Request for those that put REGULAR gas in your RDX (gasp!)
01-21-2019, 01:29 PM
#81
Pro
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Minneapolis
Age: 45
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 233 Likes
on
140 Posts
Hey my bad. My intention wasn't to suggest you couldn't afford premium. It's only around a 20-30 cent difference in my area. I tend to average around 10,000 miles per year. Assume 22mpg = 455 gallons annually. The difference in cost is $150 tops not including the 4% Costco rebate.
But yes if Acura is no longer requiring it then I guess don't use it.
But yes if Acura is no longer requiring it then I guess don't use it.
01-21-2019, 01:29 PM
#82
Unregistered Member
If Acura thought that less than premium would lead to engine damage then they would require premium. I have 280,000 miles on a car running less than recommended but not forbidden by Acura. By my calculations that is several thousand dollars that I got to keep....and hey my engine is doing just fine. If you want the extra couple of HP then go for it.
The following users liked this post:
StealthTL-S (01-02-2021)
01-21-2019, 03:28 PM
#83
Safety Car
Hey my bad. My intention wasn't to suggest you couldn't afford premium. It's only around a 20-30 cent difference in my area. I tend to average around 10,000 miles per year. Assume 22mpg = 455 gallons annually. The difference in cost is $150 tops not including the 4% Costco rebate.
But yes if Acura is no longer requiring it then I guess don't use it.
But yes if Acura is no longer requiring it then I guess don't use it.
Reading the language between the RDX and the NSX. It is clear that there is a distinction between:
- Fuel octane "requirement" (91 octane for NSX, none for RDX)
- Fuel octane "recommendation (93 octane for NSX and 91 octane for RDX)
- Warning for engine damage (less than 91 octane for NSX, less than 87 octane for RDX)
https://newsroom.aaa.com/2017/12/don...s-worth-price/
01-21-2019, 05:46 PM
#84
Skeptic
Around here, the difference between 87 and 91 is about 60 cents / gal. 93 is only 10 cents more. So, why bother with 91?
01-21-2019, 06:17 PM
#85
I get a laugh from these comments too Stewie. The RDX is actually a mid-priced vehicle and it's biggest selling point is that it's quality and driving experience is a good value for the money. It doesn't have the performance and some features found on high end vehicles, but, Acura buyers consider such vehicles as not being worth the additional cost. Yet, according to some, Acura owners are supposed to always buy premium fuel because "if they can pay 40K+ for a car they can afford premium fuel". Never mind that paying extra for more higher octane fuel to blow out the tailpipe of a car that's happy burning regular is a complete waste of money. (Possibly excepting the RDXs that are drag raced).
01-21-2019, 06:28 PM
#86
Burning Brakes
The real irony of that 'logic' is many truly 'premium' cars are very happy using the recommended 87 octane fuel. My '14 Cadillac was an example. The price back in '14 when I got it was considerably more than my RDX, it had a higher compression ratio, produced more horse power and torque than the RDX, and did that quite nicely on the recommended 87 octane. No need whatsoever to produce high priced exhaust gases by putting premium fuel in a premium car.
The following users liked this post:
nist7 (01-21-2019)
01-21-2019, 08:25 PM
#87
The real irony of that 'logic' is many truly 'premium' cars are very happy using the recommended 87 octane fuel. My '14 Cadillac was an example. The price back in '14 when I got it was considerably more than my RDX, it had a higher compression ratio, produced more horse power and torque than the RDX, and did that quite nicely on the recommended 87 octane. No need whatsoever to produce high priced exhaust gases by putting premium fuel in a premium car.
01-22-2019, 12:14 PM
#88
This argument has been going on ever since the gas companies jacked up the price of premium to increase profits. Cost of production used to be 10¢/gal with the requisite 10¢/gal for extra profit. Today so called premium is anywhere from 50¢ to over a $1 more/gal. Car companies are proposing just one grade of gas now to make it easier for the consumer and them. Right. Bottom line that BS is just a way to really make billions more in profit for the oil companies. Even Acura had to finally admit premium is not required in most of its vehicles, only recommended. It most parts of the country there are only two grades of gas—87 and 93, with mid grade just a blend of the two. If your vehicle calls for 91octane using 93 will not increase power or gas mileage, unless you use pure gasoline with no ethanol. Ethanol decreases mileage while increasing octane. Farmers love ethanol since they are getting billions in subsidies from the government, plus they make more money since prices they sell at are higher due to decreased supply for feeding livestock, etc. In the end the consumer just gets screwed time and time again.
The following 2 users liked this post by 2019RDX:
mgrody (01-22-2019),
StealthTL-S (01-02-2021)
01-23-2019, 11:31 AM
#89
Long ago I had a friend who was in the business of selling tulle (a lace-like product, guys) to makers of wedding gowns. When he inherited the business from his father they were stocking 12 different quality grades. Places like Saks and Nordstrom would buy the higher grades, while discount shops would buy the lower ones.
My friend discovered that it would be much cheaper to stock only the highest grade, and just label them with the 12 grades. No buyer ever noticed, and they were all happy. This probably would have also worked with the lowest grade, but that would have been fraud.
In case it’s not obvious, this is a parable about 87 vs. 93.
My friend discovered that it would be much cheaper to stock only the highest grade, and just label them with the 12 grades. No buyer ever noticed, and they were all happy. This probably would have also worked with the lowest grade, but that would have been fraud.
In case it’s not obvious, this is a parable about 87 vs. 93.
01-23-2019, 01:29 PM
#90
Burning Brakes
Long ago I had a friend who was in the business of selling tulle (a lace-like product, guys) to makers of wedding gowns. When he inherited the business from his father they were stocking 12 different quality grades. Places like Saks and Nordstrom would buy the higher grades, while discount shops would buy the lower ones.
My friend discovered that it would be much cheaper to stock only the highest grade, and just label them with the 12 grades. No buyer ever noticed, and they were all happy. This probably would have also worked with the lowest grade, but that would have been fraud.
In case it’s not obvious, this is a parable about 87 vs. 93.
My friend discovered that it would be much cheaper to stock only the highest grade, and just label them with the 12 grades. No buyer ever noticed, and they were all happy. This probably would have also worked with the lowest grade, but that would have been fraud.
In case it’s not obvious, this is a parable about 87 vs. 93.
Anyhow, this company was doing enough volume to just barely stay in business selling the flies for $1 each with free shipping. The owner was thinking about raising prices but before doing that he sought the advice of a marketing consultant. The consultant suggested that instead of raising prices he change his marketing. The new approach was to offer free sample packs of a dozen flies and charge $11.95 for 'shipping and handling'. He had to hire additional staff to keep up with the increased demand and never did raise prices.
01-23-2019, 03:09 PM
#91
Long ago I had a friend who was in the business of selling tulle (a lace-like product, guys) to makers of wedding gowns. When he inherited the business from his father they were stocking 12 different quality grades. Places like Saks and Nordstrom would buy the higher grades, while discount shops would buy the lower ones.
My friend discovered that it would be much cheaper to stock only the highest grade, and just label them with the 12 grades. No buyer ever noticed, and they were all happy. This probably would have also worked with the lowest grade, but that would have been fraud.
In case it’s not obvious, this is a parable about 87 vs. 93.
My friend discovered that it would be much cheaper to stock only the highest grade, and just label them with the 12 grades. No buyer ever noticed, and they were all happy. This probably would have also worked with the lowest grade, but that would have been fraud.
In case it’s not obvious, this is a parable about 87 vs. 93.
01-23-2019, 03:18 PM
#92
Azine Jabroni
You bought a premium automobile. Treat it like one.
The following users liked this post:
F23A4 (02-05-2019)
01-23-2019, 03:49 PM
#96
Azine Jabroni
01-23-2019, 04:04 PM
#97
Safety Car
But what made me stop and think twice is that AAA study that actually did scientific data/research on just how much difference premium vs regular makes for cars that recommend, but does not require, premium (like the RDX). At least this study showed that engine performance is virtually negligible in normal daily driving and there is potential for small% gain under extreme driving conditions (WOT, towing, etc.).
The one unknown is long-term reliability. If someone has the resources, one could do another test running two same car models but one with reg vs premium gas and run them for many miles to see which one fares better (need to account for other variables of course.)
What's interesting is the difference in language. The Acura NSX requires 91 octane and recommends 93 octane, whereas the RDX requires 87 octane and recommends 91 octane for max performance. And as AAA study showed, that max performance is likely not realized in the vast majority of daily driving.
Seems like this is one sort of issue where emotions run high on both sides. I hope more data can be elucidated (instead of simple assumptions) with regards to long-term reliability.
While I see when people argue: Oh why did you buy a premium car but cheap out on gas?! It's also I think reasonable to think that decisions should be made on sound logic and facts. And at least for me, I am a bit swayed from my prior positions after the AAA study came out showing negligible increase in performance/mpg with premium. (of course they did test an Audi that showed clear knock with regular, so that's obviously not a good sign). ANd again the big unknown is long-term reliability...
Last edited by nist7; 01-23-2019 at 04:06 PM.
01-23-2019, 04:44 PM
#98
If you are going to predict long term reliability of automobile engines you can’t ignore the engine destroyer—ethanol. Now the lobbyists for ethanol want the EPA to replace 10% ethanol blend with 15% ethanol blend. Most carmakers have already changed their manuals suggesting up to 15% ethanol can be used in their engines. Unless you’ve been living a hermit’s life you know how this is going to go. Once again the consumers are going to pay thru the nose so the rich can get richer . . . . There are fewer and fewer stations that offer pure gasoline nowadays. If you want long term reliability then diesel is the only way to go.
Last edited by 2019RDX; 01-23-2019 at 04:51 PM.
The following users liked this post:
StealthTL-S (01-02-2021)
01-24-2019, 06:14 AM
#99
The path to the presidency begins in Iowa, where the farmers are. If you go there without professing belief in the joys of ethanol, your path also ends there. That’s why we’re stuck with this anti-consumer policy.
Fortunately there’s an excellent use for ethanol that makes this feel better. Straight up or on the rocks.
Fortunately there’s an excellent use for ethanol that makes this feel better. Straight up or on the rocks.
01-24-2019, 07:01 AM
#101
Suzuka Master
@kurtatx I used to also scoff at people who would dare to use anything other than premium in a "premium/luxury" branded vehicle that recommended premium.
But what made me stop and think twice is that AAA study that actually did scientific data/research on just how much difference premium vs regular makes for cars that recommend, but does not require, premium (like the RDX). At least this study showed that engine performance is virtually negligible in normal daily driving and there is potential for small% gain under extreme driving conditions (WOT, towing, etc.).
The one unknown is long-term reliability. If someone has the resources, one could do another test running two same car models but one with reg vs premium gas and run them for many miles to see which one fares better (need to account for other variables of course.)
What's interesting is the difference in language. The Acura NSX requires 91 octane and recommends 93 octane, whereas the RDX requires 87 octane and recommends 91 octane for max performance. And as AAA study showed, that max performance is likely not realized in the vast majority of daily driving.
Seems like this is one sort of issue where emotions run high on both sides. I hope more data can be elucidated (instead of simple assumptions) with regards to long-term reliability.
While I see when people argue: Oh why did you buy a premium car but cheap out on gas?! It's also I think reasonable to think that decisions should be made on sound logic and facts. And at least for me, I am a bit swayed from my prior positions after the AAA study came out showing negligible increase in performance/mpg with premium. (of course they did test an Audi that showed clear knock with regular, so that's obviously not a good sign). ANd again the big unknown is long-term reliability...
But what made me stop and think twice is that AAA study that actually did scientific data/research on just how much difference premium vs regular makes for cars that recommend, but does not require, premium (like the RDX). At least this study showed that engine performance is virtually negligible in normal daily driving and there is potential for small% gain under extreme driving conditions (WOT, towing, etc.).
The one unknown is long-term reliability. If someone has the resources, one could do another test running two same car models but one with reg vs premium gas and run them for many miles to see which one fares better (need to account for other variables of course.)
What's interesting is the difference in language. The Acura NSX requires 91 octane and recommends 93 octane, whereas the RDX requires 87 octane and recommends 91 octane for max performance. And as AAA study showed, that max performance is likely not realized in the vast majority of daily driving.
Seems like this is one sort of issue where emotions run high on both sides. I hope more data can be elucidated (instead of simple assumptions) with regards to long-term reliability.
While I see when people argue: Oh why did you buy a premium car but cheap out on gas?! It's also I think reasonable to think that decisions should be made on sound logic and facts. And at least for me, I am a bit swayed from my prior positions after the AAA study came out showing negligible increase in performance/mpg with premium. (of course they did test an Audi that showed clear knock with regular, so that's obviously not a good sign). ANd again the big unknown is long-term reliability...
01-24-2019, 08:39 AM
#102
Burning Brakes
I tend to agree that you should treat your RDX like the premium vehicle that it is - no doubt in my mind at all. To assist you in doing that here's some information on other premium vehicles to guide you.
2019 Cadillac XT5 - Fuel requirement: 87 Octane
2019 Lincoln Nautalus - Fuel requirement: 87 Octane
2019 Lexus RX - Fuel requirement: 87 Octane
Please use this information in good health.
2019 Cadillac XT5 - Fuel requirement: 87 Octane
2019 Lincoln Nautalus - Fuel requirement: 87 Octane
2019 Lexus RX - Fuel requirement: 87 Octane
Please use this information in good health.
The following 2 users liked this post by MI-RDX:
StealthTL-S (01-02-2021),
Stew4HD (01-24-2019)
The following users liked this post:
nist7 (01-24-2019)
02-01-2019, 09:41 AM
#105
While this doesn't prove anything:
My dealer promised me a second full tank of gas, so when I took it in yesterday, they filled it with regular. (I watched as I wanted to see how much was added to check mpg) When I asked the lot attendant and sales manager, they both said they always put regular in unless Acura said Premium was "required".
FWIW
My dealer promised me a second full tank of gas, so when I took it in yesterday, they filled it with regular. (I watched as I wanted to see how much was added to check mpg) When I asked the lot attendant and sales manager, they both said they always put regular in unless Acura said Premium was "required".
FWIW
The following users liked this post:
asdecorazones (02-05-2019)
02-01-2019, 09:50 AM
#106
While this doesn't prove anything:
My dealer promised me a second full tank of gas, so when I took it in yesterday, they filled it with regular. (I watched as I wanted to see how much was added to check mpg) When I asked the lot attendant and sales manager, they both said they always put regular in unless Acura said Premium was "required".
FWIW
My dealer promised me a second full tank of gas, so when I took it in yesterday, they filled it with regular. (I watched as I wanted to see how much was added to check mpg) When I asked the lot attendant and sales manager, they both said they always put regular in unless Acura said Premium was "required".
FWIW
17.1 gallons * $2.262 (current national average for regular) = $38.68
17.1 gallons * $2.842 (current national average for premium) = $48.60
Another dirty little secret is that dealership porters tend to fill everything with the cheapest regular around - even when the vehicle requires premium.
02-01-2019, 09:59 AM
#107
Of course they did. Why would a dealer want to spend an extra $10 on something that wasn't absolutely required?
17.1 gallons * $2.262 (current national average for regular) = $38.68
17.1 gallons * $2.842 (current national average for premium) = $48.60
Another dirty little secret is that dealership porters tend to fill everything with the cheapest regular around - even when the vehicle requires premium.
17.1 gallons * $2.262 (current national average for regular) = $38.68
17.1 gallons * $2.842 (current national average for premium) = $48.60
Another dirty little secret is that dealership porters tend to fill everything with the cheapest regular around - even when the vehicle requires premium.
02-01-2019, 10:34 AM
#108
I have run it with both grades but did not correlate mpg with grade used and did not notice differences in driving characteristics. I think running Top Tier designated gas over the long haul might be more important than the variation between 89 -93 octane ratings in that it should guarantee a certain quality and supposedly keeps the interior of the engine cleaner. In hilly terrains where there is more load on the engine and for those that like to accelerate a little more briskly, I think that premium might be a better choice. In the old days if you ran a big 8 cylinder with too low of octane rating for it, the pinging was atrocious when accelerating. I don't notice that difference anymore between grades.
02-01-2019, 11:06 AM
#109
Unregistered Member
02-01-2019, 11:51 AM
#110
Tom..it doesnt matter..if you can spend $40,000 on a car, you just need to put more $$$ gas into it....its that simple.....it doesnt matter that it states in the manual that gas LESS than 87 could cause engine damage.and Regular gas here in the USA is 87 so is fine......Does not matter people have compared using different blends and the results are similar......all that matter is that if you can afford a car,you can afford better gas.....which is funny as some of the richest people I know, care about their $$$$ and spend it wisely and yes even a$1 means something to them, maybe thats why they retired early....lol
The following users liked this post:
Stew4HD (02-01-2019)
02-01-2019, 12:48 PM
#114
Burning Brakes
02-01-2019, 01:52 PM
#115
Unregistered Member
Tom..it doesnt matter..if you can spend $40,000 on a car, you just need to put more $$$ gas into it....its that simple.....it doesnt matter that it states in the manual that gas LESS than 87 could cause engine damage.and Regular gas here in the USA is 87 so is fine......Does not matter people have compared using different blends and the results are similar......all that matter is that if you can afford a car,you can afford better gas.....which is funny as some of the richest people I know, care about their $$$$ and spend it wisely and yes even a$1 means something to them, maybe thats why they retired early....lol
But on a more serious note, I'd like to inject some common sense into this thread. Consider this: Vehicle manufacturers provide warranties to buyers of their new vehicles. Manufacturers know that there will always be a fair number of people who will pump 87 octane into their new cars no matter the octane requirement from the manufacturer. Think about that. Common sense should tell us that manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that their vehicles will not self destruct when those customers repeatedly fill them with 87 octane, even those that REQUIRE higher octane fuel. And that's precisely why there's really no danger in putting 87 octane is a car with a requirement for higher octane fuel. Simply speaking, if knock occurs because low octane fuel is being used in a vehicle designed for high octane fuel, the knock detectors will simply retard the ignition timing to eradicate the knock. This is nothing new---cars have been able to do this for more than 20 years now.
And when you consider a car like the 2019 RDX that doesn't require anything more than 87 octane, there's simply no reason at all to bash anyone who chooses to use 87 octane. If the higher octane fuel is what you want to use, go for it. Lower octane instead? That's fine too.
The following 4 users liked this post by Tom2:
02-01-2019, 02:12 PM
#116
Null and proud of it
Manufacturers know that there will always be a fair number of people who will pump 87 octane into their new cars no matter the octane requirement from the manufacturer. Think about that. Common sense should tell us that manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that their vehicles will not self destruct when those customers repeatedly fill them with 87 octane, even those that REQUIRE higher octane fuel.
I've always wondered about that and this makes sense.
02-01-2019, 02:13 PM
#117
Safety Car
To be fair, Acura also 'recommends' servicing your vehicle with Acura trained technicians who will also 'recommend' that you allow them to change your cabin and air filter for $200 when it takes 10 minutes and $20 in parts. I'm sure everyone could afford to let Acura do it, but I'm not so sure it's 'worth it' to a lot of people when they do the cost/benefit analysis. So, I wouldn't take Acura's recommendations as the end all be all until you figure in the value you actually receive by following their recommendations. I think a lot of Acura buyers are frugal but like nice things, which is why we buy Acuras and not Audi/BMW/Mercedes. The added cost is something we could afford but we don't see the value in doing it.
The RDX is likely lose more power by using 87 instead of 91 than the Accord will gain by using 91 instead of 87 simply because the Accord is tuned for 87 and the RDX is tuned for 91 from the factory. Even with the same tune, the RDX will still develop more power on 91 than the Accord will on 91 because of differences in the intake and exhaust systems.
https://www.sae.org/news/2018/07/201...t-chassis-tech
https://www.sae.org/news/2018/07/201...t-chassis-tech
Yeah, it's kind of funny that people take that position, but I guess it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round...
But on a more serious note, I'd like to inject some common sense into this thread. Consider this: Vehicle manufacturers provide warranties to buyers of their new vehicles. Manufacturers know that there will always be a fair number of people who will pump 87 octane into their new cars no matter the octane requirement from the manufacturer. Think about that. Common sense should tell us that manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that their vehicles will not self destruct when those customers repeatedly fill them with 87 octane, even those that REQUIRE higher octane fuel. And that's precisely why there's really no danger in putting 87 octane is a car with a requirement for higher octane fuel. Simply speaking, if knock occurs because low octane fuel is being used in a vehicle designed for high octane fuel, the knock detectors will simply retard the ignition timing to eradicate the knock. This is nothing new---cars have been able to do this for more than 20 years now.
And when you consider a car like the 2019 RDX that doesn't require anything more than 87 octane, there's simply no reason at all to bash anyone who chooses to use 87 octane. If the higher octane fuel is what you want to use, go for it. Lower octane instead? That's fine too.
But on a more serious note, I'd like to inject some common sense into this thread. Consider this: Vehicle manufacturers provide warranties to buyers of their new vehicles. Manufacturers know that there will always be a fair number of people who will pump 87 octane into their new cars no matter the octane requirement from the manufacturer. Think about that. Common sense should tell us that manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that their vehicles will not self destruct when those customers repeatedly fill them with 87 octane, even those that REQUIRE higher octane fuel. And that's precisely why there's really no danger in putting 87 octane is a car with a requirement for higher octane fuel. Simply speaking, if knock occurs because low octane fuel is being used in a vehicle designed for high octane fuel, the knock detectors will simply retard the ignition timing to eradicate the knock. This is nothing new---cars have been able to do this for more than 20 years now.
And when you consider a car like the 2019 RDX that doesn't require anything more than 87 octane, there's simply no reason at all to bash anyone who chooses to use 87 octane. If the higher octane fuel is what you want to use, go for it. Lower octane instead? That's fine too.
02-01-2019, 03:09 PM
#118
Azine Jabroni
Yeah, it's kind of funny that people take that position, but I guess it takes all kinds to make the world go 'round...
But on a more serious note, I'd like to inject some common sense into this thread. Consider this: Vehicle manufacturers provide warranties to buyers of their new vehicles. Manufacturers know that there will always be a fair number of people who will pump 87 octane into their new cars no matter the octane requirement from the manufacturer. Think about that. Common sense should tell us that manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that their vehicles will not self destruct when those customers repeatedly fill them with 87 octane, even those that REQUIRE higher octane fuel. And that's precisely why there's really no danger in putting 87 octane is a car with a requirement for higher octane fuel. Simply speaking, if knock occurs because low octane fuel is being used in a vehicle designed for high octane fuel, the knock detectors will simply retard the ignition timing to eradicate the knock. This is nothing new---cars have been able to do this for more than 20 years now.
And when you consider a car like the 2019 RDX that doesn't require anything more than 87 octane, there's simply no reason at all to bash anyone who chooses to use 87 octane. If the higher octane fuel is what you want to use, go for it. Lower octane instead? That's fine too.
But on a more serious note, I'd like to inject some common sense into this thread. Consider this: Vehicle manufacturers provide warranties to buyers of their new vehicles. Manufacturers know that there will always be a fair number of people who will pump 87 octane into their new cars no matter the octane requirement from the manufacturer. Think about that. Common sense should tell us that manufacturers have a vested interest in ensuring that their vehicles will not self destruct when those customers repeatedly fill them with 87 octane, even those that REQUIRE higher octane fuel. And that's precisely why there's really no danger in putting 87 octane is a car with a requirement for higher octane fuel. Simply speaking, if knock occurs because low octane fuel is being used in a vehicle designed for high octane fuel, the knock detectors will simply retard the ignition timing to eradicate the knock. This is nothing new---cars have been able to do this for more than 20 years now.
And when you consider a car like the 2019 RDX that doesn't require anything more than 87 octane, there's simply no reason at all to bash anyone who chooses to use 87 octane. If the higher octane fuel is what you want to use, go for it. Lower octane instead? That's fine too.
02-01-2019, 03:18 PM
#119
Null and proud of it
What he's trying to say is Acura knows 87 is all that can be available at certain service stations. It is designed to be run on lower octane fuel on occasion.
02-01-2019, 03:20 PM
#120
My refrigerator manufacturer "recommends" that I change the water filter every 6 months. A "change filter light" also comes on. That is based on a normal "family" unit of perhaps 2 adults and 2 kids. WE have 2 in our family unit. They also don't know exactly how much water has passed through that filter in the 6 months time. I never change that filter at 6 month intervals. They are ~$50 each, if I buy the brand name.
The following users liked this post:
zroger73 (02-01-2019)
