Fuel Premium or Regular
05-13-2011, 08:35 PM
#121
Racer
Well, I see what you're saying, DD. I guess I was thinking about the fuel additives in Shell gasoline -- which I use exclusively. (I won $500 in fuel in a Shell-sponsored essay contest this last year, and learned a lot about their gasoline in the process.) They advertise that they have the same detergents and ability to remove deposits across all grades now.
But...you're right, not all gas does have that ability, in fact most gasolines in lower grades do not. (I can't speculate as to what brand nj2pa2nc uses.) And yes, to me, with the low mileage I drive, the added cost of premium is not much, so no point in me not following the recommendation.
I have read her say that she has her car serviced regularly by an Acura dealer, and it is apparently in terrific condition.
But...you're right, not all gas does have that ability, in fact most gasolines in lower grades do not. (I can't speculate as to what brand nj2pa2nc uses.) And yes, to me, with the low mileage I drive, the added cost of premium is not much, so no point in me not following the recommendation.
I have read her say that she has her car serviced regularly by an Acura dealer, and it is apparently in terrific condition.
Last edited by Boulder TSX; 05-13-2011 at 08:41 PM.
The following users liked this post:
nj2pa2nc (06-07-2011)
05-14-2011, 03:45 PM
#122
it's a car-drive it
Boulder, I agree with you math, but disagree with the idea she is not running ANY risk. She is certainly more prone to deposits, and likely has a dirtier fuel system. I figure that because some brands of premium still have additional additives, and it's likely that a person would fill-up with one of those brands now and then.
That being said, if it's working for her, fine. It's just frustrating to see people buy a premium vehicle and then nickel and dime it to death.
That being said, if it's working for her, fine. It's just frustrating to see people buy a premium vehicle and then nickel and dime it to death.
I try to buy my gas from Wawa. Before the remarks-go to the Wawa gasoline website. When looking for a new car-I wanted 6 manual transmission with 4-doors. The choice was very limited so I picked the 06 tsx. I have all the service done by acura/honda dealers. When I can not get to the one in Pa I use the one in NC. I have also had it serviced at a honda dealer in Topeka, Ks, and acura dealers in Reno, NV and Murray Ut. The last time I had the oil changed at the dealer in NC they did the normal inspection. The front brakes were 8's and the rears 6's (originals). They complimented me on how nice the car looked and how well it was maintained. My car is 100% stock-does not need to be modified. The OEM tires lasted 74,000 miles-they measured 4/32 when I bought new tires.
05-14-2011, 06:07 PM
#123
Racer
[QUOTE=nj2pa2nc;12947370] "First I would like to thank Boulder"
My pleasure.
It sounds to me like you keep your cars in impeccable running order and condition...(including the Mazda which specified premium fuel, too -- that you eventually sold for a relatively high price with 250,000 miles on it...that example alone says a lot.)
My pleasure.
It sounds to me like you keep your cars in impeccable running order and condition...(including the Mazda which specified premium fuel, too -- that you eventually sold for a relatively high price with 250,000 miles on it...that example alone says a lot.)
Last edited by Boulder TSX; 05-14-2011 at 06:10 PM.
05-14-2011, 06:32 PM
#124
Make a hole, coming thru!
Guys, "attack the ideas, not the person." nj2pa2nc does very specific driving with hers, mostly highway, and regular servicing, so it's probably in top shape, and most probably getting MPG in the upper range of the EPA estimates.
The point of my analysis was to illustrate that IF you see a drop in mileage for your particular type of driving (highway vs. city, which for me is probably 60/40), and IF you are saving X amount of cents per gallon, you may or may not be saving money. I won't go into the engine problem arena, because one owner might have problems buying cheap-*** premium while another does fine buying Shell/BP/Exxon regular. It's hard to know without corroborating data.
For the curious, here's the chart for a car doing 22,000 miles annually, and saving 30¢ per gallon. Only have to see a 2.5 MPG drop (less than 10%) to start losing money, but if the style of driving evens it out to only a 1 MPG drop, there are savings, about $128 annually.
BTW, Consumer Reports did some tests a few years back on questions like, "do I lose mileage running the a/c all the time," and "does doing the limit really save gas?" The contemporary cars only lost about 1 MPG running the a/c, and IIRC, they lost about that much driving without a/c, but windows open (ruining aerodynamic flow). They recommended driving with the a/c, as it would keep the driver more comfortable and alert. They also found IIRC that driving above 55 MPH incrementally reduced average MPG, due to increased parasite and induced drag. So if you drive 70 MPH, you're mileage might be lower than if you drive 60 MPH. I put this to the test for several weeks, pissing off untold numbers of RTP commuters who had to pass the darn Acura doing 60 MPH in the right-most lanes.
My mileage did increase ... but so did my frustration level. (The 10 MPH difference made a negligible difference in my 25 mile commute time.) I decided that I'd rather have a pleasant drive hogging the #1 or #2 lanes, and buy a little more gas. (I carpool, so I actually buy less gas nowadays.)
BTW, MPG is an ever-moving target unless you drive just highway miles. Here's nearly 3 years of records for me:
So if you want to really discover where the truth lies here ... you have to test it yourself. I've gotten much higher ... but you have to consider the driving conditions at the time.
I discovered the answer to life, the universe, and everything, where else but in my TSX. 
Do what you think is best for YOUR car, YOUR wallet, and YOUR driving, but at least experiment a little. Some people report changes in mileage from just changing brands. 
The point of my analysis was to illustrate that IF you see a drop in mileage for your particular type of driving (highway vs. city, which for me is probably 60/40), and IF you are saving X amount of cents per gallon, you may or may not be saving money. I won't go into the engine problem arena, because one owner might have problems buying cheap-*** premium while another does fine buying Shell/BP/Exxon regular. It's hard to know without corroborating data.
For the curious, here's the chart for a car doing 22,000 miles annually, and saving 30¢ per gallon. Only have to see a 2.5 MPG drop (less than 10%) to start losing money, but if the style of driving evens it out to only a 1 MPG drop, there are savings, about $128 annually.
BTW, Consumer Reports did some tests a few years back on questions like, "do I lose mileage running the a/c all the time," and "does doing the limit really save gas?" The contemporary cars only lost about 1 MPG running the a/c, and IIRC, they lost about that much driving without a/c, but windows open (ruining aerodynamic flow). They recommended driving with the a/c, as it would keep the driver more comfortable and alert. They also found IIRC that driving above 55 MPH incrementally reduced average MPG, due to increased parasite and induced drag. So if you drive 70 MPH, you're mileage might be lower than if you drive 60 MPH. I put this to the test for several weeks, pissing off untold numbers of RTP commuters who had to pass the darn Acura doing 60 MPH in the right-most lanes.
My mileage did increase ... but so did my frustration level. (The 10 MPH difference made a negligible difference in my 25 mile commute time.) I decided that I'd rather have a pleasant drive hogging the #1 or #2 lanes, and buy a little more gas. (I carpool, so I actually buy less gas nowadays.) BTW, MPG is an ever-moving target unless you drive just highway miles. Here's nearly 3 years of records for me:
So if you want to really discover where the truth lies here ... you have to test it yourself. I've gotten much higher ... but you have to consider the driving conditions at the time.
I discovered the answer to life, the universe, and everything, where else but in my TSX. Do what you think is best for YOUR car, YOUR wallet, and YOUR driving, but at least experiment a little. Some people report changes in mileage from just changing brands.
Last edited by davidspalding; 05-14-2011 at 06:46 PM.
05-15-2011, 08:33 AM
#125
in the 24th and a half...
Another note...
For nj2pa2nc...as Boulder notes, your light load driving makes it easy for your car to run well on regular. You seldom load the engine and keep temperatures down, the recipe to reduce possible detonation with reduced octane gas. So regular is a valid choice for you. The concern we have is the others who drive it like they stole it, but don't want to pay to play.
For davidspalding...excellent data.
For Boulder...I appreciate your defense of nj's situation.
In closing, I'll remind everyone that test were done a number of years ago on two cars. A Honda Accord was tested that only needed regular. On regular it made rated power, on premium it made LESS POWER and WORSE MPG. The car companies know that requiring premium reduces sales, and they also know what their engineers say. The place a recommendation for fuel required based upon about the 90% percentile user in the performance spectrum.
A person who argues that you SHOULD try regular in your TSX is wrong. A person who states that, after considering your driving style and requirements, you might be able to use regular is much more correct.
That being said (no offense nj2pa2nc), I consider the vast majority of those using regular in a TSX to be penny wise and pound foolish. Those using mid-grade are gas company whores (sorry for the strong language, but mid-grade is the answer to a question no driver asked...and a profit center for the gas stations).
OK, that's my $.02, hit me with your best shot.
For nj2pa2nc...as Boulder notes, your light load driving makes it easy for your car to run well on regular. You seldom load the engine and keep temperatures down, the recipe to reduce possible detonation with reduced octane gas. So regular is a valid choice for you. The concern we have is the others who drive it like they stole it, but don't want to pay to play.
For davidspalding...excellent data.
For Boulder...I appreciate your defense of nj's situation.
In closing, I'll remind everyone that test were done a number of years ago on two cars. A Honda Accord was tested that only needed regular. On regular it made rated power, on premium it made LESS POWER and WORSE MPG. The car companies know that requiring premium reduces sales, and they also know what their engineers say. The place a recommendation for fuel required based upon about the 90% percentile user in the performance spectrum.
A person who argues that you SHOULD try regular in your TSX is wrong. A person who states that, after considering your driving style and requirements, you might be able to use regular is much more correct.
That being said (no offense nj2pa2nc), I consider the vast majority of those using regular in a TSX to be penny wise and pound foolish. Those using mid-grade are gas company whores (sorry for the strong language, but mid-grade is the answer to a question no driver asked...and a profit center for the gas stations).
OK, that's my $.02, hit me with your best shot.
05-15-2011, 09:21 AM
#126
it's a car-drive it
Another note...
For nj2pa2nc...as Boulder notes, your light load driving makes it easy for your car to run well on regular. You seldom load the engine and keep temperatures down, the recipe to reduce possible detonation with reduced octane gas. So regular is a valid choice for you. The concern we have is the others who drive it like they stole it, but don't want to pay to play.
For davidspalding...excellent data.
For Boulder...I appreciate your defense of nj's situation.
In closing, I'll remind everyone that test were done a number of years ago on two cars. A Honda Accord was tested that only needed regular. On regular it made rated power, on premium it made LESS POWER and WORSE MPG. The car companies know that requiring premium reduces sales, and they also know what their engineers say. The place a recommendation for fuel required based upon about the 90% percentile user in the performance spectrum.
A person who argues that you SHOULD try regular in your TSX is wrong. A person who states that, after considering your driving style and requirements, you might be able to use regular is much more correct.
That being said (no offense nj2pa2nc), I consider the vast majority of those using regular in a TSX to be penny wise and pound foolish. Those using mid-grade are gas company whores (sorry for the strong language, but mid-grade is the answer to a question no driver asked...and a profit center for the gas stations).
OK, that's my $.02, hit me with your best shot.
For nj2pa2nc...as Boulder notes, your light load driving makes it easy for your car to run well on regular. You seldom load the engine and keep temperatures down, the recipe to reduce possible detonation with reduced octane gas. So regular is a valid choice for you. The concern we have is the others who drive it like they stole it, but don't want to pay to play.
For davidspalding...excellent data.
For Boulder...I appreciate your defense of nj's situation.
In closing, I'll remind everyone that test were done a number of years ago on two cars. A Honda Accord was tested that only needed regular. On regular it made rated power, on premium it made LESS POWER and WORSE MPG. The car companies know that requiring premium reduces sales, and they also know what their engineers say. The place a recommendation for fuel required based upon about the 90% percentile user in the performance spectrum.
A person who argues that you SHOULD try regular in your TSX is wrong. A person who states that, after considering your driving style and requirements, you might be able to use regular is much more correct.
That being said (no offense nj2pa2nc), I consider the vast majority of those using regular in a TSX to be penny wise and pound foolish. Those using mid-grade are gas company whores (sorry for the strong language, but mid-grade is the answer to a question no driver asked...and a profit center for the gas stations).
OK, that's my $.02, hit me with your best shot.
Yes thank you David
Last edited by nj2pa2nc; 05-15-2011 at 09:24 AM.
05-16-2011, 09:17 PM
#127
in the 24th and a half...
Thanks, nj...you are the exception. An educated driver/owner who has properly evaluated their driving style and needs and who ensures they use high quality gasoline in the grade that best serves them.
That being said, even using good quality gas, I'd lob a jug of fuel system cleaner in there every little while...and so the next debate begins...
That being said, even using good quality gas, I'd lob a jug of fuel system cleaner in there every little while...and so the next debate begins...
The following users liked this post:
nj2pa2nc (06-07-2011)
05-18-2011, 06:20 PM
#128
Make a hole, coming thru!
Click and Clack on switching from recommended octane
I was thinking of asking Tom & Ray Magliozzi, the NPR Car Talk guys, about the issue of using reduced octane gas, long term activation of anti-knock sensors, and whether this would generally ...
I might still ask them ... automotive engineering is ever-advancing.
[1] This could account for the reduced fuel economy, if the anti-knock retardation is making the engine consume just a bit more fuel. I'm still curious if the retardation results in incomplete combustion, though.
- Cause a reduction in fuel economy (mileage), or
- Cause long term maintenance issues.
I might still ask them ... automotive engineering is ever-advancing.
Originally Posted by Tom & Ray, January, 1995
http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1995/January/07.html
Ray: ... We always tell readers to use the exact octane recommended by the manufacturer. Using a higher octane is a waste of money. But using lower octane can cause engine damage due to pre-ignition or "pinging." Toyota has tested this engine and concluded that it has a tendency to ping if run on less than 91 octane fuel. And we believe 'em.
Tom: You may not hear it pinging, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. It may ping under hard acceleration or when you're climbing hills, times when the engine noise may mask the pinging.
Ray: You bought a $20,000 car, Jim. I wouldn't chance ruining the engine for 15 cents a gallon. Remember, it's the stingy man who spends the most.
Ray: ... We always tell readers to use the exact octane recommended by the manufacturer. Using a higher octane is a waste of money. But using lower octane can cause engine damage due to pre-ignition or "pinging." Toyota has tested this engine and concluded that it has a tendency to ping if run on less than 91 octane fuel. And we believe 'em.
Tom: You may not hear it pinging, but that doesn't mean it's not happening. It may ping under hard acceleration or when you're climbing hills, times when the engine noise may mask the pinging.
Ray: You bought a $20,000 car, Jim. I wouldn't chance ruining the engine for 15 cents a gallon. Remember, it's the stingy man who spends the most.
Originally Posted by Tom & Ray, July, 1995
http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1995/July/01.html
Ray: ... And because you're--shall we say--frugal, you're going to be really bent if you ruin the engine on your new car and have to pay for a new one, aren't you? In which case it's very important that you follow the manufacturer's instructions for octane ratings--whatever they are.
Tom: Here's why. The lower the octane, the lower the temperature at which the gasoline explodes in the cylinders. And in certain "high compression" engines like yours, 87 octane gasoline explodes too early. Those early explosions are known as "pinging" and they eventually cause engine damage.
Ray: Premium gas (probably 91 or 92 octane, whatever is specified in your owner's manual) explodes when it's supposed to in your engine, and that's why the manufacturer of your car requires it.
Tom: In general, you should always follow the manufacturer's recommendation when it comes to octane. Using a lower octane can harm the engine over time, and using a higher than called- for octane is a complete waste of money.
Ray: ... And because you're--shall we say--frugal, you're going to be really bent if you ruin the engine on your new car and have to pay for a new one, aren't you? In which case it's very important that you follow the manufacturer's instructions for octane ratings--whatever they are.
Tom: Here's why. The lower the octane, the lower the temperature at which the gasoline explodes in the cylinders. And in certain "high compression" engines like yours, 87 octane gasoline explodes too early. Those early explosions are known as "pinging" and they eventually cause engine damage.
Ray: Premium gas (probably 91 or 92 octane, whatever is specified in your owner's manual) explodes when it's supposed to in your engine, and that's why the manufacturer of your car requires it.
Tom: In general, you should always follow the manufacturer's recommendation when it comes to octane. Using a lower octane can harm the engine over time, and using a higher than called- for octane is a complete waste of money.
Originally Posted by Tom & Ray, December, 1997
http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1997/December/01.html
Ray: ... This car has a high-compression engine that's designed to run on premium gas. But since there are places where premium gas is not available, and because premium gasolines can vary in octane, most manufacturers, including Nissan, use a "knock sensor" to protect the engine.
Tom: The knock sensor detects -- that's right -- "knocking" (also known as "pre-ignition" or "pinging")! Knocking is bad for the engine, and it often results from using lower-than-recommended-octane fuel. So when your cheapskate husband puts regular unleaded in the Maxima, the knock sensor kicks into action and retards the ignition timing to protect the engine.
Ray: Retarding the timing prevents the knocking, but it also reduces the engine's power, decreases fuel economy, probably increases the emissions, and may lead to a buildup of residue on the valves. So it's not an ideal situation. It won't hurt the engine if you use regular gas occasionally, but it prevents the engine from performing at the specifications at which it was designed to perform.
Tom: So I'd either take away your husband's keys, or increase his allowance by a few bucks a month so he can afford to buy premium. And if he's unhappy about having to spend the extra money, remind him that a car's fuel requirement (which can add many hundreds of dollars to the cost of owning a car over the years) is one of the things you should find out about before you put down your deposit.
Ray: ... This car has a high-compression engine that's designed to run on premium gas. But since there are places where premium gas is not available, and because premium gasolines can vary in octane, most manufacturers, including Nissan, use a "knock sensor" to protect the engine.
Tom: The knock sensor detects -- that's right -- "knocking" (also known as "pre-ignition" or "pinging")! Knocking is bad for the engine, and it often results from using lower-than-recommended-octane fuel. So when your cheapskate husband puts regular unleaded in the Maxima, the knock sensor kicks into action and retards the ignition timing to protect the engine.
Ray: Retarding the timing prevents the knocking, but it also reduces the engine's power, decreases fuel economy, probably increases the emissions, and may lead to a buildup of residue on the valves. So it's not an ideal situation. It won't hurt the engine if you use regular gas occasionally, but it prevents the engine from performing at the specifications at which it was designed to perform.
Tom: So I'd either take away your husband's keys, or increase his allowance by a few bucks a month so he can afford to buy premium. And if he's unhappy about having to spend the extra money, remind him that a car's fuel requirement (which can add many hundreds of dollars to the cost of owning a car over the years) is one of the things you should find out about before you put down your deposit.
Originally Posted by Tom & Ray, February, 1999
http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/1999/February/08.html
Ray: ... Most modern cars have knock sensors, which detect pinging, which is often caused by the wrong grade of gas. When the engine pings, the computer retards the spark timing to compensate for the lower octane. That's designed to prevent engine damage if you get a bad tank of gas or travel someplace where the correct octane is unavailable.
Tom: But it's not a good idea to run your car with retarded timing over the long run. Among other things, you'll force the engine to run hotter than it's supposed to run, which will shorten its life. And you'll force it to run rich,[1] which can eventually ruin your catalytic converter.
Ray: ... Most modern cars have knock sensors, which detect pinging, which is often caused by the wrong grade of gas. When the engine pings, the computer retards the spark timing to compensate for the lower octane. That's designed to prevent engine damage if you get a bad tank of gas or travel someplace where the correct octane is unavailable.
Tom: But it's not a good idea to run your car with retarded timing over the long run. Among other things, you'll force the engine to run hotter than it's supposed to run, which will shorten its life. And you'll force it to run rich,[1] which can eventually ruin your catalytic converter.
Originally Posted by Tom & Ray, May, 2001
http://www.cartalk.com/content/columns/Archive/2001/May/04.html
Tom: ... And don't worry about being absolutely perfect every time. This car, like most modern cars, has a knock sensor that keeps the engine from knocking itself into oblivion when the octane's too low. So the car can handle an occasional tank of lower-than-recommended octane gas without damage.
© 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001 by Tom and Ray Magliozzi and Doug Berman Distributed by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
Tom: ... And don't worry about being absolutely perfect every time. This car, like most modern cars, has a knock sensor that keeps the engine from knocking itself into oblivion when the octane's too low. So the car can handle an occasional tank of lower-than-recommended octane gas without damage.
© 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001 by Tom and Ray Magliozzi and Doug Berman Distributed by King Features Syndicate, Inc.
Last edited by davidspalding; 05-18-2011 at 06:22 PM. Reason: Adding subject line
05-19-2011, 02:29 PM
#129
Old Man Yelling at Clouds
What I get is not the point. My best tank was maybe 30-31 and yes I always run premium. But you can't compare that to your results. We have different cars, driving styles, routes, weather, maintenance habits....
The only way to get a fuel comparison is to drive the same car, on the same route, under the same conditions, using the same driving style, with the same driver.
35.8 MPG is remarkable on any fuel. My only question is would that have been 38 using premium.
The only way to get a fuel comparison is to drive the same car, on the same route, under the same conditions, using the same driving style, with the same driver.
35.8 MPG is remarkable on any fuel. My only question is would that have been 38 using premium.
Last edited by 1Louder; 05-19-2011 at 02:40 PM.
05-19-2011, 02:38 PM
#130
Old Man Yelling at Clouds
Just wanted to step to play devil's advocate and also defend nj2pa2nc...it seems like people are piling on her right now, and I have read her posts on this subject for several years now, with interest. She is a great poster, willing to help others diagnose and solve problems with their cars.
I too use premium gas -- for my purposes. And this seems like a no-brainier to many of us, but it really depends on your needs, habits and purpose in driving your car.
I have the same car as nj2pa2nc does, (an 06 with 6 MT, with 37,000 miles), but with over 122,000 miles, she has driven her car 85,000 miles more. Clearly she drives a lot. If I drove as much as she does, I might rethink this subject.
With an additional cost of $.30 for premium, and 122,000 miles in 5 years, that's a significant savings for her... Using a 28 MPG city & highway avg., (which is higher than most people get), I figure she's saved between $1300-1500, or $250-300 a year.
She has stated she drives mainly on long commutes and trips, (and thus not trying to get every last ounce of HP), and if she's managing 34 MPG on the highway, with her car running flawlessly, what's the real downside for her? I see none. In fact, with her particular driving habits, I see her reasoning.
I too use premium gas -- for my purposes. And this seems like a no-brainier to many of us, but it really depends on your needs, habits and purpose in driving your car.
I have the same car as nj2pa2nc does, (an 06 with 6 MT, with 37,000 miles), but with over 122,000 miles, she has driven her car 85,000 miles more. Clearly she drives a lot. If I drove as much as she does, I might rethink this subject.
With an additional cost of $.30 for premium, and 122,000 miles in 5 years, that's a significant savings for her... Using a 28 MPG city & highway avg., (which is higher than most people get), I figure she's saved between $1300-1500, or $250-300 a year.
She has stated she drives mainly on long commutes and trips, (and thus not trying to get every last ounce of HP), and if she's managing 34 MPG on the highway, with her car running flawlessly, what's the real downside for her? I see none. In fact, with her particular driving habits, I see her reasoning.
MPG Miles Gallons Price/Gal Cost
35.8 400 11.17 $3.75 $41.90 - Regular
38 400 10.53 $4.00 $42.11 - Premium
That is a $0.21 difference. So again, if the premise holds that premium fuel will yield an MPG improvement, it could just be a push. It may not be the cost savings everyone thinks it is.
05-22-2011, 08:47 AM
#131
it's a car-drive it
Not trying to pile on, but some where along the way the point is being lost. IF the data is true that you might get a ~2 MPG bump using premuim over regular, then nj2pa2nc's scenario might look like this:
MPG Miles Gallons Price/Gal Cost
35.8 400 11.17 $3.75 $41.90 - Regular
38 400 10.53 $4.00 $42.11 - Premium
That is a $0.21 difference. So again, if the premise holds that premium fuel will yield an MPG improvement, it could just be a push. It may not be the cost savings everyone thinks it is.
MPG Miles Gallons Price/Gal Cost
35.8 400 11.17 $3.75 $41.90 - Regular
38 400 10.53 $4.00 $42.11 - Premium
That is a $0.21 difference. So again, if the premise holds that premium fuel will yield an MPG improvement, it could just be a push. It may not be the cost savings everyone thinks it is.
05-23-2011, 11:36 AM
#132
Ok so I started this thread. I decided to put regular in for one tank. I will never do that again. #1. I can tell a major difference in power. #2 City MPG went from 29 Average to 23. I know that 23 is still good but $4-6 more per tank for 29 is better plus I still will have the power. Hope this helps everone that is posting on this thread.
05-23-2011, 11:42 AM
#133
05-23-2011, 10:07 PM
#134
Banned
Its pretty instant actually. Once it reads a lower octane the ECU retards timing. If it isn't instant then your motor and everyone else's would go knocking causing damage to the motor which by your reasoning would be even more reason to stay with 91+ octane. Why in the hell do you think the owners manual says 91+octane only? Because their in with the oil companies to help them make more money? No... It's because 87 octane isn't made for engines running 11:1+ compression UNLESS the motor is Direct Injection. Why purchase a car that might be in you budget to purchase but not to maintain or keep in tip top shape I'll never understand.
When I purchased my TL last year, I put a tank full of 87 to see what would happen. This was during peak summer (Humid 90's+) and the car was very sluggish down low and had no top-end compared to 93. Gas mileage doesn't reduce that much but performance DOES. vtec.net did a test on time on 3rd gen TL dyno'g it with 87 octane and it lost 20hp/10tq. That is something i just cant do. That's almost like i took out my 3rd gen J32 and dropped in a 2nd Gen TL-P J32 motor instead. Never.
When I purchased my TL last year, I put a tank full of 87 to see what would happen. This was during peak summer (Humid 90's+) and the car was very sluggish down low and had no top-end compared to 93. Gas mileage doesn't reduce that much but performance DOES. vtec.net did a test on time on 3rd gen TL dyno'g it with 87 octane and it lost 20hp/10tq. That is something i just cant do. That's almost like i took out my 3rd gen J32 and dropped in a 2nd Gen TL-P J32 motor instead. Never.
05-23-2011, 11:14 PM
#135
Fuel Premium or Regular
INTRO
I was curious about this topic, so earlier this year (2011) I decided to make gas mileage observations for my 2005 6MT TSX with Navi. My motivation was not an attempt to save money, but rather to explore my engineering curiosity to determine whether reductions in gas mileage will result for my driving habits/routine.
"Disclaimer"
*** It is recognized that it is difficult to set experimental controls (i.e. to replicate consistent driving habits) in any real-life driving "experiment". Additionally, no conclusions regarding long-term effects can be made here. ***
METHOD
My driving routine, based on distances from home to main destinations, is approximately as follows:
Local/Traffic: ~63%
Highway: ~37%
Average Speed before Refills: ~29mph (according to Trip Computer)
I generally try keep up with the flow of traffic and accelerate moderately, with occasional-to-less frequent revs to around 5500 rpm before switching gears (maybe 5 times per week). In bumper-to-bumper traffic I try to lag behind the car ahead to reduce the number of times I have to switch gears, simply because it gets tiring and annoying. I do not engine-brake.
I just about always refill when the Trip Computer Range is ~70 miles (for comparison, orange low-fuel light seems to come on when range is around 90 miles).
I began when the (Pennzoil Platinum) oil was ~4500 miles old, filling up with Shell or Exxon 93 octane. At an oil-life of ~7300 miles I switched to Shell or Exxon 87 octane. I drive around 400 miles per week. Six tank-fulls of each fuel type (93 premium and 87 regular) were used. 93 octane was used, since 87, 89, and 93 are the only ones available where I live in Virginia.
RESULTS
Premium 93 Octane Average MPG: 32.3 +/- 2.1
Regular 87 Octane Average MPG: 32.7 +/- 2.8
DISCUSSION
Although the observed MPGs was higher when regular gas was used, it is well within one standard deviation of both fuel types.
* On 14May2011 davidspalding showed MPG data over 3 years that exhibited significant fluctuations. I do not know what the driving habits and/or conditions were for this data set, but it may suggest that they were not as consistent. However, this is mere speculation.*
As mentioned previously, there are numerous variations in this investigation that were out of my control. It must be noted that the premium fuel was used first, when the weather was colder and the oil was newer, and vice versa for the regular fuel usage. Thus, considering attempts of consistent driving habits that were in my control (acceleration, aggression, etc), it is possible that the colder weather may have played a role in the lower premium MPG.
It is interesting that even when the oil had ~9800 miles on it, the fuel economy remained constant.
However, in the bigger picture, I believe that statistically random variations account for the MPG difference observed. As such, I do not imply that regular is better than premium.
It must be noted that, as an engineer, I assume that a certain "factor of safety/safety margin" would have been applied by Honda/Acura designers/engineers. It is quite possible that my driving habits are sufficiently below the design limits/constraints where 91 octane fuel is needed, and could be the reason why regular fuel did not seem to make a real difference in my case.
On a side note, no qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) change in driving performance was noticed. However, barring the placebo effect, I did notice a smoother engine response after changing the oil with ~9800 miles on it.
I anticipate that, just as in politics, there will be those who disagree with my "study". I respect that. However, being a more analytical type, feel free to refer me to specific studies, rather than drawing on supposed "common knowledge".
CONCLUSIONS
Based on my moderate driving habits, in 37/63 hwy/city-like conditions, little/no benefits to the fuel economy is gained from using the stated premium 91 octane fuel. I will continue to use regular 87 octane fuel in my TSX. Thanks for reading if you made it through until the end!
I was curious about this topic, so earlier this year (2011) I decided to make gas mileage observations for my 2005 6MT TSX with Navi. My motivation was not an attempt to save money, but rather to explore my engineering curiosity to determine whether reductions in gas mileage will result for my driving habits/routine.
"Disclaimer"
*** It is recognized that it is difficult to set experimental controls (i.e. to replicate consistent driving habits) in any real-life driving "experiment". Additionally, no conclusions regarding long-term effects can be made here. ***
METHOD
My driving routine, based on distances from home to main destinations, is approximately as follows:
Local/Traffic: ~63%
Highway: ~37%
Average Speed before Refills: ~29mph (according to Trip Computer)
I generally try keep up with the flow of traffic and accelerate moderately, with occasional-to-less frequent revs to around 5500 rpm before switching gears (maybe 5 times per week). In bumper-to-bumper traffic I try to lag behind the car ahead to reduce the number of times I have to switch gears, simply because it gets tiring and annoying. I do not engine-brake.
I just about always refill when the Trip Computer Range is ~70 miles (for comparison, orange low-fuel light seems to come on when range is around 90 miles).
I began when the (Pennzoil Platinum) oil was ~4500 miles old, filling up with Shell or Exxon 93 octane. At an oil-life of ~7300 miles I switched to Shell or Exxon 87 octane. I drive around 400 miles per week. Six tank-fulls of each fuel type (93 premium and 87 regular) were used. 93 octane was used, since 87, 89, and 93 are the only ones available where I live in Virginia.
RESULTS
Premium 93 Octane Average MPG: 32.3 +/- 2.1
Regular 87 Octane Average MPG: 32.7 +/- 2.8
DISCUSSION
Although the observed MPGs was higher when regular gas was used, it is well within one standard deviation of both fuel types.
* On 14May2011 davidspalding showed MPG data over 3 years that exhibited significant fluctuations. I do not know what the driving habits and/or conditions were for this data set, but it may suggest that they were not as consistent. However, this is mere speculation.*
As mentioned previously, there are numerous variations in this investigation that were out of my control. It must be noted that the premium fuel was used first, when the weather was colder and the oil was newer, and vice versa for the regular fuel usage. Thus, considering attempts of consistent driving habits that were in my control (acceleration, aggression, etc), it is possible that the colder weather may have played a role in the lower premium MPG.
It is interesting that even when the oil had ~9800 miles on it, the fuel economy remained constant.
However, in the bigger picture, I believe that statistically random variations account for the MPG difference observed. As such, I do not imply that regular is better than premium.
It must be noted that, as an engineer, I assume that a certain "factor of safety/safety margin" would have been applied by Honda/Acura designers/engineers. It is quite possible that my driving habits are sufficiently below the design limits/constraints where 91 octane fuel is needed, and could be the reason why regular fuel did not seem to make a real difference in my case.
On a side note, no qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) change in driving performance was noticed. However, barring the placebo effect, I did notice a smoother engine response after changing the oil with ~9800 miles on it.
I anticipate that, just as in politics, there will be those who disagree with my "study". I respect that. However, being a more analytical type, feel free to refer me to specific studies, rather than drawing on supposed "common knowledge".
CONCLUSIONS
Based on my moderate driving habits, in 37/63 hwy/city-like conditions, little/no benefits to the fuel economy is gained from using the stated premium 91 octane fuel. I will continue to use regular 87 octane fuel in my TSX. Thanks for reading if you made it through until the end!
The following users liked this post:
Iceman (06-09-2011)
05-24-2011, 01:01 AM
#136
Banned
INTRO
I was curious about this topic, so earlier this year (2011) I decided to make gas mileage observations for my 2005 6MT TSX with Navi. My motivation was not an attempt to save money, but rather to explore my engineering curiosity to determine whether reductions in gas mileage will result for my driving habits/routine.
"Disclaimer"
*** It is recognized that it is difficult to set experimental controls (i.e. to replicate consistent driving habits) in any real-life driving "experiment". Additionally, no conclusions regarding long-term effects can be made here. ***
METHOD
My driving routine, based on distances from home to main destinations, is approximately as follows:
Local/Traffic: ~63%
Highway: ~37%
Average Speed before Refills: ~29mph (according to Trip Computer)
I generally try keep up with the flow of traffic and accelerate moderately, with occasional-to-less frequent revs to around 5500 rpm before switching gears (maybe 5 times per week). In bumper-to-bumper traffic I try to lag behind the car ahead to reduce the number of times I have to switch gears, simply because it gets tiring and annoying. I do not engine-brake.
I just about always refill when the Trip Computer Range is ~70 miles (for comparison, orange low-fuel light seems to come on when range is around 90 miles).
I began when the (Pennzoil Platinum) oil was ~4500 miles old, filling up with Shell or Exxon 93 octane. At an oil-life of ~7300 miles I switched to Shell or Exxon 87 octane. I drive around 400 miles per week. Six tank-fulls of each fuel type (93 premium and 87 regular) were used. 93 octane was used, since 87, 89, and 93 are the only ones available where I live in Virginia.
RESULTS
Premium 93 Octane Average MPG: 32.3 +/- 2.1
Regular 87 Octane Average MPG: 32.7 +/- 2.8
DISCUSSION
Although the observed MPGs was higher when regular gas was used, it is well within one standard deviation of both fuel types.
* On 14May2011 davidspalding showed MPG data over 3 years that exhibited significant fluctuations. I do not know what the driving habits and/or conditions were for this data set, but it may suggest that they were not as consistent. However, this is mere speculation.*
As mentioned previously, there are numerous variations in this investigation that were out of my control. It must be noted that the premium fuel was used first, when the weather was colder and the oil was newer, and vice versa for the regular fuel usage. Thus, considering attempts of consistent driving habits that were in my control (acceleration, aggression, etc), it is possible that the colder weather may have played a role in the lower premium MPG.
It is interesting that even when the oil had ~9800 miles on it, the fuel economy remained constant.
However, in the bigger picture, I believe that statistically random variations account for the MPG difference observed. As such, I do not imply that regular is better than premium.
It must be noted that, as an engineer, I assume that a certain "factor of safety/safety margin" would have been applied by Honda/Acura designers/engineers. It is quite possible that my driving habits are sufficiently below the design limits/constraints where 91 octane fuel is needed, and could be the reason why regular fuel did not seem to make a real difference in my case.
On a side note, no qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) change in driving performance was noticed. However, barring the placebo effect, I did notice a smoother engine response after changing the oil with ~9800 miles on it.
I anticipate that, just as in politics, there will be those who disagree with my "study". I respect that. However, being a more analytical type, feel free to refer me to specific studies, rather than drawing on supposed "common knowledge".
CONCLUSIONS
Based on my moderate driving habits, in 37/63 hwy/city-like conditions, little/no benefits to the fuel economy is gained from using the stated premium 91 octane fuel. I will continue to use regular 87 octane fuel in my TSX. Thanks for reading if you made it through until the end!
I was curious about this topic, so earlier this year (2011) I decided to make gas mileage observations for my 2005 6MT TSX with Navi. My motivation was not an attempt to save money, but rather to explore my engineering curiosity to determine whether reductions in gas mileage will result for my driving habits/routine.
"Disclaimer"
*** It is recognized that it is difficult to set experimental controls (i.e. to replicate consistent driving habits) in any real-life driving "experiment". Additionally, no conclusions regarding long-term effects can be made here. ***
METHOD
My driving routine, based on distances from home to main destinations, is approximately as follows:
Local/Traffic: ~63%
Highway: ~37%
Average Speed before Refills: ~29mph (according to Trip Computer)
I generally try keep up with the flow of traffic and accelerate moderately, with occasional-to-less frequent revs to around 5500 rpm before switching gears (maybe 5 times per week). In bumper-to-bumper traffic I try to lag behind the car ahead to reduce the number of times I have to switch gears, simply because it gets tiring and annoying. I do not engine-brake.
I just about always refill when the Trip Computer Range is ~70 miles (for comparison, orange low-fuel light seems to come on when range is around 90 miles).
I began when the (Pennzoil Platinum) oil was ~4500 miles old, filling up with Shell or Exxon 93 octane. At an oil-life of ~7300 miles I switched to Shell or Exxon 87 octane. I drive around 400 miles per week. Six tank-fulls of each fuel type (93 premium and 87 regular) were used. 93 octane was used, since 87, 89, and 93 are the only ones available where I live in Virginia.
RESULTS
Premium 93 Octane Average MPG: 32.3 +/- 2.1
Regular 87 Octane Average MPG: 32.7 +/- 2.8
DISCUSSION
Although the observed MPGs was higher when regular gas was used, it is well within one standard deviation of both fuel types.
* On 14May2011 davidspalding showed MPG data over 3 years that exhibited significant fluctuations. I do not know what the driving habits and/or conditions were for this data set, but it may suggest that they were not as consistent. However, this is mere speculation.*
As mentioned previously, there are numerous variations in this investigation that were out of my control. It must be noted that the premium fuel was used first, when the weather was colder and the oil was newer, and vice versa for the regular fuel usage. Thus, considering attempts of consistent driving habits that were in my control (acceleration, aggression, etc), it is possible that the colder weather may have played a role in the lower premium MPG.
It is interesting that even when the oil had ~9800 miles on it, the fuel economy remained constant.
However, in the bigger picture, I believe that statistically random variations account for the MPG difference observed. As such, I do not imply that regular is better than premium.
It must be noted that, as an engineer, I assume that a certain "factor of safety/safety margin" would have been applied by Honda/Acura designers/engineers. It is quite possible that my driving habits are sufficiently below the design limits/constraints where 91 octane fuel is needed, and could be the reason why regular fuel did not seem to make a real difference in my case.
On a side note, no qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) change in driving performance was noticed. However, barring the placebo effect, I did notice a smoother engine response after changing the oil with ~9800 miles on it.
I anticipate that, just as in politics, there will be those who disagree with my "study". I respect that. However, being a more analytical type, feel free to refer me to specific studies, rather than drawing on supposed "common knowledge".
CONCLUSIONS
Based on my moderate driving habits, in 37/63 hwy/city-like conditions, little/no benefits to the fuel economy is gained from using the stated premium 91 octane fuel. I will continue to use regular 87 octane fuel in my TSX. Thanks for reading if you made it through until the end!
I'm gonna sound like an ass when I say this BUT oh well. If you buy a luxury car just to look UPPEDY and cand afford to maintain or run it like the manual says nwhether it's using the correct gas or payong to have services done like tranny fluid changes ON-TIME etc, you deserve everything you get. I had A 98 Prelude SH brand new. I switched to synthetic oil (moibil 1), I used 93 as it asked, I even changed the ATTS diff fluid every 10k miles vs. recommended 30k because id go to the track 2 times a week and auto-x once a month and it gave me NO trouble. I sold the car 3 years later with 155k miles and guess what, The car is STILL running on the 3rd owner with over 200k miles. My point is sometimes if you spend a little extra on your cars care it gives a LOT back in return. Thing about that just a little. Is it really worth it to save 5-7bux a tank right now to then reduce the life of your engine??? If you wont extra MPG, octane change wont really help. Switching to synthetic oil (yes it's a little more but lasts a LOT longer) and adding air to your tires WILL yield more MPG.
Drive safe guys.
05-27-2011, 01:26 PM
#137
it's a car-drive it
Thanks, nj...you are the exception. An educated driver/owner who has properly evaluated their driving style and needs and who ensures they use high quality gasoline in the grade that best serves them.
That being said, even using good quality gas, I'd lob a jug of fuel system cleaner in there every little while...and so the next debate begins...
That being said, even using good quality gas, I'd lob a jug of fuel system cleaner in there every little while...and so the next debate begins...
05-27-2011, 02:03 PM
#138
10th Gear
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ok let's see, this is my opinon on regular/premium.
if your car "recommend premium" then USE premium.
for those that are asking the question of "can i use regular?", to intend of saving money....if you are even asking this question then you must have an idea that this action MIGHT leads to damaging the engine.
So my question is, does saving 2.50$ ish at the pump, can cause you having something in the back of your mind, worth the trouble?
if you really want to save money, then you might consider this..
1. change your driving habbit
2. fill up FULL tank everytime (reduces trips to the gas station)
3. don't go out of your way (maybe 3-4 miles farther) just to get gas that is 10 cents cheaper.
4. did you know engine will get more gas mileage with different brand of gas. *my civic gets the most gas mileage using MOBIL*
sorry, for the long answer, its just that i see this type of question sall the time on EVERY FORUM.
if your car "recommend premium" then USE premium.
for those that are asking the question of "can i use regular?", to intend of saving money....if you are even asking this question then you must have an idea that this action MIGHT leads to damaging the engine.
So my question is, does saving 2.50$ ish at the pump, can cause you having something in the back of your mind, worth the trouble?
if you really want to save money, then you might consider this..
1. change your driving habbit
2. fill up FULL tank everytime (reduces trips to the gas station)
3. don't go out of your way (maybe 3-4 miles farther) just to get gas that is 10 cents cheaper.
4. did you know engine will get more gas mileage with different brand of gas. *my civic gets the most gas mileage using MOBIL*
sorry, for the long answer, its just that i see this type of question sall the time on EVERY FORUM.
05-31-2011, 03:59 PM
#139
Make a hole, coming thru!
Another reason for the blips ... I don't always fill up at a specified point. I tend to fill up where I get a good price, or high quality gasoline. So though the chart may look like fill ups are evenly spaced apart by date or fuel consumption, they're not. Each data point is simply when I bought gas. I can assure you that when I've only driven 120 miles, the mileage computation is less accurate than when I've driven 3x that much. (Maybe I should redo the data set to reflect calendar milestones.)
What you might've overlooked is that I specified when I actually tested differing grades of gas, I drove exactly the same routes, generally the same driving behavior (very conservative). It would've been a futile effort if I'd done different driving patterns.
You really shouldn't confuse the issue of MPG with which gas to use. My evaluation was that my mileage appeared to decrease slightly along with engine performance/efficiency. I hope no one argues that this engine is working just as efficiently with the improper grade of gas, experts have asserted that it won't. My eyebrows shot up when I found the Car Talk guys claiming that the lower octane gas may not be burning completely. I used a slight MPG drop to consider that if you're buying an increased QUANTITY of gas over the long term, the $1 saved at the pump may not result in $52 saved over a year's time, or over 12,000 miles distance traveled.
I can't imagine what other argument there is to using the lower octane fuel in this engine if it isn't the cost equation.
06-01-2011, 02:51 PM
#140
Old Man Yelling at Clouds
No speculation at all. That's three YEARS of data. Fluctuations result from different driving styles that I practice from one month to another. For instance, I take the car to the track once in a while. Big dip there. I can see clear dips every time my daughter visits for summer camp, because my driving flip flops to 20% highway 80% street (or worse), highly varied driving conditions.
- Weather (wind, rain)
- Temperature (better MPG in warmer weather)
- Traffic flow (some days are more stop and go than others)
- My attention to high-MPG driving techniques
- Gas (as you mentioned)
Even if you drive the same route every day in exactly the same way you'll get variation. You can't control it. Granted it only resulted in +/- 2 MPG (in a car that was routinely getting 45 MPG), but when you track it over time you see how no two tanks are equal.
06-03-2011, 12:55 AM
#141
Its a honda, I put 87 in it.
When I drive 'spirited' its still a blast. I dont notice any gain from 87 to 93. I get about 460-500 a tank in my 2004, 50 minute drive one way to work (mixed urban/rural).
The car was not expensive for me, I bought it used for 11k with 56,XXX miles on it 2 years ago, paid for it cash. Now I have 106,XXX miles on it and it still goes strong (with exception to the compressor grenade).
In October it is being sold (sadly), I will be using a Lotus Elise as my daily from there on out.
When I drive 'spirited' its still a blast. I dont notice any gain from 87 to 93. I get about 460-500 a tank in my 2004, 50 minute drive one way to work (mixed urban/rural).
The car was not expensive for me, I bought it used for 11k with 56,XXX miles on it 2 years ago, paid for it cash. Now I have 106,XXX miles on it and it still goes strong (with exception to the compressor grenade).
In October it is being sold (sadly), I will be using a Lotus Elise as my daily from there on out.
I had a merry good time leading one around the track in March.
06-05-2011, 12:36 PM
#145
Make a hole, coming thru!
I'm just thinking of the resale conversation. "Runs great, have maintained it meticulously." "What brand of fuel do you use?" "Oh, I just put regular octane fuel from my local station --"
Last edited by davidspalding; 06-05-2011 at 12:38 PM.
06-05-2011, 02:08 PM
#146
it's a car-drive it
No, I make no presumption of what fuel she was using in her car. I'm not "trying to say" anything; it's simply a fine, expensive, track-ready sports car. I see no reason to put cheap low-octane gas in it if the prescribed fuel is higher-octane. (I can't say I know what fuel IS recommended for the Elise. I simply assume it's a high compression engine. I also don't know if that engine has an anti-knock sensor to adjust ignition.)
I'm just thinking of the resale conversation. "Runs great, have maintained it meticulously." "What brand of fuel do you use?" "Oh, I just put regular octane fuel from my local station --"
I'm just thinking of the resale conversation. "Runs great, have maintained it meticulously." "What brand of fuel do you use?" "Oh, I just put regular octane fuel from my local station --"
To be honest with you we were never asked what brand of fuel we used in the numerous vehicles we owned and sold. The most important things were them test driving it, the maintenance records, etc.
Last edited by nj2pa2nc; 06-05-2011 at 02:13 PM.
06-07-2011, 02:18 PM
#147
Compression ratio of a 2zz motor = 11.5:1
K24a2 = 10.5:1
rev limit of 2zz = 8500rpm
rev limit k24a2 ~7000rpm (forgot off hand)
price 2005 elise ~ 43k (new)
price 2004 tsx ~ 24k (new)
apples:oranges
elise also has a 7 gallon smaller tank than the tsx, elise gets better city mileage but worse highway.
Just b/c I put myself in others shoes, I'll spend the next 6 months running 93 shell v-power to see if I notice any difference.
***I will admit, if I modded my tsx a bunch (internals or reflash) I would run higher grade. Stock though, I just fail to see the point.
06-08-2011, 10:32 PM
#148
in the 24th and a half...
Just saying, if a Acura engine is just a Honda engine, then a Toyota engine in a Lotus is just a Toyota engine...why treat it differently?
Maybe because it's got a higher compression ratio and is more tuned, just like the Aucra uses of Honda engines?
Next time I'll note [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm].
06-09-2011, 12:13 AM
#149
Racer
Well said, DD. Lotus has been using Toyota engines for a while now, (for the 2005 model they were using the Celica engine with a few exhaust and electronic changes...a 1.8 liter engine with 190 HP -- less than the TSX -- But with a very small, lightweight car like the Elise, it was a good bit faster than a Celica or TSX. The Elise also used the Toyota Celica 6sp transmission.)
One other correction:
The 2005 Elise base price was $39 K, not $43K as listed above.
The 2004 TSX base price was $27K, ($29K with NAV), not $24, as listed above.
--A disparity of $10K-12K instead of $19K -- a big difference.
(Links:http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ura_tsx_page_3
One other correction:
The 2005 Elise base price was $39 K, not $43K as listed above.
The 2004 TSX base price was $27K, ($29K with NAV), not $24, as listed above.
--A disparity of $10K-12K instead of $19K -- a big difference.
(Links:http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ura_tsx_page_3
Last edited by Boulder TSX; 06-09-2011 at 12:21 AM.
06-09-2011, 03:49 PM
#150
Banned
INTRO
I was curious about this topic, so earlier this year (2011) I decided to make gas mileage observations for my 2005 6MT TSX with Navi. My motivation was not an attempt to save money, but rather to explore my engineering curiosity to determine whether reductions in gas mileage will result for my driving habits/routine.
"Disclaimer"
*** It is recognized that it is difficult to set experimental controls (i.e. to replicate consistent driving habits) in any real-life driving "experiment". Additionally, no conclusions regarding long-term effects can be made here. ***
METHOD
My driving routine, based on distances from home to main destinations, is approximately as follows:
Local/Traffic: ~63%
Highway: ~37%
Average Speed before Refills: ~29mph (according to Trip Computer)
I generally try keep up with the flow of traffic and accelerate moderately, with occasional-to-less frequent revs to around 5500 rpm before switching gears (maybe 5 times per week). In bumper-to-bumper traffic I try to lag behind the car ahead to reduce the number of times I have to switch gears, simply because it gets tiring and annoying. I do not engine-brake.
I just about always refill when the Trip Computer Range is ~70 miles (for comparison, orange low-fuel light seems to come on when range is around 90 miles).
I began when the (Pennzoil Platinum) oil was ~4500 miles old, filling up with Shell or Exxon 93 octane. At an oil-life of ~7300 miles I switched to Shell or Exxon 87 octane. I drive around 400 miles per week. Six tank-fulls of each fuel type (93 premium and 87 regular) were used. 93 octane was used, since 87, 89, and 93 are the only ones available where I live in Virginia.
RESULTS
Premium 93 Octane Average MPG: 32.3 +/- 2.1
Regular 87 Octane Average MPG: 32.7 +/- 2.8
DISCUSSION
Although the observed MPGs was higher when regular gas was used, it is well within one standard deviation of both fuel types.
* On 14May2011 davidspalding showed MPG data over 3 years that exhibited significant fluctuations. I do not know what the driving habits and/or conditions were for this data set, but it may suggest that they were not as consistent. However, this is mere speculation.*
As mentioned previously, there are numerous variations in this investigation that were out of my control. It must be noted that the premium fuel was used first, when the weather was colder and the oil was newer, and vice versa for the regular fuel usage. Thus, considering attempts of consistent driving habits that were in my control (acceleration, aggression, etc), it is possible that the colder weather may have played a role in the lower premium MPG.
It is interesting that even when the oil had ~9800 miles on it, the fuel economy remained constant.
However, in the bigger picture, I believe that statistically random variations account for the MPG difference observed. As such, I do not imply that regular is better than premium.
It must be noted that, as an engineer, I assume that a certain "factor of safety/safety margin" would have been applied by Honda/Acura designers/engineers. It is quite possible that my driving habits are sufficiently below the design limits/constraints where 91 octane fuel is needed, and could be the reason why regular fuel did not seem to make a real difference in my case.
On a side note, no qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) change in driving performance was noticed. However, barring the placebo effect, I did notice a smoother engine response after changing the oil with ~9800 miles on it.
I anticipate that, just as in politics, there will be those who disagree with my "study". I respect that. However, being a more analytical type, feel free to refer me to specific studies, rather than drawing on supposed "common knowledge".
CONCLUSIONS
Based on my moderate driving habits, in 37/63 hwy/city-like conditions, little/no benefits to the fuel economy is gained from using the stated premium 91 octane fuel. I will continue to use regular 87 octane fuel in my TSX. Thanks for reading if you made it through until the end!
I was curious about this topic, so earlier this year (2011) I decided to make gas mileage observations for my 2005 6MT TSX with Navi. My motivation was not an attempt to save money, but rather to explore my engineering curiosity to determine whether reductions in gas mileage will result for my driving habits/routine.
"Disclaimer"
*** It is recognized that it is difficult to set experimental controls (i.e. to replicate consistent driving habits) in any real-life driving "experiment". Additionally, no conclusions regarding long-term effects can be made here. ***
METHOD
My driving routine, based on distances from home to main destinations, is approximately as follows:
Local/Traffic: ~63%
Highway: ~37%
Average Speed before Refills: ~29mph (according to Trip Computer)
I generally try keep up with the flow of traffic and accelerate moderately, with occasional-to-less frequent revs to around 5500 rpm before switching gears (maybe 5 times per week). In bumper-to-bumper traffic I try to lag behind the car ahead to reduce the number of times I have to switch gears, simply because it gets tiring and annoying. I do not engine-brake.
I just about always refill when the Trip Computer Range is ~70 miles (for comparison, orange low-fuel light seems to come on when range is around 90 miles).
I began when the (Pennzoil Platinum) oil was ~4500 miles old, filling up with Shell or Exxon 93 octane. At an oil-life of ~7300 miles I switched to Shell or Exxon 87 octane. I drive around 400 miles per week. Six tank-fulls of each fuel type (93 premium and 87 regular) were used. 93 octane was used, since 87, 89, and 93 are the only ones available where I live in Virginia.
RESULTS
Premium 93 Octane Average MPG: 32.3 +/- 2.1
Regular 87 Octane Average MPG: 32.7 +/- 2.8
DISCUSSION
Although the observed MPGs was higher when regular gas was used, it is well within one standard deviation of both fuel types.
* On 14May2011 davidspalding showed MPG data over 3 years that exhibited significant fluctuations. I do not know what the driving habits and/or conditions were for this data set, but it may suggest that they were not as consistent. However, this is mere speculation.*
As mentioned previously, there are numerous variations in this investigation that were out of my control. It must be noted that the premium fuel was used first, when the weather was colder and the oil was newer, and vice versa for the regular fuel usage. Thus, considering attempts of consistent driving habits that were in my control (acceleration, aggression, etc), it is possible that the colder weather may have played a role in the lower premium MPG.
It is interesting that even when the oil had ~9800 miles on it, the fuel economy remained constant.
However, in the bigger picture, I believe that statistically random variations account for the MPG difference observed. As such, I do not imply that regular is better than premium.
It must be noted that, as an engineer, I assume that a certain "factor of safety/safety margin" would have been applied by Honda/Acura designers/engineers. It is quite possible that my driving habits are sufficiently below the design limits/constraints where 91 octane fuel is needed, and could be the reason why regular fuel did not seem to make a real difference in my case.
On a side note, no qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) change in driving performance was noticed. However, barring the placebo effect, I did notice a smoother engine response after changing the oil with ~9800 miles on it.
I anticipate that, just as in politics, there will be those who disagree with my "study". I respect that. However, being a more analytical type, feel free to refer me to specific studies, rather than drawing on supposed "common knowledge".
CONCLUSIONS
Based on my moderate driving habits, in 37/63 hwy/city-like conditions, little/no benefits to the fuel economy is gained from using the stated premium 91 octane fuel. I will continue to use regular 87 octane fuel in my TSX. Thanks for reading if you made it through until the end!
06-09-2011, 04:07 PM
#151
Banned
While I don't have the extensive data that some others have gathered, I do have just as many opinions as you all do, so here goes!
1. If you use regular gas in a car designed for premium gas, you will either lose horsepower (because the engine's computer "de-tunes" the engine) or you will get detonation and engine damage (because the engine's computer is not smart enough to deal with lower octane). There is no doubt that the TSX's computer detunes the engine in this situation, or else we would be seeing some different threads (waa - waa I used the wrong fuel and now my car doesn't run). Since I think the TSX is underpowered even using premium fuel (tell me again what's so bad about a turbo?), I will never use regular gas in this car.
2. I live in a large metro area where cheap premium gas is available. My regular gas station sells 89 octane at the same price as regular, and 91 octane for 7 cents more. Therefore it is no big deal for me to buy premium gas (or else I would have bought a different car). I drive outside the metro 2-3 times a year, and the markup on premium gas is much higher than 7 cents a gallon in outstate Minnesota. When I fill up on the road, I use 89 octane. It's highway miles, usually at a steady speed between 55 and 80. I am typically passing in 6th gear etc. Buying a couple of tankfuls of 89 octane on my road trips has worked very well for me. I typically get the same mileage on the highway (29-30 mpg) as I do with premium gas.
1. If you use regular gas in a car designed for premium gas, you will either lose horsepower (because the engine's computer "de-tunes" the engine) or you will get detonation and engine damage (because the engine's computer is not smart enough to deal with lower octane). There is no doubt that the TSX's computer detunes the engine in this situation, or else we would be seeing some different threads (waa - waa I used the wrong fuel and now my car doesn't run). Since I think the TSX is underpowered even using premium fuel (tell me again what's so bad about a turbo?), I will never use regular gas in this car.
2. I live in a large metro area where cheap premium gas is available. My regular gas station sells 89 octane at the same price as regular, and 91 octane for 7 cents more. Therefore it is no big deal for me to buy premium gas (or else I would have bought a different car). I drive outside the metro 2-3 times a year, and the markup on premium gas is much higher than 7 cents a gallon in outstate Minnesota. When I fill up on the road, I use 89 octane. It's highway miles, usually at a steady speed between 55 and 80. I am typically passing in 6th gear etc. Buying a couple of tankfuls of 89 octane on my road trips has worked very well for me. I typically get the same mileage on the highway (29-30 mpg) as I do with premium gas.
06-09-2011, 10:51 PM
#152
Banned
INTRO
I was curious about this topic, so earlier this year (2011) I decided to make gas mileage observations for my 2005 6MT TSX with Navi. My motivation was not an attempt to save money, but rather to explore my engineering curiosity to determine whether reductions in gas mileage will result for my driving habits/routine.
"Disclaimer"
*** It is recognized that it is difficult to set experimental controls (i.e. to replicate consistent driving habits) in any real-life driving "experiment". Additionally, no conclusions regarding long-term effects can be made here. ***
METHOD
My driving routine, based on distances from home to main destinations, is approximately as follows:
Local/Traffic: ~63%
Highway: ~37%
Average Speed before Refills: ~29mph (according to Trip Computer)
I generally try keep up with the flow of traffic and accelerate moderately, with occasional-to-less frequent revs to around 5500 rpm before switching gears (maybe 5 times per week). In bumper-to-bumper traffic I try to lag behind the car ahead to reduce the number of times I have to switch gears, simply because it gets tiring and annoying. I do not engine-brake.
I just about always refill when the Trip Computer Range is ~70 miles (for comparison, orange low-fuel light seems to come on when range is around 90 miles).
I began when the (Pennzoil Platinum) oil was ~4500 miles old, filling up with Shell or Exxon 93 octane. At an oil-life of ~7300 miles I switched to Shell or Exxon 87 octane. I drive around 400 miles per week. Six tank-fulls of each fuel type (93 premium and 87 regular) were used. 93 octane was used, since 87, 89, and 93 are the only ones available where I live in Virginia.
RESULTS
Premium 93 Octane Average MPG: 32.3 +/- 2.1
Regular 87 Octane Average MPG: 32.7 +/- 2.8
DISCUSSION
Although the observed MPGs was higher when regular gas was used, it is well within one standard deviation of both fuel types.
* On 14May2011 davidspalding showed MPG data over 3 years that exhibited significant fluctuations. I do not know what the driving habits and/or conditions were for this data set, but it may suggest that they were not as consistent. However, this is mere speculation.*
As mentioned previously, there are numerous variations in this investigation that were out of my control. It must be noted that the premium fuel was used first, when the weather was colder and the oil was newer, and vice versa for the regular fuel usage. Thus, considering attempts of consistent driving habits that were in my control (acceleration, aggression, etc), it is possible that the colder weather may have played a role in the lower premium MPG.
It is interesting that even when the oil had ~9800 miles on it, the fuel economy remained constant.
However, in the bigger picture, I believe that statistically random variations account for the MPG difference observed. As such, I do not imply that regular is better than premium.
It must be noted that, as an engineer, I assume that a certain "factor of safety/safety margin" would have been applied by Honda/Acura designers/engineers. It is quite possible that my driving habits are sufficiently below the design limits/constraints where 91 octane fuel is needed, and could be the reason why regular fuel did not seem to make a real difference in my case.
On a side note, no qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) change in driving performance was noticed. However, barring the placebo effect, I did notice a smoother engine response after changing the oil with ~9800 miles on it.
I anticipate that, just as in politics, there will be those who disagree with my "study". I respect that. However, being a more analytical type, feel free to refer me to specific studies, rather than drawing on supposed "common knowledge".
CONCLUSIONS
Based on my moderate driving habits, in 37/63 hwy/city-like conditions, little/no benefits to the fuel economy is gained from using the stated premium 91 octane fuel. I will continue to use regular 87 octane fuel in my TSX. Thanks for reading if you made it through until the end!
I was curious about this topic, so earlier this year (2011) I decided to make gas mileage observations for my 2005 6MT TSX with Navi. My motivation was not an attempt to save money, but rather to explore my engineering curiosity to determine whether reductions in gas mileage will result for my driving habits/routine.
"Disclaimer"
*** It is recognized that it is difficult to set experimental controls (i.e. to replicate consistent driving habits) in any real-life driving "experiment". Additionally, no conclusions regarding long-term effects can be made here. ***
METHOD
My driving routine, based on distances from home to main destinations, is approximately as follows:
Local/Traffic: ~63%
Highway: ~37%
Average Speed before Refills: ~29mph (according to Trip Computer)
I generally try keep up with the flow of traffic and accelerate moderately, with occasional-to-less frequent revs to around 5500 rpm before switching gears (maybe 5 times per week). In bumper-to-bumper traffic I try to lag behind the car ahead to reduce the number of times I have to switch gears, simply because it gets tiring and annoying. I do not engine-brake.
I just about always refill when the Trip Computer Range is ~70 miles (for comparison, orange low-fuel light seems to come on when range is around 90 miles).
I began when the (Pennzoil Platinum) oil was ~4500 miles old, filling up with Shell or Exxon 93 octane. At an oil-life of ~7300 miles I switched to Shell or Exxon 87 octane. I drive around 400 miles per week. Six tank-fulls of each fuel type (93 premium and 87 regular) were used. 93 octane was used, since 87, 89, and 93 are the only ones available where I live in Virginia.
RESULTS
Premium 93 Octane Average MPG: 32.3 +/- 2.1
Regular 87 Octane Average MPG: 32.7 +/- 2.8
DISCUSSION
Although the observed MPGs was higher when regular gas was used, it is well within one standard deviation of both fuel types.
* On 14May2011 davidspalding showed MPG data over 3 years that exhibited significant fluctuations. I do not know what the driving habits and/or conditions were for this data set, but it may suggest that they were not as consistent. However, this is mere speculation.*
As mentioned previously, there are numerous variations in this investigation that were out of my control. It must be noted that the premium fuel was used first, when the weather was colder and the oil was newer, and vice versa for the regular fuel usage. Thus, considering attempts of consistent driving habits that were in my control (acceleration, aggression, etc), it is possible that the colder weather may have played a role in the lower premium MPG.
It is interesting that even when the oil had ~9800 miles on it, the fuel economy remained constant.
However, in the bigger picture, I believe that statistically random variations account for the MPG difference observed. As such, I do not imply that regular is better than premium.
It must be noted that, as an engineer, I assume that a certain "factor of safety/safety margin" would have been applied by Honda/Acura designers/engineers. It is quite possible that my driving habits are sufficiently below the design limits/constraints where 91 octane fuel is needed, and could be the reason why regular fuel did not seem to make a real difference in my case.
On a side note, no qualitative (as opposed to quantitative) change in driving performance was noticed. However, barring the placebo effect, I did notice a smoother engine response after changing the oil with ~9800 miles on it.
I anticipate that, just as in politics, there will be those who disagree with my "study". I respect that. However, being a more analytical type, feel free to refer me to specific studies, rather than drawing on supposed "common knowledge".
CONCLUSIONS
Based on my moderate driving habits, in 37/63 hwy/city-like conditions, little/no benefits to the fuel economy is gained from using the stated premium 91 octane fuel. I will continue to use regular 87 octane fuel in my TSX. Thanks for reading if you made it through until the end!
06-10-2011, 09:36 PM
#153
One other correction:
The 2005 Elise base price was $39 K, not $43K as listed above.
The 2004 TSX base price was $27K, ($29K with NAV), not $24, as listed above.
--A disparity of $10K-12K instead of $19K -- a big difference.
(Links:http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ura_tsx_page_3
The 2005 Elise base price was $39 K, not $43K as listed above.
The 2004 TSX base price was $27K, ($29K with NAV), not $24, as listed above.
--A disparity of $10K-12K instead of $19K -- a big difference.
(Links:http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t_drive_review
http://www.caranddriver.com/features...ura_tsx_page_3
http://www.cars.com/lotus/elise/2005/ (Elise 2005, scroll down to original msrp, $42,990)
http://www.cars.com/acura/tsx/2004/ (TSX 2004, msrp, $26,490)
The point was your Acura=Honda comment. I'll note that Honda uses of the K24 engine are almost all below 9.9:1...the Acura uses are at 10.5 and 11:1...
Just saying, if a Acura engine is just a Honda engine, then a Toyota engine in a Lotus is just a Toyota engine...why treat it differently?
Maybe because it's got a higher compression ratio and is more tuned, just like the Aucra uses of Honda engines?
Next time I'll note [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm].
Just saying, if a Acura engine is just a Honda engine, then a Toyota engine in a Lotus is just a Toyota engine...why treat it differently?
Maybe because it's got a higher compression ratio and is more tuned, just like the Aucra uses of Honda engines?
Next time I'll note [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm].
in my eyes, the tsx is not a performance vehicle...at all. The Lotus on the other hand is. Therefore one of the two have a higher need for a premium fuel.
I'll restate my point, if I had a modded engine in the TSX I would run premium, however I don't...so I won't.
So far with premium in the tank...my mileage is looking a little worse (to my surprise). But I will stick it out for the next couple of months and see if there is reason to keep buying it. Premium is about .30 more per gallon here in SC, it adds up to about 4 or 5 bucks extra at the pump.
06-11-2011, 01:28 AM
#154
Racer
[QUOTE=Moose Muscles;13013881]Then there are conflicting sources on prices... I've seen other things on many sites.
http://www.cars.com/lotus/elise/2005/ (Elise 2005, scroll down to original msrp, $42,990)
http://www.cars.com/acura/tsx/2004/ (TSX 2004, msrp, $26,490)
The TSX listing on Car and Driver shows a $500 shipping fee.
Car and Driver tests actual new cars, with the window stickers on the cars, straight from the manufacturer. That article was actually published 8 years ago. I would trust it a lot more than a classified ad site showing a look back at what they think happened in 2004. (Cars.com also does not mention the cost of a the NAV model; $2,000 more...which proves how incomplete it is.)
How about just acknowledging that regardless of your source and whether you have NAV or not, you were off by several thousand dollars when you listed the TSX at $24K?
http://www.cars.com/lotus/elise/2005/ (Elise 2005, scroll down to original msrp, $42,990)
http://www.cars.com/acura/tsx/2004/ (TSX 2004, msrp, $26,490)
The TSX listing on Car and Driver shows a $500 shipping fee.
Car and Driver tests actual new cars, with the window stickers on the cars, straight from the manufacturer. That article was actually published 8 years ago. I would trust it a lot more than a classified ad site showing a look back at what they think happened in 2004. (Cars.com also does not mention the cost of a the NAV model; $2,000 more...which proves how incomplete it is.)
How about just acknowledging that regardless of your source and whether you have NAV or not, you were off by several thousand dollars when you listed the TSX at $24K?
06-11-2011, 01:33 PM
#155
Racer
[QUOTE=Moose Muscles;13013881]
in my eyes, the tsx is not a performance vehicle...at all. The Lotus on the other hand is. Therefore one of the two have a higher need for a premium fuel.
I'll restate my point, if I had a modded engine in the TSX I would run premium, however I don't...so I won't.
---------------------------------------------------
One more salvo into the discussion at hand...
First point: If you think the TSX is "not a performance vehicle", you should Google RealTime racing. Their TSXs have won 8 championships.
If you have followed Lotus over the past several decades, their focus and expertise is chassis building and superior handling, not engines. Name another high performance car that uses an engine from a mass-produced everyman's car.
The Toyota/Yamaha engine in the Elise produces less power and torque than the TSX engine. (Yes, check the numbers; it's true.) Also, the 8500 redline you listed is misleading. Lotus lists a 6400 redline for when the engine is warming up, and 7800 for sustained use. ...and there is no reason to go past it, since peak power (only 190 HP) is at 7800 RPM. 8500 is only for short bursts if you happen to run past 7800, which is easy to do in what is essentially a motorcycle engine design. Note that these characteristics and warnings are all carried over straight from Toyota...the Celica had them, too.)
With a different exhaust, the engine only produces 10 more HP than it did in the Toyota Celica...(which could not compete against the Nissan Z, the Mazda RX-8 and was axed in 2003). (*Actually, the TSX also gained a similar amount of HP after its exhaust and intake were modified in 2006.)
A crucial point which goes to your statement about the TSX "just being a Honda", while the Elise's Toyota engine somehow has a different class of engine: The high performance technology that the Elise engine uses to change cam profiles and timing, was first introduced by Acura in the NSX...and is now used in all Acura engines, including the TSX. (It was later adopted by Toyota, Lexus, BMW and others.)
Take a closer look at the Car and Driver links here. They disliked the engine in the Celica and openly questioned the wisdom of putting it in the Elise. The Elise may be a 'performance vehicle' because of its go cart handling and light weight, but it is not because of the buzzy 1798CC 190HP Toyota engine.
Simply put: If you can't see putting premium into the engine in the TSX, (with more HP and torque--if you dropped it into the Elise, it might be even faster), then putting premium into that engine makes no sense either.
I say use it in both, as the manufacturer recommends.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/02q2/acura_rsx_type-s_vs._vw_new_beetle_turbo_s_hyundai_tiburon_gt_v-6_toyota_celica_gt-s_mitsubishi_eclipse_gts-comparison_tests/toyota_celica_gt-s_page_3
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/03q4/2005_lotus_elise-first_drive_review
in my eyes, the tsx is not a performance vehicle...at all. The Lotus on the other hand is. Therefore one of the two have a higher need for a premium fuel.
I'll restate my point, if I had a modded engine in the TSX I would run premium, however I don't...so I won't.
---------------------------------------------------
One more salvo into the discussion at hand...
First point: If you think the TSX is "not a performance vehicle", you should Google RealTime racing. Their TSXs have won 8 championships.
If you have followed Lotus over the past several decades, their focus and expertise is chassis building and superior handling, not engines. Name another high performance car that uses an engine from a mass-produced everyman's car.
The Toyota/Yamaha engine in the Elise produces less power and torque than the TSX engine. (Yes, check the numbers; it's true.) Also, the 8500 redline you listed is misleading. Lotus lists a 6400 redline for when the engine is warming up, and 7800 for sustained use. ...and there is no reason to go past it, since peak power (only 190 HP) is at 7800 RPM. 8500 is only for short bursts if you happen to run past 7800, which is easy to do in what is essentially a motorcycle engine design. Note that these characteristics and warnings are all carried over straight from Toyota...the Celica had them, too.)
With a different exhaust, the engine only produces 10 more HP than it did in the Toyota Celica...(which could not compete against the Nissan Z, the Mazda RX-8 and was axed in 2003). (*Actually, the TSX also gained a similar amount of HP after its exhaust and intake were modified in 2006.)
A crucial point which goes to your statement about the TSX "just being a Honda", while the Elise's Toyota engine somehow has a different class of engine: The high performance technology that the Elise engine uses to change cam profiles and timing, was first introduced by Acura in the NSX...and is now used in all Acura engines, including the TSX. (It was later adopted by Toyota, Lexus, BMW and others.)
Take a closer look at the Car and Driver links here. They disliked the engine in the Celica and openly questioned the wisdom of putting it in the Elise. The Elise may be a 'performance vehicle' because of its go cart handling and light weight, but it is not because of the buzzy 1798CC 190HP Toyota engine.
Simply put: If you can't see putting premium into the engine in the TSX, (with more HP and torque--if you dropped it into the Elise, it might be even faster), then putting premium into that engine makes no sense either.
I say use it in both, as the manufacturer recommends.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparisons/02q2/acura_rsx_type-s_vs._vw_new_beetle_turbo_s_hyundai_tiburon_gt_v-6_toyota_celica_gt-s_mitsubishi_eclipse_gts-comparison_tests/toyota_celica_gt-s_page_3
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/03q4/2005_lotus_elise-first_drive_review
06-11-2011, 09:22 PM
#156
[QUOTE=Boulder TSX;13014193]
if several thousand means 2500, then yes. I was off by 2500, or in your words, several thousand.
Then there are conflicting sources on prices... I've seen other things on many sites.
http://www.cars.com/lotus/elise/2005/ (Elise 2005, scroll down to original msrp, $42,990)
http://www.cars.com/acura/tsx/2004/ (TSX 2004, msrp, $26,490)
The TSX listing on Car and Driver shows a $500 shipping fee.
Car and Driver tests actual new cars, with the window stickers on the cars, straight from the manufacturer. That article was actually published 8 years ago. I would trust it a lot more than a classified ad site showing a look back at what they think happened in 2004. (Cars.com also does not mention the cost of a the NAV model; $2,000 more...which proves how incomplete it is.)
How about just acknowledging that regardless of your source and whether you have NAV or not, you were off by several thousand dollars when you listed the TSX at $24K?
http://www.cars.com/lotus/elise/2005/ (Elise 2005, scroll down to original msrp, $42,990)
http://www.cars.com/acura/tsx/2004/ (TSX 2004, msrp, $26,490)
The TSX listing on Car and Driver shows a $500 shipping fee.
Car and Driver tests actual new cars, with the window stickers on the cars, straight from the manufacturer. That article was actually published 8 years ago. I would trust it a lot more than a classified ad site showing a look back at what they think happened in 2004. (Cars.com also does not mention the cost of a the NAV model; $2,000 more...which proves how incomplete it is.)
How about just acknowledging that regardless of your source and whether you have NAV or not, you were off by several thousand dollars when you listed the TSX at $24K?
06-11-2011, 09:45 PM
#157
The invoice on the TSX was 24,146. Which nobody should ever pay a dime over invoice.
and if this is the TSX your referring to.
http://www.hondanews.com/channels/ac...ing-tsx-a-spec
It's hardly a TSX at all anymore, its lost tremendous weight and had a complete engine overhaul, nothing like the heavy weight I drive.
The K24 is an amazing motor, don't get me wrong. If I were to buy an Ariel Atom rolling chasis, I would easily take the K24 over the K20.
We should just agree to disagree, nothing you can say will change my mind to make premium > regular. I've owned my car for 3 years or so. I started out using premium and then started using mid, then regular. Over time I have noticed no difference in fuel mileage, just a slight bit more sluggish (but it is still amazingly fun to drive).
I think you are seeing me as some tsx hater who gets up every morning and complains to everyone how much I hate my car. I've actually convinced two family members to get TSX's and my dad now drives a TL (born Chevy lover).
On to Lotus, yes Lotus outsourced their engine and transmission...so what? Toyota + Subaru = Toyobaru? Remember the Dodge Stealth with the Mitsubishi engine? Or The eagle talon with the 4g63 motor, Audi RS2 with the porshe sponsored boxer motor? People have outsourced plenty of motors. And for the elise, the torque and power does not matter, in an 1984lb car, 100hp would fly. The fact is Acura is a subsidiary of Honda. So the statement of Acura is a Honda, is truthful in every sense of the phrase.
So far 20 less miles on premium as opposed to my usual half tank mileage, but I will continue on...
and if this is the TSX your referring to.
http://www.hondanews.com/channels/ac...ing-tsx-a-spec
It's hardly a TSX at all anymore, its lost tremendous weight and had a complete engine overhaul, nothing like the heavy weight I drive.
The K24 is an amazing motor, don't get me wrong. If I were to buy an Ariel Atom rolling chasis, I would easily take the K24 over the K20.
We should just agree to disagree, nothing you can say will change my mind to make premium > regular. I've owned my car for 3 years or so. I started out using premium and then started using mid, then regular. Over time I have noticed no difference in fuel mileage, just a slight bit more sluggish (but it is still amazingly fun to drive).
I think you are seeing me as some tsx hater who gets up every morning and complains to everyone how much I hate my car. I've actually convinced two family members to get TSX's and my dad now drives a TL (born Chevy lover).
On to Lotus, yes Lotus outsourced their engine and transmission...so what? Toyota + Subaru = Toyobaru? Remember the Dodge Stealth with the Mitsubishi engine? Or The eagle talon with the 4g63 motor, Audi RS2 with the porshe sponsored boxer motor? People have outsourced plenty of motors. And for the elise, the torque and power does not matter, in an 1984lb car, 100hp would fly. The fact is Acura is a subsidiary of Honda. So the statement of Acura is a Honda, is truthful in every sense of the phrase.
So far 20 less miles on premium as opposed to my usual half tank mileage, but I will continue on...
06-12-2011, 12:05 AM
#158
in the 24th and a half...
...thus, by your own arguement, the engine IS a Toyota...
...and by your standard, use regular...
...anything else is hypocritical...
...I'm just saying.
...and by your standard, use regular...
...anything else is hypocritical...
...I'm just saying.
06-12-2011, 12:22 AM
#159
Racer
[QUOTE=Moose Muscles;13015535]
If you can get a TSX from Japan, (that's where 100% of them are manufactured), without the $500 shipping that every car has listed on it, I'd love to hear how.
As for what you pay out the door, that's each buyer's personal business. But the list price of each car is what we use for comparison. So with that, you were off $3K. (Which qualifies as several.)
As for what you pay out the door, that's each buyer's personal business. But the list price of each car is what we use for comparison. So with that, you were off $3K. (Which qualifies as several.)
06-12-2011, 12:41 AM
#160
Racer
The invoice on the TSX was 24,146. Which nobody should ever pay a dime over invoice.
and if this is the TSX your referring to.
http://www.hondanews.com/channels/ac...ing-tsx-a-spec
It's hardly a TSX at all anymore, its lost tremendous weight and had a complete engine overhaul, nothing like the heavy weight I drive.
The K24 is an amazing motor, don't get me wrong. If I were to buy an Ariel Atom rolling chasis, I would easily take the K24 over the K20.
We should just agree to disagree, nothing you can say will change my mind to make premium > regular. I've owned my car for 3 years or so. I started out using premium and then started using mid, then regular. Over time I have noticed no difference in fuel mileage, just a slight bit more sluggish (but it is still amazingly fun to drive).
I think you are seeing me as some tsx hater who gets up every morning and complains to everyone how much I hate my car. I've actually convinced two family members to get TSX's and my dad now drives a TL (born Chevy lover).
On to Lotus, yes Lotus outsourced their engine and transmission...so what? Toyota + Subaru = Toyobaru? Remember the Dodge Stealth with the Mitsubishi engine? Or The eagle talon with the 4g63 motor, Audi RS2 with the porshe sponsored boxer motor? People have outsourced plenty of motors. And for the elise, the torque and power does not matter, in an 1984lb car, 100hp would fly. The fact is Acura is a subsidiary of Honda. So the statement of Acura is a Honda, is truthful in every sense of the phrase.
So far 20 less miles on premium as opposed to my usual half tank mileage, but I will continue on...
and if this is the TSX your referring to.
http://www.hondanews.com/channels/ac...ing-tsx-a-spec
It's hardly a TSX at all anymore, its lost tremendous weight and had a complete engine overhaul, nothing like the heavy weight I drive.
The K24 is an amazing motor, don't get me wrong. If I were to buy an Ariel Atom rolling chasis, I would easily take the K24 over the K20.
We should just agree to disagree, nothing you can say will change my mind to make premium > regular. I've owned my car for 3 years or so. I started out using premium and then started using mid, then regular. Over time I have noticed no difference in fuel mileage, just a slight bit more sluggish (but it is still amazingly fun to drive).
I think you are seeing me as some tsx hater who gets up every morning and complains to everyone how much I hate my car. I've actually convinced two family members to get TSX's and my dad now drives a TL (born Chevy lover).
On to Lotus, yes Lotus outsourced their engine and transmission...so what? Toyota + Subaru = Toyobaru? Remember the Dodge Stealth with the Mitsubishi engine? Or The eagle talon with the 4g63 motor, Audi RS2 with the porshe sponsored boxer motor? People have outsourced plenty of motors. And for the elise, the torque and power does not matter, in an 1984lb car, 100hp would fly. The fact is Acura is a subsidiary of Honda. So the statement of Acura is a Honda, is truthful in every sense of the phrase.
So far 20 less miles on premium as opposed to my usual half tank mileage, but I will continue on...
Yes, the realtime tsx on that page is modified. All race cars in that class of competition are modified. Yet my point was, the TSX is not only a 'performance car', it is chosen for racing, and it wins -- more than most other models. You will never see a Camry being chosen for racing. (And I think we can all agree that a Camry is not a performance car).
I honestly don't care what kind of gas you use. Plenty of people here have made logical cases to use either type of fuel. Also, I believe you when you say you appreciate the TSX.
My issue is with your statement that the Toyota engine in the Elise, you are somehow now using a higher performance engine because it was put into a Lotus...and thus it suddenly deserves premium, (more than the TSX engine does). Since the very same technology that makes that engine "perform" came from Acura originally, (yes also Honda), it becomes a ridiculous distinction.
As for outsourcing engines... Chrysler owned a good percentage of Mitsubishi in the late 80's and early 90's...and thus the Eclipse/Talon & Stealth/3000GT were the same exact cars, produced in the same plant, with the same corporate ownership. Same with Porsche/Audi/VW --all three are the same company. The Toyota /Subaru car you mentioned is different. It is a partnership, with two companies working together to build a car for both nameplates. None of those examples are outsourcing.
But yes, some companies outsource their engines. For example, Honda sold CRV engines to Saturn for their SUVs.
I asked what other "high performance" car brand buys and uses engines from a mass-produced everyman's car, (like the old Toyota Celica.)? You did not answer that one.
Last edited by Boulder TSX; 06-12-2011 at 12:51 AM.
