gasoline

"Guy" > wrote in
:


>
> Any opinion on gas additives? Honda.com says nothing about this so I
> imagine the same answer here. I guess I have a hard time accepting
> 87 for life <grin>. Thanks Tegger.
>



Honda specifically warns against the use of additives of any kind.
(Honda Service News, May 2001).


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Tegger wrote:
> "Guy" > wrote in
> :
>
>
>> Any opinion on gas additives? Honda.com says nothing about this so I
>> imagine the same answer here. I guess I have a hard time accepting
>> 87 for life <grin>. Thanks Tegger.
>>
>
>
>
> Honda specifically warns against the use of additives of any kind.
> (Honda Service News, May 2001).

I used to add the Techron stuff once in a while, then I stopped doing
that years ago. I can not tell any difference except that I now spend
less on gas additives.

Pat

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> The computers have fuel/air maps set
> into them from the engineers, and programmed responses to knock and
> oxygen sensors and whatnot, and providing a fuel with higher octane
> doesn't change the computer programming.

Speaking of, if anyone here has experience with the Wintec Tec3 engine
management system, I have a couple of questions on something before I
make some adjustments to the current settings.

http://www.electromotive-inc.com/products/wintec3d.html

Thanks,

Pat

Thus spake pws > :

>Tegger wrote:
>> "Guy" > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>> Any opinion on gas additives? Honda.com says nothing about this so I
>>> imagine the same answer here. I guess I have a hard time accepting
>>> 87 for life <grin>. Thanks Tegger.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Honda specifically warns against the use of additives of any kind.
>> (Honda Service News, May 2001).
>
>I used to add the Techron stuff once in a while, then I stopped doing
>that years ago. I can not tell any difference except that I now spend
>less on gas additives.
>
>Pat

I add nitrogen to my tank. Or at least Shell tells me I do.

The last additive I used to gasoline was STP. Back around 1974.
--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

Thus spake Tegger > :

>"Guy" > wrote in news:mv91k51v19kairgbt7lmqp6p1jum3ahhm7@
>4ax.com:
>
>> Just wondering ... I recall in the older cars they used to say to use
>> 87 octane but once in a while use 91 octance on occasion. Is this
>> still valid
>
>
>
>You're going back to the '70s on that, I'm sure.
>
>
>
>> or is going with a lifetime of 87 octane no different say
>> in 2003 or newer Hondas (say Toyotas too) ?
>
>
>
>A lifetme of whatever the manual specifies is just fine. Modern gasolines
>and fuel systems are far advanced fom the '70s.

It wasn't even valid when I bought my 84 Escort:

"There is no reason to use any fuel with an octane number above the
recommended value." Geez, this was FORD saying this. Back when they
finally decided that they might just experiment with fuel injection.
By using a system that had been in place in European built Fords for
several years.

>
>There's no harm in most vehicles in using an octane higher than
>recommended, so if it makes you feel better to use 91 on occasion, go
>ahead.

How big is a CR-V's tank? Around here the diff between 87 and 91 is
around 25 cents. 20 gallons? That's almost two cups of Starbucks
coffee. Or a half pound of good coffee beans.

>
>I suppose there could be a few cars on the road where the use of any octane
>higher than specified is forbidden, but that would be made VERY plain in
>the Owner's Manual.

Heh, the IS250 we test drove said that 91 was required to get the
performance numbers listed, but that it would function without
difficulties on 87.

--

- dillon I am not invalid

I love my country, It's my government I fear.

Hey, turnabout's fair play.

On 1/10/10 6:58 PM, in article ,
"Dillon Pyron" > wrote:

> Thus spake Tegger > :
>
>> "Guy" > wrote in news:mv91k51v19kairgbt7lmqp6p1jum3ahhm7@
>> 4ax.com:
>>
>>> Just wondering ... I recall in the older cars they used to say to use
>>> 87 octane but once in a while use 91 octance on occasion. Is this
>>> still valid
>>
>>
>>
>> You're going back to the '70s on that, I'm sure.
>>
>>
>>
>>> or is going with a lifetime of 87 octane no different say
>>> in 2003 or newer Hondas (say Toyotas too) ?
>>
>>
>>
>> A lifetme of whatever the manual specifies is just fine. Modern gasolines
>> and fuel systems are far advanced fom the '70s.
>
> It wasn't even valid when I bought my 84 Escort:
>
> "There is no reason to use any fuel with an octane number above the
> recommended value." Geez, this was FORD saying this. Back when they
> finally decided that they might just experiment with fuel injection.
> By using a system that had been in place in European built Fords for
> several years.
>
>>
>> There's no harm in most vehicles in using an octane higher than
>> recommended, so if it makes you feel better to use 91 on occasion, go
>> ahead.
>
> How big is a CR-V's tank? Around here the diff between 87 and 91 is
> around 25 cents. 20 gallons? That's almost two cups of Starbucks
> coffee. Or a half pound of good coffee beans.
>
>>
>> I suppose there could be a few cars on the road where the use of any octane
>> higher than specified is forbidden, but that would be made VERY plain in
>> the Owner's Manual.
>
> Heh, the IS250 we test drove said that 91 was required to get the
> performance numbers listed, but that it would function without
> difficulties on 87.

I have done the experiment on the last three Hondas to see if 91 made any
difference to the mileage or apparent (as perceived by the driver)
performance.

The '96 Odyssey specified 87 octane. Tried 89. no difference. tried 91. no
difference.

The '00 Acura TL specified 91. Tried 87. Mileage drop of 3 MPG but it
didn't ping on hard acceleration either. Conclusion - the ECU did adjust
for the gas.

The '05 CR-V specifies 87. Tried 89. Tried 91. No difference in mileage
or perceived performance. Conclusion - it really is designed for 87.

Now my new G37S (basically a 4 door 370Z with leather seats) requires 91 and
the owners manual says 87 can be used in an emergency, but should be mixed
with at least half a tank of 91 and switched back to completely 91 as soon
as possible. I don't plan to experiment with this one.

Dillon Pyron > wrote in
:


>
> I add nitrogen to my tank. Or at least Shell tells me I do.



There was a thread in rec.autos.tech on that a while back. It seems
nitogen-based detergents are part of /all/ fuel makers' additive packages.

Shell's "nitrogen enhanced" thing appears to be just marketing bumpf,
possibly tied to an increase in one of those additives. Last time I
checked, there was a complete lack of any sort of technical information on
Shell's website regarding nitrogen-based additives.



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/