Honda Car Forum

There was an interesting article in the business section of the
Washiington Post today reporting a large decline in premium and
mid-grade (89) gasoline as owner switch to regular. They quoted the
tech experts at Chrysler as saying even cars recommended for premium
can run on 87, but the electronics will not let the engine develop
maximum output to protect itself.

Anyone know what Honda's (Acura) position is on running regular in a
TL?

Just wondering.

Paul

Waiving the right to remain silent, "pj.chris@verizon.net"
<Unknown@verizon.net> said:

> Anyone know what Honda's (Acura) position is on running regular
> in a TL?

RTM. Don't do it. You want to buy a $36,000 car, then attempt to
save two dollars on a fill up..?

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Twenty-five million illegal aliens can't be wrong.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:56:30 GMT, "pj.chris@verizon.net"
<Unknown@verizon.net> wrote:

>There was an interesting article in the business section of the
>Washiington Post today reporting a large decline in premium and
>mid-grade (89) gasoline as owner switch to regular. They quoted the
>tech experts at Chrysler as saying even cars recommended for premium
>can run on 87, but the electronics will not let the engine develop
>maximum output to protect itself.
>
>Anyone know what Honda's (Acura) position is on running regular in a
>TL?
>
>Just wondering.
>
>Paul

It's not worth the few bucks per year you might save for the
possibility of screwing up your $35,000 car. It's 11:1
compression requires 91+ octane. Will it run on less? Yes, but
it's not worth the risk or the loss in performance. You're not
saving that much.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:12:58 GMT, Lee Florack
<lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:56:30 GMT, "pj.chris@verizon.net"
><Unknown@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>There was an interesting article in the business section of the
>>Washiington Post today reporting a large decline in premium and
>>mid-grade (89) gasoline as owner switch to regular. They quoted the
>>tech experts at Chrysler as saying even cars recommended for premium
>>can run on 87, but the electronics will not let the engine develop
>>maximum output to protect itself.
>>
>>Anyone know what Honda's (Acura) position is on running regular in a
>>TL?
>>
>>Just wondering.
>>
>>Paul
>
>It's not worth the few bucks per year you might save for the
>possibility of screwing up your $35,000 car. It's 11:1
>compression requires 91+ octane. Will it run on less? Yes, but
>it's not worth the risk or the loss in performance. You're not
>saving that much.


Not to mention that you will probably get better mpg with 91 so the
cost isn't as bad as it seems. Saving a little money is a great idea
except when it is at the cost of ruining an engine. Ever see a piston
from an engine that has been detonating? Lots of dents and holes from
the knocking.

On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 03:00:54 +0000, NomoreRGS <fishman@fish.net>
wrote:

>On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 13:12:58 GMT, Lee Florack
><lflorack@rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 23:56:30 GMT, "pj.chris@verizon.net"
>><Unknown@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>There was an interesting article in the business section of the
>>>Washiington Post today reporting a large decline in premium and
>>>mid-grade (89) gasoline as owner switch to regular. They quoted the
>>>tech experts at Chrysler as saying even cars recommended for premium
>>>can run on 87, but the electronics will not let the engine develop
>>>maximum output to protect itself.
>>>
>>>Anyone know what Honda's (Acura) position is on running regular in a
>>>TL?
>>>
>>>Just wondering.
>>>
>>>Paul
>>
>>It's not worth the few bucks per year you might save for the
>>possibility of screwing up your $35,000 car. It's 11:1
>>compression requires 91+ octane. Will it run on less? Yes, but
>>it's not worth the risk or the loss in performance. You're not
>>saving that much.
>
>
>Not to mention that you will probably get better mpg with 91 so the
>cost isn't as bad as it seems. Saving a little money is a great idea
>except when it is at the cost of ruining an engine. Ever see a piston
>from an engine that has been detonating? Lots of dents and holes from
>the knocking.

Given the compression ratio of this engine, I would have to agree that
running at anything below 91 octane would almost certianly produce
damage to the engine at some point. I was just interested in others
views on this.

Any, by the way, higher octane rated fuel in and of themselves do not
produce higher fuel mileage. In fact, all things being equal,
(meaning engine and value timing, etc). higher octane and performance
number fuels produce lower fuel mileage, as the fuel has a lower
energy content per volume. This is due to the mix of aromatics added,
and other non-energy loaded chemicals for instance, to get the higher
detonation resistance.

In the case of the modern engines that have dynamic timing control,
detonation sensing and variable valve timing, the lower octane fuel
would most likely produce lower mileage as the engine compensates to
protect itself.

Paul

I was test driving a TL at my local Acura dealership two weeks ago and
asked the salesman if the car required 91+ octane. He said that it can
improve performance but it's not necessary and that every car on their
lot was filled with 87.

I was test driving a TL at my local Acura dealership two weeks ago and
asked the salesman if the car required 91+ octane. He said that it can
improve performance but it's not necessary and that every car on their
lot was filled with 87.

Waiving the right to remain silent, gavram@yahoo.com said:

> I was test driving a TL at my local Acura dealership two weeks
> ago and asked the salesman if the car required 91+ octane. He
> said that it can improve performance but it's not necessary and
> that every car on their lot was filled with 87.

He's an imbecile.

--
Larry J. - Remove spamtrap in ALLCAPS to e-mail

The United States is the greatest country in the world..!
Twenty-five million illegal aliens can't be wrong.

In article <1123601082.525806.322640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
gavram@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>I was test driving a TL at my local Acura dealership two weeks ago and
>asked the salesman if the car required 91+ octane. He said that it can
>improve performance but it's not necessary and that every car on their
>lot was filled with 87.

Check the owners manual. It will tell you the fuel requirements. Most modern
cars have knock sensors that will retard the spark if they sense knock. So you
can use the lower octane fuel, but performance will suffer. So it is not a
case of getting more if you use higher octane as much as it is that you get
less if you use the lower octane gas.
--------------
Alex

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:29:57 -0400, Alex Rodriguez wrote:

>In article <1123601082.525806.322640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>,
>gavram@yahoo.com says...
>>
>>
>>I was test driving a TL at my local Acura dealership two weeks ago and
>>asked the salesman if the car required 91+ octane. He said that it can
>>improve performance but it's not necessary and that every car on their
>>lot was filled with 87.
>
>Check the owners manual. It will tell you the fuel requirements. Most modern
>cars have knock sensors that will retard the spark if they sense knock. So you
>can use the lower octane fuel, but performance will suffer. So it is not a
>case of getting more if you use higher octane as much as it is that you get
>less if you use the lower octane gas.
>--------------
>Alex

The new Hyundai has a V6 and runs on 87 octane gas. Maybe that car
would be more to your liking.

Or a nice Sunbird.

--
"I'd far rather be happy than right any day."
- Slartibartfast