xjokerz

I have a 2007 TL base edition. Can I put regular gas in the car, even though it says premium only? There's only two gas stations in my town and both are charging 50 cents more per gallon for premium than regular. Today it's at $4.49 and it cost me $61 to fill up.

I could basically save 5-6 bucks per fill-up. Will regular hurt the car?

Hiryuu

The J series motor in the TLs is tuned for premium unleaded. The engine does have knock sensors to adjust to regular fuel, but you will reduce power output and get worse gas mileage.

$5 per fill up, assuming you get gas 4 times a month is only $240 a year. Is it really worth saving a few bucks a year and risk long term engine knocking?

xjokerz

Well no, you're right. Paying a few bucks more at the pump is worth it to have peace of mind over engine problems.

justnspace

iTrader: (1)

it's not engine problems that you'll encounter.

with regular fuel, the ECU retards timing which leads to poorer engine performance AND poorer fuel economy.
in the end; you're not saving money switching to regular.

DMZ

You also may be shortening the life of the engine by using regular. It says PREMIUM FUEL ONLY for a good reason --> the system was designed for premium fuel.
.
.

Jim2301

Great advice by your fellow contributors. That said there's another kicker to muddy the water, Tier 1 fuel. Most manufacturers of higher end autos strongly recommend Tier 1 fuel. You can Google several sites to learn about the stuff, but the short story is that the Tier 1 stuff has additional additives that are critical to proper and complete combustion. Many fouling issues can be traced to continued use of non Tier 1 fuel.

You don't have to go far to find someone who will claim that "All gasoline brands are the same. In fact it comes out of the same tank at the terminal." Almost correct, but also dead wrong. Yes the product in the tank is the same, and many companies draw product from it. This is because the product pushed up the line via Colonial, Buckeye, Wolverine pipeline systems, etc is raw gas meeting certain specs. However, that's only part of the story. At the loading rack, as the tanker is filled prior to delivery to the gas station, at that time the additives are spiked into the fuel delivery. If the tanker is headed to a Chevron station it will get Chevron's proprietary additive package, or ExxonMobil's or Marathon's. Off brands would get whatever generic package the Supplier is putting into their offering. Pretty much all Suppliers have a package, but only the certified Tier 1 Suppliers meet the full spec. These additive packages are uber expensive, and contribute to a large degree why the stuff that many of the Majors sell is more expensive than the off brands.

In my case I'll buy Tier 1 fuel every few fill ups. Its hard to quantify the cost vs benefits, but I can tell you that I've never had any engine wear problems.

champaned_out

iTrader: (2)

If you wanted to put 87 in your car you should buy any V6 accord.. they all mostly run at 10:1 compression stock
the J32a3 and J35a8 found in the 3rd gen base model and type-s are considered high out, high compression V6 motors.. they run at 11:1 compression stock which is why the engineers that built the motor say 91+ is "required" and not "recommended"
like the others said, you might save 20 quarters at the pump each time but you're motor wont be running at it's full potential and you're MPG will suffer a little bit so you're not really saving as much as you think you would be since you'll be refilling slightly more often

Marsalis Simms

Don't know why I'm seeing all these threads now with people trying to use regular in a car designed to use premium only lol try a Civic

056mt

I run 87 most of the time, when it is hot I will sometimes add a bit of 93 to be safe. I have a hard time justifying 80-90c/gal more to put premium in a $4000 car with almost 215k on it. I'm banking on having lost enough compression over the years that the higher octane isn't as necessary, and should it be, the knock sensor preventing any damage. If I had a newer car I would probably put premium in it though, or 50/50 at least.

champaned_out

iTrader: (2)

Probably because of the rise in gas prices.. just paid $4.25/gallon for 91 in SoCal

In your case i can see how it makes sense.. if you suspect you've lost compression over time and you really dont care for the car that much then going with the cheaper option is reasonable

Marsalis Simms

I mean I get it; it's 3.80 here and it sucks but is what it is. Part of owning a luxury oriented car.

DMZ

California gas prices have always been a rip-off, About $3.50/gal for premium here in New Jerzy.
.
.

Jackass

Everyone acting like this is the first time gas has been over $4 a gallon....as well as the first time 87 vs 91 has been discussed on these boards.

056mt

Last time gas was $4/gal it was like 30 cents more for premium, now it's almost a dollar.

Marsalis Simms

Anyone who complains to me around where I live about putting premium in their TL, I refer them to Honda to trade in for a Civic.

Jim2301

Thank your favorite govt entity. The folks in California are forking over ~ 85 cents/gal in taxes (State $0.6698 and Fed $0.183). The highest in the Nation. This is far more than what the Retailer or Manufacturer is clearing. The refineries have to buy the crude, refine it and get it to the Retailer. The Retailer pays for it, inventories the stuff and sells it. The Govts?? Well, they just collect the money. Think its bad now just wait. Even at these high taxes they are still considerably lower than what happens in Europe where they use taxation to dictate choices (think tobacco taxes in this country). Also the taxes are not enough to pay for the needed infrastructure repairs (bad planning, or misplaced priorities?). And to top it off the tax is only collected when gas or diesel fuel is purchased. As electric vehicles become more mainstream and replace combustion vehicles, the funds will become more depleted. Both electric and combustion vehicles use the same infrastructure (roads, bridges, tunnels, etc) but only combustion vehicles are paying the taxes. Will they figure out a way to tax electric vehicles (tolls, licenses, etc) or will they increase the taxes on fossil fuels to collect the shortfall... and hasten the shift to rlectric vehicles?

And CARB (California Air Resources Board) fuel specs add another layer of complexity that restricts the supply to mostly local sources in California (also impacts supplies into Nevada and Arizona). The relatively plentiful supplies ex USGC (US Gulf Coast) don't meet California specs, so any local refinery disruptions almost always result in spikes that ripple through the West Coast PADD. The good news is the CARB specs have really cleaned up the air in the LA basins, so there are benefits to the extra costs.

I'm not saying all of this is wrong. I am saying, though, understand WHY prices are what they are. When you select your auto, in a way you're also selecting and accepting the operating costs. If you don't want to pay for premium gas, then don't buy a car that requires the grade.

Jackass

Understood. I check around to see where the value point is...but for the most part....it is what it is. My TL took premium and I put premium in it for 13 years. My Volvo also takes premium and I will just take the price premium and deal with it. Around my parts (KCMO) premium is usually around a $.50 penalty unless it is ethanol free which sometimes jumps it up to $.75 or $.80 penalty.

I haven't seen the $.25-.30 penalty in a very very long time truthfully. Maybe for the 87 to 89 jump, but the 91 jump has been over $.50 for a long time around here.

Blakep93

Holy shit balls and I thought gas price was crazy here.... It's like 2.80ish regular 3.30, 3.40$ for 93 in south Alabama... I used to wonder about this, didn't take me long to realize it's worth it for so many reasons to run 93... For the last several months I've used an octane booster from my local speed shop guy that fills my nitrous bottles sells to me that will give me 2 full 17gallon tanks of 100 octane per container if added to 93...my gas mileage when not using the spray is always around 20ish mpg and I'm not a conservative 6MT driver

jeffstlnote

$3.34 for 91 here in Springfield, MO

GhostTL09

iTrader: (1)

It'll burn through regular like a fat kid drinking Kool aid 🤣🤣🤣

nist7

Alright, at the risk of getting internet-massacred I'll confess that my 06 TL has been on 87 octane for like 95% of its life so far since I've bought it in 2014. It had 160k miles to start and now it has 262,000+ miles. It essentially has had basically about 100,000 miles at 87 octane for about 8 years now. Other than transmission rebuilt about 1.5 years ago....it has had 0 engine issues for me. TIming belt service done at around 200k miles.

Here's the thing, I am not recommending anyone do what I did. I am 100% agree with going with OEM recommendations in that the car is designed for 91. Is my engine shortened in life now? Maybe. But so far it's not skipped a beat and is heading towards the 300k mile mark steadily. Everyone has to choose for themselves and straying from the OEM recommendation is at your own risk. If my engine fails due to verifiable pre-detonation I'll be the first to stand up and say I'm the dumbass, don't do what I did.

(Obviously my TL-S gets 91 all the time....I ain't that stupid lol...before anyone asks....)

Now to give a bit of background....an interesting report from AAA a few years ago actually looked at octane "recommendation" vs "requirement." And in the owner's manuals, few cars may actually truly "require" premium....last time I checked the only Acura that actually has the required wording in its manual was the NSX (not sure about the newer models....such as the TLX-S and the RDX, etc. etc.) Clearly if you're buying a new model year 50k+ luxury car you should put in 91 and if Ihad a new gen car I'd definitely do 91. BUt that AAA report is interesting to read for its technical/scientific findings.

The 06 TLmanual from Acura states clearly 91 is what engine is designed for, and lower octaine can have knocking and lower performance...lower than 87 can lead to damage and Acura also states they recommend max of E10 (I see too many stations with up to E15 at the pump....smh....). Although I do not actually see the word "required"or "requirement" in the manual regarding octane level. Though I think the gas cap door does have a sticker that says something like "Premium Only" ?

But like another poster said....to me this car is now a beater and I've gotten so much use out of it alraedy....and with my wife and others driving it who are not car people they just put in 87 octane like most people do with regular cars and I don't nag them about it or really care. THe leather is torn in the back, the paint is shot, the repalcement windshield Igot few years ago already has rock chips in it and the top weather strip is peeling from the shitty job that whoever did the window replacement clearly didn't put in the time to do it right, it doesn't have blue tooth or adaptive cruise control or lane keep assist or keyless entry or remote start or built in android auto or apple carplay......my mom's Toyota Corolla is more of a "luxury" car than this 2006 Acura TL. But underneath it's got great bones and is dead reliable and gets from point A to point B without an issue so far. So to me it makes sense to just stick with 87 for my TL at this time. I do expect it to be needing another timing belt service once it hits 300k in about 2-3 years.

So in conclusion....yes the vast majority of people should follow OEM recommendations. No it's probably not worth it to save a few bucks a year when someone buys an entire luxury-platform car that's way more expensive than an economical platform. Is it wise for many people to follow what I do? Probably not. Am I just lucky? Maybe. Will I get to 300k miles without a hitch? I really hope so. Do anecdotal evidence exist that goes against established thoughts/recommendations? So far yes (as is in any areas of life). Should YOU put 87 octane in your TL? Only you can answer that question.

Pair of TLs

056mt

That's pretty much where I'm at. It's not I don't care about the car (I'm religious about maintenance), it's I think premium isn't as necessary as people make it out to be, especially on a high mileage engine. In that 100k miles you saved over $3000 with regular, even if your engine blows up today, you saved enough money to pay someone to put a lower mileage engine in your car.

DMZ

On a high mileage engine originally designed exclusively for premium, premium gas is actually even more important to maintain it's life and keep it running properly. Obviously, you don't give that much of a shit about your car, so it doesn't matter what anyone here says.
.
.

056mt

How does higher mileage make it more important? Last I checked, higher octane is required for higher compression engines, and engines generally lose compression as they rack up miles. Of course 93 octane would be ideal over 87 new or old, but that's not what I'm arguing.

DMZ

The real bottom line here is you may be shortening the life of the engine by running 87.
.

driveTL

I'm sure its been said here, but only put in premium. I've asked people what they put in and the majority of them said 93/91. You bought a luxury car that comes with luxury expenses. Such as premium fuel. I really do understand the struggle of paying an extra 50 cents a gallon. It really does make you wonder if its worth it. It is. But if you enjoy or rely on the car. Put in the correct fuel. It says required for a reason.

Take care of your car and it will take care of you.

nfnsquared

Been running 87 in my 04 6MT for well over 200K miles now. Over 350K miles on it now, no issues. No decrease in mileage. I even ran full throttle runs with Torque diagnostic app and saw zero timing pull (granted, this was at ~70F), Engine still runs like a top, burns less than a quart of oil with a 7500 mile OIC.

I love all of these comments from people who've never tried running 87 long term.... Bwahahaha!!!

zeta

iTrader: (1)

^

Whoa! Its Snake Plissken.

Jim2301

If 87 octane (R+M) works for you, that's great. This especially true for those of you who have uber high mileage cars.

Kudos to NIST7 who actually took the time to do some research and put some thought into his comments. There maybe more reports out there but I'm only aware of two AAA relatively recent studies re the 87 vs 91/93 (R+M) issue. One study looked at cars designed to run on 87and, asked whether or not it made sense, performance/benefit-wise, to run higher octanes. The conclusion (as has been the case for almost every study on this topic) is "No, there are very few measurable benefits, if any to use a higher grade than recommended." This study isn't applicable, because Acura doesn't recommend 87.

The second study asked if cars that were "recommended" to run on 91/93 could run OK on 87. The conclusion was "Yes, a but a car designed to run on 91 will show performance/mileage benefits vs running 87." BUT they went on to say that the price differential between 91/93 and 87 negates much of the benefits on a cost/benefit basis. The info suggests that if you want top performance, reliability and mileage then stick with 91/93. However, if you're on a budget, drive a higher mileage car, and/or don't care about getting that last 1/10 out of you car then 87 should work fine in most conditions.

You might ask then "Why does Acura recommend 91/93?" Aside from the fact they they position their products towards the upper-medium range of the market... those who may value performance over, say, cost of fuel, there is another less obvious reason... CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy). All automakers struggle to meet the mandated CAFE targets. this is why (like it or not) we see idle-stop, VCM, and other "features". Recommending 91/93 fuel allows the automaker to use the grade in their certification tests for the specific brand/model/engine. We know that 91/93 will allow the manufacturer to tune the engine for higher performance and a bit better mileage at that level, so it helps on the CAFE side as well. The missing piece as far as CAFE goes is that it doesn't directly consider the cost differential (87 vs 91/93).

So if you want top performance, reliability and mileage (and cost isn't a big driver), then use 91/93. Or, if you're on a budget, own a high mileage car, and/or don't drive to that last 1/10th of the car's capability then 87 should be fine. Just don't go below 87, and in both cases consider using Top Tier fuel if available in your market.

ArdentWaffler

Regular 87 or Premium 91+ for your 3rd gen TL? This is a good question. I have not seen many good answers posted. I have seen plenty of lore, myths and straight up ignorance.

You don't want to do anything bad to your car, and many fear even trying a tank of regular will damage their car.

I was in the same position, here is how I made my choice. First, I checked AcuraZine, but that didn't help much.
Long ago I had a 1986 Honda Civic CRX Si that required 92+ octane. 87,89 or even 91 wouldn't run right, it would sputter on a hard acceleration. So I know what the feeling of not enough octane is.

I noticed a 2019 Car and Driver test from Canada where they ran a few vehicles on regular (they did chicken out on the $130k BMW M5 and ran the twin turbo on 91 instead of the recommended 93). Every vehicle had less than 1 mpg difference between regular and premium.

I ran across an interesting article from way back in 2003. These are some of the highlights from that article in USA today.

If the principal chemist at Honda Research and Development can't tell if he's running premium or regular in his personal Acura (designed to run on premium), then I think I'm safe running a few tanks to see for myself.

I trust the people above know more about this stuff than some internet talking head or barstool prophet. The knock sensors and computers have only advanced and gotten better since 2003. And Honda is now making turbo engines that run on regular to replace the (old) SOHC V6 ( I have a 3.2 TL and 3.0 Accord in my driveway).

I now run regular in my 3rd gen TL (6MT) all the time. Like Honda's principal chemist, I can't tell the difference, no change in mileage or power.

It's a free country, run what makes you happy, but don't be scared to try a tank and see for yourself.

FLAME AWAY haters

nfnsquared

Fixed

Blakep93

When I first bought mine I only put 87 in it because I didn't really know any better and 20$ was a full tank damn near at the time... it wasn't long before I wanted to use some Lucas injector cleaner and ran it out untill the light came on and fill it with 93...soon after I noticed I sometimes in gear I could just let the clutch out slowly with my foot off the gas completely without it feeling like it was trying to stall out or just shuddering/shaking, kinda how it feels when the engine stalls from starvation during fuel pressure relief procedure... Anyways when I used 93 it was like could let it out slowly and then not be touching clutch or gas pedal and the engine would just keep running smooth and car would keep moving forward in gear but it wouldn't do that on regular 87.... Long story short after I learned more about the car and octane and how things worked I ran 93 and always could tell my car ran better overall... after I started trying to make it quick I made my way up to 100 octane and Idc what anyone says or thinks I could actually feel that the car was significantly quicker and ran ALOT better. it was suprising how much it liked that stuff.. but you're totally right it's a free country anyone can do whatever TF they want 😉

04WDPSeDaN

iTrader: (1)

Separates the well maintained, pristine TL's to the rollers dumpsters.

djw88

acura has stated that there is no problem running regular in the TL.
you will just not get peak performance.

ArdentWaffler

I would love to see a dyno comparison for the Acura 3.2L engine on 87 vs 91.
I would bet a decent amount the difference would be less than the 12 HP loss I got when my car went from 270 all the way down to 258.

Hey djw88 have you got the official Acura proclamation somewhere so we can document and maybe sticky the GOOD information in this thread for future owners?
I can find this on a dealer website, but it doesn't look as good (and only mentions the newer TLX)....

04WDPSeDaN

iTrader: (1)

YEAH, Okay.

ArdentWaffler

OMG someone didn't use premium and the entire car disintegrated and only the fuel door survived? Wow, I'm sure glad you're here to show us the tragic results. I'm not believing anything written by Acura or anyone else after 2004.

Do you only use Acura branded oil AND filters from the dealer too? Boy, if I ever owned an ultra luxury Acura TL I'd be too frightened to try an oil change myself, better to let the dealer do that technical stuff. You know you could damage the engine (which I'm sure you tell yourself over and over and over).

It's a free country and you can do what you want; but I really doubt you could tell the difference between filling up with premium or just putting in regular and then taking out a five and lighting it on fire.

Could your "butt dyno" feel the 12 fewer horsepower in the later 3.2L models?

04WDPSeDaN

iTrader: (1)

Who are you again? Oh nobody, just a jackass. Go back to where you came from.

vpasla1

not sure why you keep bringing this up.. That change had to do with testing procedures, nothing actually changed with respect to the engine...