When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Jezz... if you want to save some money by putting 87 in.... you might as well just do your own oil change... that will save you at least $100 a year.... and that is for sure won't hurt your car.....
If you already paid 30k-40k on a semi sporty car, you might as well just spend that extra 30-90 cents.... otherwise, I think Kia or Hyundai will save you more money!!
There is a third option, if you are unsure about the mechanical science, and want to save a few bucks here and there - Alternate fills.
Then I'll just always use 89 octane.
All in all, choice is good, and in the end, most will follow the owner's manual. This subject has always been provocative. I was just surprised by CR's findings. Usually, the tradeoff for using a lower octane is fewer mpg and less power, but this recent report found no difference under their testing.
Jezz... if you want to save some money by putting 87 in.... you might as well just do your own oil change... that will save you at least $100 a year....
Who told you!?... I do, as I did with my 2 previous Bimmers when out of warranty. The differential oil change might be a challenge though.
Here, premium is 13% more, $328CA per year over 20000 km ... or $984CA over my lease term, not exactly petty change in my book.
Did not read the rest of the thread. Just the consumer report and laughed my ass off.
No way in hell you are going to see pinging or knocking within the time they had to test. What a bunch of idiots. Pinging and knocking may develop over time if using the wrong gas. Sure in the right climate you may never develop knocking. But another guy a few miles away easily could and it may have been prevented with higher octane gas.
No way in hell you are going to see pinging or knocking within the time they had to test. What a bunch of idiots. Pinging and knocking may develop over time if using the wrong gas. Sure in the right climate you may never develop knocking. But another guy a few miles away easily could and it may have been prevented with higher octane gas.
That's exactly the point, and why risk damage and possibly having the warranty be voided (or the damage not covered) because you didn't follow the manufacturer's recommendation, in order to save a few bucks a week.
Who told you!?... I do, as I did with my 2 previous Bimmers when out of warranty. The differential oil change might be a challenge though.
Here, premium is 13% more, $328CA per year over 20000 km ... or $984CA over my lease term, not exactly petty change in my book.
One 30th, one 40th, one 50th, or one 60th, of the purchase price of the car, depending on how bad BW dinged you, spread over 3 years is not chump change, really.
You pushed the same BS arguments over on the 3 series boards for years & did not do any better in convincing people you were right.
Remember when you tried to support some cause or other you were on by siting the EPA millage tests as gospel & unimpeachably correct. Think you were using the Mustangs 5.0 EPA numbers as your base.
That gave everybody a big hoot.
BTW: One of my cars has a Coyote 5.0 fresh out of the FORD cate so I unlike you I have real life experience with the fuel usage & the EPA is off in dreamland someplace with its numbers.
.
Also aren't you the guy over there who tried to demonstrate that Turbos were useless? Think that's the reason you are here now. You did not want a turbo 328 4 cylinder even though it would crap all over the out going N/A inline 6.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 05-28-2016 at 04:56 PM.
Answer of small $/cent saving between regular vs premium on a 35K car is an exercise of elementary school arithmetic and add no value to the discussion.
More helpful is if anyone has actually gone through this exercise on their vehicle or friend/s have done so and has any interesting observations(which some people have done on this thread & thanks to them).
OR
a person who works in engines/fuel technology and can give any scientific input.
Answer of small $/cent saving between regular vs premium on a 35K car is an exercise of elementary school arithmetic and add no value to the discussion.
Sorry you find it so remedial and unworthy. 🙄
My point was simply that the amount of money you save is trivial. If a $100-200 a year is meaningful enough for you to want to find any rationalization you can from people on a forum to go against the manufacturer's recommendation and take that risk, then maybe you should have bought an Accord or other vehicle that is made to run on 87 octane gas.
One 30th, one 40th, one 50th, or one 60th, of the purchase price of the car, depending on how bad BW dinged you, spread over 3 years is not chump change, really.
You pushed the same BS arguments over on the 3 series boards for years & did not do any better in convincing people you were right.
Remember when you tried to support some cause or other you were on by siting the EPA millage tests as gospel & unimpeachably correct. Think you were using the Mustangs 5.0 EPA numbers as your base.
I was actually *correct* and your memory obviously sucks. It was about about the interest of having a direct-injected turbo I6 N54 when you could have an non direct-injected NA V8 5.0L with 100HP more, that costs $250/yr less in fuel., thanks to be able to run on regular. Also for the same reason, you can see that a 420HP M3 cost $350 MORE per year, than a 400HP or so Ford Mustang V8. I also established that the WEIGHT of the engines were almost the same. The city EPA for the Mustang is NOT insanely high at 17mpg, mind you.
Same arguments and it is still valid, want it or not. You don't have to agree (who cares) - those are *FACTS*.
My point was simply that the amount of money you save is trivial. If a $100-200 a year is meaningful enough for you to want to find any rationalization you can from people on a forum to go against the manufacturer's recommendation and take that risk, then maybe you should have bought an Accord or other vehicle that is made to run on 87 octane gas.
Done with topic.
That comment was not directed specifically at you as an individual.
If you have something to say on this topic that we do not already know it can potentially be a great discussion point on this thread.
If you are NOT interested in this subject, get out of here.
END OF STORY!
Saintor....I have fixed your post as this is what I think you intended to tell me. I didn't mean to offend you or anyone but I don't see the whole point of bringing up these threads about supreme/regular time and time again.
I don't want to tell anyone what (or what not) to do --- The choice is simple, regular or supreme. The difference in money is not substantial and while I agree that anyone can't be 100% sure of the effect, there is little that we, as non Acura engine designers, can really bring to the table as far as accurate facts.
That being said, I hear you....I will try and stay clear of these fuel threads as I don't see what I can bring to the conversation. As you can tell by my profile, I have been a long time contributor of Acurazine and LOVE helping people. Most people that know me, knows I don't like confrontation or be disrespectful towards members, especially less with a fella Canadian
So again....apologies to anyone I might have offended - Sometime, posts can be taken out of context and this may have been the case with my post.
Oh - no offense taken - Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion/thoughts. I personally found that long term, TL's that use regular had a rough idle/didn't accelerate smoothly as ones that only used octane 93 gas (Cars with ~100k miles on them) Did anything fail? no, but I also used to easily drive 40k to 60k miles a year, a good chunk of them relatively hard miles in DC and NYC, so I personally would rather spend more on whatever Acura recommends to have my car run smoother (at least in my head).
Also - To the others saying premium is only 20 or 30 cents higher than regular, I envy you.. Around me, it is common for premium to be 60 cents to 90 cents higher than regular Premium is currently around $3.09/gal around me... But as cheap as $2.39 for premium in the suburbs But then I'd need to go to the suburbs
I can't speak to TL. Only TSX and TLX. I experience none of the issues you do.
Jezz... if you want to save some money by putting 87 in.... you might as well just do your own oil change... that will save you at least $100 a year.... and that is for sure won't hurt your car.....
If you already paid 30k-40k on a semi sporty car, you might as well just spend that extra 30-90 cents.... otherwise, I think Kia or Hyundai will save you more money!!
Again, Acura has not said its required. So I dont need to spend the $$'s.
I was actually *correct* and your memory obviously sucks. It was about about the interest of having a direct-injected turbo I6 N54 when you could have an non direct-injected NA V8 5.0L with 100HP more, that costs $250/yr less in fuel., thanks to be able to run on regular. Also for the same reason, you can see that a 420HP M3 cost $350 MORE per year, than a 400HP or so Ford Mustang V8. I also established that the WEIGHT of the engines were almost the same. The city EPA for the Mustang is NOT insanely high at 17mpg, mind you.
Same arguments and it is still valid, want it or not. You don't have to agree (who cares) - those are *FACTS*.
In this case, Consumer Report is right on.
A good starting point was my 335is (N54) even though it was being used to beta test the JB4 system consistently did 21/22MPG all round driving & as much a 30mpg on the highway @ 75/80 mph.
Mustang 5.0
Actual on the road numbers like Edmunds, C&D show in long term tests:
The primary downside is fuel economy: Our lifetime mpg is hovering around 15mpg all round. Which they said was " but it's still quite awful given the EPA rating of 19 mpg combined"
Interesting to note that the EPA range is 15/25. So in real life, not fantasy land, the V8 actually runs just over the minimum EPA number in all round useage.
Car & Driver said this Certified on 93-octane unleaded, horsepower now stands at 435 (up from 420) and torque comes in at a nice, even 400 lb-ft.
According to the EPA, fuel will be burned at a rate of 15 mpg in the city and 25 on the highway with the six-speed manual; the six-speed automatic does one better in the city.
C&D said About the limited range (260 miles) from the smallish 16-gallon fuel tank and our test car’s observed 16 mpg in the real world—well below the EPA’s combined rating of 19 mpg.
Personally think the 15/17mpg numbers fit I get 20mpg on 93 in a car that is 3/4 of a ton lighter.
BMW N54
There are a number of different versions of the N54 to get an exact match form different publications but there are typical. My N54 335is did 22mpg combined.
Car & Drivr 18MPG actual EP 17/28
MT: The EPA rates the two-door 335i at 17/26 mpg. We averaged 25.3 mpg hwy/hooligan combined.
Edmunds 20mpg
BMW M4
The EPA can also screw up in the opposite direction which is why your concept of using the EPA #'s is worthless.
MT said:
Such was the case for the 2015 BMW M3. The EPA gave the twin-turbo, manual transmission, RWD M3 a rating of 17/24/19, which for that car seems decent. However, we managed 5-plus mpg better.
During Real MPG tests, the BMW M3 achieved 24.2/28.5/25.9 mpg, which is better than some less powerful automatic sedans. Autoweek got We drove about 5,400 miles in the period, a bit more than the last. We averaged an impressive 21.6 mpg in a city/highway mix; that’s well above the stated 19 mpg combined. & C&D 22mpg.
So you overstated the Mustang & understated the BMW M3 millage to save .
What's to establish the Coyote weighs 444lbs its common knowledge & printed in the specs & why is this material?
M4 3540 lbs
GT 3720 lbs
BTW the current 340/320hp did 19mpg all round actual in the C&D test about 2MPG better than the 5.0GT's 19 & 1mpg less that the M3's 20mpg actual.
Using real world numbers is a lot better than EPA guesses regardless of make.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 05-29-2016 at 01:34 PM.
That's exactly the point, and why risk damage and possibly having the warranty be voided (or the damage not covered) because you didn't follow the manufacturer's recommendation, in order to save a few bucks a week.
It's penny wise and dollar foolish.
They CANT void your warranty so that is not a reason.
I live in the mountains of western North Carolina.My house is 2180ft above sea level...and I go over 4000 ft regularly.I only use premium, specifically shell 93.
Here is why...at work I drive a 2003 SI 9 to 1 compression regular recommended car...but on the garbage regular gas here it cackled going up some mountains.I switched to the much more expensive premium and got zero detonation and a 5 to 10 percent increase in fuel economy.Winter fuel is 8 to 10 percent lower than summer gas here in mileage returns.I noticed the same behavior in my 1995 EX civic with the D16Z6 engine.Perhaps the higher energy aromatics in the premium help but I am pretty sure that because the altitude here is high the regular is just craptacular fuel.No need to ever hear my TLX go into detonation...premium only for me.
The best fuel I have purchased in the last 3 years was a tank of premium in a tiny farm town in Iowa...it reeked of aromatics and produced the highest MPG my Si ever produced.The point of this long post being...At least where I live the shell premium is the best fuel I have used.A few places have sold me no name premium...that knocked.It is that ridiculous here.
Anyone who has rebuilt an engine that detonated at high rpm under heavy load can tell you...it is something to avoid at all costs!Imagine pistons that look like a manic nuked the top of them with a ball peen hammer...broken compression rings...yikes!I like WOT.And not worrying.
I doubt CR was driving up mountains or passing logging trucks up a 8% grade with a loaded car.Under these conditions a 11.6 or 11.5 to 1 engine will not be happy with 87...not happy at all.
The purple line is the engines timing responding to the "BELL". This was from a WOT test I was doing when the load placed on the engine exceeded the octanes (94 in this case) ability to suppress knock. As soon as it senses the conditions for knock to occur the timing is pulled (reduced) & the horsepower goes away.
In this case it took the ECU two pulls to recover then the time was stabilized at a lower advance which the octane could handle. (purple line continuing to the right.
The lower advance curve equals lower power & worse fuel economy.
What caused the extra load was the 2/3 shift. Boost was steady a 18.5PSI but when I made the 2/3 shift the loss of mechanical advantage created by the gear set caused the boost to be two high for the advance curve I was running.
Solution was reduced boost, reduce the timing advance or more octane. Added more 100 to the mix I eliminated the pull at 96.5 octane.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 05-30-2016 at 08:10 AM.
One 30th, one 40th, one 50th, or one 60th, of the purchase price of the car, depending on how bad BW dinged you, spread over 3 years is not chump change, really.
You pushed the same BS arguments over on the 3 series boards for years & did not do any better in convincing people you were right.
Remember when you tried to support some cause or other you were on by siting the EPA millage tests as gospel & unimpeachably correct. Think you were using the Mustangs 5.0 EPA numbers as your base.
That gave everybody a big hoot.
BTW: One of my cars has a Coyote 5.0 fresh out of the FORD cate so I unlike you I have real life experience with the fuel usage & the EPA is off in dreamland someplace with its numbers.
.
Also aren't you the guy over there who tried to demonstrate that Turbos were useless? Think that's the reason you are here now. You did not want a turbo 328 4 cylinder even though it would crap all over the out going N/A inline 6.
Bear, don't bother wasting your time. Saintor knows everything there is to know about cars and engines. And if you disagree with him, he will berate and insult you, because really, that's all someone can do when backed into a corner.
$20 says he's going to come back in here and do the same with me now.
He just supports whatever he is driving. I think there is a strong sense of insecurity from him and he doesn't want to feel like he made a bad purchase ever.
Unlike some anectodal sources, EPA is way more reliable. It is an excellent source for comparison. And there is no burn-out in the test. BTW for your info, it is not "EPA rates..." as you say but all data ratings are suppliers by car makers, doing their own tests according to EPA protocols.
Car Mag (UK) got 18.5mpgUS from their long term M3 after 8 months, just in line with EPA combined, so spare us the BS, about getting magical better numbers. The reality is that they can get whatever number between the lower and upper end. BTW C&D got 19mpg (combined EPA 20) from their long term Mustang GT, not bad.
It is funny that a 320HP 2016 340i or 300HP 2014 435i or 425HP 2016 M3 won't cost less in fuel than a 412HP 2011 Mustang. And in manual, my money is on the Ford for being quicker than the non M. Compare Side-by-Side
And for you info, C&D also wrote:
"Also, that amazing passing power in sixth gear comes at the expense of fuel economy, thanks to gearing that’s unnecessarily short. Considering we routinely see more than 30 mpg on the highway in our long-term Corvette, there’s no good reason the M3 couldn’t perform similarly..
Yeah that is a from 6.2L NA V8 460HP / 465lbs-ft, more than the M3 and similar weight. They got 21mpg with the Corvette.
Originally Posted by Tacodummy
Bear, don't bother wasting your time.
Yeah, you are just making noise and wasting our time with nothing to contribute but being an a**.
Yeah, you are just making noise and wasting our time with nothing to contribute but being an a**.
See, like I said- berates and insults because of his lack of intelligence. I've yet to hear you ONCE say something where you didn't insult another member or talk like you're the be-all, end-all, when it comes to cars. Nope. Can't even give a little. Just all about you, you, you, isn't it?
BTW for your info, it is not "EPA rates..." as you say but all data ratings are suppliers by car makers, doing their own tests according to EPA protocols.
The protocols are the EPA’S so the ratings are the EPA’s. It does not matter a hoot who does the test. The EPA certifies the fuel-economy projections, they are published by the EPA & they own the ratings regardless of who ran them. The EPA also tests about 250 cars a year themselves 2/3 random selection & 1/3 targeted like the Veyron.
The EPA is very open about this all being a fantasy with no bearing on reality starting with the Monroney sticker. They start with the words
“ACTUAL (as in real world) results WILL (not may, not might, not possibly) vary for many reasons YADA. YADA, YADA.
Lets look at a few of the many reasons, over & above those mentioned on the sticker like driving style & road conditions.
How about , no wind resistance, no hills, two wheel drive dyno trying to test 4 wheel drive cars (they disconnected the drive shaft to one wheel set), no road drag, hybrids can vary by as much as 10 or 20 percent depending on the driver, no ethanol in the gas, no other oxygenator in the gas, 93 octane gas used in all except for the 50 state test that gets 91 octane, special custom fuel formula only available to the EPA VERY VERY pure gasoline.
The final city and highway ratings are calculated by taking the fuel-economy results from specific portions of each of the five tests and piecing them together. EPA contracts out some tests it is incapable of doing because they are too complex.
This is a nice one, because there are so many variances in product within brands the worse car from the point of mileage & pollution MUST MUST be used as the test vehicle for the whole line. So the high performance, spoiler laden heaviest & thirstiest car gets to be tested over others that are pretty good.
Games the manufactures play to beat the system. BMW M5 starts up using “just” 400 horsepower to save fuel (the driver can push a button to get the full 500 horsepower). GM’s skip-shift device, found in the Corvette among others, irritates by forcing the driver to shift the manual transmission from first gear to fourth at low speeds and was developed precisely to improve fuel economy on the test cycles. It was approved by the EPA, i.e., not considered cheating.
AND THE STUPID GAME GOES ON.
Originally Posted by Saintor
It is funny that a 320HP 2016 340i or 300HP 2014 435i or 425HP 2016 M3 won't cost less in fuel than a 412HP 2011 Mustang. And in manual, my money is on the Ford for being quicker than the non M.
Whooped do. My COYOTE 32 valve, 4 cam, V8 powered COBRA will run with a Lamborghini Gallardo most likely gets a few miles per gallon more than my 435 MPPK/MPE or 135IS who cares but a minutia dweller. I have been driving high performance cars since I was 17, many on a 130 mile round trip commute from Spring Lake NJ to Wall St in NYC. If you enjoy these cars fuel economy is not part of the buy decision its just a non factor. For a performance buyer the cost of fuel is a so what. If I can’t afford to put in the gas then I can’t afford the car & should buy a Honda product.
Bottom line is were all want specific things from our car purchase. Neither end of the spectrum high economy/high performance is wrong they are just different.
Last edited by BEAR-AvHistory; 05-30-2016 at 09:32 PM.
Again the Pilot 2016 with the same powertrain runs on regular (280HP), while the TLX V6/MDX requires premium (290HP) if you are really, really interested by that 10HP at 5500rpm+.
Premium is waste of money if the engine tolerates it on everyday use and you are not on a racetrack. Not interested in the little religion.
Regular gas (87) in my TL costs me more to run per year than Premium (91+)
On average i would see 60+ miles less per tank when running 87. So NO, premium isnt a waste of money for some.
Question is, How do we know this happens or will happen in future? It seems few people who have tried it on the TLX haven't experienced this.
Of course, this is the internet, so all info comes with a pinch of salt.
The few folks here who are using/advocating for using regular are leasing their cars so they give zero crap about what happens to the car once it is unloaded. Using lower than recommended gasoline can mean more cylinder/ring and rod bearing wear over the course of 200,000 miles. I'm sorry but the CR test using one tank of gas to test their theory is just IMHO.
If anyone really wants, run data logs. The 3G and TLX have similar compression ratios but it's just not about compression. Members have run data logs with scanners hooked up and found that even with using 91, timing is pulled on the 3G. The conditions in which 87 is run has a huge influence on whether or not you can get away with it. Temperature, driving style, speed, etc all have an effect.
I believe TLX has DI engine. With direct injection, gasoline is injected into each cylinder individually at very high pressure instead of in the intake tract. You can have detonation but if the fuel is not in the cylinder yet, it can't pre-ignite. Because you have DI engines, you should use premium for the fact that intake tract will have carbon build up. Admittedly,the DI engines in the TLX are much better at accomodating lower octane fuels than the 3G or 4G.
One tank of 87 should be enough to prove the drop in MPG. By how much it will vary by person to person but I suspect it will at least negate any benefits of using cheaper gas for most folks.
Consumer Reports seem to think of themselves as watchdogs or champions of the average consumer but in truth they act on profit in hopes to become something like a J D Powers. You watch their car reviews online and sometimes makes me wonder if they think the average driver is an idiot who doesn't even know what a touch screen is
That's the thing though... it seems most people don't see a drop in MPG. And I think that ultimately boils down to driving style.
I think those who do see a drop in MPG, likely hit the throttle harder than those who don't. I think that even on the 3G, if I remember correctly, just cruising around normally was okay. It wasn't until the drivers started getting more "spirited" behind the wheel, did the data logs start going bananas.
^^ Lets also not forget that it is very difficult to recreate two exact same similar situation. Weather, road travel, acceleration during the tank and such....I suspect the difference in actual mileage is not huge so that it may fall within the variation as I describes about.
What we can't see is what is being done inside the engine and the long term effects, and to me, even though I only lease my vehicles, I always do what I can to give it the care it deserves. A few dollars a month is not even worth the thought for me.
Premium gas does not bear more energy than regular.
Octane is a rating of resistance to detonation. So ultimately, the engine will allow a little more aggressive timing, resulting 3% or 10HP @ 6800rpm, no more, completely negligible in normal driving.
There is a good reason why CR found this; it is because it is true.
what about a compromise between (premium 91) & (regular 87)?
just put mid grade 89 if you are looking to save money, but IMHO luxury car buyers have a little more to spend thats why they went with an acura over a honda
why worry about a few extra cents, especially if the person owns a 2.4 over the v6
Premium gas does not bear more energy than regular.
Octane is a rating of resistance to detonation. So ultimately, the engine will allow a little more aggressive timing, resulting 3% or 10HP @ 6800rpm, no more, completely negligible in normal driving.
There is a good reason why CR found this; it is because it is true.
You are right, It is the ability to resist detonation. But because you dont hear it doesnt mean its not happening. Hook up a live data recorder and watch the difference between the 2. Ive seen my ecu pull over 40 deg of timing. It adds up to less power (something that your butt dyno is NOT going to usually feel) overall efficiency will be reduced (and we arent talking about 5-10mpg less). Now that summer is coming around and day time temps start to rise it will become a larger issue (ie knock and efficiency) as there becomes more heat soak and higher IATs. Also with the new DI engines this can lead to higher buildups of carbon which WILL start to effect the motor as miles add up. Can it be run? Sure. Will it kill your motor? No. Will your engine run optimally ???? No. Point is so many go the extra mile making sure they have the best for their vehicle and want the best for it from car washes/waxes, oils, tires etc, premium will be the best for it in the long run for it to run at its best.
05-28-2016, 10:43 AM
The differential oil change might be a challenge though.
Premium is currently around $3.09/gal around me... But as cheap as $2.39 for premium in the suburbs 
But then I'd need to go to the suburbs 
IMHO.
