would make no difference...with that said, I just follow what the manufacturer recommends in the manual. Regular 87RON in this case, by Mazda.

Not to hijack this thread, but what I'm more concerned of..is the bulk motor oil dealers use (dino or "synthetic") in your Sky-Activ (while in warranty period).

If you had your dealer change your M6 oil and chose "regular" (dino/non-synthetic), I highly doubt that viscosity is 0W20. It is very likely a non-spec 5w30 (bottom line profit). If they claim they put "0W20 bulk", it must be a syn blend (there is no such thing as 0W20 dino oil) and not even true synthetic (and then charges you at "synthetic" prices)...so beware.

That is why I'm buying myself qts of the OEM Mazda/Idemitsu 0W20 with Moly (original factory fill, special oil for Sky-Activ engines) and just bring it in at every 7.5K OC intervals..not some cheapo, non-OEM Mazda dealer bulk oil crap.
I think alot of people are getting the oil changed at 1k to get rid of the factory oil and putting in better oil


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
I think alot of people are getting the oil changed at 1k to get rid of the factory oil and putting in better oil


Sent from AutoGuide.com Free App
I'm only at 749mi as of this writing. Keeping the FF still to help seat the rings properly...

What is better oil than the Mazda/Idemitsu 0W20 w/Moly (chock full of it) GF-5?

Are you a member of Bobistheoilguy.com?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
Discussion Starter #51
Just did my first oil change at 5,000. Had the car since 2/26, was disappointed cuz I was only getting 27-28mpg no matter using premium or regular. Now the car's been broken-in a bit, i'm getting around 32mpg now using regular gas. Much happier with fuel efficiency now.
On a side note, anybody here ever use Seafoam?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,900 Posts
Just did my first oil change at 5,000. Had the car since 2/26, was disappointed cuz I was only getting 27-28mpg no matter using premium or regular. Now the car's been broken-in a bit, i'm getting around 32mpg now using regular gas. Much happier with fuel efficiency now.
On a side note, anybody here ever use Seafoam?
Why would you use Seafoam, at this early...As fuel additive? Add to oil?

No. If it's me..I ain't putting any of these (non-OEM) stuff while under warranty.

If I'm after the Mazda/Idemitsu 0W20 Moly GF-5 (over say M1 AFE 0W20) exclusively for the 2.5L Sky-G...you know where I getting at.

Oh btw, I am also getting 32+mpg overall, at below 800mi on the odo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I apparently have quite the lead foot... only pulling 24-25 mpg in mixed-driving conditions unless I explicitly try for more. Never gotten into the 30's during mixed yet.

~600 miles on her so far.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
10000 miles a year /500 miles a tank= 20 tanks a year.
20 tanks x $3 a tank= $60 per year
Not to resurrect an old thread, but this was killing me.

Your math is wrong.

500 miles = 1 tank = 16.4 gallons * $3 per gallon = $49.20

$49.20 * 20 tanks = $984 per year (see Note)

Note: Will be less than this since no one, as far as I know, runs their gas tank completely dry. I normally end up putting in 12-13 gallons when I fill up if I go by the low fuel light.

Back on the original topic... as far as Premium or Regular, unless the engine is programmed for premium, there is no overall benefit.

Once again, sorry for resurrecting an old thread.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Old school...pre-engine management computer days...dictated that the higher the compression ratio the higher the octane needed. Or...the higher the octane used the more spark advance that could be used without knocking. Higher spark advance usually resulted in more pep or power or at least greater throttle response.

Mazda 6 uses a VERY sensitive knock sensor, which automatically adjusts spark advance based on knock detection. To me it stands to reason that since 91/93 octane gas would create less knock than 89 or 87, that means the computer wouldn't need to retard spark to compensate for low octane and the resultant knocking.

Therefore cars running 91 or 93 octane would be better performers because the spark advance would be greater. This was easy to prove in the old days when we could manually adjust spark advance. On my 93 Miata I used 93 octane and 10 degrees of spark advance without knocking. After I installed a supercharger I had to adjust timing to near 0 degrees to avoid knocking. The supercharger boost mimicked higher compression ratio.

Therefore I use only 91 in my 6. I know 87 will work just fine, and honestly I can't feel any difference in performance between the two grades. So maybe it's just emotional...or living in the past. But as long as I can afford 91 I'll use it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
162 Posts
Direct injection engines don't require additives. So don't worry too much about them, I myself pump Shell, close to the house. I've learned to use regular, as stated before, higher octane doesn't do anything from these engines.
Happy Driving!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Old school...pre-engine management computer days...dictated that the higher the compression ratio the higher the octane needed. Or...the higher the octane used the more spark advance that could be used without knocking. Higher spark advance usually resulted in more pep or power or at least greater throttle response.

Mazda 6 uses a VERY sensitive knock sensor, which automatically adjusts spark advance based on knock detection. To me it stands to reason that since 91/93 octane gas would create less knock than 89 or 87, that means the computer wouldn't need to retard spark to compensate for low octane and the resultant knocking.

Therefore cars running 91 or 93 octane would be better performers because the spark advance would be greater. This was easy to prove in the old days when we could manually adjust spark advance. On my 93 Miata I used 93 octane and 10 degrees of spark advance without knocking. After I installed a supercharger I had to adjust timing to near 0 degrees to avoid knocking. The supercharger boost mimicked higher compression ratio.

Therefore I use only 91 in my 6. I know 87 will work just fine, and honestly I can't feel any difference in performance between the two grades. So maybe it's just emotional...or living in the past. But as long as I can afford 91 I'll use it.
I'm an old school guy. You referenced what I was thinking of posting. The knock sensor should allow more spark advance and therefor, performance. I live in Denver where regular is 85. I have run the 85, 87 and 91. My butt dyno says the car is better using 91. Could be placebo effect (expectations fooling me).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Yeah...I'm feeling the same placebo effect based on 87 vs 91 comparisons. One thing that intrigues me tho is that OrangeVirus Tuning asks what octane we will be using. I told them 89 for my tune which is just now in progress. Why would they want to know my preferred octane unless it made a difference? I told them 89 as normally I'll use 89 but at times may use 87 or 91. I'm at about your elevation (5100 ft). I noticed a HUGE difference in performance after opening up the air intake by cutting away some of the plastic that restricts intake air in the factory airbox. Stock is only about a 4 sq in opening. Just didn't make sense, plus I noticed a dramatic decrease in oomph from about 3500 rpm up. Now the power band is more consistent up to redline. Also upgraded to a JBR intake which made an even greater difference in oomph. Waiting to see what OVT will do. I made an air dam for the JBR to try to isolate hot engine air away from the filter. Photos attached.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
The problem with your theory is that sensitive knock sensor or not, the engine was engineered to not knock at all on 87 octane. The knock sensor is a added benefit on computer controlled engines to help out if you do for whatever reason experience engine knock. In this case it wasnt designed to retard timing to use 87, its to retard timing if u get knock. Therefore higher octane fuel would be no benefit, as its not programmed to increase timing with better fuel. However, some cars can and do state that they can benefit from higher octane, and they are programmed to advance timing when it senses higher octane. I just dont think the skyactive eas built that way. Mazda went out of thier way to ensure the engine runs fine on 87 because they didnt want to any potential buyers to shy away from a purchase based on the need for more expensive fuel.

The reason OV asks is because they can change tbe baseline timing based on what fuel u want to run
 
41 - 60 of 71 Posts
Top