Accord 2008 and fuel octane

"jim beam" wrote in message...
> you can't presume that higher compression ratio automatically requires
> higher octane, or yields better results using higher octane. in the bad
> old days, detroit never bothered to fully research the correlation between
> what had been empirically observed about compression ratio and octane.
> basically, they just doctored gas to fix what they knew was a problem.

I dunno... some of the combustion chamber design coming out of the U.S. was
pretty high-tech, especially the aftermarket race tech, although little of
that reached the consumer (Chrysler's hemispherical head came closest, but
didn't lend itself to passenger car use). Cam profile and timing have as
much to do with engine knock as compression ratio. Not knocking Honda
(that's all we own) - I think in some cases the Japanese took some American
tech and simply improved upon it. Chrysler had some great engines back in
the day (Slant Six, 340, 383, 426, etc.), just never had a high-quality body
to put them in.

One drawback of higher octane that no one has mentioned is harder starting.
The higher octane is less likely to 'fire' and will add a miniscule, though
likely insignificant, additional stress on the engine, starter and battery -
not a good thing when it is -20 degrees...

mrdancer wrote:
> "jim beam" wrote in message...
>> you can't presume that higher compression ratio automatically requires
>> higher octane, or yields better results using higher octane. in the
>> bad old days, detroit never bothered to fully research the correlation
>> between what had been empirically observed about compression ratio and
>> octane. basically, they just doctored gas to fix what they knew was a
>> problem.
>
> I dunno... some of the combustion chamber design coming out of the U.S.
> was pretty high-tech, especially the aftermarket race tech, although
> little of that reached the consumer (Chrysler's hemispherical head came
> closest, but didn't lend itself to passenger car use).

detroit might have flirted with it, but nobody was prepared to put in
the r&d dollars to get it into bed. the japanese got it in the 70's.


> Cam profile and
> timing have as much to do with engine knock as compression ratio.

that's not the same thing - cam timing affects what gets into the
cylinder, and thus what actually gets compressed. if the combustion
chamber design means that stuff doesn't burn right, you're monkeying
with symptoms, not cause. same goes for timing.

> Not
> knocking Honda (that's all we own) - I think in some cases the Japanese
> took some American tech and simply improved upon it.

that's all the japanese have ever done! the point is, they bother - we
don't! for us, once something is saleable, r&d stops. and if it
remains saleable, it stays stopped. that's why you can still buy 1950's
engines, transmission, suspension, etc. in detroit products today.

> Chrysler had some
> great engines back in the day (Slant Six, 340, 383, 426, etc.), just
> never had a high-quality body to put them in.
>
> One drawback of higher octane that no one has mentioned is harder
> starting. The higher octane is less likely to 'fire' and will add a
> miniscule, though likely insignificant, additional stress on the engine,
> starter and battery - not a good thing when it is -20 degrees...

not a problem with electronic ignition.

In article >, says...
>
>
>
> On 1/1/08 3:11 PM, in article , "alfred"
> > wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a 2008 Accord Auto 4 cyl EX-L. The manual says to use regular 87
> > octane. The compression ratio in this car is high enough where premium would
> > be required in other car brands with the same compression ratio and almost
> > as high as other Hondas (such as the civic si) that do require premium. My
> > question is that "if" I used Premium even though it wasnt really required,
> > would i see an improvement in the performance being that its so close to
> > almost needing premium?
>
> Probably not. Honda will have set the ECU to keep it de-tuned for the
> regular gas. Its worth a test though. Run about 3 tankfulls of premium
> through it and see if anything changes.

He'll get better mileage because his wallet will be that much lighter.

--Gene

I guess I should elaborate on my earlier response. I don't have any
information on the newest Accord(2008), but on the previous
version(2003-2007 V6), Honda set it up to run on regular gas(in the
U.S.) for government certification and for advertising purposes.
However, the engine management system was designed to allow
approximately 10 HP more to be produced when premium gas was used--the
knock sensor allowed the timing to advance as needed, and maybe some
other things. The reason for this(according to the Honda engineering
staff in published articles at the time) was the company's interest in
being equal to or better than the then new Nissan Altima V6 in
performance. Whether they continued this in the new Accord, I do not know.

Kenneth J. Harris wrote:
> alfred wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a 2008 Accord Auto 4 cyl EX-L. The manual says to use regular
>> 87 octane. The compression ratio in this car is high enough where
>> premium would be required in other car brands with the same
>> compression ratio and almost as high as other Hondas (such as the
>> civic si) that do require premium. My question is that "if" I used
>> Premium even though it wasnt really required, would i see an
>> improvement in the performance being that its so close to almost
>> needing premium?
>
>
> Maybe

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

> In article >,
> jim beam > wrote:
>
>
>>>I dunno... some of the combustion chamber design coming out of the U.S.
>>>was pretty high-tech, especially the aftermarket race tech, although
>>>little of that reached the consumer (Chrysler's hemispherical head came
>>>closest, but didn't lend itself to passenger car use).
>>
>>detroit might have flirted with it, but nobody was prepared to put in
>>the r&d dollars to get it into bed. the japanese got it in the 70's.
>
>
> CVCC. That 79 Civic I had was a great car.
>


I have its son, an '83.

Compression ratio is 9.2:1 and it runs fine on regular and is getting
40+ mpg in mixed driving.

JT

Engine knocking as a result of higher compression ratios is a trade
mark of hor rod engineering, which Hondas is a opponent. Honda sport
cars may require higher octane fuel, but that's for engines with
smaller displacements designed to compete with those of larger sizes.
Accords arent meant to be raced, anyway.

I am dissapointed, however, at the new Accords fuel efficiency.

Now about fuel quality. Within different brands, mpg is a crude, but
good, indicator of fuel quality. The ablity to burn completely and
thus to generate more power also reduces wear and tear on the
cylinders caused by unburnt fuel washing away the protective oil film.
Not to mention carbon deposites and other nasty stuffs.


On Jan 1, 4:11 pm, "alfred" > wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a 2008 Accord Auto 4 cyl EX-L. The manual says to use regular 87
> octane. The compression ratio in this car is high enough where premium would
> be required in other car brands with the same compression ratio and almost
> as high as other Hondas (such as the civic si) that do require premium. My
> question is that "if" I used Premium even though it wasnt really required,
> would i see an improvement in the performance being that its so close to
> almost needing premium?
>
> Where I live the Regular unleaded octane is 87, Plus is 89 octane and
> Premium is 93-94 octane. Our gasoline in my part of the country is 10%
> Ethanol also. I've been using regular since I had the car and during the
> break in period as well. It has 1524 miles on it now and is almost 2 months
> old. I followed the break in requirements 100% and my oil is at 70% on
> original oil.
>
> Another question is about using fuel injector cleaners like the Chevron
> Techron fuel system cleaner, is that something that I should consider maybe
> every 6 months? How would that compare to other brands like Gumout and STP?
>
> Thanks,
> Al

Hello everyone,

Thanks for all the input. I'll have to consider the idea of the 3 tankfulls
of premium, but wouldnt one tankfull be enough for the car to show a
difference if any? I know Shell regular is a good gas to use and I think it
has detergents and additives as far as I know. I know around here it has 10%
ethanol, not sure if that means much.

What would the additives or detergents mean for the engine anyway and how
would I know if Shell had these things in their gas? I'm in New England if
that means anything.

Thanks,
Al

> If you want to increase *performance* of your Accord, I recommend getting
> used to the different drive modes.
>
> I drive using 1,2, and *D3* especially, which will make your car seem like
> it has a new engine in it.
>
> "Auto", or "D" on the gears, is extremely smooth and made for family
> driving.
>
> However, when I do the different gears manually, my car is like *woah* and
> comes alive. Plus, it never gets anywhere close to redline, so there's a
> lot of room to play around in.
>
> Try it...you'll like it.
>
> Peace,
> Polfus


Hi Polfus,

Do you mean to start off in 1 and drive until lets say 4000 rpms and then go
to 2 and then D3 after sufficient rpms there? Occasionally though if I am
coming into a highway exit and I need to stop more fast than usual I might
throw it into D3 and brake as an extra measure. I sometimes use D3 and then
move into D if i am going faster because it allows for more revs, but I
havent really tried the manual mode. I was affraid that would put too much
wear and tear on the engine, but i'll check it out. The D driving is
"family" mode you are right about that, smoother than you'd expect. I'll
have to try out the "Sport" mode of driving one of these days.

The redline in the 2008 Accord being at 7100 rpms gives plenty of room for
reving. I like to shift with a manual transmission car at 4500-5000 rpms so
I'll have to try it with this. I used to use D3 in my 2005 Accord EX so i'll
have to try it in here.

Al

jim beam wrote:
> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article > ,
>> jim beam > wrote:
>>
>>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere.
>>>>
>>> driven a ford lately? there's a /ton/ of "give" in a honda.
>>
>> What kind of "give"?
>>
>
> pretty much everything - cheaper glass, cheaper paint, cheaper metal,
> cheaper design, worse tolerances, lower standards across the board.

In what way has Honda lowered standards?

> ford's plastic brake pistons are among of my favorites.

Amusing, yes, but of little interest in a Honda NG.

Tony Harding wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article > ,
>>> jim beam > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere.
>>>>>
>>>> driven a ford lately? there's a /ton/ of "give" in a honda.
>>>
>>> What kind of "give"?
>>>
>>
>> pretty much everything - cheaper glass, cheaper paint, cheaper metal,
>> cheaper design, worse tolerances, lower standards across the board.
>
> In what way has Honda lowered standards?

macpherson strut suspension!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


>
>> ford's plastic brake pistons are among of my favorites.
>
> Amusing, yes, but of little interest in a Honda NG.


except that when people say a modern honda has been cheapened so much
that there's no more "give", i say that's not correct - there's a ton
more "give" to be had in pursuit of lower costs. plastic brake pistons
are just one example.