 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Honda Cars / January 2008Accord 2008 and fuel octane
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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would i see an improvement in the performance being that its so close to > almost needing premium? No. This is a family car. Honda's engineers know EXACTLY what they're doing. > 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? Use top tier gas and a bottle of techron every other oil chage. Some would eliminate the techron concentrate if you were to use top tier gas all the time, pretty much shell and chevron around here. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would i see an improvement in the performance being that its so close to > almost needing premium? Maybe >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Maybe Well I use "top tier" gas all the time. I always use Shell gas, because its a name I trust, unlike Hess or other no name brands that you just don't know. So maybe I'll do the Chevron Techron every 9000 miles or so. I suppose I could put the premium in there some time to see if it makes a difference. Its a family car with a nearly high performance engine, so I don't know... > Well I use "top tier" gas all the time. I always use Shell gas, because its > a name I trust, unlike Hess or other no name brands that you just don't > know. So maybe I'll do the Chevron Techron every 9000 miles or so. If you always use Shell, then you won't need the Techron at all. 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. >> Hello, >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Maybe > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > really required, would i see an improvement in the performance being that > its so close to almost needing premium? If your car required premium, Soichiro would have told you that in the Owner's Manual.. It's always a waste of money to pay for octane your car doesn't need... On 1/1/08 3:11 PM, in article o0yej.3758$M24.882@newsfe17.lga, "alfred" <tomboy83=@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. > 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% [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Thanks, > Al > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > regular gas. Its worth a test though. Run about 3 tankfulls of premium > through it and see if anything changes. That won't work. He'll "feel" that it's "better" right after spending $4.00 more each for those tankfuls of gas. What he needs to do is to have his wife go out and fill up the car, and randomly select whether she puts in premium or not. She keeps a record, on her person, then after three months he decides if he ever felt any difference. If he did, he needs to correlate that with what was actually in the tank. He'll find out that higher octane in an Accord does nothing for him. Makes the oil companies happy, though. > On 1/1/08 3:11 PM, in article o0yej.3758$M24.882@newsfe17.lga, "alfred" > <tomboy83=@yahoo.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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 > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Thanks, > Al 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. then came the japanese. why not fix the fundamental problem rather than doctor gas? what they figured out was that combustion chamber design, namely making sure that there were no dead zones no sharp edges, no obstacles to smooth flame front propagation, allowed low octane to run at higher compression, and thus, be much more fuel efficient. marry those fundamental principles to modern engine management - knock detection and active timing adjustment - and you have a high performance motor that runs great on any old crap gas. bottom line - while there is a teensy little difference in calorific value between high and low octane, higher octane being slightly higher, it's almost certainly not enough to be noticeable without scientific measurement. and not enough to justify the cost. just spend your money on a quality branded gas, regular octane, with a quality additive package that will keep your injectors clean, and you'll have a great running car, plenty of power, and as cheap to run as possible. > measurement. and not enough to justify the cost. just spend your money > on a quality branded gas, regular octane, with a quality additive > package that will keep your injectors clean, and you'll have a great > running car, plenty of power, and as cheap to run as possible. And keep in mind--we're talking an Accord here, a family truckster. No money was spent for it to do anything other than what it does. <snip> > No > money was spent for it to do anything other than what it does. i guess - pretty much by definition. a vast fortune was spent however on getting it to do what it /does/ do. > > No > > money was spent for it to do anything other than what it does. > > i guess - pretty much by definition. a vast fortune was spent however > on getting it to do what it /does/ do. Yep. But as we know, absolutely no more than necessary is spent on building the car itself. Car companies slobber at the thought of saving half a penny in manufacturing. Despite its recent stumblings, Honda is at its heart an engineering company. And they used that talent to bring the manufacturing cost of an Accord down as far as possible. There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. >>> No >>> money was spent for it to do anything other than what it does. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. driven a ford lately? there's a /ton/ of "give" in a honda. > > 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"? >>> 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. ford's plastic brake pistons are among of my favorites. >>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. >>>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 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. >>>>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >macpherson strut suspension!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is that a negative or a positive? >>> ford's plastic brake pistons are among of my favorites. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >more "give" to be had in pursuit of lower costs. plastic brake pistons >are just one example. How about just saying that there is not much room for Honda to lower the production costs of their cars without significantly impacting their reliability or the impression of their cars? That seems to be the driving issue as consumers want to get in a car and not feel that it's cheaply made, and that it's reliable. I would say that the Japanese car companies seem to understand that better than the US car companies as I still see US cars that look cheaply made. Then there's the reliability issue. While the US car companies have come a long way in the last decade I'm not sure they are the equal of the Japanese yet. That's not to say they can't do it, but I always get the feel that the accountants have more control in the US companies than the engineers and designers. >>>>>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Is that a negative or a positive? negative. >>>> ford's plastic brake pistons are among of my favorites. >>> Amusing, yes, but of little interest in a Honda NG. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > but I always get the feel that the accountants have more control in > the US companies than the engineers and designers. >>>>>>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. >>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > negative. Just how bad can they be? Porsche has used McPherson struts from the beginning (1963) on their 911 series (including the '69 911 I owned years ago) and continue to use them in 2008 models. http://www.autoblog.com/2007/11/12/2008-porsche-911-gt2-introduction-suspension- technology/ http://www.allautoreviews.com/auto_reviews/porsche/porsche-911-turbo.htm >>>>>>>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://www.allautoreviews.com/auto_reviews/porsche/porsche-911-turbo.htm they're great for old farts that drive on freeways. but in terms of engineering fact, they don't keep the maximum contact patch on the road of both the steering wheels at all angles. that means they're not as good in the twisties. it's a geometry thing - turn the wheels to full lock and see how much tire is on the road on the inside tire - not much. the compromise compensation is wider tires, but that's not perfect for normal road use because they suck more gas and aquaplane more in the wet. wishbones allow better geometry but with a significantly higher component count. that means they cost a lot more, hence the move away. don't have the link handy, but somewhere on the web, there's data on the cornering g-force produced by a number of late 80's/early 90's hot hatches, rx7, gti, etc. the honda crx, with 4-wheel wishbones and the skinniest tires, can produce the highest g-force, hence the best cornering ability of the lot. >>>>>>>>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. >>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > they're great for old farts that drive on freeways. You did notice the link for the 2008 911 Turbo, didn't you? ;) > but in terms of > engineering fact, they don't keep the maximum contact patch on the road [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > skinniest tires, can produce the highest g-force, hence the best > cornering ability of the lot. So a CR-V can out corner a Porsche? My money's on the P-wagon. :) >>>>>>>>>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. >>>>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > So a CR-V can out corner a Porsche? My money's on the P-wagon. :) did you notice the part where i said "the compromise compensation is wider tires"? how much wider are the tires on the porsche vs. the cr-v? or any honda come to that. [since you're into reviews, you may also want to compare the head-to-heads of the honda s2000 vs. the boxter.] <snip> >> So a CR-V can out corner a Porsche? My money's on the P-wagon. :) > > did you notice the part where i said "the compromise compensation is > wider tires"? how much wider are the tires on the porsche vs. the cr-v? > or any honda come to that. [since you're into reviews, you may also > want to compare the head-to-heads of the honda s2000 vs. the boxter.] Do you have a link? > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Do you have a link? Here's a link to a "strut-encumbered" Civic TypeR beating a S2000 at the track. http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=123912 (Rumor mill (Temple of VTEC) says the S2000 is about to go out of production.) BMWs also carry a strut suspension. Perhaps it's fair to say that suspension engineering and implementation details play a significant role in delivered performance. My biggest gripe regarding strut vs wishbone front suspension is the taller bodywork and loss of visibility (of the road right in front of the car) with struts. IMHO, the new Civic is simply awful in this regard. >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > implementation details play a significant role in delivered > performance. Thanks - that's it in a nutshell. >>> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Thanks - that's it in a nutshell. But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"... they had to mount the steering rack about four feet off the ground, with frickin' Ford Twin I-Beams for tie rods, to try and get rid of the inherent 'bump steer' of Mr. MacFarty's wonky design. - Robbie Coltrane holding a large machine hammer, in 'Planes and Automobiles' "This is an Edinburgh spanner" >>>> <snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > I-Beams for tie rods, to try and get rid of the inherent 'bump steer' of > Mr. MacFarty's wonky design. but they don't /want/ to know about the reasoning - they just want to watch ricer videos on the net. > - Robbie Coltrane holding a large machine hammer, > in 'Planes and Automobiles' > > "This is an Edinburgh spanner" >>>>> <snip> >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > but they don't /want/ to know about the reasoning - they just want to > watch ricer videos on the net. LOL, this NG is priceless! :-D > But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with > the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"... yeah, they built a TypeR that can outhandle a S2000. we can debate betamax vs VHS next; same theory/practice argument. >> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with >> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"... > > yeah, they built a TypeR that can outhandle a S2000. > > we can debate betamax vs VHS next; same theory/practice argument. drifting is not handling big guy - there's limited tire adhesion, so the problems of geometry are lost in the overall slippage. that's why you have macpherson on rally cars and wishbone on [successful] circuit cars - one slides, the other doesn't. > >> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with > >> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > drifting is not handling big guy the link at Edmunds is to a 3-lap race at a road course in Japan. some drifting by the S2000, not entirely intentional try it, you'll rice it. [there's more to the story as there were other "heats" taken by a lightly modified S2000] - there's limited tire adhesion, so the > problems of geometry are lost in the overall slippage. that's why you > have macpherson on rally cars and wishbone on [successful] circuit cars > - one slides, the other doesn't. I'm not disputing the theoretical superiority of double A-arm suspensions for the pavement. (As you know, part of the beauty of this design is the flexibility to engineer in (or out) the handling/ response desired.) I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions. The last Accord we bought is a competent handling car but nothing more. >>>> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did with >>>> the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"... [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions > are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions. unless there's a fundamental oversight by the designer, they are though. macpherson simply cannot get around the geometry problems that wishbones can. > The last Accord we > bought is a competent handling car but nothing more. again, what is the tire width? compare like with like. camry has a wider stock tire width than accord. drives great in a straight line and on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider tire, it can't hang with the accord in the twisties. > > I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions > > are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions. > > unless there's a fundamental oversight by the designer, they are though. a double A-arm suspension can't be crappy? really? > macpherson simply cannot get around the geometry problems that > wishbones can. double A-arm suspensions certainly can be well designed. and some aren't. > > The last Accord we > > bought is a competent handling car but nothing more. > > again, what is the tire width? compare like with like. one might argue that designers include tire considerations when designing suspensions so comparing like with like is to keep OEM sizes, not forcing a single size onto the cars. > camry has a > wider stock tire width than accord. drives great in a straight line and > on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider tire, it > can't hang with the accord in the twisties. camry? who picked that as the standard bearer for strut suspension design? what else ya got? >>> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions >>> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > what else ya got? buy a book and read it. right now, you're just trolling. >>>> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions >>>> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > buy a book and read it. right now, you're just trolling. I just finished "Sandworms of Dune" and they didn't address front suspension at all??? >>>>> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions >>>>> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I just finished "Sandworms of Dune" and they didn't address front > suspension at all??? i think you and acar should keep rubbing the baby oil on each other's pistons - you're evidently very happy doing that together. <snip> >>> buy a book and read it. right now, you're just trolling. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i think you and acar should keep rubbing the baby oil on each other's > pistons - you're evidently very happy doing that together. Um, not my thing, but thanks anyway for the idea. > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Um, not my thing, but thanks anyway for the idea. I have left over baby oil and can't get a whole jug of it on my "piston"...is this a design flaw? Aaaarggg...he inhumanity of it all... Peace, Polfus >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I have left over baby oil and can't get a whole jug of it on my > "piston"...is this a design flaw? LOL - great post on which to end the thread. >>> camry? >>> who picked that as the standard bearer for strut suspension design? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I just finished "Sandworms of Dune" and they didn't address front > suspension at all??? Yeah..I checked "The Shining" and Jack never said anything about his Volkswagon... I'm gonna get "War And Peace" and check that out next... Peace, Polfus >>> I'm disputing the blanket assertion that all double A-arm suspensions >>> are better than all MacPherson struts suspensions. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > what else ya got? BMW (as someone posted) Porsche (as I posted) ... >>>>> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what >>>>> Honda did with [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > on moderate curves. but despite the compensation of the wider tire, it > can't hang with the accord in the twisties. And that's all due to the struts? I doubt it. >>>>>> But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what >>>>>> Honda did with [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > And that's all due to the struts? I doubt it. i'm sorry, is this a matter of faith? does faith leave room for doubt? On Jan 17, 6:57 pm, cf...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (M.A. Stewart) wrote: > But MacFarty's wonky struts are inherently wonky. Look at what Honda did > with > the Civic when they went to "MacFarty struts"... >yeah, they built a TypeR that can outhandle a S2000. >we can debate betamax vs VHS next; same theory/practice argument. Heh...awesome. Peace, Polfus >>>>>>> There ain't not give in that car. Nowhere. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > but I always get the feel that the accountants have more control in > the US companies than the engineers and designers. These decisions, like excrement, flow downhill <g>, i.e., Detroit won't change in any meaningful way until the execs decide they want to. This whole business started back in the 70's when inexpensive yet well made Japanese cars started to sell in significant numbers. The issue then was called "fit & finish", which Detroit hasn't really addressed yet IMHO. "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... > "jim beam" wrote in message... >> you can't presume that higher compression ratio automatically requires [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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. > > I dunno... some of the combustion chamber design coming out of the U.S. > > was pretty high-tech, especially the aftermarket race tech, although [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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 dunno... some of the combustion chamber design coming out of the U.S. >>>was pretty high-tech, especially the aftermarket race tech, although [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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. > Hello, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > 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 > 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 used to use grocery store gas. I had a Lexus ES that I drove from 125K to 175K miles. In the middle of all that, I learned about Top Tier Gas--Shell, in particular. I ran a few months with Shell premium, and noticed quickly enough that my gas mileage went up noticeably. My fuel cost per mile went down, even though Shell gas cost more *and* I was using their premium stuff--with VPower, their extra cleaners. After a few months I went back to regular gas--but stuck with Shell. My gas mileage didn't change--not better, not worse. I was even more ahead in fuel cost per mile now that I was buying 87 octane instead of 93 octane. Shell gas, and I presume all Top Tier fuels, keeps the fuel system and combustion chambers clean. For many reasons, all of that is necessary for better fuel efficiency. If you're using a gas that doesn't have a good additive package, your fuel system will clog up--injectors won't spray well, combustion chamber can get carbon in it (esp. if it's an older car), etc. You can regularly use a good gas, or you can pay a bit of attention to things and use a bottle of something like Techron in your gas tank every now and then. > Hello everyone, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Thanks, > Al Shell gasoline is fine, Alfred...don't worry, and use the regular unleaded. You will not see a difference in performance with the new 2008 Accord that we both have. Shell *does* have detergents and additives, so rest assured you engine is being cleaned with it. 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 > If you want to increase *performance* of your Accord, I recommend getting > used to the different drive modes. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > 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 Regular Shell gasoline is my fuel of choice for my Honda too. It gives better mpg than Chevrons, which is not bad either. Using different gears in an automatic transmission does nothin for performance. But the habit of doing so reduces stresses on the drivetrain and prolongs its life significantly. For me i use 2 when driving in a parking lot, or within an apartment complex or a subdivision. That saves the trans from unnecessary upshift/downshift. I use D3 when driving in downtown streets or in an area with many 4- way stops. And D4 in normal city and highway driving. My 89 Accord doesn't have 1 and i have no idea how it''ll work. Important: You can always shift back and forth between D3 and D4 while the tires is rolling. But shifting to and from P, R, N, 2, 1 (no letter D in those!!!) demands a complete stop (with the engine at idle) or you'll risk wrecking a good transmission. Also keep your right hand off the shifting lever when the car is moving, accidental shifting is bad!!! Finally, if you just want convenience and nothing else, Honda's D4 will handle everything just fine. Cheers!! On Jan 6, 2:05 pm, "Polfus" <nostringscouldsecureyou@thestation> wrote: > Shell gasoline is fine, Alfred...don't worry, and use the regular unleaded. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Peace, > Polfus > Important: You can always shift back and forth between D3 and D4 while > the tires is rolling. But shifting to and from P, R, N, 2, 1 (no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shifting is bad!!! Finally, if you just want convenience and nothing > else, Honda's D4 will handle everything just fine. I like to use D4 or D for regular city and hwy driving. I use D3 in slower speeds around town. I usually only use 2 in snowy conditions when the road is not that well plowed. Gear 1 I have usually only used in really deep snow when the car was getting stuck and I had to get out of snow. As far as the manual shifting, well we all know this car could use the sequential sport shifter, maybe next revention. As far as manual shifting though I tend to use D3 and go into D or D4 when the rpms get too high. I have on occasion started off the starting line in 1 and then move to 2 and then D3. You really don't need to be stopped to use 1-2-D3 etc, the only difference is that you have to press the shift button if going from 1-2-D3, but not from D3-D4. Anyone else use the "manual ways?" |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.