Not a chance...Calgary is at 3700 ft elevation. I figure that melting ice caps + warmer temps = beach front property :thumbup:

I avg. the equivalent of 27 mpg in my '06 3.0d fittet with a power ("tunit") kit, have more torque on tap than a 4.8is, available through a fun-as-hell mannual tranny, driving a daily mixture of steep hill climbs and fast sweeping highway (not exactly driving slow either..) :p

Yes, 89 - and it does well. They recommend 89 for all except M cars and supercharged Minis. Both our cars do well, as did my '05 3.0 before I totaled it. When at high altitude in Colorado, or in the midwest, where ALL the gas has ethanol added, I used 91. But back here on the "flats", it's 89 all the way.

Here in the Buffalo, NY area, 91 is 12 to 15 cents more per gallon than 89, so it can make a diff. Right now, 89 is 2.53/gal.

Actually, it's the REVERSE for high altitude. The higher the altitude, the less the octane requirement (same goes for lower temps).

Good info on this here:

http://www.chevron.com/products/prod...i_octane.shtml

Unfortunately, engines also build less HP due to the lower barometric pressure... At 3700 feet elevation here in Calgary, the 4.4l V8 in my X5 which should make 315 HP will make closer to 280 HP :(

BHP loss calculator here:

http://www.wallaceracing.com/braking-hp.php

18.3 for 40,000 miles.

i guess your not into winter sports then :)

01 3.0L Manual, if I try hard I can get the MPG to stay at 18.3 ... if I drive "normal" then it hovers at the high end of 17.

has anyone noticed a drop in mileage when changing from the non sport 17 inch wheels and tires to the wider heavier 19' staggered wheel sets? I haven't had mine long enough to really calculate any regular mileage and I'm switching wheels and tires this weekend.

With my 3.0i I get about 13-15 mpg in the city. It sucks but I could be more easy on the pedal but the X makes it hard to keep it under 4500 rpm...