View Poll Results: What octane fuel do you put in your TSX?
87
7
3.08%
89
12
5.29%
91
100
44.05%
>91
108
47.58%
Voters: 227. You may not vote on this poll
What Fuel Do You Use?
#83
Tuxedo Cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Venice Beach
Age: 60
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by elduderino
I use 91... occasionally I use 89 but only in cooler weather.
#84
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (2)
Originally Posted by VeniceBeachTSX
Actually, your engine makes better power (and needs the octane more) when the weather is cold and the air is denser. In hot weather or high altitudes, you lose power and octane becomes less relevant.
#85
Tuxedo Cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Venice Beach
Age: 60
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PixelHarmony
The compression ratio of your engine determines the octane rating of the gas you must use in the car. One way to increase the horsepower of an engine of a given displacement is to increase its compression ratio. So a "high-performance engine" has a higher compression ratio and requires higher-octane fuel. The advantage of a high compression ratio is that it gives your engine a higher horsepower rating for a given engine weight -- that is what makes the engine "high performance." The disadvantage is that the gasoline for your engine costs more.
1) What is the pressure of the air in the intake?
2) What is the compression ratio?
Multiply these two factors together and you'll get (roughly) the maximum pressure in the cylinder prior to combustion.
(Actually, I'm simplifying here as well, because other factors such as temperature and humidity impact the liklihood of detonation, however these are all secondary factors.)
Air pressure in the intake depends on two factors:
a) Air pressure outside. If the pressure outside is low (as it would be in a mountainous area) then the maximum pressure in the intake, and thus in the cylinder is reduced. This is one of the reasons that octane ratings are typically lower in the mountain states than on the coasts. You just don't need it at altitude.
b) Throttle position. If the throttle is not wide open, the air pressure in the intake is reduced. At idle it could be as little as 1/3 of outside atmospheric pressure, at "normal" operating speeds it's still much lower than outside ambient air pressure. The peak pressure in the cylinder is similarly reduced (this, after all, is how we control power).
When car manufacturers certify engines, they do so assuming the "worst case" scenario. They consider a very cold day, at sea level pressure with the throttle wide open. They determine the minimum octane necessary to avoid detonation in those conditions and in truth, also add a bit of a fudge factor. If you're a guy like me who is never even close to WOT, then the issue becomes academic. You're never going to build up the pressures in the cylinders that would be necessary to create detonation conditions. As I said elsewhere, this really only happens at the very top of the power curve.
Incidentally, those of you using a SRAM or CAI type setup might want to consider higher octanes if available. By installing one of those in place of the normal air filter, you're reducing the constriction in the induction system, and allowing higher induction air pressures to get to the engine. This gives you a bit more power, but you are quite likely going to exceed the peak cylinder pressures considered by Honda when they tested a stock setup. Probably isn't going to make a huge difference, as they build in a lot of leeway, but the extra octane wouldn't be a bad idea.
In airplanes we usually think of 3000' at a fairly critical level. Below that, outside air pressure is sufficiently high that an engine run at WOT with an insufficiently rich mixuture is likely to detonate. Above that, a non-turboed engine can operate fine at pretty much any throttle and mixture setting because pressure is sufficiently reduced so as to make detonation impossible. At lower altitudes, just closing the throttle a bit achieves the same goal (but is generally not a good thing to do on climbout).
You learn a lot flying airplanes, where all the engine controls are purely manual and there's no ECU to save your ass if you screw up...
#86
Tuxedo Cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Venice Beach
Age: 60
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JTso
This might be true for NA application due to the OBD2 ECU's IAT circuit to add fuel and timing when air temp is cold. It reduces fuel and timing when air temp is hot. However, when the engine is running FI application, you will need the highest octane available regardless of outside temp due to the increased cylinder pressure and air temp from the compressed air.
edit: Normally Aspirated vs. Forced Induction??? That would make sense in context of your comment, though the latter is not really relevant to the TSX.
#88
Tuxedo Cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Venice Beach
Age: 60
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bob shiftright
Sunoco offers unleaded up to 104 octane and leaded up to 116-117 octane (117 w. NO2).
It sure ain't cheap.
http://www.racegas.com/fuelspecs/default.asp
Given what I know about the controls on leaded aviation fuel, I have to suspect that it's tough to get your hands on this stuff. And it's expensive as hell because only a handful of refineries in the US make any kind of leaded fuel anymore and it has to be completely segregated from all unleaded fuel. Can't go in any pipelines, has to be transported on a seperate fleet of tankers, etc. Basically anything that touches lead has to be completely purified before it can be used for normal fuels again.
In aviation, we're all bracing for the day when good old 100LL (low lead) fuel goes away and we all have to either replace or seriously modify our engines to work with the best available unleaded alternative. In all liklihood that's in the next 5-10 years. At this point there's only one company in the whole world that actualy manufactures TetraEthyl Lead, and only 3 ancient ships that transport it around the world. The only reason those still exist is that the environmental cleanup if you took them out of service would be more expensive than keeping them running...
#89
Originally Posted by Nd4Spd
I've been using midgrade since I got the car, with an occasional tank of Premium. I've had no problems with the midgrade. I do however notice that the car seems to be more responsive when I put in Premium (maybe that's just my imagination) The Acura dealer I got it from says they don't use premium in their vehicles either
Excuse me for asking, but which dealership did you purchase your car from. I'm an Edmonton resident as well and I'm ordering a TSX within a few weeks. Any complaints with servicing or warranty issues?
Thanks
Terry
#91
6 speed yo!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: bay area, ca
Age: 37
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CGTSX2004
That's pretty lame though if they're selling cars that require premium. I know that the dealer I bought my car from actually had a contract with the local gas station and they filled up the tank with premium from the gas station.
#92
Tuxedo Cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Venice Beach
Age: 60
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just found an interesting website for people who really want technical details about gasoline, octanes, power and how it all impacts your engine. I also finally figured out why aviation gasoline ratings are different from anything else on the planet:
http://www.repairfaq.org/filipg/AUTO/F_Gasoline.html
Interesting point regarding this conversation is in section 7.1 (emphasis mine):
http://www.repairfaq.org/filipg/AUTO/F_Gasoline.html
Interesting point regarding this conversation is in section 7.1 (emphasis mine):
The vehicle is tested under a wide range of conditions and loads, using decreasing octane fuels from each series until trace knock is detected. The conditions that require maximum octane are not consistent, but often are full-throttle acceleration from low starting speeds using the highest gear available. They can even be at constant speed conditions, which are usually performed on chassis dynamometers [27,28,111]. Engine management systems that adjust the octane requirement may also reduce the power output on low octane fuel, resulting in increased fuel consumption, and adaptive learning systems have to be preconditioned prior to testing. The maximum ONR is of most interest, as that usually defines the recommended fuel, however it is recognised that the general public seldom drive as severely as the testers, and so may be satisfied by a lower octane fuel [28].
#93
Instructor
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Colorado
Age: 60
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I use 89 octane. I've tried both 89 octane and 91 octane in my TSX, (can't get over 91 in Colorado Springs), and I know this next comment will generate some snorts, but I tried 10 tanks of 91, then 10 tanks of 89, and the 89 averaged about 1 mpg better (.92 if you want to be picky ). I have a theory; I know that the higher octane numbers have combustion retardants in them, to prevent premature combustion in the higher compression engines. Lower octane gas actually has more power than higher octane numbers, but can’t be used in high compression engines ‘cause it will cause an almost “dieseling” effect, and pinging. Well, I spend most of my time driving between 6700 and 7400 feet above sea level, which naturally retards combustion, so the 89 octane gas at my altitude gives about the same power as a 91 octane at lower elevations.
Flame away.
Flame away.
#94
Tuxedo Cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Venice Beach
Age: 60
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gpsiir
I use 89 octane. I've tried both 89 octane and 91 octane in my TSX, (can't get over 91 in Colorado Springs), and I know this next comment will generate some snorts, but I tried 10 tanks of 91, then 10 tanks of 89, and the 89 averaged about 1 mpg better (.92 if you want to be picky ). I have a theory; I know that the higher octane numbers have combustion retardants in them, to prevent premature combustion in the higher compression engines. Lower octane gas actually has more power than higher octane numbers, but can’t be used in high compression engines ‘cause it will cause an almost “dieseling” effect, and pinging. Well, I spend most of my time driving between 6700 and 7400 feet above sea level, which naturally retards combustion, so the 89 octane gas at my altitude gives about the same power as a 91 octane at lower elevations.
Flame away.
Flame away.
The site I linked yesterday has some information about this: http://www.repairfaq.org/filipg/AUTO...l#GASOLINE_017 It seems that recent studies show that you need between .2 and .5 less octane points for every 300m of altitude (approximately 1000'). Even using the most conservative numbers you'd need about 1.5 less octane points at 6000', compared to sea level. Using less conservative test results, you might be OK even with 87 or less at those altitudes.
I suspect the real difference is in the formulation of the gas. The formulation will be adjusted at different times of the year, and might vary from one manufacturer to another. At some point during those 20 tanks, you probably went through some formulation change that you weren't aware of.
#97
Instructor
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Colorado
Age: 60
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I suspect the real difference is in the formulation of the gas. The formulation will be adjusted at different times of the year, and might vary from one manufacturer to another. At some point during those 20 tanks, you probably went through some formulation change that you weren't aware of."
Thought of that, so I alternated tanks, e.g. first tank 91, next tank 89, next tank 91 (hey software engineer, so of course I'm anal retentive ). No, I really think the test conditions I used would have shown up a reformulation.... BTW, this test was done in the summer. In the winter, by law, all of the stations switch to this MTBE added gasoline that sucks in the worst way, I've already noticed my gas mileage drop about 1.5 mpg. It's worse in my toyota 4Runner.
Thought of that, so I alternated tanks, e.g. first tank 91, next tank 89, next tank 91 (hey software engineer, so of course I'm anal retentive ). No, I really think the test conditions I used would have shown up a reformulation.... BTW, this test was done in the summer. In the winter, by law, all of the stations switch to this MTBE added gasoline that sucks in the worst way, I've already noticed my gas mileage drop about 1.5 mpg. It's worse in my toyota 4Runner.
#98
Tuxedo Cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Venice Beach
Age: 60
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by gpsiir
"I suspect the real difference is in the formulation of the gas. The formulation will be adjusted at different times of the year, and might vary from one manufacturer to another. At some point during those 20 tanks, you probably went through some formulation change that you weren't aware of."
Thought of that, so I alternated tanks, e.g. first tank 91, next tank 89, next tank 91 (hey software engineer, so of course I'm anal retentive ). No, I really think the test conditions I used would have shown up a reformulation.... BTW, this test was done in the summer. In the winter, by law, all of the stations switch to this MTBE added gasoline that sucks in the worst way, I've already noticed my gas mileage drop about 1.5 mpg. It's worse in my toyota 4Runner.
Thought of that, so I alternated tanks, e.g. first tank 91, next tank 89, next tank 91 (hey software engineer, so of course I'm anal retentive ). No, I really think the test conditions I used would have shown up a reformulation.... BTW, this test was done in the summer. In the winter, by law, all of the stations switch to this MTBE added gasoline that sucks in the worst way, I've already noticed my gas mileage drop about 1.5 mpg. It's worse in my toyota 4Runner.
Interesting. All things being equal, 91 octane fuel shouldn't have much different energy than 89 octane. But I suspect things aren't equal. The two grades could be coming out of different refineries, have different forumulations, additives, etc.
As I've noted many times before here, alcohol is pretty high octane stuff, but has relatively low energy per volume. Kerosene (jet fuel) and diesel are very low octane -- actually aren't even measured on the octane scale -- but have pretty high energy per volume. And then there's the whole engine thing. The engine may develop optimal power with one octane level, while simultaneously being most efficient with a different octane. Read the fuel faq I posted and you'll see that this stuff gets pretty complex.
#100
Instructor
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Colorado
Age: 60
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VeniceBeachTSX
Interesting. All things being equal, 91 octane fuel shouldn't have much different energy than 89 octane. But I suspect things aren't equal. The two grades could be coming out of different refineries, have different forumulations, additives, etc.
As I've noted many times before here, alcohol is pretty high octane stuff, but has relatively low energy per volume. Kerosene (jet fuel) and diesel are very low octane -- actually aren't even measured on the octane scale -- but have pretty high energy per volume. And then there's the whole engine thing. The engine may develop optimal power with one octane level, while simultaneously being most efficient with a different octane. Read the fuel faq I posted and you'll see that this stuff gets pretty complex.
As I've noted many times before here, alcohol is pretty high octane stuff, but has relatively low energy per volume. Kerosene (jet fuel) and diesel are very low octane -- actually aren't even measured on the octane scale -- but have pretty high energy per volume. And then there's the whole engine thing. The engine may develop optimal power with one octane level, while simultaneously being most efficient with a different octane. Read the fuel faq I posted and you'll see that this stuff gets pretty complex.
#101
Senior Moderator
iTrader: (2)
You can probably use 89 octance without any problems (just some power lost) if you stay within closed-loop mode and never run the engine pass approx. 5k rpm.
The oxegen sensor doesn't compensate for lower octance use. All it does is to monitor the air/fuel ratio (not octane grade) and feeds the info to the ECU. The ECU in turn uses it's internal programs (Short Term Fuel Trim & Long Term Fuel Trim) along with other sensors inputs to add or subtract fuel to the injectors by modifying the injector pulse width.
It is true that a richer A/F mixture can reduce the knocking problem from the quenching effect. However, the ECU is programmed to stay within 14.7:1 A/F ratio in closed-loop mode. This is where the knock sensor comes in. The knock sensor sends knock signals (if detected) to the ECU and the ECU retards ignition timing to compensate the knock condition. However, the stock knock sensor is only effective under certain rpm and only can retard a certain degrees of timing. Therefore, if you use low octane fuel and drive the car in WOT, don't count on the knock sensor or the O2 sensor to save your engine. Btw, if you hear the knocking, that means the ECU has reached the max degrees of timing it can retard, and it's where engine damage begins.
The oxegen sensor doesn't compensate for lower octance use. All it does is to monitor the air/fuel ratio (not octane grade) and feeds the info to the ECU. The ECU in turn uses it's internal programs (Short Term Fuel Trim & Long Term Fuel Trim) along with other sensors inputs to add or subtract fuel to the injectors by modifying the injector pulse width.
It is true that a richer A/F mixture can reduce the knocking problem from the quenching effect. However, the ECU is programmed to stay within 14.7:1 A/F ratio in closed-loop mode. This is where the knock sensor comes in. The knock sensor sends knock signals (if detected) to the ECU and the ECU retards ignition timing to compensate the knock condition. However, the stock knock sensor is only effective under certain rpm and only can retard a certain degrees of timing. Therefore, if you use low octane fuel and drive the car in WOT, don't count on the knock sensor or the O2 sensor to save your engine. Btw, if you hear the knocking, that means the ECU has reached the max degrees of timing it can retard, and it's where engine damage begins.
#102
Tuxedo Cat
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Venice Beach
Age: 60
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JTso
You can probably use 89 octance without any problems (just some power lost) if you stay within closed-loop mode and never run the engine pass approx. 5k rpm.
The oxegen sensor doesn't compensate for lower octance use. All it does is to monitor the air/fuel ratio (not octane grade) and feeds the info to the ECU. The ECU in turn uses it's internal programs (Short Term Fuel Trim & Long Term Fuel Trim) along with other sensors inputs to add or subtract fuel to the injectors by modifying the injector pulse width.
It is true that a richer A/F mixture can reduce the knocking problem from the quenching effect. However, the ECU is programmed to stay within 14.7:1 A/F ratio in closed-loop mode. This is where the knock sensor comes in. The knock sensor sends knock signals (if detected) to the ECU and the ECU retards ignition timing to compensate the knock condition. However, the stock knock sensor is only effective under certain rpm and only can retard a certain degrees of timing. Therefore, if you use low octane fuel and drive the car in WOT, don't count on the knock sensor or the O2 sensor to save your engine. Btw, if you hear the knocking, that means the ECU has reached the max degrees of timing it can retard, and it's where engine damage begins.
The oxegen sensor doesn't compensate for lower octance use. All it does is to monitor the air/fuel ratio (not octane grade) and feeds the info to the ECU. The ECU in turn uses it's internal programs (Short Term Fuel Trim & Long Term Fuel Trim) along with other sensors inputs to add or subtract fuel to the injectors by modifying the injector pulse width.
It is true that a richer A/F mixture can reduce the knocking problem from the quenching effect. However, the ECU is programmed to stay within 14.7:1 A/F ratio in closed-loop mode. This is where the knock sensor comes in. The knock sensor sends knock signals (if detected) to the ECU and the ECU retards ignition timing to compensate the knock condition. However, the stock knock sensor is only effective under certain rpm and only can retard a certain degrees of timing. Therefore, if you use low octane fuel and drive the car in WOT, don't count on the knock sensor or the O2 sensor to save your engine. Btw, if you hear the knocking, that means the ECU has reached the max degrees of timing it can retard, and it's where engine damage begins.
High altitude, in effect, turns our engine into something with similar performance to a stock accord. The benefits of high compression are negated by the problem of low ambient air pressure.
As I said, a decade ago you couldn't even get 91 in many of the mountain states, and some gas stations out there still sell 90 as premium. At those levels, it's all you need.
#104
Got Milk???
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Irvine, CA
Age: 43
Posts: 1,613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kurt_bradley
Good enough for Ferrari, good enough for me. V-Power has been the only thing in my tank since it has been out. That's an endorsement from me I guess.
do you really feel the difference in V power compared to other brands with same octane lvl??? I tried V power the other day, and felt a slight difference in smoothness when I went WOT
#105
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Windsor-Quebec corridor
Age: 47
Posts: 7,709
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by kaikai114
do you really feel the difference in V power compared to other brands with same octane lvl??? I tried V power the other day, and felt a slight difference in smoothness when I went WOT
I don't really know why it should either. Maybe just a placebo effect. (Not meaning to offend you by any means)
#106
Suzuka Master
Originally Posted by kaikai114
do you really feel the difference in V power compared to other brands with same octane lvl??? I tried V power the other day, and felt a slight difference in smoothness when I went WOT
#108
I kAnt Spel guD
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CraZydudE
is it ok if you fill half of the tank with 93 and the other half with 89??
Yes assuming your are good enough to get an exact ratio 50/50 correct every time you manually make 91 octane....I've used the same methond to cut down 100oct race gas since it cost so much and I didn't need the full rating.
But really, does the 10cents make a difference, it's a $27k car, is the extra price for premium that big a deal?
I'd rather put premium in the fuel sipper TSX then pay to put regular in a 'Schlade or something.
But if you always put 93 in the tank and you are adding a half tank or less to top it off before a trip you should be fine adding 89, I don't think the TSX can make full use beyond 91 in any case.
#110
I kAnt Spel guD
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ImportsRhot
I always use 93.....i thought we were supposed to use premium in our car. We only have 89, 91, and 93 here in florida.
#111
Intermediate
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Leesburg VA
Age: 49
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Nd4Spd
Check this out http Octane Levels
Although it says to look at your owners manual, it also says that if there aren't any knocks then there aren't any problems.
I've never heard any knocking from my engine with 89
Although it says to look at your owners manual, it also says that if there aren't any knocks then there aren't any problems.
I've never heard any knocking from my engine with 89
#114
I kAnt Spel guD
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tehCOW
if you have enough money to purchase the tsx, then you should have enough money to purchase the premium fuel associated with this vehicle
Amen! -- Why you wouldn't want the full 200hp per fill up is beyond me.
Besides the difference between 87 and 93 in my area; per avg. fill up....
...is about 3 bucks per fill up. It's a 3 dollar difference per fill up, that's insanely cheap.
All this from a 4cyl car that gets 26-ish MPG...imagine paying 50 bucks per tank to fill up an SUV that gets 12-15mpg.
#115
Dealer told me to use mid-grade
I have new TSX. Dealer tells all their customers to use mid-grade which is 89 octane in California. Anybody try this octane for long time with good or bad results?
#116
I've only had my TSX for a little over a month, however I have 3000 miles on it already. I've used 89 the entire time, and have been averaging 30mpg. (mostly highway driving I can get up to 31-32, mostly city i get about 28-29). I've not noticed any problems as of yet, but I am also not a "performance" driver. I don't think i've even had cause for the car to go above 3500rpm yet...
True, what people say, the difference is cost is pretty neglegable, however, since I'm filling up 2 cars, and do drive a lot, I decided to go with the middle, for now. The civic still only gets 87. I think it's jealous of the TSX....
Jennifer
True, what people say, the difference is cost is pretty neglegable, however, since I'm filling up 2 cars, and do drive a lot, I decided to go with the middle, for now. The civic still only gets 87. I think it's jealous of the TSX....
Jennifer
#118
I've been using 87 octane in my 95 Integra GSR for awhile with no ill effects. I once say an article in the Acura magazine with some asking if it was ok to run 87 in an Acura premium gas car. Acura Magazine's respone: It's ok. You'll miss anywhere from 10 to 17% hp. That's what I remember...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
joflewbyu2
5G TLX (2015-2020)
105
08-18-2019 10:38 PM
ExcelerateRep
4G TL Performance Parts & Modifications
8
10-14-2015 08:20 AM
joflewbyu2
5G TLX (2015-2020)
139
10-08-2015 11:16 AM