89 or 91 Octane Questions
#2
I always run 89 with 10% ethanol in my gd3 AT. It runs fine.
Once, I ran 91 in it and the car seemed to run quieter, but performance and MPG were not effected. IMO 91 is not worth the price unless your car requires it.
Once, I ran 91 in it and the car seemed to run quieter, but performance and MPG were not effected. IMO 91 is not worth the price unless your car requires it.
#6
i only run 93 and i have in all my vehicles since ive been driving. i ran 89 once in my mothers 2003 sonoma and it coughed like you would if someone blew smoke in your face. but she has been running 93 in that truck since we got it. in some honda owners manuals it says to only run 93 and 89 only in emergency situations.
#8
The fact is that the car cannot and does not make use of the higher octane, unless you install a supercharger or turbocharger. No exhaust, no intake, no air cleaner, no spark plug change, will make any difference in that fact. I follow the owner's manual (see below) and run 87 octane without incident.
I am much more concerned with the quality of the fuels I put in my Fit than I am with the octane, and so I only buy quality gasoline from reputable stations. Spend your money on quality 87 instead of buying crap 89 or 91 and your car will love you for it.
I am much more concerned with the quality of the fuels I put in my Fit than I am with the octane, and so I only buy quality gasoline from reputable stations. Spend your money on quality 87 instead of buying crap 89 or 91 and your car will love you for it.
Last edited by wdb; 02-01-2009 at 11:08 PM.
#9
Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Winthrop Harbor Illinois/ Presque Isle Wisconsin
Posts: 1,251
I get to talk with Yamaha engineers once in a while as I evaluate some of their snowmobile prototype items and midwest hqtrs is only 4 miles form me.
Higher octane actually burns slower.
On their 4 cylinder 1000cc 160HP snomobile engine (which is a very slighty detuned R-1 motorcycle engine)
They say you will get less performance, less MPG and more carbon build-up if you run higher than 87 octane.
So I'd say use the faster burning lower octane unless you are getting some sort of knock or ping.
Higher octane actually burns slower.
On their 4 cylinder 1000cc 160HP snomobile engine (which is a very slighty detuned R-1 motorcycle engine)
They say you will get less performance, less MPG and more carbon build-up if you run higher than 87 octane.
So I'd say use the faster burning lower octane unless you are getting some sort of knock or ping.
#11
On their 4 cylinder 1000cc 160HP snomobile engine (which is a very slighty detuned R-1 motorcycle engine)
They say you will get less performance, less MPG and more carbon build-up if you run higher than 87 octane.
So I'd say use the faster burning lower octane unless you are getting some sort of knock or ping.
They say you will get less performance, less MPG and more carbon build-up if you run higher than 87 octane.
So I'd say use the faster burning lower octane unless you are getting some sort of knock or ping.
#14
for an economy car such as the fit, 87 is good enough. no matter how high of octane u put into a fit, its not like it will suddenly have nsx power...the economy is bad so might as well just save money on gas or save up for a real performance upgrade such as an engine swap or turbo kit.
#15
I get to talk with Yamaha engineers once in a while as I evaluate some of their snowmobile prototype items and midwest hqtrs is only 4 miles form me.
Higher octane actually burns slower.
On their 4 cylinder 1000cc 160HP snomobile engine (which is a very slighty detuned R-1 motorcycle engine)
They say you will get less performance, less MPG and more carbon build-up if you run higher than 87 octane.
So I'd say use the faster burning lower octane unless you are getting some sort of knock or ping.
Higher octane actually burns slower.
On their 4 cylinder 1000cc 160HP snomobile engine (which is a very slighty detuned R-1 motorcycle engine)
They say you will get less performance, less MPG and more carbon build-up if you run higher than 87 octane.
So I'd say use the faster burning lower octane unless you are getting some sort of knock or ping.
#16
I always run 87, I bought this car to save money, not expecting it to kill in a street race, although Im pretty happy with its pep. its no barn burner, but it gets to speed well enough for freeway merges and passing.
#18
I get to talk with Yamaha engineers once in a while as I evaluate some of their snowmobile prototype items and midwest hqtrs is only 4 miles form me.
Higher octane actually burns slower.
On their 4 cylinder 1000cc 160HP snomobile engine (which is a very slighty detuned R-1 motorcycle engine)
They say you will get less performance, less MPG and more carbon build-up if you run higher than 87 octane.
So I'd say use the faster burning lower octane unless you are getting some sort of knock or ping.
Higher octane actually burns slower.
On their 4 cylinder 1000cc 160HP snomobile engine (which is a very slighty detuned R-1 motorcycle engine)
They say you will get less performance, less MPG and more carbon build-up if you run higher than 87 octane.
So I'd say use the faster burning lower octane unless you are getting some sort of knock or ping.
#19
Exactly!!!
If I wanted to "fly" and pay for premium every time I filled up I would have kept my CL-S.
If people buy the fit to go fast...they need their head examined.
I have a lead foot..the fit actually helps me control my lead foot.
No temptation there...ha ha.
Lead foot in the CL-S = 120+ mpg highway (20 mpg)
Lead foot in the fit = 70 mph highway (37 mpg)
stick to the 87 people.
Last edited by Committobefit08; 02-02-2009 at 03:02 PM.
#20
Just put in a tank of 93 octane and try to drive it over the Rockies. No power at all.