Go Back  AcuraZine - Acura Enthusiast Community > AcuraZine RDX Community > Third Generation RDX (2019+)
Reload this Page >

Request for those that put REGULAR gas in your RDX (gasp!)

Notices

Request for those that put REGULAR gas in your RDX (gasp!)

 
Old 01-21-2019, 01:29 PM
  #81  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Age: 40
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Recieved 13 Likes on 10 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.
ross7777 is offline  
Old 01-21-2019, 01:29 PM
  #82  
Unregistered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 3,378
Recieved 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by quantum7 View Post
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.
Just for the record....my mother drove a 2009 MDX for the last 10 years before getting her 2019 RDX. And the MDX requires the higher octane fuel. But guess what? She never put anything other than 87 octane in her MDX from day one. And guess what else? Yup, she never had a single problem with that MDX.

Tom2 is offline  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:28 PM
  #83  
2006 RRP TL "The Comrade"
 
nist7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Honolulu
Age: 33
Posts: 3,197
Recieved 561 Likes on 385 Posts
Originally Posted by ross7777 View Post
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.
The only Acura vehicle that requires premium/91 octane is the NSX. Recommendation =/= requirement.
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://acurazine.com/forums/third-g.../#post16361790

https://newsroom.aaa.com/2017/12/don...s-worth-price/
nist7 is offline  
Old 01-21-2019, 05:46 PM
  #84  
Registered Member
 
NooYawkuh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NY Panhadle
Posts: 199
Recieved 33 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
Ah yes, THERE IT IS! I knew someone had to say this, like they do with every other reg vs premium thread.

Rich folks don't get rich by wasting money. Saving hundreds a year on fuel is not a bad thing.
Around here, the difference between 87 and 91 is about 60 cents / gal. 93 is only 10 cents more. So, why bother with 91?
NooYawkuh is offline  
Old 01-21-2019, 06:17 PM
  #85  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 40
Recieved 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
Ah yes, THERE IT IS! I knew someone had to say this, like they do with every other reg vs premium thread.

Rich folks don't get rich by wasting money. Saving hundreds a year on fuel is not a bad thing.
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).
mgrody is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by mgrody:
nist7 (01-21-2019), Stew4HD (01-22-2019)
Old 01-21-2019, 06:28 PM
  #86  
Registered Member
 
MI-RDX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Michigan
Posts: 992
Recieved 237 Likes on 168 Posts
Originally Posted by mgrody View Post
...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"....
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.
MI-RDX is offline  
The following users liked this post:
nist7 (01-21-2019)
Old 01-21-2019, 08:25 PM
  #87  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 40
Recieved 10 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by MI-RDX View Post
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.
Cadillacs have some excellent engineering. My wife's car is a Mercedes and it chaps me that it requires premium fuel for its low compression V-6.

mgrody is offline  
Old 01-22-2019, 12:14 PM
  #88  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Age: 69
Posts: 64
Recieved 5 Likes on 5 Posts
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.
2019RDX is offline  
The following users liked this post:
mgrody (01-22-2019)
Old 01-23-2019, 11:31 AM
  #89  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Recieved 14 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
tangible is offline  
Old 01-23-2019, 01:29 PM
  #90  
Registered Member
 
MI-RDX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Michigan
Posts: 992
Recieved 237 Likes on 168 Posts
Originally Posted by tangible View Post
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 its not obvious, this is a parable about 87 vs. 93.
It's all about perception and marketing. Many years ago in a marketing class we were doing a case study involving a small company that manufactured fishing lures, trout flies specifically. All of their advertising was done in sporting related magazines with most of that being the 1 column wide by 1 or 2 inch tall ads that I'm sure most of us have seen at some time in our lives.

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.
MI-RDX is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by MI-RDX:
nist7 (01-23-2019), zroger73 (01-23-2019)
Old 01-23-2019, 03:09 PM
  #91  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Age: 69
Posts: 64
Recieved 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by tangible View Post
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 its not obvious, this is a parable about 87 vs. 93.
Im a guy, but I know what tulle is.
2019RDX is offline  
Old 01-23-2019, 03:18 PM
  #92  
Lucky Enzo!
 
kurtatx's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 6,858
Recieved 1,196 Likes on 840 Posts
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
Ah yes, THERE IT IS! I knew someone had to say this, like they do with every other reg vs premium thread.

Rich folks don't get rich by wasting money. Saving hundreds a year on fuel is not a bad thing.
Stew, seriously. How much are you saving if it causes adverse effects on your engine performance and long term reliability?

You bought a premium automobile. Treat it like one.
kurtatx is offline  
The following users liked this post:
F23A4 (02-05-2019)
Old 01-23-2019, 03:23 PM
  #93  
Registered Member
 
Stew4HD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 5,413
Recieved 998 Likes on 657 Posts
Originally Posted by kurtatx View Post
Stew, seriously. How much are you saving if it causes adverse effects on your engine performance and long term reliability?

You bought a premium automobile. Treat it like one.
I treat it just fine, thank you for caring so much

Last edited by Stew4HD; 01-23-2019 at 03:25 PM.
Stew4HD is offline  
Old 01-23-2019, 03:29 PM
  #94  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Age: 69
Posts: 64
Recieved 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Can’t we all get along?
2019RDX is offline  
Old 01-23-2019, 03:41 PM
  #95  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Age: 69
Posts: 64
Recieved 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Acuras are luxury vehicles you pay a premium to own. If you relate high cost to premium then the NSX is Acura’s premium vehicle.

Last edited by 2019RDX; 01-23-2019 at 03:45 PM.
2019RDX is offline  
Old 01-23-2019, 03:49 PM
  #96  
Lucky Enzo!
 
kurtatx's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 6,858
Recieved 1,196 Likes on 840 Posts
Originally Posted by 2019RDX View Post
Cant we all get along?
Meh, Stew is just going to find a squeak he doesn't like and then replace his RDX with some other brand and be gone again.
kurtatx is offline  
Old 01-23-2019, 04:04 PM
  #97  
2006 RRP TL "The Comrade"
 
nist7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Honolulu
Age: 33
Posts: 3,197
Recieved 561 Likes on 385 Posts
Originally Posted by kurtatx View Post
Stew, seriously. How much are you saving if it causes adverse effects on your engine performance and long term reliability?

You bought a premium automobile. Treat it like one.
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...

Last edited by nist7; 01-23-2019 at 04:06 PM.
nist7 is offline  
Old 01-23-2019, 04:44 PM
  #98  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Age: 69
Posts: 64
Recieved 5 Likes on 5 Posts
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.
2019RDX is offline  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:14 AM
  #99  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Recieved 14 Likes on 10 Posts
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.
tangible is offline  
Old 01-24-2019, 06:59 AM
  #100  
Registered Member
 
Stew4HD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 5,413
Recieved 998 Likes on 657 Posts
Originally Posted by kurtatx View Post
Meh, Stew is just going to find a squeak he doesn't like and then replace his RDX with some other brand and be gone again.
Another one bites the dust
Stew4HD is offline  
Old 01-24-2019, 07:01 AM
  #101  
Registered Member
 
Stew4HD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 5,413
Recieved 998 Likes on 657 Posts
Originally Posted by nist7 View Post
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...
You are expecting logic from one that enjoys creating angst?
Stew4HD is offline  
Old 01-24-2019, 08:39 AM
  #102  
Registered Member
 
MI-RDX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Michigan
Posts: 992
Recieved 237 Likes on 168 Posts
Originally Posted by Stew4HD View Post
You are expecting logic from one that enjoys creating angst?
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.
MI-RDX is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Stew4HD (01-24-2019)
Old 01-24-2019, 09:39 AM
  #103  
Registered Member
 
Yotrek's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 310
Recieved 15 Likes on 14 Posts
now that we know booth regular and premium can be put in our RDX, you decide which one is best suit you..end of story
Yotrek is offline  
The following users liked this post:
nist7 (01-24-2019)
Old 01-24-2019, 10:09 AM
  #104  
Registered Member
 
Stew4HD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 5,413
Recieved 998 Likes on 657 Posts
Originally Posted by Yotrek View Post
now that we know booth regular and premium can be put in our RDX, you decide which one is best suit you..end of story
^This
Stew4HD is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 09:41 AM
  #105  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Arizona
Age: 67
Posts: 415
Recieved 78 Likes on 58 Posts
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
JB in AZ is offline  
The following users liked this post:
asdecorazones (02-05-2019)
Old 02-01-2019, 09:50 AM
  #106  
2019 Ridgeline RTL-E
 
zroger73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 324
Recieved 108 Likes on 69 Posts
Originally Posted by JB in AZ View Post
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
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.
zroger73 is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 09:59 AM
  #107  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Arizona
Age: 67
Posts: 415
Recieved 78 Likes on 58 Posts
Originally Posted by zroger73 View Post
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.
Yeah, it didn't really matter to me, as I will likely use regular at every other fill up anyway. The dealership has their own pump, and there is a regular side and a premium side with separate hoses
JB in AZ is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 10:34 AM
  #108  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 143
Recieved 35 Likes on 21 Posts
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.
gtssenior is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 11:06 AM
  #109  
Unregistered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 3,378
Recieved 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by kurtatx View Post
.... How much are you saving if it causes adverse effects on your engine performance and long term reliability....
But it doesn't cause adverse effects. Even Acura says so. If reliability were a concern, Acura would make premium fuel a requirement like they have with other vehicles over the years.

Tom2 is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 11:51 AM
  #110  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: MD
Age: 46
Posts: 169
Recieved 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by Tom2 View Post
But it doesn't cause adverse effects. Even Acura says so. If reliability were a concern, Acura would make premium fuel a requirement like they have with other vehicles over the years.
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
flames9 is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Stew4HD (02-01-2019)
Old 02-01-2019, 12:08 PM
  #111  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 343
Recieved 35 Likes on 29 Posts
I heard if you use 87, your infotainment system crashes to spite you.
skarface is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 12:15 PM
  #112  
Registered Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Age: 100
Posts: 332
Recieved 50 Likes on 37 Posts
Originally Posted by skarface View Post
I heard if you use 87, your infotainment system crashes to spite you.
This is actually LOL funny.
Sounds is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 12:18 PM
  #113  
Registered Member
 
Stew4HD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 5,413
Recieved 998 Likes on 657 Posts
Originally Posted by skarface View Post
I heard if you use 87, your infotainment system crashes to spite you.
Mine refuses to stream Pandora just to spite me!
Stew4HD is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 12:48 PM
  #114  
Registered Member
 
MI-RDX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: Michigan
Posts: 992
Recieved 237 Likes on 168 Posts
Originally Posted by skarface View Post
I heard if you use 87, your infotainment system crashes to spite you.
That's odd - mine is completely different. Somehow it senses when I've selected anything above 87 octane and the system starts playing "Fools Rush In".
MI-RDX is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 01:52 PM
  #115  
Unregistered Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New York
Posts: 3,378
Recieved 15 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by flames9 View Post
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
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.

Tom2 is offline  
The following 4 users liked this post by Tom2:
asdecorazones (02-05-2019), JB in AZ (02-01-2019), nist7 (02-01-2019), Stew4HD (02-04-2019)
Old 02-01-2019, 02:12 PM
  #116  
WTF?
 
Midnight Mystery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Mississippi Coast
Age: 22
Posts: 4,743
Recieved 250 Likes on 224 Posts
Originally Posted by Tom2 View Post
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.
Midnight Mystery is online now  
Old 02-01-2019, 02:13 PM
  #117  
2006 RRP TL "The Comrade"
 
nist7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Honolulu
Age: 33
Posts: 3,197
Recieved 561 Likes on 385 Posts
Originally Posted by skarface View Post
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.
Originally Posted by zroger73 View Post
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
Originally Posted by Tom2 View Post
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.
Also there are other more reasonable reasons to use lower octane.....in an emergency when you're on a roadtrip or in some podunk town, you might only have reasonable access to 87octane....so the car has to be able to handle that as well in a pinch
nist7 is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 03:09 PM
  #118  
Lucky Enzo!
 
kurtatx's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 6,858
Recieved 1,196 Likes on 840 Posts
Originally Posted by Tom2 View Post
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.
Why would you go against the manufacturer's recommendation? Even Stewie can't really answer that.
kurtatx is offline  
Old 02-01-2019, 03:18 PM
  #119  
WTF?
 
Midnight Mystery's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: Mississippi Coast
Age: 22
Posts: 4,743
Recieved 250 Likes on 224 Posts
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.
Midnight Mystery is online now  
Old 02-01-2019, 03:20 PM
  #120  
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Arizona
Age: 67
Posts: 415
Recieved 78 Likes on 58 Posts
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.
JB in AZ is offline  
The following users liked this post:
zroger73 (02-01-2019)

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Request for those that put REGULAR gas in your RDX (gasp!)


Contact Us - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.