Since I had zero experience with TL as been suggested by some old timers I decided to get some.

Intent of this thread is an experiment if you'd like to engage in some mental (academic/theory) masturbation then look else where.

Acura TL 2008 with 84K miles.

On my TL with my commute I usually drive 220 miles before MID reads zero range and fill up with about 15 gallons my MPH by the time I need a fill up usually very consistent at 20 MPH

I am currently on my second fill up with 87 and I also got myself a scanner that can read timing advance. Here are some test results: Outside temperature in Orange County was low 70 last week during testing. For my style of driving scanner didn't report any timing being pulled. Then I tried different tests at different gears. When I floor it from stand still scanner didn't report any timing adjustments.
The only time when scanner reported timing adj. by 0.5 if I lock 5th gear at 40MPH and floor the gas pedal. At this point scanner reported that timing was adjusted twice.

I also took my TL for a smog check filled up with 87 and it passed without any issues, if anyone will be interested I will post results of the test.

Here are my current fill up results with 87

Acura TL first fill up 03/10/2014

14.898 gallons

Second fill up on 03/22/2014

After driving 233 miles MID reported 20MPH

14.379 G

233/14.379 = 16.2 MPG (MID reports 17 MPG)


At the same time I decided to document some advantages of 91.
My wife drives Lexus RX 330 with 118K miles which has been filled up with 87 since new. For the experiment I will fill it up with 91 to measure any MPG gains.

First fill up on 3/09/2014

16.209 G

Second fill up on 03/16/2014

After driving 257 miles
16.105 G

257/16.105= 15.96 MPG

 

if your wife's RX isnt tuned for premium gas, there will be no benefit.....

on the other hand, our TL's are tuned for premium fuel.
not sure what the basis of your experiment is, if you're giving after results and no before....

 

You're perfectly safe using regular unleaded. The boosts you get from premium are minimal at most. Really up to the driver if it's worth the extra money.

 

psh, our acura's have a high compression engine ratio.
the higher the octane, the better.

 

This has been answered countless times. 91 is recommended and although using 87 didn't affect your emissions testing, it's not what's recommended. Hey, it's your car, do what you feel is best for you, but it's been proven that use of 87 gives no gains as it can result in detonation and results in decreased fuel efficiency. The extra few bucks saved in a fill up isn't worth the potential for engine damage from detonation.

 

In the end you're not saving that much more money by filling up regular. what is it like a couple bucks every fill up?

you can save money doing other things.

If running regular is not for saving money than why do it?

 

Agreed. I've always run premium, while you can get away with 87, the few extra bucks is worth it in the end.

 

lol contradictory much?

first you say, its okay to run 87...then now you're saying....you only run 91!?



its okay to run 87 for a few times. the ECU will detect the lower octane and will retard timing.
lowering fuel economy and power.

knock and heat is the killer of all things.

 

He asked if it was safe to run 87. I answered his question. Wasn't trying to sway him one way or another.

 

thanks for clarifying!

its safe for a few times! but as you know, it's not cost efficient or power efficient.

 

No worries my friend

 

Those results mirror what I've found regarding using 87 and highway driving: zero detrimental effect on gas mileage.

Very interesting to note that there was only one instance of timing being pulled while in 5th gear. Really want to see more readings from heavy acceleration pulls when it's much hotter outside. Keep us updated

P.S. What scanner are you using?

 

Previously has being suggested:

losing performance = losing efficiency = losing MPG.

Once I go back to using 91 I will keep posting to see if there is any measurable difference.

 

I just ran a third of a tank of regular as an informal test since gas prices have crept up recently. I think that there was no effect on mileage, but didn't document it. I felt that the car was rougher at idle, was slower, and was slower to downshift. It's running much better on the latest tank of mid-grade.

+1

 

I will run some tests with 87 and 91 once it will get a little hotter.

I am using INNOVA scanner. I am working with a lady who's husband just past away in February, I got it from her. her husband used to owe "Anziano's Bad Boys Cars" and now she is selling anything she can. She just sold his 2004 Porsche Cayenne under $8K

 

 

Anyone putting 93? If you're gonna spend extra might as well go the whole way

 

^I use 93, but that's because 91 isn't available here. That is largely based on location. I was running pure (0% ethanol) 91 when I lived in Wisconsin, but the best you'll do in Chicagoland is 93 E10.

I noticed a slight decrease in MPG with the 93 E10 and this is perfectly expected because of the ethanol, not because of the octane difference.

Interested to see the results of this experiment. Generally it is not okay to use lower than 91 for all the reasons already mentioned. The owner's manual specifies that you can use 87 until it's possible to fill up with 91+ again. Like someone said, the timing is retarded in this use case for a loss of power at the expense of saving your engine from your bad decision. in4results.

 

More/higher octane isn't better unless you can raise the ignition timing to make use of it. It's designed for use with 91 octane to avoid detonation with a higher compression engine, but in some areas (like in NJ), 93 is all that's available, but it doesn't mean that 93 is 'better' than 91 octane.
It's true that just about all fuel is E10 or less (according to the pumps)- I don't think anyone in NJ sells pure gas.
Here in NJ:
87-reg
89-mid grade
93-premium

Sunoco used to sell 91 octane fuel as an intermediate grade, but they're generally the stations on the NJ Turnpike (I don't see any around by me)

 

Acura's engine is designed and tuned to run high compression. Running 87 is not what it was meant to do. You'll hurt it and yourself in the long run.

Vice versa , running premium in a low compression engine is pointless. The benefit you think you're getting is all placebo.

 

When you fill up with 87 once its never pure 87. Its mixed with the old 91 in the tank. The more you fill with 87 the lower the octane should get. And i always put in 93 from sunoco.

 

There are some sunoco's in north jersey still selling 91, but it's pretty much 87,89,93

 

it would have been better if you completed the science experiment and posted all notes and results.

when its in the air like this, people can chime in and of course put their 2 cents in.
its hard to argue with facts.
Hurry up and complete the experiment!!!

 

First of all this is an experiment.
Second: Acura TL 3.2 with 11 compression
Lexus RX 3.3 with 10.8 compression

 

That is what I will have to do.
With my commute it will take me another 3 months.

 

I just use what the book recommends. My car is fed 93 octane on every fill up and preferrably from top tier gas stations only.

If your hesitant on spending the slight extra amount at each fillup then a premium burning car is not for you.

 

qft. The owners manual states that 87 is to be used for emergency situations, when 91+ isn't available.

 

Ok I cam contribute to this thread...I recently made a thread of using 87 octane on my tl...but since I've been using 91....here are my results same driving habits both stop and go and hwy....with 87 filled up I went 250 miles till empty....with my last fill up with 91 right now im at 285miles since last fill up and still have about 1/4 tank left...so my end results is you get way better mpgs with 91 and I really did notice a huge lag of performance with 87octane...trust me even my wife had told me that the car feels a little bit more sluggish. ...and she's noticed the difference with 91 car has better acceleration and what not....some say yes its ok to use 87 once in a while but summers coming along and with heat( especially in Phoenix with 110°+ summers) you will def hear alot of pinging and knocking with shitty gas....heat is a huge killer and stress on cars....

 

Same gas as we'll I only fill up with 91 octane from quick trip

 

That's all we have here is 93 octane Premium. I use it in my Accord since the Accord was originally going to be rated at 250 hp and require premium. But since it made 240 hp on regular while the Altima made 240 hp on premium, Honda decided to rate the engine at what it made on regular to give it a competitive advantage. According to the lead engineer who worked on the 7th gen platform, using premium fuel is worth about 10 hp/10 lb-ft gain. Takes a couple tankfuls for the computer to fully adjust and it seems like most of the gains are in the midrange. My car is EPA rated at 21/30 mpg, consistently get 22.5 city, and 30-31 freeway. And that's here in the Dallas area with horrible traffic light timing. I get 25-26 mpg city when I go to Phoenix, using 91 octane, since that's all they have.

But since I have lower compression than the TL, going back to regular is no big deal. With a TL, I'd go with the recommendation of premium. Even used its still a decent amount of money for car, might as well use the fuel that will get the most out of the engine. Plus premium fuels tend to have the best detergent packages out of the three grades of fuel.

VQ35s are hyper sensitive to octane, there are people on maxima.org losing 15-25 hp using regular vs premium, based on dyno testing.

 

Name? When/where did he allegedly say this? Just asking...

I'm not sure where you are getting this from, but it's not necessarily true for Top Tier gas.

Got a link to a thread where this happened?

 

I can tell you that in our 2000 Odyssey J35 it is fine to run regular but there is a 5 HP gain in the specifications when running premium fuel

 

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money...OE=click-refer

The Accord V-6 ratings assume regular-grade fuel, and Honda will market it as a regular-fuel engine. But — pssst — it's good for another 10 hp and 10-plus lbs.-ft. on premium, acknowledges V-6 engineer Asaki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_Tier_Detergent_Gasoline
The Top Tier designation is separate from the issue of octane levels—in order to get the designation, gasoline companies must pass tests proving defined levels of engine-cleaning effectiveness in all grades of gasoline they sell, whether it is economy (low-octane) or premium (high-octane).However, premium gasolines may contain even higher levels of detergent additives.

Okay, not necessarily but generally gas companies tend make premium their cleanest fuel.

Shell claims that their premium fuel "Contains the highest concentration of our patented Shell Nitrogen Enriched Cleaning System".

http://www.shell.us/products-service...ut-vpower.html

I'll have to dig around, it was in a dyno thread and the search function is coming up with tons of thread I'd have to wade through. Several people mentioned serious pinging with regular fuel in multiple threads.

 

Well I can say between 87 and 93 there's an actual difference that i've noticed. I just went on a trip with my 06 it had 73,xxx before the trip and I put about 1800 miles on it in a week. Driving 80-85mph putting 93 oct I got a constant 29-30 mpgs about 400 miles per tank. Did another test 70 mph with 93 with the ac off got a constant 35-38mpgs.

I used to use 87 oct before and I can feel the difference.

 

Ya I lose about 20-30miles from 87, normally I put in 94, its only about 6$ difference....

 

By definition 87 has higher energy content per gallon then 91 because it is less diluted with cleaners and lower ethanol content. You can keep on mental masturbation but you more than likely to have some gain in MPGs if you keep your RPMs below red line. Only difference is HOW you get there. My own test shows that there are no timing adjustments when outside temperature around 70, unless you put your engine under stress which almost impossible to do under normal driving conditions.

When I filled up RX with 91 it felt like it got an energy drink but range fell from 280 to 260. So I can tell you that I felt a lot of things but I couldn't measure any of my feelings.

 

You are assuming 91+ has Ethanol. Everyone must remember that fuel blends are different in various parts of the country/world. In MO, 91 and higher are not required to have Ethanol blended in. Some stations still do while many do not.

Like others have said, I personally have witnessed the perks of 93 vs 91 in my '05 on long trips. However I have also had times that it didn't "appear" to matter. I live in the West side of MO and we don't generally have 93 (only 91) and when I travel East we get access to 93. I have never run 87 in my TL so I can't really chime in on that part.

 

Exactly what I was thinking. If you complain about having to put premium in your tank, then you shouldn't be driving something that requires it.

 

Exactly what this thread isn't about.

 

Reminds me of snotty salesmen saying that if you have to ask, you can't afford it.

It's a legitimate inquiry into the operating and weather conditions under which timing is retarded, and leaving aside perceptions and mental gymnastics.