'08 Accord EX engine almost equals the TSX -- and runs on 87 octane
#41
Driver/Detailer
Originally Posted by PrecyseStylez
Off topic kinda.. but the new G35 S has two 10 inch subwoofers in the front door panels!.. those bose might bump!
#42
Driver/Detailer
Originally Posted by davidspalding
The TSX engine will run on 87 octane fuel, it's just not recommended. (My 2006's manual recommends 91 IIRC, so I mix at the pump (1/2 and 1/2 of 87 + 93, usually). Someone's going to tell me why that doesn't work, I'm sure, but it seems a practical way to shave a few $ off my fuel visits and keep the recommended fuel in my tank.) The assumptions that "you can't run the TSX engine on 87 octane," and "if you put 93 octane fuel in a engine which runs on 87, you get more HP or torque," don't really fly. You might get knocking, but the engine will go.
I, like many I think, confuse octane with performance. This Wikipedia article explains it pretty well.
I, like many I think, confuse octane with performance. This Wikipedia article explains it pretty well.
#43
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Palo Alto, California
Age: 39
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aaronng
Why skimp on $4-5 with a $28,000 car?
#44
Make a hole, coming thru!
Originally Posted by davidspalding
I could double-check but IIRC my 2006 manual states that CD-Rs with MP3s will play in my 6-disc changer....
I must've confused this with some other literature I've been reading this summer (so many choices, and the TSX won out). Just wanted to correct myself so no one was misled.
#45
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by 04EuroAccordTsx
i bet it will be an I4 with 240hp and SH-AWD, really hope they have a V6 option this time.
#46
Make a hole, coming thru!
Originally Posted by aaronng
Why skimp on $4-5 with a $28,000 car?
Oh, and mine was US$24,000. Double-nyaah.
Originally Posted by Populuxe
I kind of agree. I'm in the boat that if you buy a car that takes premium fuel, you should be factoring in the cost of that fuel at purchase time. If you had the money to buy the car that takes 91/93 octane, you should have the money to fill it with said fuel.
It's the same as sport-shifting versus using full AT and cruise control. During the week, I'm getting 29 mpg, but on the fun drives, it's a bit less because ... I'm having fun. AND I do that with the higher fuel in its belly.
#48
Race Director
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Illinois
Age: 45
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by STL
There is a V6 option right now...the TL. Seriously I don't understand why people want to see a V6 in the TSX, because all that'll do is make the car handle much like the TL. It reminds me of the ignorant people who kept clamoring for a V6 in the S2000 not realizing it would totally upset the balance of the car. If you prefer the TSX over the TL because of the way it drives, then you have to understand slapping a V6 in it would drastically change that (and I know it's a moot point in the current TSX because a V6 won't fit). I myself don't think we'll see V6 in the next gen TSX -- instead I think base version will be FWD with 225hp naturally aspirated I4 and the Type-S version will be AWD (or have the option for it) along with a 250hp turbo I4.
#49
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by STL
There is a V6 option right now...the TL. Seriously I don't understand why people want to see a V6 in the TSX, because all that'll do is make the car handle much like the TL. It reminds me of the ignorant people who kept clamoring for a V6 in the S2000 not realizing it would totally upset the balance of the car. If you prefer the TSX over the TL because of the way it drives, then you have to understand slapping a V6 in it would drastically change that (and I know it's a moot point in the current TSX because a V6 won't fit). I myself don't think we'll see V6 in the next gen TSX -- instead I think base version will be FWD with 225hp naturally aspirated I4 and the Type-S version will be AWD (or have the option for it) along with a 250hp turbo I4.
But, if they went RWD (cold day in hell) that changes everything....
#51
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by 04EuroAccordTsx
the 5th gen Accord 94-97 had a V6 option and it was a little smaller than the TSX. did anyone complain about the handling of that Accord? not really, it was a welcome addition.
#52
Driver/Detailer
Originally Posted by davidspalding
US$4-$5 every 10 days over a year ... you do the math. Besides, I'm not skimping, I buy at club stores that offer 89 and 93 ... so I'm putting 91 in it. So there. Nyaah.
Oh, and mine was US$24,000. Double-nyaah.
Oh, and mine was US$24,000. Double-nyaah.
Also, why are you mixing 89 and 93? Is it cheaper than just using 91 all the time?
Originally Posted by davidspalding
Hey, I did. It's one of the things that Consumer Reports brings up on comparisons and reviews. But a lower octane fuel will work in such an engine, just get not as quite good performance (wider range of conflagration temperatures/pressures, IIRC), but sufficient for commute driving. The price 'diff from 89 to 93 isn't more than $0.50 lately, but adds up so an extra minute putting 91 in there while saving $0.10 or so at the discount store is NBFD.
It's the same as sport-shifting versus using full AT and cruise control. During the week, I'm getting 29 mpg, but on the fun drives, it's a bit less because ... I'm having fun. AND I do that with the higher fuel in its belly.
It's the same as sport-shifting versus using full AT and cruise control. During the week, I'm getting 29 mpg, but on the fun drives, it's a bit less because ... I'm having fun. AND I do that with the higher fuel in its belly.
BTW, low RPM, high load can also cause pinging. It is not isolated to high RPM operation.
#53
Make a hole, coming thru!
Originally Posted by aaronng
That's $5 x 36.5 = $182.50 per year. WOW! What a saving.
Also, why are you mixing 89 and 93? Is it cheaper than just using 91 all the time?
Also, why are you mixing 89 and 93? Is it cheaper than just using 91 all the time?
I was initially responding to something along the lines of "Accords are better since they run on 87 (or was it 89) octane, and TSX' require 91 or 93 and won't run on the lower octane fuel", based on a Consumer Reports article I read before I bought this vehicle. You seem to corroborating this. Stick a fork in this snarky side argument, i think it's done.
#54
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Baton Rouge
Age: 40
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How did this get turned into the octane arguement again. Everyone should use whatever gas they want ( but my baby only drinks shell vpower 93 octane). I agree with the above poster STL. I think the tsx will have a 220 hp 180 ftlb motor w/ a-vtec. Oh I would love that car! The mid model refresh will add Type S with AWD/ turbo setup of RDX. The turbo/ awd setup maybe put in the new TSX from the start, but with Acuras recent conservitism I doubt it. I know you guys like the idea of awd but it may make the tsx a little portly and kill MPG- but performance guys dont care about that. I think the TL will have AWD standard because a motor with over 300 hp will require it to handle well. I guess I changed the conversation from the accords motor to future acuras, but thats in the back of all of our minds anyway.
#55
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by 04EuroAccordTsx
the 5th gen Accord 94-97 had a V6 option and it was a little smaller than the TSX. did anyone complain about the handling of that Accord? not really, it was a welcome addition.
#56
2012 GLM SHAWD TECH TL
when a knock sensor sees detonation the ecu retards ignition timing
the only time valve timing is changed is when vtec is activated.
any engine makes more power on lower octane until detonation occurs
the only time valve timing is changed is when vtec is activated.
any engine makes more power on lower octane until detonation occurs
#57
Originally Posted by Populuxe
I kind of agree. I'm in the boat that if you buy a car that takes premium fuel, you should be factoring in the cost of that fuel at purchase time. If you had the money to buy the car that takes 91/93 octane, you should have the money to fill it with said fuel.
Maybe he got the car before fuel jumped my $1.50 a gallon. Now that makes a big difference. 30 cents more for 93 isn't a problem but it can be when you factor in the point that gas jumped atleast $1.50 and a one point $1.75 a gallon. I know I thought a time or two of using a lower octain just because when you are talking about such a price jump, that 30-40cents less per gallon when you fill up 1 1/2 times atleast a week does add up. But I never stopped using 93. (FYI in NY you cannot find 91 in most places, it is easier to find diesel yet NY won't allow you to register a brand new diesel, go figure).
#58
Race Director
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Illinois
Age: 45
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
btw i put 89 in the TSX for the first time and i can tell the difference in acceleration and i got approx 2 mpg less when i put in 89 vs 93 on the highway.
#59
Make a hole, coming thru!
Just curious. How'd you measure, using the MID readout (avg mpg over the tank of gas), or average based on ODO reading from fill-up to fill-up, divided by fuel added?
#60
Racer
I wonder how this new engine will feel with the 5speed manual.
I'm sure it won't feel as sporty as the 6-speed in the tsx. maybe it won't have as many shifting problems because the gears are spaced correctly. does the 2nd stage vtec still kick in at 6k rpms? or did they lower it so it can be used?
on another note, the accord is getting more power, but dropping from 34mpg to 31mpg. Is there a new rating or is this a direct cause of the more powerful engine?
I'm sure it won't feel as sporty as the 6-speed in the tsx. maybe it won't have as many shifting problems because the gears are spaced correctly. does the 2nd stage vtec still kick in at 6k rpms? or did they lower it so it can be used?
on another note, the accord is getting more power, but dropping from 34mpg to 31mpg. Is there a new rating or is this a direct cause of the more powerful engine?
#61
Klutch Dollaz
Join Date: May 2007
Location: toronto, On
Age: 44
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree most l;ikely rdx strip down
Originally Posted by 04EuroAccordTsx
i bet it will be an I4 with 240hp and SH-AWD, really hope they have a V6 option this time.
some type of scaled down version of rdx motor I doubt they will built
an all new engine/trans combo for rdx
Plus a turbo four in the rdx that would be sweet also SH-AWD so we get honda reliability with 4wd excellent
#62
Driver/Detailer
Originally Posted by jdmturbosol
when a knock sensor sees detonation the ecu retards ignition timing
the only time valve timing is changed is when vtec is activated.
any engine makes more power on lower octane until detonation occurs
the only time valve timing is changed is when vtec is activated.
any engine makes more power on lower octane until detonation occurs
#63
Let me help you!
Originally Posted by aaronng
If you retard ignition timing when pinging is detected, you are delaying the timing of the spark. Detonation occurs BEFORE the spark is meant to ignite, before TDC. So what does delaying ignition timing do for detonation?
Thus, there will be knocking (due to detonation), the ecu will retard the timing, and then the knocking will stop because the mixture won't pre-detonate anymore.
Did I get the answer right? Can I have a cookie? =)
And I always thought the valve timing was determined by the lobes on the camshaft? I know when VTEC engages, it engages a different camshaft that has a different profile of lobes. Is the k-series engine somehow different from the other engines in that the ecu can adjust valve timing regardless of what the camshaft lobes are saying?
#65
Originally Posted by jdmturbosol
when a knock sensor sees detonation the ecu retards ignition timing
the only time valve timing is changed is when vtec is activated.
any engine makes more power on lower octane until detonation occurs
the only time valve timing is changed is when vtec is activated.
any engine makes more power on lower octane until detonation occurs
actually the intake cam shaft is capable of advance from 25-40+ degress of timing..
actually an engine will make more power on a higher octane relative to lower octane because of the detonation factor with consideration to compression ratios. If you want to make more power you have to either increase displacement by way of engine size(strokexbore) or fi or compression or all of the above..
#66
Originally Posted by SoCaliTrojan
When the spark explodes the mixture, heat and pressure is generated. Knocking happens when pressure and temperature exceed a certain level, which causes spontaneous combustion. By retarding the ignition timing so that the piston is already going down when the spark is generated, the piston is already working to reduce the pressure when the spark occurs. Since the pressure will no longer exceed the threshhold necessary for spontaneous combustion, knocking won't occur.
Thus, there will be knocking (due to detonation), the ecu will retard the timing, and then the knocking will stop because the mixture won't pre-detonate anymore.
Did I get the answer right? Can I have a cookie? =)
And I always thought the valve timing was determined by the lobes on the camshaft? I know when VTEC engages, it engages a different camshaft that has a different profile of lobes. Is the k-series engine somehow different from the other engines in that the ecu can adjust valve timing regardless of what the camshaft lobes are saying?
Thus, there will be knocking (due to detonation), the ecu will retard the timing, and then the knocking will stop because the mixture won't pre-detonate anymore.
Did I get the answer right? Can I have a cookie? =)
And I always thought the valve timing was determined by the lobes on the camshaft? I know when VTEC engages, it engages a different camshaft that has a different profile of lobes. Is the k-series engine somehow different from the other engines in that the ecu can adjust valve timing regardless of what the camshaft lobes are saying?
vtec lift and duration is fixed as well as timing..
ivtec is the same regarding lift and duration having a high and low profile lobe set.. but only the intake cam is capable of advancing timing.. very helpfull when you are taking into accout the scavenging affect of the exhaust valves
#67
Let me help you!
Originally Posted by miken5678
vtec lift and duration is fixed as well as timing..
ivtec is the same regarding lift and duration having a high and low profile lobe set.. but only the intake cam is capable of advancing timing.. very helpfull when you are taking into accout the scavenging affect of the exhaust valves
ivtec is the same regarding lift and duration having a high and low profile lobe set.. but only the intake cam is capable of advancing timing.. very helpfull when you are taking into accout the scavenging affect of the exhaust valves
#68
Make a hole, coming thru!
All this is going so far over my head that the thread ought'a have a stewardess on board.
So I guess the bottom line is you can put a lower octane fuel in the TSX engine, it won't ping or knock, but you also won't enjoy optimum performance (and perhaps long-term reliability) out of it...?
Worth revisiting that the OP talked about power and such, but didn't mention EPA mileage. I declined to get an Accord V6 EX partly because the mileage was pretty dismal. I get much better mileage with my TSX than what Consumer Reports published for their Accord road tests. So if mileage is hampered when a lower octane fuel is used in the TSX, you're probably not getting any savings. That is, save $5 at the pump by using 87 octane fuel, but get 24 mpg versus 27 mpg, hence visit the pump roughly 53 miles sooner, and have to buy $6.20 more in gas. This is entirely guesswork, we don't know the actual mileage decrease with the lower octane. If anyone wants to post some practical test results....
So I guess the bottom line is you can put a lower octane fuel in the TSX engine, it won't ping or knock, but you also won't enjoy optimum performance (and perhaps long-term reliability) out of it...?
Worth revisiting that the OP talked about power and such, but didn't mention EPA mileage. I declined to get an Accord V6 EX partly because the mileage was pretty dismal. I get much better mileage with my TSX than what Consumer Reports published for their Accord road tests. So if mileage is hampered when a lower octane fuel is used in the TSX, you're probably not getting any savings. That is, save $5 at the pump by using 87 octane fuel, but get 24 mpg versus 27 mpg, hence visit the pump roughly 53 miles sooner, and have to buy $6.20 more in gas. This is entirely guesswork, we don't know the actual mileage decrease with the lower octane. If anyone wants to post some practical test results....
#69
Originally Posted by Populuxe
I kind of agree. I'm in the boat that if you buy a car that takes premium fuel, you should be factoring in the cost of that fuel at purchase time. If you had the money to buy the car that takes 91/93 octane, you should have the money to fill it with said fuel.
The dealer filled my new '08 TSX with 87 Octane before I took delivery.
Guess what ? It runs just fine thank-you. I got 32.6 on that first tank and no better or worse when I put 93 Octane in for the second tank.
For comparisson, I consider myself a "semi-reformed" lead foot with a 75 mile roundtrip commute of abuot 80% Hwy / 20% City.
In the end - I think the result is comlpetely parallel to the many posts about costs for 91-93 Octane - Using lower octance rated gas doesn't change the car's MPG or performance at any noticeable level, is demonstrated to be just as true as the argument that the additional few cents per gallon more for 91 OCtane doesn't increase the gas bill significantly.....
At the end of the day, To each their own.
#70
what we are able to hear ping wise and what the knock sensor picks up on are vastly different. you may get 32.6 but at the expense of to much timing and probably not enough in some cases to totally eliminate knock..
personally im awaiting the new advanced vtec... supposedly it comes out in 09-10 should be interesting to see the benefits.
personally im awaiting the new advanced vtec... supposedly it comes out in 09-10 should be interesting to see the benefits.
#72
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by JDMPLUS
so does that mean next gen of V4 accord is going to beat the current tsx in 0-60 and quarter mile.
#73
Racer
Originally Posted by JDMPLUS
so does that mean next gen of V4 accord is going to beat the current tsx in 0-60 and quarter mile.
when will stg 2 vtec kick in 6k rpms like our cars do? what will the gearing be?
5spd manual vs 6spd manual should make it slower due to the longer gear ratios. but should help improve overall fuel economy.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
mada51589
3G TL Problems & Fixes
79
05-03-2022 08:54 PM
cycdaniel
1G TSX Performance Parts & Modifications
8
12-17-2019 10:58 AM
nuldabz
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
3
09-03-2015 05:49 PM