<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/17/2001 1:59:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">But doesn't this get us back to the old (I think
<BR>unresolved?) question of:
<BR>"Assume that 87 octane gives 'best' mpg and that the car
<BR>appears to run OK with it. Aren't you then likely to be
<BR>pushing the ECU at (or dangerously close to) its limits of
<BR>timing retardation? Meaning: greater risk of knock damage?"
<BR>Not necessarily my strongly held opinion, but I've let that
<BR>reasoning influence my octane choice when fueling the 3B.
<BR>Plus the fact that the Gnomes of Ingolstadt wouldn't give us
<BR>a "bum steer" about octane requirements, now would they...?
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>I agree with Phil on this one...especially if you've had an ECU upgrade
<BR>--which basically tells you not to run anything under 91 octane (lest I be
<BR>mistaken) when using said ECU.
<BR>'91 200q20v with a few mods...