bradykp

i dont get it????

jlukja

it means that I'm posting now before you post a "my engine fell out and now I'm screwed" thread. :ib: means "in before". It started with :ibtl: meaning "in before the lock" and kind of grew from there.

bradykp

i see, i never did get it. so it's like a prediction basically?

wait.....you wishing the worst to me?!!?!?!?!!?!

lol

jlukja

yeah, kind of.

<------ means I'm kidding around

bradykp

whew.

CoquiTSX

That's why when we bought the car I decided to do a very unscientific experiment . I put 93 for the first 1213.5 mi, 89 for the next 1271 mi and 87 for the next 1192 mi. The results from the navi screen are as follows:

MPG _____ Miles______ MPH______ Time______ Hwy/City_____ Octane
32.6 ........... 948.5*......... 53.1 .......... 17.53 ........... 90/10 ............. 93
32.2 ........... 1271 ........... 49.5 ........... 25.41 ......... 85/15 ............... 89
33.4^ ......... 1192 .......... 48.4 ........... 24.37 ......... 80/20 .............. 87
33.4 ........... 1589 .......... ---- ............ 30.15 ......... 80/20 .............. 93

* did not recorded mph,Time for the other 265 miles.
^ includes 40 min+ traffic mess leaving the Raleigh airport

Most of the driving is down I95 from Laurel to South VA with a few down 301, when 95 is a bigger mess than usually is. I did not notice a difference in performance between the different grades, cruising down the road or passing the left lane cruisiers (70 mph) down 95. Avg mpg was about 34.5 till the last 300 miles.

jlukja

^^ quite interesting

swirlie

:iatheibjokewasbeattodeathbyexplanation:


CoquiTSX, could those numbers be skewed a little by your car still being broken in? That would lower the MPG numbers in the early tests...

Brandon24pdx

the car will ping more

bradykp

ok, i'm at about 160 miles on the tank now, still averaging 27.2 mpg. most of today was a 50/50 mix of highway and local roads with traffic.

almost got pulled over by a cop, but the idiot was positioned in a way that took a few seconds to pull out. so when i saw his car move forward, i bolted to the right, got off the exit, and took the local roads! whew. NY State Police are sheisty!

i asked a friend who is a chemical engineer major and currently works at sunoco about the octane and the effects on a car and i got a response here is a chemical engineer's point of view:

"Octane rating (the numbers you speak of) shouldn't affect gas milage too much. I'm surprised that you got a 4 mpg drop off with 87. Really you would notice the difference in engine performance. Lower octane gasoline does not burn as well so your engine would have a greater tendency to "knock" or ping. You would notice it most when the car is cold, idling or speeding up from a red light. The problem is that you may be depositing small amounts of solids slowly over time and not noticing it. I don't know if long term damage could occur..."

so basically, my conclusions is this:

it looks like my mpg will fall in around the same range, as i'm now halfway through the tank. although i don't notice a performance difference, it's probably just the type of driving i'm doing. the car wasn't subjected to idling much in this time period, even during traffic, i was rolling for the most part, and i don't slam on it at red lights like some drivers do.

he confirmed what we all suspect about small solid deposits, and the possibility of long term damage. while i seriously doubt it would happen, i'd prefer to not find out. i am sure i will stick to 91 octane on all future fillups unless for some reason i can't get it, in which case, i won't feel horrible about putting in 89 or 87. my intuition tells me that you'd have to be putting 87 or 89 in this car for well over 100,000 miles before you'd see any significant damage, and even then, i still doubt it.

my friend's response confirms coqui's results as being possible with the low variation in the MPG, which i am admittedly suprised about. i really did believe there was a difference in MPG. you cant argue with those results though, combined with the statement from a chem e that he's surpised i saw a MPG variance.

bottom line, lower octane won't kill our car, but it's possible we're doing very slight damage, that, if done consistently, could catch up to us.

as always, it's an interesting debate. i think i've finally come to a solid opinion on the matter with less speculation and more facts.

pbjpb

first of all chavez was elected and not a dictator you moron. second of all he should bring down that fukkin retard we have in the white house and all the sick demented shitbags in his cabinet. i'll buy all my gas from citgo now douchebag! don't peddle your twisted propaganda to the people here..this is an acura tsx forum not a fukkin right wing brainwashing community.

drunkenbuda

God bless America, screw the haters.

DuckDodgers

Actually, do the math and you are buying more octane cheaper with premium. That is given the usual 10 cent per grade premium here in Texas:

87 Octane = 2.10
89 Octane = 2.20
93 Octane = 2.30

It's actually cheaper to mix 93 and 87 to get a tank of 89 than buy the 89 outright. The simply reality is that 89 octane gas is a product people get suckered into. Most cars run on 87 just fine...higher compression cars specify 91-93 octane gas, not 89. (The fun note on this is that in Oklahoma Sunoco used to, and maybe still does, offer a range of octanes...about 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, and 93...they just had a tank of 85 and a tank of 93 and mixed it right there at the pump)

The industry knows that consumers perceive higher octane means more power and better mileage even though it just means more knock resistance. Car and Driver proved this when they took a V-6 Accord (recommened 87 octane) and ran it in a test on both 87 and 92 or 93 octane fuel. The Accord accelerated better and got better gas mileage with the 87 octane gas! (As a side note, a V-6 Mustang was the opposite...even though they recommended 87, it was a little faster and thriftier on the 92-93 octane fuel.)

Washington

I won't buy Citgo. Snopes isn't an economics site; while Venezualan crude oil can easily be sold to other countries, it's plausible that Chavez will find his Citgo gas stations in the U.S. at a permanent disadvantage, and decide to sell them off. Free markets force such sell-offs all the time. Let's hope it happens to Chavez.

Chavez has garnered enough power to ensure that he will never relinquish authority. In 2004, he packed the Supreme Court of Venezuela with an additional 12 judges, so he would be sure to win legal challenges to a recall election (which he also tried to stifle). With Chavez at the helm, the Venezuelan government has passed laws which make it a criminal offense to insult or show disrespect for their president, and a law that allows the president to shut down newspapers and television stations at his own discretion. (Really no need for censorship when you've got those powers, is there?).

Chavez is term-limited out in 2013. Bet he manages to find a way to stay there. He's following Castro's lead.

If I was in Venezuela, this post would be grounds for imprisonment.

LuvMyTSX

Clearly, you're the asshole. Your attitude is outright rude and uncalled for.

Mokos23

Yeah, why are you picking on my girl?

LuvMyTSX

jlukja

You need to tone it down a few notches.

You're right about this being a TSX forum. We have a Religion & Politics forum in our Off Topic section. Lets keep the political discussion over there.

bradykp

wow, supreme court deciding on the elected official? that sounds so foreign. being chastised for insulting or disagreeing with the government's administration? that's so foreign. i guess shutting down newspapers and television stations is also worse than just having completely biased information with all spin and no facts (from both sides).

just funny.

bradykp

i agree. i apologize for my post that was political, just couldn't resist the irony of some of the statements. <Mod edit: text snipped>

back on topic. mpg still the same around 27.2.

feuss2

iTrader: (1)

i doubt a few octaine points means much below 5000rpm. if you've been running 93 for a while and switch to 89, and don't redline the car, chances are you're not going to trip the knock sensor.

if you do, the ecu will respond appropriately to protect the engine. the side effects will be the crappy mileage, performance, etc.

if you don't, in *theory*, the engine should continue running the same in that rpm range...

if you're going to get on the highway and cruise along at 70, there's probably no detectable difference, and the fact that lower octaine fuel burns more quickly may actually help produce slightly more power under these conditions.

if you're going to beat on your car, you should run the 91, or you will probably increase your change of damage....

also, besides the obvious issues, alot of us reading this forum, have a hondata program in their ecu. because of the programming differences, i always spend the buck or two on 93. i like to rev it up like the rest of you, and i want to avoid detonation!

jdepasqu2

Originally Posted by mrgold35
The only way you can give less profits to the oil companies is to drive a solar car or walk/bike to work. Using 89 octane or taking the bus/taxi/train/plane is still making the oil companies fat and happy. They can drop pump prices to .75 Cents a gallon and still make a profit from us.

I had to use a lower octane because I had no choice, it is nice to know the car will perform in those situations.



yes, but the higher octanes are more profitable for them than the lower octanes from my understanding. they make mucho profit on those "detergants and additives" that are in there.




Post #6


Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: hoboken, nj
Age: 24
Posts: 2,087 Originally Posted by LuvMyTSX
It's your choice to put whatever gas you want into your car, but I'd advise against Citgo.

Here's an email I received a few days ago:


Venezuela Dictator Vows To Bring Down U.S. Government

Venezuela government is sole owner of Citgo gasoline company.

Venezuela Dictator Hugo Chavez has vowed to bring down the U.S.
government.

Chavez, president of Venezuela, told a TV audience : "Enough of
imperialist aggression; we must tell the world: down with the U.S.
empire. We have to bury imperialism this century." Chavez recently had Harry Belafonte as his television guest, and called President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world." Chavez is pushing a socialist revolution and has a close alliance with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Regardless of your feelings about the war in Iraq, the issue here is that we have a socialist dictator vowing to bring down the government of the U.S. And he is using our money to achieve his goal! The Venezuela government, run by dictator Chavez, is the sole owner of Citgo gas ompany. Sales of products at Citgo stations send money back to Chavez to help him in his vow to bring down our government.

Take Action

Please decide that you will not be shopping at a Citgo station. Why
should U.S. citizens who love freedom be financing a dictator who has vowed to
take down our government?

Very important. Please forward this to your friends and family. Most of
them don't know that Citgo is owned by the Venezuela government.

YOU CAN VERIFY THIS ON THE CITGO WEB PAGE.
http://www.citgo.com/Abo utCITGO.jsp


yes you are correct (http://www.citgo.com/AboutCITGO/PDVSAprofile.jsp)

but if you think that the oil coming from other companies is from nice, peaceful governments, you're smoking some crack.

i generally buy sunoco or vallero depending on what's closest. i've given up on the fight against "evil" oil companies. i do my part by using less gas whenever possible. if i'm on E and Citgo is there, ima gonna fill up.


Chavez, along with many, many other people around the world HATE THE USA BECAUSE WE ARE CONSTANTLY SCREWING WITH THEM AND TELLING THEM WHAT TO DO...... INSTEAD OF JUST LIVING AND LET LIVE, WHICH IS THE ONLY WAY TO DEAL WITH PEOPLE WHO WILL NEVER SEE THE WORLD AS YOU DO. YOU CANOT SHOCK AND AWH THE WHOLE WORLD AND FORCE THINGS DOWN MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF PEOPLE THROATS. SO IN CONCLUSION........, REALITY HURTS ALOT OF THE TIME......, AND YOU MYFRIEND ARE NOT SOMEONE WHO CAN HANDLE OR EXCEPT REALITY. aND THE HECK WITH THIS GOD BLESS/UNCONDITIONAL LOVE FOR THE USA.......... ITS COMMENTS LIKE THAT THAT LET PEOPLE BE AS INGNORANT AND SELFISH AS THESE TERRORISTS THAT "WANT TO BRING DOWN AMERICA". DO HUMANITY A FAVOR......... AND WAKE UP TO LIFE AS IT IS FOR THE WHOLE WORLD NOT JUST FOR YOU AND YOUR SWEET LITTLE SPOT IN THE US. --sTOP SPEDING THIS BULLSHIT THAT AMERICA IS FLAWLESS......., PERIOD.

CoquiTSX

I'm pretty sure that's the case, and probably the differences between the avg mpg’s are not “statistically different” . At the end of the “experiment”, as soon as I continued using 93 the average was around 35 for the “first” ~600 miles. There has been more city driving so the mpg are “down” to 33.4.

bradykp

according to my chem e friend, mpg shouldn't vary much, but yes, you would have decreased performance in some situations feel the knocking.

derbaff

wow, all CAPS, that's really going to make me see you point of view

:ibtl:

jdepasqu2

"wow, all CAPS, that's really going to make me see you point of view

:ibtl:"



You will just never get it ..........., your to damn ignorant/selfish/greedy. Just like all the bone headed, stuck-in-there-ways, conservatives. The fact that, the only thing you have to say in responce to my comment, has nothing to with the mater at hand, says alot....., just cant handle it........... suppose you absolutely love the presidents actions in the last 6 years........ Bet your next comment will be.......,yeeeeeeee-haaa and oh yah.. God Bless........

jlukja

and another thread goes down the drain. Take it to R&P.

jlukja

saving deleted text

jlukja

saving edited text

jlukja

saving edited text

jlukja

I've cleaned out the politically oriented posts and this thread is being re-opened. As some of you pointed out, this is too good of a topic to lose to a lock because of politically charged posts.

Keep politics to R&P. If you post it here again it'll be deleted and you'll go on vacation. Lets keep the discussion to octane and mileage.

bradykp

car is at 230 miles and 26mpg. i'm right around what i normally average for a tank.....still. i pushed it pretty hard last night around hoboken to see if there'd be any knocking. didn't notice anything. i do believe next fillup will be 91, but i'm tempted to keep it going to see....

feuss2

iTrader: (1)

Honda has built a reputation for reliability that I beleive comes from very conservative engineering. They may know that the TSX knocks only 0.1% more on 89 than it does on 91, and still specify 91 to maintain their rep an avoid the additional warranty claims that may generate. It is possible to damage to occur without giving you an audible indication that its occurring.

bradykp

i do know this, from talking to my chem e buddy. it's not going to be significant enough over the short run (by that i mean like 100,000 miles), but i can see it being a problem in the long run (200,000 miles) if you always used 87 or 89. i just don't believe it's significant enough to really cause "damage"

that being said, i'll stick with 91 anyways.

Mega

I expressed my opinion HERE so I won't rehash it, but I will say that since I posted that I always use 89, I have since changed to 87, and still see good gas mileage, and good performance.

By the way, here is what the manual has to say about it: So even the manual condones using lower octane. It won't hurt your car guys

bradykp

post #31 of this thread has the exact wording from the manual. you are right, but i wouldn't say it "condones" using lower octane, it just says you may use it.

it can lead to engine damage, but it's my belief that it would be over a very long period of time. my friend, who is a chemical engineer at sunoco, agrees with this (he was the source of info for me).

DHCLK06

There are several threads on this very topic and I'm sure it's been said, but not by me...yet. I do not use premuim. As long as cars are manufactured with octane sensors that adjust for the octane level and there is no large gas mileage or performance advantage, I just don't see the point. I did not make this decision base on money because the savings are not that great.
OK, that's my

bradykp

I agree with you, but there is possibility for slight engine damage. I trust my chem e friend, and it logically makes sense with the burn rates of the different octanes. I agree, it's a minor performance difference if any, but the possibility for damage is enough for me to keep it running on 91.

i just found it interesting that my 89 octane tank results in no chance in my average MPG. i'm at the end of the tank now, still at 26mpg, which is where i always end up each week.

DHCLK06

Since gas prices are slowly creeping towards $2 hear in N. TX, I have lately been using mid grade. I can't really give an accurate AVG MPG comparison because there are times when I have to "put my foot in it"...which seems to happen frequently

bradykp

well if you read the post where i quoted my chem e friend's response, he thinks there should be little or no difference in mpg. i've heard this from more than just him. performance may be decreased (though i don't think it'd be enough to notice), and there could be little pieces of metal accumulating because of the compression ratio vs incorrect octane. again, i dont even think it'd be that significant, especially if the ECU is doing it's job.

I'd have no problem buying 89, but i have no real reason not to do 91 just to be safe. 93 is just a waste though in my opinion.