[EngTech1]

What do You Feed Your Honda :


I Feed My Sole High Test Fuel , Full 18 inch Plus Pizza , and Not Everyday ~ BS ~



Top Shelf Fuel - Taste Hhhmmm , so Good , but You have to Know the Owner ..

 

[ZipZap]

If all you'll taste is onions.....whats the point. Its a nice looking Pizza however.

 

[[email protected]]

Premium fuel

87 octane is what Honda recommends for my 2.0 Turbo.

Premium and even 89 octane is a waste of money.

 

[EngTech1]

If all you'll taste is onions.....whats the point. Its a nice looking Pizza however.

Haaa , the Toppings were 1" Deep on this Pie ~

 

[Dengine]

Premium fuel

87 octane is what Honda recommends for my 2.0 Turbo.

Premium and even 89 octane is a waste of money.

It is the minimum octane recommended. But the fact is the engine pulls less timing and makes more power on 93 vs 87, even on the stock tune.

 

[StanNH]

It is the minimum octane recommended. But the fact is the engine pulls less timing and makes more power on 93 vs 87, even on the stock tune.

Everything I have ever read contradicts this. Where are you finding tests that show higher octane in a standard, non-tuned engine, increases output?

I know the opposite is true, in that an engine designed for premium will retard timing slightly to prevent knock when standard grades of fuel are used ... but not the other way around. I'm curious to see which tests you found to support your point.

 

[fzr100098]

Premium fuel

87 octane is what Honda recommends for my 2.0 Turbo.

Premium and even 89 octane is a waste of money.

Of course, you're a blind Honda disciple (same guy who says never use anything but 0W-20, which is dead wrong) - but minor hp gains can be had with 93 and it's cheap insurance on a turbo car if you're on boost frequently. With 87 the ECU just dumps more fuel to mitigate detonation, which contributes to fuel dilution of the oil.

 

[fzr100098]

Everything I have ever read contradicts this. Where are you finding tests that show higher octane in a standard, non-tuned engine, increases output?

Well documented, believe it was Hondata

 

[StanNH]

Well documented, believe it was Hondata

I couldn’t find anything there that referred to a standard tune engine. Here's an interesting comment on Quora that basically mirrors everything else I've read.

I have a turbocharged Honda CR-V that requires regular gasoline. Why doesn't the increased cylinder pressure require high octane gasoline?

Answer (1 of 8): Your turbocharged engine has a much lower compression ratio compared to a normally aspirated engine. This means that your cylinder head volume is larger than the N/A engine, being volume of much bigger engine. So the final pressure in the combustion chamber is not much more than ...

www.quora.com

 

[fzr100098]

There are several dyno threads that prove the case e.g.

2.0 MT 87-91 octane test dyno

As promised: We ran down the 87 in our first tank of fuel and filled with 91. There was a little mixing, so it was not 100% 91, but it was a lot better than before. Roughly, you are looking at 9 HP and 11 lb-ft torque above 4000 rpm. But there is another way to measure what the computer is...

www.driveaccord.net

 

[StanNH]

There are several dyno threads that prove the case e.g.

2.0 MT 87-91 octane test dyno

As promised: We ran down the 87 in our first tank of fuel and filled with 91. There was a little mixing, so it was not 100% 91, but it was a lot better than before. Roughly, you are looking at 9 HP and 11 lb-ft torque above 4000 rpm. But there is another way to measure what the computer is...

www.driveaccord.net

That's interesting. Not sure why every other test I have read comes up with completely different conclusions. My own “seat of the pants” testing shows no improvement that I can feel, but not sure a 3-4% measured improvement could be felt.

 

[fzr100098]

Running 20 psi on 87 octane is completely insane in my opinion - combustion chamber temps go through the roof at those boost levels, little question the ECU just dumps tons of gas trying to keep it in check. This is basically an economy car and Honda knows their customer, but any other manufacturer running these boost levels doesn't recommend 87. Shell 93 only in my car - and 5W-30 Castrol synthetic, 0W-20 is too thin, especially a boosted motor with inherent fuel dilution

 

[KendrickSouza]

For me, I focus on name brand gas stations. I've found that smaller stations that aren't regularly used tend to be maintained less frequently than those stations that have a constant flow of vehicles.

For instance, I used to live in Florida and some mom/pop stations right on the beach had problems with salt getting into their tanks and mixing with the fuel because they weren't maintained properly.

 

[Dengine]

Running 20 psi on 87 octane is completely insane in my opinion - combustion chamber temps go through the roof at those boost levels, little question the ECU just dumps tons of gas trying to keep it in check. This is basically an economy car and Honda knows their customer, but any other manufacturer running these boost levels doesn't recommend 87. Shell 93 only in my car - and 5W-30 Castrol synthetic, 0W-20 is too thin, especially a boosted motor with inherent fuel dilution

Everything I have ever read contradicts this. Where are you finding tests that show higher octane in a standard, non-tuned engine, increases output?

I know the opposite is true, in that an engine designed for premium will retard timing slightly to prevent knock when standard grades of fuel are used ... but not the other way around. I'm curious to see which tests you found to support your point.

Ktuner has done dyno testing that confirms a small bump between 87 and 93 octane http://ktuner.com/accord-2l-extended-testing/

Based on what I have observed with knock control levels on 87 octane and especially in hot weather I personally like to run 89 octane minimum. But seat of the pants between 87 and 93 I agree is minimal if any difference. I feel like outside temps play more of a role on how the car pulls seat of the pants on a given day.