Honda Car Forum

I just got back from a 2 hr test drive of a 2003 TL with 52,000 miles.
I plan to buy this car tomorrow if everything else checks out for
$17,100. The current owner said he always used regular (Octane 87) gas.
I know the computer will change the timing to avoid knocking, but will
this, in the long term, cause engine problems and vibration and future
problems? Also the front motor mount was broken - could motor vibration
from low grade gas cause this?

On the test drive I got 29 mpg with the ac on. Also, a 0 - 60 mph
acceleration test gave only 9.4 seconds - rather slow. Could the timing
adjustment cause the car to run this slow? would the gas milage go up
and acceleration be better with a higher grade fuel?

Thanks for any advice on this, Rick

"Rick" <stromer2@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1151131377.501326.19710@y41g2000cwy.googlegro ups.com...
>I just got back from a 2 hr test drive of a 2003 TL with 52,000 miles.
> I plan to buy this car tomorrow if everything else checks out for
> $17,100. The current owner said he always used regular (Octane 87) gas.
> I know the computer will change the timing to avoid knocking, but will
> this, in the long term, cause engine problems and vibration and future
> problems? Also the front motor mount was broken - could motor vibration
> from low grade gas cause this?
>
> On the test drive I got 29 mpg with the ac on. Also, a 0 - 60 mph
> acceleration test gave only 9.4 seconds - rather slow. Could the timing
> adjustment cause the car to run this slow? would the gas milage go up
> and acceleration be better with a higher grade fuel?
>
> Thanks for any advice on this, Rick
>
The use of lower than specified octane gasoline rarely causes long term
problems for modern engines because of the use of knock detectors. It can be
a very bad thing in engines without knock detectors because of the amount of
damage that can be done. See http://tegger.com/hondafaq/premiumgas.html for
a better overview.

The motor mount is not going to be because of the gasoline, but if the
tranny is a manual it may be an indication of harsh shifting - dumping the
clutch when the engine is revved too high. That would make me worry about
the clutch and maybe even the way the car has been treated overall.
Combining harsh treatment with cheaping out (as seen in the gasoline area)
is a bad idea. In this vein, have you removed the oil filler cap and peeked
inside the valve cover with a flashlight? Where the oil has drained away
from the rocker assembly you should see silver metal. The more brown it is
(not because of remaining oil film) the poorer the oil upkeep has been. Some
brown varnish is acceptable but in a 2003 it should be only the lightest
tinge. Failing that check disqualifies the car when I'm buying. Ditto for
any trace of rust in the cooling system, either when you look in the coolant
reservoir or (if the engine is cool) if you remove the radiator cap and run
a finger around the inside of the radiator neck. Anyway, for examples of
what you should see check out
http://tegger.com/hondafaq/sludge/ph...64455-open.jpg and
http://tegger.com/hondafaq/sludge/in...a1-200k-mi.jpg from
http://tegger.com/hondafaq/sludge/nosludge.html . If you see something like
the picture on the right side of that page don't even think of buying it.

Low octane gasoline will definitely slow down the full throttle
acceleration, as the knock sensor is pretty heavy-handed in retarding the
timing if it hears a ping. After all, it has an engine to protect. It
usually won't affect the throttle response in normal driving. Many people
report better fuel economy when running premium in an engine that is
designed to use it, and most report enough better economy to make up the 6%
price difference. If premium brings the 29 mpg up to 31 mpg you are paying
the same amount for gasoline.

Mike

I would ask the owner when they are using regular instead of premium. If they
say they are doing it to save money, then I would run away. You have to wonder
if they didn't try cutting other corners, like regular maintenance, to save
money.
-------------
Alex

Rick wrote:
> I just got back from a 2 hr test drive of a 2003 TL with 52,000 miles.
> I plan to buy this car tomorrow if everything else checks out for
> $17,100. The current owner said he always used regular (Octane 87) gas.


Hmmm, someone buys an expensive new car and then run the cheapest gas
they can find ?????? I would keep looking. You should be able to find
excellent pampered used TLs around. A pampered car is the one you want,
not the car of a cheap skate.

John

On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:04:23 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Rick wrote:
>> I just got back from a 2 hr test drive of a 2003 TL with 52,000 miles.
>> I plan to buy this car tomorrow if everything else checks out for
>> $17,100. The current owner said he always used regular (Octane 87) gas.
>
>
>Hmmm, someone buys an expensive new car and then run the cheapest gas
>they can find ?????? I would keep looking. You should be able to find
>excellent pampered used TLs around. A pampered car is the one you want,
>not the car of a cheap skate.
>
>John

Referencing back to my comments a week ago related to using regular
(below 91 octane) fuel in high compression engines, you are relying on
the knock sensor and computer to detect knock (detonation) and reduce
either timing, fuel flow or both FAST ENOUGH to prevent damage to the
engine. If that process fails, even one second of severe detonation
can essentially destroy major components and require a total rebuild.
Not cheap. To my knowledge, current engine fuel management systems do
not have the capability to directly determine the octane of the fuel
being delivered to the engine and control the engine accordingly.
Today, the engine settings are adjusted by the results occuring inside
the engine as it operates, all after the fact.

If you want performance, put in the recommended fuel and enjoy. If
you want economy, avoid hi-compression engines in general and the high
horse-power options in whatever you are interested in and enjoy.

One othe point, higher octane fuels typically are blended from stocks
and additives that combined have a slightly lower specific energy
content per volume. Ironically, then, in tests on otherwise identical
engines using fixed timing, mixture ratios, the lower octane fuel will
produce better fuel economy UNLESS the timing or octane is causing
detonation, in which case, it will be worse, potentially far worse.

While the difference is small, it is measureable in a tightly
controlled test.

Paul

Ramapo wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 06:04:23 GMT, John Horner <jthorner@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Rick wrote:
> >> I just got back from a 2 hr test drive of a 2003 TL with 52,000 miles.
> >> I plan to buy this car tomorrow if everything else checks out for
> >> $17,100. The current owner said he always used regular (Octane 87) gas.
> >
> >
> >Hmmm, someone buys an expensive new car and then run the cheapest gas
> >they can find ?????? I would keep looking. You should be able to find
> >excellent pampered used TLs around. A pampered car is the one you want,
> >not the car of a cheap skate.
> >
> >John
>
> Referencing back to my comments a week ago related to using regular
> (below 91 octane) fuel in high compression engines, you are relying on
> the knock sensor and computer to detect knock (detonation) and reduce
> either timing, fuel flow or both FAST ENOUGH to prevent damage to the
> engine. If that process fails, even one second of severe detonation
> can essentially destroy major components and require a total rebuild.
>

You guys are kidding, right?
If you think the majority of TL owners are pumping Premium gas into
their cars these days, you're not paying attention at the pumps.
Premium gas sales are WAY down. And then there's the cheating that goes
on at gas stations where that 93 octane pump doesn't actually dispense
93 octane gas.
Like the Accord, the TL will run OK on 87 octane. I haven't seen any
reports of engine problems due to detonation for the TL or any other
car not used for racing.
A service record for the car is another matter entirely.